I've been riding street bikes for 44 years and have racked up over 200,000 miles in that time. I would estimate I've ridden close to 30,000 miles stateside w/ no helmet. And, knock wood, aside from two very low speed tip overs in the first couple years of ownership (technique related), I've managed to avoid a crash. And that is exactly the point. Defensive driving & avoiding it in the first place.
-
Scam Alert. Members are reminded to NOT send money to buy anything. Don't buy things remote and have it shipped - go get it yourself, pay in person, and take your equipment with you. Scammers have burned people on this forum. Urgency, secrecy, excuses, selling for friend, newish members, FUD, are RED FLAGS. A video conference call is not adequate assurance. Face to face interactions are required. Please report suspicions to the forum admins. Stay Safe - anyone can get scammed.
-
The 2026 Calgary Area Meetup is set for Saturday May 30th at 10am. The signup thread is here! Robinhood has graciously offered to host the meetup again this year. Please note that you MUST RSVP to the notice linked above if you wish to come.
Really ?
- Thread starter jorogi
- Start date
Elektrishun
Ultra Member
It's just a thought exercise/experiment when you intentionally disregard some elements and strip the subject down to a basic question that is valid whether the other elements exist or not. Take away the law element (which would be a reality in some places) and it is a valid moral question.
I don't want to debate the possible answers but I think it's worth mentioning for private consideration.
Elektrishun
Ultra Member
We all try to avoid a lot of things but even the best can still get caught.
DPittman
Ultra Member
Like alot of judgments that are made in law.....when a reasonable person with ordinary intelligence and prudence would dictate a said action is reasonable and acceptable.
Don't. Care. My choice.
For our forum purposes, policy is all the discussion, judgement, opinion, taken by people, government, and organizations to help inform the development of government regulations or political direction.
So even if you remove any legal aspects, moral questions (valid or not) are policy.
Elektrishun
Ultra Member
Fair enough.
In my experience people with "ordinary intelligence and prudence" are terrible at accurately assessing risk, myself included. I'm from Toronto and I know people who:
- absolutely won't ride a bike on the roads but are comfortable riding off-road (no traffic)
- absolutely won't ride a bike offroad (gravel trails OK) but are comfortable riding in the city
- won't ride a bike anywhere but will drive a car while distracted
bike in this case referring to leg-powered bicycle as opposed to motorcycle or E-bike.
Everyone mentioned above is a person of "ordinary intelligence and prudence" or, frankly, above normal. They're just comfortable with the risks they're used to taking.
I'll also mention that almost every cycling fatality is a news story (often with references to other cycling fatalities) while driving fatalities are much less likely to get any reporting, and the reporting is typically less "doom and gloom". So the perception of risk and actual risk can be distorted.
On helmet laws for cycling, I'll just say that there are other, much more impactful ways to improve safety.
- absolutely won't ride a bike on the roads but are comfortable riding off-road (no traffic)
- absolutely won't ride a bike offroad (gravel trails OK) but are comfortable riding in the city
- won't ride a bike anywhere but will drive a car while distracted
bike in this case referring to leg-powered bicycle as opposed to motorcycle or E-bike.
Everyone mentioned above is a person of "ordinary intelligence and prudence" or, frankly, above normal. They're just comfortable with the risks they're used to taking.
I'll also mention that almost every cycling fatality is a news story (often with references to other cycling fatalities) while driving fatalities are much less likely to get any reporting, and the reporting is typically less "doom and gloom". So the perception of risk and actual risk can be distorted.
On helmet laws for cycling, I'll just say that there are other, much more impactful ways to improve safety.
It's a very very rare person who actually is good at assessing risk.
Read the book I mentioned earlier in this thread "Risk - The Science and Politics of Fear".
slow-poke
Ultra Member
And boy oh boy do the marketing/sales people know how to leverage fear.
Their skills pale by comparison to the manipulative skills of the media, special interest groups, and government.
I have no idea whether seat belts are actually a good idea. That said, I've been a believer since I was in HS, grade 12. My favourite teacher (grade 10, math) sadly met her demise by going through her car's windshield in a low speed parking lot accident without a seat belt.
I do know. And I believe in them. Here is the straight skinny.
All fatal collisions are not really one collision. They are three collisions. The first one happens when your car hits the other car. The metal starts to crumple and deform absorbing energy in so doing. The second one happens when your head and chest hit the vehicle interior. This usually won't kill you. The third collision is the one that kills. It's when your brain hits the inside of your skull and your heart hits the inside of your rib cage.
Seat belts work in combination with the structure of the vehicle. Together they slow your deceleration down spreading it across a greater distance so that the peak rate of deceleration is lower.
If you think about a watermelon travelling along at say 80km/hr and suddenly hitting a block wall, it's no surprise that it shatters and spreads Mellon guts out in a huge SPLAT. But if you start slowing the Mellon down from 6ft away such that it has stopped or essentially stopped before it hits the wall, it remains intact.
Think of it like the difference between a car with brakes and one with none. The more you can stop moving before impact, the better your chances.
Seat belts, their anchors, and the vehicle structure they are attached to, all work together to slow you down before your body hits the inside of the vehicle and long before your brains and heart go Splatt.
They work. Simple as that.
They are not perfect though. Faster speeds, poor brakes, impacts with stronger heavier objects can significantly reduce their performance.
I wouldn't leave the driveway without buckling up.
140mower
Don
There's one other important collision that frequently takes place in a crash........ It's when the unbelted passenger or unsecured anything for that matter becomes the source of trauma as they take out the back of your head on their merry way out the windshield. I fully believe in freedom to do as we wish, but, sometimes we have to be mindful of those around us as well, and sometimes that means doing little things once in a while that annoy us...... 🙂
Hollow-Grind
Super User
Not really rare just a different skill set. I was a arborist for 23 years. Assessing risk was a daily occurrence that could kill you.
There are several differences between racing harnesses and vehicle seat belts. The most obvious is that race cars do not have the luxury of the testing and analysis done on a mass production vehicle. They are usually purpose built but not tested for crash performance. As a result, the harness is a stand-alone protection device designed to work with a cage that has no energy absorbing characteristics. Done properly, the harness tries to keep the driver in the center of the cage relying primarily on external energy absorbtion. It's an entirely different approach but the most cost effective given the extremely high cost of impact testing.
Downwindtracker2
Ultra Member
Watch some old bikers walking, just don't laugh, it could be dangerous.
I'm flinchy and will be the first one to be booking it because of years of this. Yet on the other hand if I've set something up to be safe for me I'm calm and just watching what I've set in motion because I know I've set it up to be safe
I don't agree. I do agree that there are many exceptions where individuals like arborists are very good at assessing risk for a particular situation or activity.
But there are thousands of risks we all take each and every day that we do not understand and do not do a good job of assessing. In that respect, an Arborist might be excellent at assessing the risks in their occupational field but that doesn't make them particularly good at assessing the many other risks they take everyday. As the book explains, most of us think that many aspects of the world around us are much riskier than they really are. And similarly, we underestimate the risks of doing things we normally take for granted.
FWIW, I am impressed by anyone who can routinely climb up trees that are rotten. I can't climb up two steps of a ladder without my hands welding themselves to the ladder structure.