Dangerous because a city provides many ways for a cyclist to fall or hit something or someone. In France, data shows that 2/3 of cyclists' "serious accidents" don't involve another road user.
https://www.cerema.fr/system/files/documents/2024/05/3._2024...
In other words, you want them to invest more money into building safer cyclist infrastructure?
An obstacle isn't going to magically pop into existence the moment you mount a bicycle. Car-centric road design can indeed be dangerous to cyclists, but that says more about the road design than it does about the concept of cycling. Build better roads and cycling isn't dangerous!
Do you live in a world where money is infinite? I'd rather have very good public transport, which is accessible to everyone, safe and can give physical workers so rest and a quiet time after work, than bike lanes everywhere.
And the problem with removing cars from the city center is that many users still need cars, either because they have families, or because they work and need a motorized vehicle (e.g a plumber).
Because a plumber needs to carry heavy things, such as a water heater tank, and possibly more as he will intervene on multiple places during his day? And that he may need to get back to the shop/depot in the suburb during the day to get additional parts, if needed? Do you live in a magical word where things teleport by themselves?
I've never worked with a plumber that has anything they need in their van / truck. They always need to go buy something. This departure generally doubles the cost of whatever plumbing is happening.
> 35% des cyclistes tués, 63% des cyclistes blessés gravement le sont dans un accident sans autre véhicule impliqué.
35% of cyclist deaths, and 63% of cyclist seriously injured occur in an accident with no other party involved.
Another graph in that report shows that a vast majority of cyclist deaths occur while cycling for leisure. I would hazard that most cycling in cities is utilitarian.
Yes, this will be the road racer guys (it is mostly guys) screwing up while descending an Alp or Pyrenee. Split-second safety margins and if you get it wrong on a 60kph descent - or someone else gets it wrong, or you suffer a mechanical failure - you're likely dead.
A city is a much more dangerous environment. You have bollards, stupid pedestrians who keep on trying to circulate on YOUR sidewalk, potholes, dogs, and so on.
It's really not, because speeds are so much lower - and injury is, by and large, related to kinetic energy which is the _square_ of speed.
OK, cycling at 50km/h in a city is dangerous and stupid (if you're even physically capable of doing so, which few are?). 30km/h in suburbs / 20km/h in the centre is mostly fine, and 10 for busy complicated spaces.
30km/h is slow enough to prevent the vast majority of crashes being fatal, and 20km/h will avoid most serious injuries.
Kinetic power is lower, that said you can still hurt yourself pretty bad depending on how you fall. A wrist doesn't need a lot of force to break, nor a skull needs to fall from high to cause trauma. A cyclist on a sidewalk going at 20km/h can cripple a child for life (not that the cyclist cares, but just for the example).
I broke my wrist by falling from my bike when I was younger, almost while stopped (my wheel got blocked in a tram rail).
And yet if you look at the public health statistics for the things _actually_ crippling children for life, "other people on bikes" are a very long way down the list - at least in most places; I don't know if Paris has a specific problem there. You can hurt yourself pretty bad in the home, after all - the major causes here seem to be cars and dogs.
(Before we even consider that - at population level and in developed Western countries - lack of physical activity, and an environment which actively suppresses it through sheer indifference if not outright hostility - is likely inflicting a far greater burden on childrens' health and wellbeing than trauma).
The statistics are low because many places banned cyclists from sidewalks? Purely speed-wise, being hit by a car at 50kmh while riding a bike at 25kmh is similar to being hit by a cyclist going at 25kmh while being static on a sidewalk. Why are cyclists concerned about cars but I should just think "trust the stats bro" when the 5th cyclist going at full speed came past me on a narrow sidewalk? France banned shared e-scooters after many scathing accidents, including deaths and people being crippled. I remember a professional pianist who get her hand broken this way and had to stop her career.[0]
But I guess she's just a statistic, right? Pedestrians, out of the way!
I don't disagree that commuting by bicycle can be hazardous, but the major risks to cyclist safety are cars, trucks and other cyclists (mainly e-bikes). Pedestrians, potholes, bollards, etc. are no worse than an inconvenience most of the time. You just don't build up enough speed to cause that much damage in a busy city due to a fall or colliding with a pedestrian. OTOH, even the mildest collision between a bike and a car is generally a Bad Time for the cyclist.
Source: me, who commutes by bike daily through a capital city.
The problem arises when cyclists want to use the space reserved for pedestrians (sidewalks), or ignore red lights, when pedestrians use the crosswalk. I am not against bicycle lanes, when it is doable, but cyclists should go on the road when there is none. And have insurance + numbered bikes if electrical.
It really matters what kind of cycling is being done with no other party involved. I injured myself only when I was doing "leisure cycling". I did get almost ran over by a dumb college student once during a commute ride, though.
I'm a huge supporter of public transit, but cyclists are a common enemy for everyone: cars, pedestrians, public transit-takers, other cyclists.
I remember seeing another study here on HN a couple of years ago that showed that actually, the all cause mortality of cyclists comunter was actually lower, because the higher risk of road accident was largely compensated by the benefits of exercise. But I can't find the article anymore.
Dangerous because a city provides many ways for a cyclist to fall or hit something or someone. In France, data shows that 2/3 of cyclists' "serious accidents" don't involve another road user. https://www.cerema.fr/system/files/documents/2024/05/3._2024...
In other words, you want them to invest more money into building safer cyclist infrastructure?
An obstacle isn't going to magically pop into existence the moment you mount a bicycle. Car-centric road design can indeed be dangerous to cyclists, but that says more about the road design than it does about the concept of cycling. Build better roads and cycling isn't dangerous!
Do you live in a world where money is infinite? I'd rather have very good public transport, which is accessible to everyone, safe and can give physical workers so rest and a quiet time after work, than bike lanes everywhere.
And the problem with removing cars from the city center is that many users still need cars, either because they have families, or because they work and need a motorized vehicle (e.g a plumber).
Why do you think a plumber requires a car and not, say, an electric cargo bicycle?
Because a plumber needs to carry heavy things, such as a water heater tank, and possibly more as he will intervene on multiple places during his day? And that he may need to get back to the shop/depot in the suburb during the day to get additional parts, if needed? Do you live in a magical word where things teleport by themselves?
I've never worked with a plumber that has anything they need in their van / truck. They always need to go buy something. This departure generally doubles the cost of whatever plumbing is happening.
The data you present does not say that:
> 35% des cyclistes tués, 63% des cyclistes blessés gravement le sont dans un accident sans autre véhicule impliqué.
35% of cyclist deaths, and 63% of cyclist seriously injured occur in an accident with no other party involved.
Another graph in that report shows that a vast majority of cyclist deaths occur while cycling for leisure. I would hazard that most cycling in cities is utilitarian.
Yes, this will be the road racer guys (it is mostly guys) screwing up while descending an Alp or Pyrenee. Split-second safety margins and if you get it wrong on a 60kph descent - or someone else gets it wrong, or you suffer a mechanical failure - you're likely dead.
A city is a much more dangerous environment. You have bollards, stupid pedestrians who keep on trying to circulate on YOUR sidewalk, potholes, dogs, and so on.
It's really not, because speeds are so much lower - and injury is, by and large, related to kinetic energy which is the _square_ of speed.
OK, cycling at 50km/h in a city is dangerous and stupid (if you're even physically capable of doing so, which few are?). 30km/h in suburbs / 20km/h in the centre is mostly fine, and 10 for busy complicated spaces.
30km/h is slow enough to prevent the vast majority of crashes being fatal, and 20km/h will avoid most serious injuries.
Kinetic power is lower, that said you can still hurt yourself pretty bad depending on how you fall. A wrist doesn't need a lot of force to break, nor a skull needs to fall from high to cause trauma. A cyclist on a sidewalk going at 20km/h can cripple a child for life (not that the cyclist cares, but just for the example).
I broke my wrist by falling from my bike when I was younger, almost while stopped (my wheel got blocked in a tram rail).
And yet if you look at the public health statistics for the things _actually_ crippling children for life, "other people on bikes" are a very long way down the list - at least in most places; I don't know if Paris has a specific problem there. You can hurt yourself pretty bad in the home, after all - the major causes here seem to be cars and dogs.
(Before we even consider that - at population level and in developed Western countries - lack of physical activity, and an environment which actively suppresses it through sheer indifference if not outright hostility - is likely inflicting a far greater burden on childrens' health and wellbeing than trauma).
The statistics are low because many places banned cyclists from sidewalks? Purely speed-wise, being hit by a car at 50kmh while riding a bike at 25kmh is similar to being hit by a cyclist going at 25kmh while being static on a sidewalk. Why are cyclists concerned about cars but I should just think "trust the stats bro" when the 5th cyclist going at full speed came past me on a narrow sidewalk? France banned shared e-scooters after many scathing accidents, including deaths and people being crippled. I remember a professional pianist who get her hand broken this way and had to stop her career.[0]
But I guess she's just a statistic, right? Pedestrians, out of the way!
[0] https://www.leparisien.fr/societe/blessee-par-une-trottinett...
I don't disagree that commuting by bicycle can be hazardous, but the major risks to cyclist safety are cars, trucks and other cyclists (mainly e-bikes). Pedestrians, potholes, bollards, etc. are no worse than an inconvenience most of the time. You just don't build up enough speed to cause that much damage in a busy city due to a fall or colliding with a pedestrian. OTOH, even the mildest collision between a bike and a car is generally a Bad Time for the cyclist.
Source: me, who commutes by bike daily through a capital city.
The problem arises when cyclists want to use the space reserved for pedestrians (sidewalks), or ignore red lights, when pedestrians use the crosswalk. I am not against bicycle lanes, when it is doable, but cyclists should go on the road when there is none. And have insurance + numbered bikes if electrical.
"63% of cyclist seriously injured occur in an accident with no other party involved" Is exactly what I said, as 63% is roughly 2/3.
It really matters what kind of cycling is being done with no other party involved. I injured myself only when I was doing "leisure cycling". I did get almost ran over by a dumb college student once during a commute ride, though.
I'm a huge supporter of public transit, but cyclists are a common enemy for everyone: cars, pedestrians, public transit-takers, other cyclists.
I remember seeing another study here on HN a couple of years ago that showed that actually, the all cause mortality of cyclists comunter was actually lower, because the higher risk of road accident was largely compensated by the benefits of exercise. But I can't find the article anymore.