Talk:Bicycle safety

I acknowledge that this might contain elements of POV, I have strong opinions. I aim to reference more of it in the near future. Just zis Guy, you know? 10:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's a suggestion, then: present one side as NPOV as you can. Separate external links into parts that support one view, and parts that support the other view. I like the idea of presenting as many sides as feasible, and letting the reader decide. Informative over persuasive. --Christopherlin 18:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right I know. It's a "beware of the tigers" situation for me :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I realized that the path and helmet debates could be covered more in their respective main articles, and the less controversial aspects could be covered more. For instance, proper maintenance and riding technique, alertness, etc. As an example, there is an open lawsuit in the US against Wal-Mart because their bikes are poorly made, etc. Also, I had this one in my files: http://www.bikesrnottoys.com/ Thoughts? --Christopherlin 15:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Two interesting links! Build them in, for sure.  And yes, I'm all for maintenance, and for keepign the paths and helmets references very short, with a "main article" link.  The summary in both cases is: the evidence is conflicting and often counter-intuitive. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What about "obey traffic laws"? --Christopherlin 06:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Language
This article was started and is written in British English. I have nothing against American English, but please don't "fix" correct British spelling. I make enough spelling errors to keep you busy on those :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Road position
Re JzGs queries on this urban versus rural issue. When I wrote this what I was thinking is that in an urban situation, with following traffic moving at circa 50kph/3omph a default practice of pulling out into a more prominent position passing side roads is probably justified in terms of likely collision types and outcomes. Provided you can be sure you have time before a following vehicle catches up with you. (All of which is judged based on a glance over the shoulder). In an arterial situation with following traffic at 100kph/60mph it may be much harder to assess this issue. If you recieve a direct impact from behind at 60mph you have a very low chance of survival. In this case it may be better to take your chances with a less prominent position and increased risk of collision with turning traffic. (It is arguable in this situation that high speed through traffic would discourage others from turning accros your path anyway). --Sf 11:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am conscious that we could be interpreted as offering advice to people on a matter where avoidable death is a possible outcome of any misunderstandings or lack of clarity - imposes a sense of caution. --Sf 11:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sexism?
This sentence: "However, a sense of caution is required, what works in urban conditions for some-one like an adult male cycling-enthusiast may not work for some-one else who is less able or experienced." doesn't make much sense to me. It contrasts "adult male cycling-enthusiasts" with "someone who is less able or experienced". Why are these phrases placed in parallel here? What do gender or sex have to do with cycling ability or experience? It's true that males tend to have greater upper body strength than females, but this is much less relevant to urban cycling than general confidence, endurance, and good common sense (none of which have any particular connection to sex or gender). Catamorphism 23:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In my my view you are confusing several concepts. Nowhere is it stated that sex has anything to do with cycling ability. Nor is it stated that concepts like confidence or good common sense are linked to sex, this appears to be an inference that you have chosen to draw. There are however in my view, and I believe in the view of many physiologists, clear differences in strength/weight ratios between the "average" human male and the "average" human female. (And not just in terms of upper body strength). It is in my view, far from sexist to draw on these differences to illustrate an important point. (In my view endurance is not a particular issue for urban cycling, particulalry utility cycling where most trips are less than 3 miles.) Cyclists comprise a continuum of people of different ages and abilities including child cyclists and elderly people using bicycles so they can circumvent the pain caused by their arthritis when they walk. At the other end of the continuum can be found people like adult female cycling enthusiasts followed at the top by adult male cycling enthusiasts. (Clearly there will be some overlap between the top and bottom of the latter cohorts.) Each and every cyclist must adopt and use a cycling style that works for them. For instance UK, Irish, Australian and New Zealand cyclists may have to routinely tackle roundabouts of a particular design. Analysis indicates that the best means for a fully able cyclist to handle such junctions is exactly like a car. This can be argued to require the ability to sustain bursts of 30kph (20mph) or more. For the purpose of comparison, the concept of such ability is clearly encapsulated by our archetypical "adult male cycling enthusiast". Such ability may not be available to Joe or Mary (aged 75) whose hearing is bit dodgy and who has arthritis in their left ankle - but why start picking out Joe or Mary in particular? Or come to that why assume that anybody else was picked out? --Sf 12:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Change made 22/02/06
I view Catamorphism's implied/explicit? accusation of sexism as some form of knee-jerk reflex best saved for a different forum and I reject it. However, when composing my reply it occured to me that both Joe or Mary (Aged 75) could well claim to be "adult cycling enthusiasts" (In fact the real "Joe" - not his real name - is very much a (arthritic) cycling enthusiast!). This potentially alters the nuance originally intended so I have substituted the term "young adult sports cyclist" instead. --Sf 14:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that I don't quite understand the relevance of all the facts mentioned in your reply to me, but I'm happy with the wording as it is now. Catamorphism 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge from bicycle safety equipment
Bicycle safety equipment is very short and could stand better as a part of the main article on bicycle safety. --Christopherlin 18:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * While that might make sense currently, I think the correct solution is to expand the bicycle safety equipment article. --Serge 22:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with merger. Bicycle safety equipment always looked to me like a POV fork anyway given its earlier content. This is a pretty substantial article, that is a poor kind of thing.  Merge and redirect.  In fact, just redirect, since I don't think there's owt there which is not already here. Just zis Guy you know? 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Link to Rob Levin?
How does a reference to a guy who was killed while riding a bike add to an article about bicycle safety? Is there something he was doing that sheds light on what bicycle safety is all about? I would recommend pulling this out. Jamarks (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Bike/Lorry Collisions
In London in 2009, there was a statistically significant number of women on bikes killed by lorries. We should get some data on this, but the key thing is that large vehicles not only have big blind spots, they have even more kinetic energy. I have some pics that I can upload to illustrate this [], []. SteveLoughran (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The article provides statistics and percentages of bicyclists killed but not dicuss if the bicyclist was at fault, wearing a helmet, acting in an unsafe manner, etc. It also mentions the fact that the first crash occured in 1842 but provides no detail so I would recomend taking that out. Overall, the article seems to be geared to bicycle safety but merely dicusses the technical improvements of the bicycle itself. This article should be more geared to true bicycle safety, for example how riders can be proactive in being safe. There was no mention of helmets, reflextive clothing, laws etc. The article also needs some updated research due to the latest study mentioned being from 2000 and before that the article discusses data from the nineteenth century. Also, what enforcement measures are being taken to help promote bicycle safety and are there not any helemt advocates? Suzanne10 (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of vehicle safety template
You might be interested in discussion Vehicle safety template at Talk:Motorcycle. --Dbratland (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of bicycle mirrors
The article does not mention bicycle-mounted or helmet-mounted rear view mirrors. In my experience, I consider such a mirror critical for avoiding collisions with vehicles approaching from the rear. Helmet-mounted mirror is superior as it generally provides much wider view, and the direction it points can be controlled by head movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.149.8 (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Here?
Add ref ... 99.112.212.152 (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cameras Are Cyclists’ ‘Black Boxes’ in Accidents July 20, 2012 NYT
 * Penalty for Rule-Breaking Bicyclists: A Remedial Class July 23, 2012

Italian sources
If someone wants to make an article in Italian, New York City has a poster about it: WhisperToMe (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/working-bicyclists-safety-poster-italian.pdf - http://www.webcitation.org/6GHeHY11l

Needs work
While this is a huge subject, for sure, the article as is is bitty and disorganised. It needs someone to take a firm hand and shape the framework. Yes, I know that should be me, and I will if I can. Or someone else please have a go first.58.152.150.23 (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Pictures of dangerous cyclepath
Unfortunately the security of cyclist is sometimes neglected. I guess the pictures I recently added will point that out. Even so I wonder whether these photos are better because they leave less to imagination. One shows a female cyclist passing by unable to see what's coming at thim from a private street. The other shows a cyclist escaping from the cyclepath in order to avoid being hit by a car driver who can't see him either before the crash already happens.

I watch this already for a long time and I wonder whether this would be a topic for the local press. I mean, they are desperate to prove their raison d'être in times of the internet by sporting topics of particular local interest, aren't they? If this were in Nordhorn (it wouldn't, I'm just saying) ... Well, just have look for yourselves. Maybe I buy hedge clippers myself, according to the Categorical Imperative. Maybe the house owner would even appreciate that in private because than he succeeded in saving money and effort to have the plants clipped. NordhornerII (talk)I am not a number! I am a Nordhorner. 08:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
I have fully protected the article for 24 hours to stop the edit warring (and in an attempt to keep anyone from getting blocked). This talk page is the place to discuss your differences, explain your positions, and work out what the article should say. --MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The reason this edit is original research is:
 * WikiHow is a self-published source.
 * Even if it were reliable, the WikiHow source does not encourage riding hands free. There are no reliable sources that encourage this.
 * There is no hands free riding craze, and no evidence smartphones have cause such a craze, any more than WikiHow posts have instigated hands-free riding. Bicycling is generally becoming safer; if anything you could imagine the increase in the popularity of smart phones somehow correlates with fewer riding injuries. But in fact, we have no data, no sources, and no conclusions to draw here.
 * Riding a bike hands-free is a stunt, and by definition, stunts are risky
 * The bike manufacturer manual is a document written by lawyers to protect the company from lawsuits. It is not a real guide for riders. Real guides for riders don't worry about nagging riders not to try stunts like riding hands-free because they're written for intelligent adults.
 * 's defense for his additions was not that the sources were credible, or that the assertions were verifiable, but rather that he is "Just hoping to save some lives here", admitting that he is using Wikipedia to push his POV and publish his original research. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bicycle safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131806033500/http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/2A-Programs/Bicycle-Pedestrian.shtm to http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/2A-Programs/Bicycle-Pedestrian.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Photos
The first photo on the page, "Cyclist hit by car" is obviously just a setup of a bicycle leaning against a car. There is no damage to either, and the bicycle would not end up like that following a crash. I suggest that the photo be removed. There are plenty of better examples. Jsallen1 (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)jsallen1