apologies for reading comprehension trouble, but i only bash those who hassle others, no matter who they are, so, whew, you can rest easy that it is not type I bash but behavior. I do notice it coming from specific sources who are unfamiliar with casual riding, namely the other riders casuals might see: roadies and commuters. These are riders who often do not partake in casual cycling, erranding, or short sociable hops. A lot of the hassling seems to come from inexperienced riders in the lycra and commuting sets. By inexperienced I mean those who haven't been around many varieties of urban biking, esp internationally. So they hassle that which they do not know. Whatever the ratios are, and wherever they come from, I firmly bash those who hassle. And i do not bash anyone else. So our lycra riders and commuters per se are spared even as I call out any of their tribe who hassle others. Follow? I knew ya could. Or, well, maybe not.

I know, but those wielrenners (wheelrunners) change into spandex, get their special drop bar fast bike out and ride through the city traffic to a road where they can practice their sport. The difference with me when I ride my bike to the soccer pitch is that my means of transport isn't my sporting equipment at the same time. When it's hot they often only put their helmet on at a traffic light at the edge of the city. If a fietser wears a helmet, it's a fresh foreign student, a tourist, a child younger than 8 or a parent forced by the child to give the right example.

It's actually the wielrenners now, the sports cyclists, who are the current biggest concern in safety for cyclists, they're also involved in road rage a lot, with fietsers mainly, but also with motorists and pedestrians. They don't always wait with racing until they're outside the city, and are often racing outside the city where there's just not enough space or they don't behave well enough while racing on a road while there are fietsers or motorists. I'm not suggestion that this is caused by them often wearing helmets nowadays, but they generally lack the friendlyness and relaxed state of mind of the fietsers. Conflicts are caused by difference in speed and state of mind, not by the different choice of contraption.

Nor is the Netherlands. If I bike 2 hours to the West most people speak a different language (they speak Dutch to, but often not as their first language), if I bike 2 hours to the east people there speak another different language. You'll find much more differences and often big and very old differences within very short distances, especially if you cross national borders. These days, both Germany and the Netherlands have a cycling culture, and they are influencing eachother, but these are completely different cycling cultures.

WHERE and HOW do you do all your "noticing" of this hassling behavior, on the Internet?:rolleyes:

What is kind of funny is the hairy chested types that claim they dont need no steenking helmets, also drive around in cars that they have been forced to pay thousands of dollars for safety equiptment, and they complain about a $50 helmet.

^^ I wouldn't mind having airbags and anti-lock brakes on my bike. Crumple zones, now that's an interesting idea for a bicycle. We'll have to mull that one over for awhile.

It's no different than I was still into motorcycling. Guys would go out and buy bikes that cost $15K to $30K and then complain about decent helmets and jackets costing a few hundred bucks (if they bothered to wear safety gear at all).

An old timer hit the ground pretty hard today. Think he was glad to have a helmet on? He hooked a passing rider and went down quick.
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/h...ps6xtthxad.jpg

Crumple zones and airbags for bicycles are a good idea, but they should be fitted to the cars.

You mean make drivers responsible for the risks they create for the rest of us? I'm with you on that, but there are a lot of attitudes that would have to change first at least in America. I've always thought that deliberately putting other people at risk for one's own convenience showed that you had some intention and responsibility for it, but recent decisions by our US federal law enforcement proves I was wrong. I can't see it happening until that whole paradigm changes.

What would crumple zones do for a bicycle? You get in an accident, you're going to the ground (I would say more likely than not) whether the bike "crumples" upon impact or not. It's not like a car where you've got quite a bit more material around you to crumple and absorb some of the impact.

The other thing to note is the added cost all of this stuff is going to create. For people who have the money to buy $12,000 bicycles, that may not be an issue. For the rest of us who struggle financially, not so much. They do make an airbag type system for motorcycle riders - you wear a safety vest type of thing (similar to what you would find on a plane) and you hook a cable up to the bike. In the event of an impact and you are separated from the bike, the vest inflates keeping your head/neck stable and there is also some padding provided in the chest area.

Bottom line is this - we have to understand that bicycling is inherently dangerous like any other kind of sport. If you opt to engage in that sport, you have to be willing to take the risk and you understand something may happen. This isn't to say that some of that risk cannot be mitigated a bit, so don't get me wrong.

The crumple zone for bike riders:

Like airbags, they don't do everything, but they can help. But if used.

Ben

Wow, I never knew cycling was inherently dangerous? And why does cycling have to be a sport? I cycle for utilitarian purposes like commuting, light touring and errands not as a sport, and find that it is a very, very safe mode of transportation when treated correctly.
Sporting activities belong on closed courses and can be dangerous. Cycling as a sport and non sanctioned events on public streets should not be allowed or tolerated.

They are a lot of devices in a car to protect the driver and passengers, but the outside seems designed to cause maximum injury to pedestrians and cyclists. If you accept that people will have accidents, and car manufacturers do that with passive safety devices, then it's a bit selfish to only adress the health of the driver and the passengers. Crumple zones protect others to, but only other car drivers. It's not impossible to design cars in a way that they will do less damage if they hit a cyclist or a pedestrian.

Accidents happen, okay, but given the fact that there is an accident, it's the one who chose the car as means of transportation who causes the most of the damage and injury, regardless of who caused the accident in the first place. I don't see why road users who aren't as likely to cause huge damage and injury should pay for it.

Where I live the car driver is almost always liable concerning civil law. If the cyclist was riding reckless on purpose and the driver never stood a chance of preventing the accident, it might be different but still the driver will be liable for a large portion of the damage.

This has little to do with actual blame and criminal law, and is more an insurance matter. But it's fair when a cyclist just has to true a wheel and the car needs a repaint and a new 500 dollar light unit. With two bikes in an accident, you don't have a lot of expensive damage like that. Drivers pay for it in their monthly insurance bill, but they have no claim discounts also, so maybe it has also been a cause in driver becoming more careful.

I would argue that cycling is generally seen as a "sport" and that doesn't necessarily mean it is being done competitively or that it has to be. It's also inherently dangerous when you have people riding around on roads shared with people driving cars that outweigh you by thousands of pounds. If it's not dangerous, why is there a safety thread and people talking about safety gear? Wouldn't seem to be necessary if it wasn't possibly dangerous. Why are there people hit and killed by vehicles while on their bicycles if it's so safe right? That's where I am going with this.

Nope, cycling is not generally seen as a sport. You do know that the USA only makes up like less than 5% of the world bicycle market right? Countries like China and India where bicycling is a primary resource for transportation. Study up a little bit about cycling in Netherlands.
I drive around on the roads in a car that weighs 3000 pounds along side tractor trailers weighing 45,000 pounds. That does not make it unsafe, what makes it unsafe is the mindset and attitudes of those involved, the same goes for cycling.
Why do people slip and fall down stairways and kill themselves? Are stairways unsafe? I would say no when you exercise proper safety procedures, but be deadly if you do not. Most any activity can be dangerous, but that does not make them inherently dangerous.
You must also remember that 99.999999% of all accidents (even fatal) are a result of several judgement errors distractions. Remove just one of those distraction/ judgement errors and the likely hood of having that accident is reduced to almost nil.
Safety is an attitude. Having an attitude that general cycling is a sport can and usually does lead to disaster.

See, this is the same argument I used to read during my motorcycle days. It's always those darned "cagers" causing all the problems, never the motorcyclist or the bicyclist in this case. So yeah, OK, you win - all of the supposed problems people express with regards to cycling must all be because of those darned people driving automobiles. Obviously this safe form of transportation has the motoring public at large to blame for all of its problems (or do we have any since it's so safe?) and none of it can be attributed to the cyclists themselves - gotchya. I'd also keep your voice down by not letting the billion dollar bicycle (and related accessory) business hear you say it's not a "sport" ;)

No, I don't think you do know what I am saying.
I have never blamed the "cagers" for any cycling safety problems, actually I try and hold the cyclist to a higher level and usually find fault in their decisions not the "cagers". Safety is an attitude. Whatever you do you must do it safely. Whether driving a car, pedaling a bicycle or riding a horse they all have to be done safely and they can be done safely. Do any of them in an unsafe manner and they can be very unsafe. Just because someone uses poor judgement and has an accident does not making cycling unsafe activity.
You posted "Bottom line is this - we have to understand that bicycling is inherently dangerous like any other kind of sport."
Cycling is no more dangerous than walking. Keep sports and sport attitudes off the streets and roads and on closed circuits and a large number of so called accidents will be avoided.
By the way you may want to keep your voice down a bit as well, if everybody finally finds out how unsafe and inherently dangerous cycling is, mayb no one will buy any bicycles and there goes the billion dollar business.

I say again even if you dont like helmets, wear one. In the case you get into an accident with a car, the drivers lawyer will try to make it all your fault or at least partly your fault if you are not wearing a helmet. This will be true if that in no way were you at fault at all, such as in a right hook. Being in the right and then getting screwed by a lawyer in a crash just plain sucks.

This is why on my trike I wear my helmet, have two flags mounted on my seat, and wear HiVis T-shirts. That shuts down all the BS that any crash would be my fault before it gets started. So I say protect yourself from head injuries is some cases, and from legal BS!!!!!

Can you cite any case where this occurred? Sounds like more fear mongering to me. If anything, if it ever did occur it is a good reason to reconsider the constant promotion of helmets. For most cyclists in most places, a helmet is not a legal requirement.

If even a case can be found where "the drivers lawyer [tried] to make it all [the helmetless cyclist's] fault or at least partly fault if not wearing a helmet" as suggested by rydabent, did any judge or jury (other than in rydabent's fantasy) accept such an argument seriously when determining liability? Especially in any location where helmet wear is not required by law?

As usual, rydabent overstates. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and in some cases judge to judge.

But also as usual, the few usual suspects who demand specific answers to their "legal" questions are free to consult with a local lawyer. Doubt you'll find anyone to do the work pro bono though, particularly since they are unlikely to help out unpleasant people who just demand to know an answer just because. So be prepared to open your checkbooks.

Be sure to ask what percentage of cases are settled out of court. And of the *tiny* percentage that are settled in court, be sure to ask what percentage have open settlements.

Nah, better to demand unobtainium answers.

-mr. bill

What varies between zero cases that fit rydabent's fantasy successful "helmet defense" strategy and zero cases that you or anyone else has any evidence of that were successful?

Get out your checkbook. Good luck finding someone who will take you as a client.

-mr. bill

Perhaps I can buy a lawyer that will convince me that any alleged defense (such as moonmen/Obama/liberals and or Trump caused the accident and are liable) has been successfully used to establish fault and liability for traffic accidents and the lack of any evidence of success is actually more proof of its success.

What are you going on about? Who is 'you' and what sort of case are you imagining that few lawyers want to take?