Talk:Bicycle safety

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Cycling, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cycling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

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. [1] 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)

Contents

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/c/Talk%7EBicycle_safety_fb08.html"