yeah, it was really hard getting used to on my many visits that i as a pedestrian am not the most cared for person on the street... almost got beat up because i stepped out of the way of a car but in front of a bicyclist who was coming up from behind me :D
What a cute stereotype in the U.S.A it doesn’t matter if you are a good rider. Here people will and have run you over and drive off with you and your wheels in their grill. We had 2 instances this week in Florida where a driver deliberately runs over a biker out of rage and a shootout with bikers and drivers in another.
+Andy Brice The title is 'Why you're safer on a bike share bike' implying that if you want to be safer you should change. But if experienced cyclists started using bike share bikes the way they use normal bikes, the statistics would change pretty quickly
This is true, but why would an experienced cyclist start using bike share bikes when their bike is superior in almost every way(at least in their eyes - I've never understood why people risk their lives by riding carbon fiber bikes that can crumple under a mild load. I much prefer heavier steel(or even aluminium) frame bikes because they are more durable).
John Rickard because they're faster.. I'd be 20 minutes late to all my classes with a heavy bike instead of being merely five minutes late like every other day
+rkan2 Yes, but again, go to Walmart, you'll see all kinds of heavy bikes with wide tires. Not all bicycles are designed with performance in mind, some are designed just to be fun. The guy in the video really has no knowledge of the bike industry. There are many different kinds of bikes out there for different occasions.
Justin Greenawalt I agree, but this is why I mentioned "performance oriented", as I acknowledge, without ever visiting a Walmart, that Walmart exactly isn't a bike shop and therefore doesn't focus on performance. Rather Walmart and any other general department store focuses on the masses and usually to a certain segment or budget. On the other hand when you go to a bike shop, you usually are greeted by a bike enthusiast, ex-racer etc. Performance will always be in their mind, even if they can still sell you a bike that would resemble the bike share bikes.
+rkan2 II understand. I've actually bought a heavy, upright, wide tire bike from a real bike shop like you were talking about. Most of their bikes are performance oriented like you said, but I'm talking about the generalizations that the man in the video was making. He is acting like all bikes have skinny tires and are really light. I'm not arguing with you, just with what this man said in the video.
Justin Greenawalt Yeah well.. The video still got the point across enough for me I think. I understand not every journalist can be a performance oriented cyclist :D The #1 fact as mentioned in here is "energy management". city+heavy+bike+careful cyclists+cycling without a helmet all affect to the speed, thus energy of cyclist, pedestrians and drivers. Who knows.. probably even animals lol.
In the Netherlands (where Amsterdam has more bycicles that residents), wearing helmets on your bycicle is the exeption, not the norm. And if you ride a slow bike, or don't know how to ride one well, or you actually obide by traffic rues (which noone else does), you will most likely be run into by other cyclists. You're supposed to ride like a maniac here.
+Huntracony No... Just no.. The helmet part is true, and sure people on bikes tend to pass a red light more frequently, but there's just a big difference: in the Netherlands, bikes and cars don't share roads. Which is why there are a lot less bike crashes and the crashes that do occur are significantly less dangerous.
+Huntracony In New Zealand (last time I checked) it is illegal to ride a bike on the road without a helmet. Cycle lanes are new and rare here and I recommend using a helmet. I wish our urban cycling was more like the Netherlands (Old Zeeland).
Same here in Australia +circ1ebreaker. It's pretty hostile even just riding down to the shops on a bicycle sometimes. It seems like our government doesn't want anyone riding a bike, which is obviously a pretty stupid policy.
Chris That's mostly true (though there are places where they are shared), but that doesn't change the fact that cyclists drive like maniacs. For instance, if there are a few seconds to save by driving on the sidewalk, a lot of them will.
"People that use bikeshare tend to be inexperienced cyclists" It probably also means they don't ride long distances in more dangerous areas. This whole video is the reason why statistics alone are a poor measure for comparison. The person doing the video attempts once or twice to explain plausible reasons and then just goes for the easy "this is safer because facts" route. Commuters probably don't use bikeshare and they don't have options about only riding through safe areas. Bikeshares are usually only placed in areas where there are already established bike lanes and bike traffic is generally safer. Why are there bike lanes in the first place? Commuters who use their bike for travel rather than bikeshares who use it for leisure.
In the Netherlands our "Regular" bike doesn't look like a sports bike(?) It more looks like the "share bike" as seen in this video. Love the fact that we can use our bikes go anywhere :)
semarq Those heavier bikes aren't actually able to carry more or anything necessarily. Again a bike that is heavy slow and unresponsive is just kind of bad as a vehicle in general.
Light and fast bikes are durable too, and many can be had that support rack systems and fenders. I dunno what bullshit or propaganda has led you to the conclusion that light bikes aren't tough or that its a mutually exclusive proposition. Many touring bikes aren't over 30lbs unloaded and ride just fine. Bikeshares are just overbuilt because they're kept outside almost year round and get (ab)used daily by the general public
Whats the point in doing all this impressive video production and editorial if you dont even understand statistics? You are not comparing apples to apples. The statistics cite trips. Is there a difference between bike share trips and non bike share trips? Well, bike-share trips are very likely to be shorter as the systems are set up to be explicitly time limited (15-30 min time limit) and you would likely take shorter trips that otherwise wouldn't make sense to bring a bike along for (few hundred yards). Vox is such trash
I don't think regular bike are riskier than bike shares. The only thing that would really account for this difference that you mentioned would be the fact that bike shares are generally cycled in the centre of cities were traffic is slower and there is more pedestrians. That doesn't really make _bike_ _shares_ safer, rather it just means that they are cycled in safer places.
+Even Andy Exactly, correlation does not equal causation. They allude to it in the video by saying that the location of bike shares is a key factor. But also think about who owns a bike versus using a bike share - probably a lot more people who bike more frequently, for example people who bike to and from work, or people who bike for their work. And they talk about inexperienced causing riders to be more cautious - the flip side of that is that experienced cyclists are probably more willing to take more risks.
So bike shares are safer because they're found in high-pedestrian locations where automobile users are more careful and aware of them. Basically, it's not that bike shares are any better. Buy a good bike with good brakes and be a safe biker and there's literally no argument for bike share> regular bikes.
Regardless of what bike you are on when you are commuting ALWAYS: 1. Wear a helmet 2. Choose a bike with lights 3. Plan routes with bike lanes whenever possible 4. Singal turns and stops 5. Ride with caution AND NEVER RIDE WITH HEADPHONES IN!! Stay safe fellow cyclists
he compares normal bikes to bike shares and the fatality rates but then says that most bike shares are in areas with much walk traffic which means obviously there will be less fatality rates if people are riding in urban areas with walk traffic
Terrible title. Should be: "You're safer on a bike if it's more robust, you're inexperienced and bike in a relatively big city." Clickbait. Seriously. They're announcing incredibly unsurprising reporting and putting a flashy title on it. Also I'm pretty sick of all these study misquotations. I know you care nothing for the truth but at least pretend to. Also citing yourself in an article while using weasel words. Come on..
Not sure why this video is accumulating so many dislikes. It's factual, based on studies and discusses an interesting topic in our currently overcrowded transportation systems.
Because it's entirely coincidental and the conclusions that would be reached from this analysis shouldn't be followed. Should people ride without helmets? No. Should they ride slower? Maybe, but that would cause more of a traffic disruption as a rolling roadblock. Should bikers have more visible bikes? Duh, they already know that. Should people be biking anywhere else than pedestrian heavy areas? Who knows, the studies don't cover that topic. You might as well say that we shouldn't bike at all because not biking is unequivocally safer than biking. It's a stupid conclusion, and what future behaviors it points towards are either irrelevant or VERY dangerous. Don't wear a helmet?? That's just ASKING to get brain damage.
What's more is the fact that those "facts" are either highly contested, illogical, or false. In the beginning they said that 20 out of 100 bike rides are fatal ... I don't know about you but I haven't died 2 times for every 10 bike rides that I've had. Where the hell did they get that fact? Additionally the study about drivers being more cautious around non-helmeted drivers is highly debated. That study had a very small sample size that they drew from, in a single region. Most of the research was anecdotal, and there have been other studies that said the exact opposite which were done in other areas by other researchers. Therefore it should not, under any circumstances, because considered the truth across the globe. To put it simply their video is nothing more than miss information and propaganda. They obviously massage the truth to fit their purposes. If this were a research paper they would've gotten a failing grade because of this.
What's more, it can be argued that the people using these rented bikes spend far less time on bicycles which means they spend far less time getting hit by other vehicles, falling over, or crashing in general. So, they are going to be less likely to die because they are putting themselves in harms way less. The lower incidence of death could be purely coincidental, here.
+macmurfy2jka Just for the record: they said 21 out of every 100 MILLION trips. The graphics could have been formatted to make that clearer, but they most certainly didn't say 21% of bicycle trips are fatal.
Yeah the brakes on bike share bikes are significantly worse in my experience. Usually the tires and brakepads are worn out faster than they replace them. I really wonder about accident rates between day-pass riders and year-pass riders.
David Learner I agree, I work in a bike shop a the brake pads on v- brakes are just straight up terrible. My Specialized allez's brake pad has held up for more than three years now and it still feels like new and I ride over 50 miles a week. But you get what you paid for.
Then they are riding really slow, the shitty bikes are not geared to go more than 20mph unless you are spinning at a cadence of 150 and if they ride at that speed, then they are really bad cyclist.
+Jacpot_ You mean to tell me it wasn't? Filthy Frank has to pay the bills somehow, so until Filthy Frank discredits this, then he has a side job as a Vox reporter.
This video failed to mention that the number of bikeshare bikes is significantly lower compared to regular bikes. Of course there is going to be more regular bike accidents since there are literally millions more of them on the road
That is why he used population sizes, (21 out of every 100million), (0 out of every 35million) and did not compare an annual number to another annual number.
C Martinez still tho, if you do the math, 21 out of every 100 million is close to 7 of out of every 35 million, which is just a couple oddities away from 0 out of 35 million
TL;DR: Bike shares have slow bikes and more cautious cyclists (due to lack of confidence); Regular bikes can go fast and their riders are more confident
its because riding a bike share bike is a like carrying around a big flashing sign saying "I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M DOING." People then give you a wide birth
I guess it's a good thing that my daily rider is a rather heavy bicycle with wide tires. Of course, it also has a custom-built electric-assist module, so it isn't exactly slow. That, and as I continue to ride it, I will be able to push more power into the wheels by virtue of my legs getting stronger due to regular work. I wonder if that would negate the extra safety that the heavy frame and wide tires provide.
Bike shares provide a low-cost, healthy alternative to walking or public transport. That alone makes them worthwhile, even if they were no safer than a personal bicycle. Cycling is STILL less dangerous than driving or walking. Under even the most pessimistic of assumptions: Net effect of driving a car at 65mph for one hour: Dying 20 minutes sooner. (18 seconds of life lost per mile) Net effect of riding a bike at 12mph for one hour: Living 2 hours and 36 minutes longer (about 13 minutes of life gained per mile)
Well, _sure_ it may be the easiest job in the world _for you_ to handle urban traffic in any bike. But this is a nice well thought alternative for people who are not so adept at it. Even though they look silly.
I have a theory about the shared bikes being safer: people who own their own bikes and bike regularly to work/etc. are more likely to be actual cyclists, in the sense that they are experienced cyclists. I am saying this as experience as a road cyclist. Experienced cyclists ride much more confident and ride faster (but usually wear a helmet), however, I have ridden with cyclists who taken, in my opinion, unsafe navigation risks. They are confident in weaving between cars, cruising through red lights, etc. obviously a more dangerous move. That's not to say that inexperienced riders don't make unsafe moves, but I am saying you probably spend less time on a bike than people who own their own, and therefore less likely to make maverick moves.
Correction: there have been several deaths in Mexico regarding with shared bikes, not just one (mostly in Mexico city) . The problem isn't bike sharing, the problem is that government hasn't adapted cities to bikes and hasn't enforced education to drivers or severe punishments for injuring or killing a biker. This happens because of corruption and a lack of driving awareness culture.
+Killian Whitelock Except that with cars, deaths are 2 deaths per 100 million miles. Although this doesn't translate directly into trips, car trips are likely longer. Therefore bicycles are likely more dangerous by a substantial margin.
well, actually, it probably evens out. I am just pulling a number out of the air but if the average car commute ("trip") is 10 miles then you're looking at 20 deaths per 100 million car trips, which is very close to the bicycle number.
10 miles? That's really low, especially when you consider how frequently people will drive for 300+ miles without accident. Tell me you wouldn't feel safer going that distance in a large, very visible vehicle and not just skin 'n' bones on two wheels.
My opinion: The reason that bike shares are safer is because they don't own the bike and they don't care if the bike gets damaged and dirty, unlike the ones who owns one, who tends to avoid any causes of their bike being damaged...
The real issue with bike accidents in modern metropolitan areas is the majority of private riders all fancy themselves as being in the Tour de France or similar bike race, so they buy racing bikes with the turn under handlebars they have to hunch over, and the bikes have thin tyres with little road grip. The overall effect is they have little visions and are hard to see. Compared with someone riding a bike with the traditional handlebars curving up and back, or even just flat bars like on the 'Bike Share' bikes. This means the rider is in a much more upright position which gives them a greater ability to see around them, and also they're a higher target which is much more visible to car drivers. This means they're more readily seen, and also more able to pick up a danger while they have time to avoid, something you can't do well on a racing bike.
You see the same, I ride a road bike, I know. When it comes to vision being obstucted, it comes down to eyewear. This is why I only buy name brand sunglasses such as Oakley and Smith. They spend the time developing the shapes of the sunglasses which is why they cost so much. When I ride a road bike, I feel safer than riding one of those upright bikes due to that I feel attached to the bike and I can use my whole body, when riding. ( Calves for pulling the pedal up, core to remain in a better position, though to help steer the bike and grip the saddle. And I am not sliding all over the place or braking something on it every few minutes.)
As a Dutchmen, this video is just weird and mind-boggling. Like who in their right mind wears a helmet when cycling and where is your cycling-dedicated infrastructure. Also, these bike sharing designs are nothing out of the ordinary: it is the standard design, so why is are these valid arguments? The USA still has a long way to go...
+Duro Dur Nobody does in The Netherlands and I have never once done it in my life and I cycled to school for 2 hours a day 6 years long. Safety is best achieved if people know how to cycle and if cycle traffic is separate from the normal infrastructure.
a human skull CANNOT survive a collision with a 2ton steel box JUST by putting 3cm of foam on your head, really it cant. nevermind that collision impact dont occur on the TOP of your head (where cycling helmets are located) but on the sides, where there is ZERO protection! or what about the social aspect of wearing a helmet, making your look professional and experienced, making cars overtake you closer and with higher speed, endangering the cyclist! #helmet fallacy
+René Dijkema Also reading comments from ignorant North American's who don't realize that you can actually have functioning cities that focus on the bike. Dutch cities ftw.
This is so weird to watch as a European. What Americans seem to call ''regular'' bikes, are in Europe bikes that are used for sport ands exercising. While over here the regular bikes are these up right bicycles that in America apparently are only know as ''bike share bikes''.
i used bike shares a couple of times and the thing i noticed the most is that i just drive a lot more careful because i dont want to wreck the bicycle... i dont really care about my own bike so i take more "risks" (crossing a street directly and going up a curb etc.)
+Vox Will you guys ever just add "Uploads" as a playlist for your channel? I'm the type of person to put the "Uploads" playlist on, and just sit back and watch everything your channel has to offer.
I don't live in DC, but I do live close enough that the drive there is pretty easily. And I'll tell you those things are everywhere. Especially in and around the national Mall and even more so if it's nice out
Depends on the city. Here in Melbourne it's a $2 fee & no additional charges if your use time is less than 30 minutes. You can subsequently check out & use bicycles multiple times for free for the rest of the day as long as your journey time
If you are riding a road bike, you are most likely commuting for more than just 2-3 miles which is why people choose a bike built for performance rather than safety.
Long story short: a Bike share is safer but less eficient than a regular bike. I'm not saying that's bad, but is a downgrade for people who go to work in a bike; also safety depends more on the person, and the video focuses more on the bike itself.
This video seems to get the wrong conclusions out of these numbers and results. Riders sitting upright, the bike being more visible because of color and the tires being wider isn't exclusive to bike share schemes, It's the bike TYPE that makes it safer not that the bike is part of a bike share system. Making the bike heavier doesn't do much good all it really does is make the bike more cumbersome and more dangerous should you fall. The thing that makes the difference is changing how the bike is used, those smaller faster bikes that are more common in the US are used by a niche group of people, they are package deliverers or people that want to get to work fast, we should change that so normal people use bikes, kids going to school/friends/activities, adults going to work/shopping and elderly doing the same as the adults, but also doing it to stay healthy. Bikers right now are too focused on getting to their destination fast instead of just getting to their destination. Take children going to school for example, if you make the roads safer for them to bike, they wouldn't have to race to get to school in 10 minutes. They could go at a slower pace and while on their way to school riding by talking to their friend who is right next to them also riding. Right now the infrastructure for cycling also isn't helping, most bike lanes are way too thin, making it so overtaking is nearly impossible without going out of the bike lane, this causes everyone to speed up, because if I am going to slow, that means I am blocking the faster rider behind me from going, thus I speed up as to not annoy him or slow him down. Most bike lanes are too thin to allow you ride side by side, thus making it impossible for parents to ride next to their child and also makes it impossible for people to have a conversation while riding. Both of these things make it so getting where you are trying to get as fast as possible is in your best interest and safer. Make the bike lanes wider, allows people to have a conversation with each other while riding, allows parents to ride along with their child and allows faster riders to overtake without danger, these things slow down most riders and makes the journey safer and more enjoyable.
I was hit by a car at 35mph in July 2013 whilst riding my bicycle home from work (regular bike). Had a helmet on which saved my life. ER dr said without it I'd have died or suffered such significant brain trauma I'd have needed round the clock care for the rest of my life (car struck me in the head first). *ALWAYS WEAR A HELMET!*
I feel like most of this has to do with the type of bike rather than the bike share part. I think the message here is that you should just get a better bike
Toronto Bike Share pricing is misleading. They charge for a 24hr access pass, but that only gives you 30 mins of usage. After your first 30 mins you get charged more money. Unscrupulous business practices' like that insure I do not do business with that company ever again.
Take for example FotoVoltaic panels. You would consider is "greener" then nuclear right? ...BUT you take an area in size of Los Angeles OF USED-TO-BE FERTILE LAND to build something equivalent to 1MW(e) and then you HAVE TO build a nuclear plant near by anyway, cause there is noway you could let everyone powerless when Sun don't shine.
+P〈Ç〉r@zy I wouldn't have considered nuclear as a less green option anyway. Biking vs driving isn't a wind vs nuclear comparison, it's a wind vs coal comparison.
That doesn’t mean that bike shares are safer, it’s just that people using them take less risks, especially compared to those nyc bike messengers with fixies
Also it is because your credit card is on file, and if you destroy the bike you're in trouble. Kind of like a rental car. It isn't yours, so best be careful.
took a share bike in London once. I had never had such bad brakes. You could get up to really fast speeds with them though, which I did as a mountain biker myself. I would say those bikes are pretty dangerous in my opinion, as I was not able to stop in a ordinary distance (emergency braking).
So it sounds like the problem is with drivers prejudice against cyclists and not some inherit secret benefit to bike share. Bike shaming at its finest.
I had a massive electric bike that was at least 50 pounds and was a pain to load in a truck. The thing is, the reason it was unsafe was because I didn't know the damn rules. I'm canadian, and I can see why two people have died using those bikes. Canadian drivers suck. Like, russia's bad and everything(have you seen their dashcam videos?)but Canada's just behind that. We don't have as many random police checks, so we break the rules more often, and have consistent rush hours where alot of roads will get blocked up. Then, some stupid biker(like myself) will think they can get through these unmoving cars and just makes it worse.
This doesn't mean that bikeshares are safer than a normal bike, though. 0:31 They're not the same kinds of bikes. You could just as easily say that a safer kind of bike is safer than your bike, and not bring bike sharing into it at all.
What I think is weird about helmets is that even though it makes sense to protect your head, the Netherlands has 22.5 million bikes, nobody wears a helmet there, and they are the safest country for cyclists in the world. I think maybe the cycle paths have something to do with it. Also, I'm not sure if helmets can protect from being hit by a car, does anyone know any studies about that?
So, nothing about the bikes specifically being shared makes them safer. Got it. Go buy a big, heavy, slow, brightly painted bike, only ride it in dense urban areas, and you're covered too.
I'm surprised that one of the reasons listed wasn't drivers being more worried about damaging city property than the property of individuals. Not to say that drivers make the decision to hit cyclists on their own bikes, but I would be surprised if the bikes being city property didn't come into play to some degree.
They're mostly private companies when has anyone ever seen a headline news story about anyone being chased after the city for breaking a city-owned bike with their car causing people to drive more dangerously around non-city owned bikes that's a bit of a stretch
the last bike I had was a perfect fit to my body for both height and weight. 5'3" short legs and medium torso. it was a 24" girls/womens Schwinn Ranger Mountain bike. it was my best friend for 6 years. I used it on back trails and neighborhood riding thru 6 different zip codes and a lot of woods/dirt trails. I used it for city riding too but it was a great bike for EVERYDAY USE. my city is Seattle i live in, our bike share js called "PRONTO BIKES" . what a stupid name. bike share bikes are too big and awkward for me, their brakes suck, they cost money for every use, they're easy for bike thieves to ride away on God forbid I wanna stop at a cafe for a snack, they don't come with locks for quick pit stops, they're only allowed on streets with Green Bike Lanes, etc. plus it's not a personal use bike, so nobody's Body is physically comfortable with it for practical use. I say bike shares are a rip off and waste of money, just shitty tourism money maker is also it does. so no, they're not safer. a person's everyday use personal bike is safer.
Define regular bike please? People who tend to use their own bikes, ride far more often than bike share people. Some riders can do more miles in year than ride share cyclist in their entire life span. This video seems like a promotion for bike share programs.
I don't know why you choose to compare a road racing bike as an example of an 'average' bike. Most commuters I see are on mountain bikes or hybrids - essentially similar in most respects to these bike share bikes, just more efficient and better made. I think your first point is invalid and unnecessary - the simple fact that bike share stations tend to be in bike-friendly (...er) locations likely explains most or all of the difference in crashes.
0,000021% fatality rate? did i do the maths correctly?. If i did, that's many orders of magnitude safer than cars, on the US. Didnt know they were THAT safe.
42lbs too heavy for speed? I take my 45lb full suspension mountain bike down ski slopes at like 45-50mph lol. But in all seriousness, idk how a cumbersome commuter bike handled by an inexperienced rider is any safer than someone who is riding a purpose built bike that is comfortable and confident on it and is wearing a HELMET? I sense a bit of ignorance from someone who really doesn't know anything about bikes, let alone riding one with others in consideration.
Okay, props to whoever in the graphics department created 0:07-0:10. That's awesome.
Yup
The fact that the bike share is heavier would ward me away from it, I like light bikes.
+HarroKitteh campagnolo
I like my bikes like I like my women. Light with a high center of gravity.
Gurucha My man!
But then she won't have dat booty to match :(
Angel Valdovinos super expensive though, I want to have it on my bike but for the price of the mechanical record groupset, I could have sram etap.
Also, the fact that the bike isn't yours make you significantly more cautious.
very true
or, it makes you not care at all lol
+Rage Why would it make you more cautious? If I was going to get into an accident I was rather a bike share was destroyed than my bike
+Even Andy you may have to pay for it after
+Schwarzer Regen I'll just sue the bike company and say that they're bulky and slow design kept me reacting and swerving out of the way of a car.
Not if you are Dutch. We are born to ride bicycles
+Seameus true
+Seameus yep
+Seameus this makes me realize that american bike riders really suck at cycling.
yeah, it was really hard getting used to on my many visits that i as a pedestrian am not the most cared for person on the street... almost got beat up because i stepped out of the way of a car but in front of a bicyclist who was coming up from behind me :D
What a cute stereotype in the U.S.A it doesn’t matter if you
are a good rider. Here people will and have run you over and drive off with you
and your wheels in their grill. We had 2 instances this week in Florida where a
driver deliberately runs over a biker out of rage and a shootout with bikers
and drivers in another.
Bicycles must be one of our most underrated inventions
not in europe
or asia
just in the usa really
So I'm safer on a bike share bike as long as I stay where cars drive slower and appear less confident than I actually am? Great advice.
+vibra slap It's not intended as advice though, just an analysis of possible (sometimes strange and counterintuitive) reasons.
+Andy Brice The title is 'Why you're safer on a bike share bike' implying that if you want to be safer you should change. But if experienced cyclists started using bike share bikes the way they use normal bikes, the statistics would change pretty quickly
I think the takeaway from this video is that you experienced cyclists should be a wee bit more cautious on the roads.
This is true, but why would an experienced cyclist start using bike share bikes when their bike is superior in almost every way(at least in their eyes - I've never understood why people risk their lives by riding carbon fiber bikes that can crumple under a mild load. I much prefer heavier steel(or even aluminium) frame bikes because they are more durable).
John Rickard because they're faster.. I'd be 20 minutes late to all my classes with a heavy bike instead of being merely five minutes late like every other day
Don't wear helmets so drivers will be more cautious. Got it.
#thinkdutch
Why couldn't the bike go to work? Because he was two tired
ba tum tss
+max Eguizabal -- Zing!
Give this man a cookie xD
+Dantick09 xd dude
ohhhhhh
You should walk. It's even safer and slower. I would just sit at home in the fetal position hoping the big bad world goes away
+Leonar12345 lol funniest comment here
the world is a scary place don't hide from it join a new world in a form of a game
+Leonar12345 ...said the unborn baby!
+Leonar12345 funnily enough some stats say you are more likely to get hurt or die as a pedestrian than a cyclist
+Leonar12345 takes 4 times as long to get places as well!
Umm, you can buy a heavy, upright bike with wide tires at Walmart. Bike shares don't have a monopoly on those.
+Justin Greenawalt But any bike that is even slightly performance oriented, will be made out of lightweight materials and will have
+rkan2 Yes, but again, go to Walmart, you'll see all kinds of heavy bikes with wide tires. Not all bicycles are designed with performance in mind, some are designed just to be fun. The guy in the video really has no knowledge of the bike industry. There are many different kinds of bikes out there for different occasions.
Justin Greenawalt I agree, but this is why I mentioned "performance oriented", as I acknowledge, without ever visiting a Walmart, that Walmart exactly isn't a bike shop and therefore doesn't focus on performance. Rather Walmart and any other general department store focuses on the masses and usually to a certain segment or budget.
On the other hand when you go to a bike shop, you usually are greeted by a bike enthusiast, ex-racer etc. Performance will always be in their mind, even if they can still sell you a bike that would resemble the bike share bikes.
+rkan2 II understand. I've actually bought a heavy, upright, wide tire bike from a real bike shop like you were talking about. Most of their bikes are performance oriented like you said, but I'm talking about the generalizations that the man in the video was making. He is acting like all bikes have skinny tires and are really light. I'm not arguing with you, just with what this man said in the video.
Justin Greenawalt Yeah well.. The video still got the point across enough for me I think. I understand not every journalist can be a performance oriented cyclist :D The #1 fact as mentioned in here is "energy management". city+heavy+bike+careful cyclists+cycling without a helmet all affect to the speed, thus energy of cyclist, pedestrians and drivers. Who knows.. probably even animals lol.
In the Netherlands (where Amsterdam has more bycicles that residents), wearing helmets on your bycicle is the exeption, not the norm. And if you ride a slow bike, or don't know how to ride one well, or you actually obide by traffic rues (which noone else does), you will most likely be run into by other cyclists. You're supposed to ride like a maniac here.
+Huntracony I think I need to visit the Netherlands :)
+Huntracony No... Just no.. The helmet part is true, and sure people on bikes tend to pass a red light more frequently, but there's just a big difference: in the Netherlands, bikes and cars don't share roads. Which is why there are a lot less bike crashes and the crashes that do occur are significantly less dangerous.
+Huntracony In New Zealand (last time I checked) it is illegal to ride a bike on the road without a helmet. Cycle lanes are new and rare here and I recommend using a helmet. I wish our urban cycling was more like the Netherlands (Old Zeeland).
Same here in Australia +circ1ebreaker. It's pretty hostile even just riding down to the shops on a bicycle sometimes. It seems like our government doesn't want anyone riding a bike, which is obviously a pretty stupid policy.
Chris That's mostly true (though there are places where they are shared), but that doesn't change the fact that cyclists drive like maniacs. For instance, if there are a few seconds to save by driving on the sidewalk, a lot of them will.
"People that use bikeshare tend to be inexperienced cyclists" It probably also means they don't ride long distances in more dangerous areas. This whole video is the reason why statistics alone are a poor measure for comparison. The person doing the video attempts once or twice to explain plausible reasons and then just goes for the easy "this is safer because facts" route.
Commuters probably don't use bikeshare and they don't have options about only riding through safe areas. Bikeshares are usually only placed in areas where there are already established bike lanes and bike traffic is generally safer. Why are there bike lanes in the first place? Commuters who use their bike for travel rather than bikeshares who use it for leisure.
Yep.
Agree. I bike commute ~45km round trip a day. Just imagine how much more effort hauling a 40lbs bike would take. I'm sticking to my roadie, thanks.
Agreed correlation doesn't imply causation but I don't think that's being claimed here.
In the Netherlands our "Regular" bike doesn't look like a sports bike(?) It more looks like the "share bike" as seen in this video. Love the fact that we can use our bikes go anywhere :)
they did, so they could, you can ride a bike on water sooooo
So theyre safer because theyre bad bikes
+Kimadasa not bad, just slow
+semarq Being slow and heavy kind of makes them worse at being bikes.
+Valcor Wabajak
So light and fast is the definition of a good bike? What about durability or the amount of cargo you can transport?
semarq Those heavier bikes aren't actually able to carry more or anything necessarily. Again a bike that is heavy slow and unresponsive is just kind of bad as a vehicle in general.
Light and fast bikes are durable too, and many can be had that support rack systems and fenders. I dunno what bullshit or propaganda has led you to the conclusion that light bikes aren't tough or that its a mutually exclusive proposition.
Many touring bikes aren't over 30lbs unloaded and ride just fine. Bikeshares are just overbuilt because they're kept outside almost year round and get (ab)used daily by the general public
Whats the point in doing all this impressive video production and editorial if you dont even understand statistics? You are not comparing apples to apples. The statistics cite trips. Is there a difference between bike share trips and non bike share trips? Well, bike-share trips are very likely to be shorter as the systems are set up to be explicitly time limited (15-30 min time limit) and you would likely take shorter trips that otherwise wouldn't make sense to bring a bike along for (few hundred yards).
Vox is such trash
No, Vox isn't trash, they just have a couple bad videos here and there...
"21 out of every 100 million trips are fatal." How is that dangerous?
Its dangerous only in the sense that Vox wants to be needlessly dramatic.
It’s slightly more dangerous than sitting on your couch watching TV. Therefore, it’s dangerous.
Cars
fatalities tend to be dangerous......
Everything is dangerous then...I mean, it "only" has 21 chance out 100m to happen, dangerous! might as well stay home forever.
Yeah but they look stupid
true
+Chris Richardson Your face looks stupid.
Thank you. **waves, catching flowers from the crowd** Thank you, I´ll be here all night.
+Chris Richardson Nothing is stupid about safety B)
+Jumpstar geez guys it's just my opinion calm down
Chris Richardson
Relax, I´m just teasing, sport :) XOXOXO
I don't think regular bike are riskier than bike shares. The only thing that would really account for this difference that you mentioned would be the fact that bike shares are generally cycled in the centre of cities were traffic is slower and there is more pedestrians. That doesn't really make _bike_ _shares_ safer, rather it just means that they are cycled in safer places.
+Even Andy Exactly, correlation does not equal causation. They allude to it in the video by saying that the location of bike shares is a key factor. But also think about who owns a bike versus using a bike share - probably a lot more people who bike more frequently, for example people who bike to and from work, or people who bike for their work. And they talk about inexperienced causing riders to be more cautious - the flip side of that is that experienced cyclists are probably more willing to take more risks.
So bike shares are safer because they're found in high-pedestrian locations where automobile users are more careful and aware of them.
Basically, it's not that bike shares are any better.
Buy a good bike with good brakes and be a safe biker and there's literally no argument for bike share> regular bikes.
Psistriker thanks for putting my thoughts into words well cuz I typically suck with words
Regardless of what bike you are on when you are commuting ALWAYS:
1. Wear a helmet
2. Choose a bike with lights
3. Plan routes with bike lanes whenever possible
4. Singal turns and stops
5. Ride with caution
AND NEVER RIDE WITH HEADPHONES IN!!
Stay safe fellow cyclists
Tell that to drivers first
Tell this to everyone in the Netherlands, I can probably count the amount of people I've seen wearing a helmet whilst riding a bike on one hand.
he compares normal bikes to bike shares and the fatality rates but then says that most bike shares are in areas with much walk traffic which means obviously there will be less fatality rates if people are riding in urban areas with walk traffic
Terrible title. Should be: "You're safer on a bike if it's more robust, you're inexperienced and bike in a relatively big city."
Clickbait.
Seriously. They're announcing incredibly unsurprising reporting and putting a flashy title on it. Also I'm pretty sick of all these study misquotations. I know you care nothing for the truth but at least pretend to. Also citing yourself in an article while using weasel words. Come on..
I call it New York politics. It's a cancer in downtown of big cities.
The title was pretty accurate.....I don't think this was bad clickbait
Also people are afraid to get sued for destroying property
This felt like a garbage video but that's okay.
21 out of every 100,000,000 trips are fatal. Yeah, that makes regular cycling so dangerous.
I really dislike this reporter.
Or use a mountain bike.
That's what most people around me commute on.
+IizUname Yes I knew there was a mountain biker here! I commute on a 150mm trail bike and it's so f'ing fun.
I couldn't withstand the embarrassment of getting pass by road bike on the bike lane. It just makes me feel bad.
+IizUname Mountain biker here. Yeah this video's logic is retarded the more you bike the more your aware of these things.
+kang C I can sprint up to 38 mph on a road bike.
Not sure why this video is accumulating so many dislikes. It's factual, based on studies and discusses an interesting topic in our currently overcrowded transportation systems.
Because it's entirely coincidental and the conclusions that would be reached from this analysis shouldn't be followed. Should people ride without helmets? No. Should they ride slower? Maybe, but that would cause more of a traffic disruption as a rolling roadblock. Should bikers have more visible bikes? Duh, they already know that. Should people be biking anywhere else than pedestrian heavy areas? Who knows, the studies don't cover that topic. You might as well say that we shouldn't bike at all because not biking is unequivocally safer than biking. It's a stupid conclusion, and what future behaviors it points towards are either irrelevant or VERY dangerous. Don't wear a helmet?? That's just ASKING to get brain damage.
What's more is the fact that those "facts" are either highly contested, illogical, or false.
In the beginning they said that 20 out of 100 bike rides are fatal ... I don't know about you but I haven't died 2 times for every 10 bike rides that I've had. Where the hell did they get that fact? Additionally the study about drivers being more cautious around non-helmeted drivers is highly debated. That study had a very small sample size that they drew from, in a single region. Most of the research was anecdotal, and there have been other studies that said the exact opposite which were done in other areas by other researchers. Therefore it should not, under any circumstances, because considered the truth across the globe.
To put it simply their video is nothing more than miss information and propaganda. They obviously massage the truth to fit their purposes. If this were a research paper they would've gotten a failing grade because of this.
What's more, it can be argued that the people using these rented bikes spend far less time on bicycles which means they spend far less time getting hit by other vehicles, falling over, or crashing in general. So, they are going to be less likely to die because they are putting themselves in harms way less. The lower incidence of death could be purely coincidental, here.
+macmurfy2jka Just for the record: they said 21 out of every 100 MILLION trips. The graphics could have been formatted to make that clearer, but they most certainly didn't say 21% of bicycle trips are fatal.
+Joe Trotta ah thanks for correcting me.
Yeah the brakes on bike share bikes are significantly worse in my experience. Usually the tires and brakepads are worn out faster than they replace them.
I really wonder about accident rates between day-pass riders and year-pass riders.
David Learner I agree, I work in a bike shop a the brake pads on v- brakes are just straight up terrible. My Specialized allez's brake pad has held up for more than three years now and it still feels like new and I ride over 50 miles a week. But you get what you paid for.
I love riding awful bikes. It makes it so much more satisfying when I pass Lycra wearing men on expensive carbon fibre road bikes.
+Allie Doak
there is the convenience of not worrying about it getting stolen
guy random Exactly I don't bother chaining mine unless I'm in a particularly dodge place.
Allie Doak i simply park it in a station, and go
Then they are riding really slow, the shitty bikes are not geared to go more than 20mph unless you are spinning at a cadence of 150 and if they ride at that speed, then they are really bad cyclist.
OK DID ANYONE ELSE THINK IT WAS FILTHYFRANK IN THE THUMBNAIL
not even a thought about it
+Jacpot_ You mean to tell me it wasn't? Filthy Frank has to pay the bills somehow, so until Filthy Frank discredits this, then he has a side job as a Vox reporter.
no
Too many factors and variable to confirm your statement VOX.
This video failed to mention that the number of bikeshare bikes is significantly lower compared to regular bikes. Of course there is going to be more regular bike accidents since there are literally millions more of them on the road
That is why he used population sizes, (21 out of every 100million), (0 out of every 35million) and did not compare an annual number to another annual number.
C Martinez still tho, if you do the math, 21 out of every 100 million is close to 7 of out of every 35 million, which is just a couple oddities away from 0 out of 35 million
What we have here is failure to comprehend.
Do not quote that study by Ian Walker. It was on one stretch of road, and didn't prove anything. He never said it did.
+Vicvic W And a reanalysis of his data found the conclusions to be false. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783373/
TL;DR: Bike shares have slow bikes and more cautious cyclists (due to lack of confidence); Regular bikes can go fast and their riders are more confident
Oh and cars don't respect bike commuters/riders who ride outside city centers (i.e. drivers are shitty).
SPEED = STABILITY
GO FAST OR STAY HOME
its because riding a bike share bike is a like carrying around a big flashing sign saying "I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M DOING." People then give you a wide birth
I guess it's a good thing that my daily rider is a rather heavy bicycle with wide tires. Of course, it also has a custom-built electric-assist module, so it isn't exactly slow. That, and as I continue to ride it, I will be able to push more power into the wheels by virtue of my legs getting stronger due to regular work. I wonder if that would negate the extra safety that the heavy frame and wide tires provide.
BCycle is so fun to use here in Denver. if they do an longer article they need to include the convenience of these things!
They're not aero tho
This video must have been fun to make! I wish biking would catch on in the urban side of Hong Kong...
this is cool but honestly so irrelevant. 21 in 100 million trips? This is what is important? Hardly.
Oh and don't forget the impressive graphics.
Because bicyclist only account for 2% of traffic if there was more cyclist on the street it would be higher. BTW Those numbers are going up.
its more likely to die on a bike than get killed by a terrorist.. soooooo
+ bishop51807
what about amsterdam, how many millions of death should they have with millions of cyclists?
#notsponseredbybikesharecompanys
Bike shares provide a low-cost, healthy alternative to walking or public transport. That alone makes them worthwhile, even if they were no safer than a personal bicycle. Cycling is STILL less dangerous than driving or walking.
Under even the most pessimistic of assumptions:
Net effect of driving a car at 65mph for one hour: Dying 20 minutes sooner. (18 seconds of life lost per mile)
Net effect of riding a bike at 12mph for one hour: Living 2 hours and 36 minutes longer (about 13 minutes of life gained per mile)
Well, _sure_ it may be the easiest job in the world _for you_ to handle urban traffic in any bike. But this is a nice well thought alternative for people who are not so adept at it. Even though they look silly.
I have a theory about the shared bikes being safer: people who own their own bikes and bike regularly to work/etc. are more likely to be actual cyclists, in the sense that they are experienced cyclists. I am saying this as experience as a road cyclist. Experienced cyclists ride much more confident and ride faster (but usually wear a helmet), however, I have ridden with cyclists who taken, in my opinion, unsafe navigation risks. They are confident in weaving between cars, cruising through red lights, etc. obviously a more dangerous move. That's not to say that inexperienced riders don't make unsafe moves, but I am saying you probably spend less time on a bike than people who own their own, and therefore less likely to make maverick moves.
I'll stick to blasting through Georgetown on my Cannondale, thanks
Correction: there have been several deaths in Mexico regarding with shared bikes, not just one (mostly in Mexico city) . The problem isn't bike sharing, the problem is that government hasn't adapted cities to bikes and hasn't enforced education to drivers or severe punishments for injuring or killing a biker. This happens because of corruption and a lack of driving awareness culture.
thumbs down on the no-helmet fact nonsense
18 million dutch people are telling you otherwise
so are all the scientific studies on it
but im sure YOU know better
you funny, join the circus kid
21 in 100 million is 0.000021%... but that doesn't sound as scary, does it?
+Killian Whitelock It is like winning the lottery.
+Killian Whitelock Except that with cars, deaths are 2 deaths per 100 million miles. Although this doesn't translate directly into trips, car trips are likely longer. Therefore bicycles are likely more dangerous by a substantial margin.
Ah, I didn't consider that perspective.
well, actually, it probably evens out. I am just pulling a number out of the air but if the average car commute ("trip") is 10 miles then you're looking at 20 deaths per 100 million car trips, which is very close to the bicycle number.
10 miles? That's really low, especially when you consider how frequently people will drive for 300+ miles without accident. Tell me you wouldn't feel safer going that distance in a large, very visible vehicle and not just skin 'n' bones on two wheels.
Sure a slow, heavy bike is technical safer but it’s also well...slow and heavy. This makes going places take more effort and more time.
So i'm safer riding my 50 LB Walgoose Beast behemoth, it's heavy with wide tires, this is awesome.
My opinion:
The reason that bike shares are safer is because they don't own the bike and they don't care if the bike gets damaged and dirty, unlike the ones who owns one, who tends to avoid any causes of their bike being damaged...
The real issue with bike accidents in modern metropolitan areas is the majority of private riders all fancy themselves as being in the Tour de France or similar bike race, so they buy racing bikes with the turn under handlebars they have to hunch over, and the bikes have thin tyres with little road grip. The overall effect is they have little visions and are hard to see. Compared with someone riding a bike with the traditional handlebars curving up and back, or even just flat bars like on the 'Bike Share' bikes. This means the rider is in a much more upright position which gives them a greater ability to see around them, and also they're a higher target which is much more visible to car drivers. This means they're more readily seen, and also more able to pick up a danger while they have time to avoid, something you can't do well on a racing bike.
You see the same, I ride a road bike, I know. When it comes to vision being obstucted, it comes down to eyewear. This is why I only buy name brand sunglasses such as Oakley and Smith. They spend the time developing the shapes of the sunglasses which is why they cost so much.
When I ride a road bike, I feel safer than riding one of those upright bikes due to that I feel attached to the bike and I can use my whole body, when riding. ( Calves for pulling the pedal up, core to remain in a better position, though to help steer the bike and grip the saddle. And I am not sliding all over the place or braking something on it every few minutes.)
As a Dutchmen, this video is just weird and mind-boggling.
Like who in their right mind wears a helmet when cycling and where is your cycling-dedicated infrastructure.
Also, these bike sharing designs are nothing out of the ordinary: it is the standard design, so why is are these valid arguments? The USA still has a long way to go...
+Duro Dur Nobody does in The Netherlands and I have never once done it in my life and I cycled to school for 2 hours a day 6 years long. Safety is best achieved if people know how to cycle and if cycle traffic is separate from the normal infrastructure.
please google "helmet fallacy"
its 2018 and people still believe that 1940's marketing myth??
a human skull CANNOT survive a collision with a 2ton steel box JUST by putting 3cm of foam on your head, really it cant.
nevermind that collision impact dont occur on the TOP of your head (where cycling helmets are located) but on the sides, where there is ZERO protection!
or what about the social aspect of wearing a helmet, making your look professional and experienced, making cars overtake you closer and with higher speed, endangering the cyclist!
#helmet fallacy
If you want to wear a helmet that is safe, you would have to wear a full face helmet with a hans :D
How to piss off the Dutch, Lesson 101: Make an incorrect video about cycling :)
+René Dijkema Also reading comments from ignorant North American's who don't realize that you can actually have functioning cities that focus on the bike. Dutch cities ftw.
This is so weird to watch as a European. What Americans seem to call ''regular'' bikes, are in Europe bikes that are used for sport ands exercising. While over here the regular bikes are these up right bicycles that in America apparently are only know as ''bike share bikes''.
i used bike shares a couple of times and the thing i noticed the most is that i just drive a lot more careful because i dont want to wreck the bicycle... i dont really care about my own bike so i take more "risks" (crossing a street directly and going up a curb etc.)
+Vox Will you guys ever just add "Uploads" as a playlist for your channel? I'm the type of person to put the "Uploads" playlist on, and just sit back and watch everything your channel has to offer.
I don't live in DC, but I do live close enough that the drive there is pretty easily. And I'll tell you those things are everywhere. Especially in and around the national Mall and even more so if it's nice out
They are also a ripoff. 40 bucks a day in my city. You could rent a car for that much.
+Logarhythmic Funktion Damn, that's crazy. It's €20 for the whole year where I live.
Depends on the city. Here in Melbourne it's a $2 fee & no additional charges if your use time is less than 30 minutes. You can subsequently check out & use bicycles multiple times for free for the rest of the day as long as your journey time
butyoull be stuck in traffic payin for parking
Is anyone getting annoyed when he rode in the middle of the street?
he never rode in the middle of the street........
bishplis beginning of the video
@@EdDeezNuts944 The middle of the lane? You can do that.
If you are riding a road bike, you are most likely commuting for more than just 2-3 miles which is why people choose a bike built for performance rather than safety.
Long story short: a Bike share is safer but less eficient than a regular bike. I'm not saying that's bad, but is a downgrade for people who go to work in a bike; also safety depends more on the person, and the video focuses more on the bike itself.
This video seems to get the wrong conclusions out of these numbers and results.
Riders sitting upright, the bike being more visible because of color and the tires being wider isn't exclusive to bike share schemes, It's the bike TYPE that makes it safer not that the bike is part of a bike share system. Making the bike heavier doesn't do much good all it really does is make the bike more cumbersome and more dangerous should you fall.
The thing that makes the difference is changing how the bike is used, those smaller faster bikes that are more common in the US are used by a niche group of people, they are package deliverers or people that want to get to work fast, we should change that so normal people use bikes, kids going to school/friends/activities, adults going to work/shopping and elderly doing the same as the adults, but also doing it to stay healthy. Bikers right now are too focused on getting to their destination fast instead of just getting to their destination. Take children going to school for example, if you make the roads safer for them to bike, they wouldn't have to race to get to school in 10 minutes. They could go at a slower pace and while on their way to school riding by talking to their friend who is right next to them also riding.
Right now the infrastructure for cycling also isn't helping, most bike lanes are way too thin, making it so overtaking is nearly impossible without going out of the bike lane, this causes everyone to speed up, because if I am going to slow, that means I am blocking the faster rider behind me from going, thus I speed up as to not annoy him or slow him down. Most bike lanes are too thin to allow you ride side by side, thus making it impossible for parents to ride next to their child and also makes it impossible for people to have a conversation while riding. Both of these things make it so getting where you are trying to get as fast as possible is in your best interest and safer.
Make the bike lanes wider, allows people to have a conversation with each other while riding, allows parents to ride along with their child and allows faster riders to overtake without danger, these things slow down most riders and makes the journey safer and more enjoyable.
This is why you got to work twice as hard to go half the speed on a bike share.
It's actually illegal to ride a bike in Australia without a helmet:
It is 'illegal' in many places. That doesn't really stop people.
yes! and if we're talking about safety, please promote bike share with the use of helmets. people look way cooler while alive.
interestingly enough in toronto it's legal if your under 18
Apparently good internet is illegal there lmao
Not only is it illegal, its also a $420 fine
USA have a law that you need to wear helmet on bike. So why not with bike share?
Agreed w everything except the statement about the odds being in your favor when not using a helmet.
Your videos always end so anticlimactically and abruptly. I swear whenever the video ends it's ambush.
I was hit by a car at 35mph in July 2013 whilst riding my bicycle home from work (regular bike). Had a helmet on which saved my life. ER dr said without it I'd have died or suffered such significant brain trauma I'd have needed round the clock care for the rest of my life (car struck me in the head first).
*ALWAYS WEAR A HELMET!*
No.
Also did the helmet cause the crash?
I feel like most of this has to do with the type of bike rather than the bike share part. I think the message here is that you should just get a better bike
Toronto Bike Share pricing is misleading. They charge for a 24hr access pass, but that only gives you 30 mins of usage. After your first 30 mins you get charged more money. Unscrupulous business practices' like that insure I do not do business with that company ever again.
Maybe, JUST MAYBE, U.S. youth can FINALLY understood that making EVERYTHING safer, greener and more idiot-proof isn't the best or smart way to go...
+P〈Ç〉r@zy why is it a bad idea to make things greener when we can?
Take for example FotoVoltaic panels.
You would consider is "greener" then nuclear right?
...BUT you take an area in size of Los Angeles OF USED-TO-BE FERTILE LAND to build something equivalent to 1MW(e) and then you HAVE TO build a nuclear plant near by anyway, cause there is noway you could let everyone powerless when Sun don't shine.
+P〈Ç〉r@zy I wouldn't have considered nuclear as a less green option anyway. Biking vs driving isn't a wind vs nuclear comparison, it's a wind vs coal comparison.
making things safe is bad? #murica logic
That doesn’t mean that bike shares are safer, it’s just that people using them take less risks, especially compared to those nyc bike messengers with fixies
Also it is because your credit card is on file, and if you destroy the bike you're in trouble. Kind of like a rental car. It isn't yours, so best be careful.
took a share bike in London once. I had never had such bad brakes. You could get up to really fast speeds with them though, which I did as a mountain biker myself. I would say those bikes are pretty dangerous in my opinion, as I was not able to stop in a ordinary distance (emergency braking).
"21 out of every 100 million trips are fatal" so you're telling me I have a very very very very very low risk of having a fatal accident on my bike?
So it sounds like the problem is with drivers prejudice against cyclists and not some inherit secret benefit to bike share.
Bike shaming at its finest.
I didn't know Bemidji had a bike share. I think Duluth deserves it more though Bemidji is miniscule compared to Duluth or Brainerd.
I had a massive electric bike that was at least 50 pounds and was a pain to load in a truck. The thing is, the reason it was unsafe was because I didn't know the damn rules. I'm canadian, and I can see why two people have died using those bikes. Canadian drivers suck. Like, russia's bad and everything(have you seen their dashcam videos?)but Canada's just behind that. We don't have as many random police checks, so we break the rules more often, and have consistent rush hours where alot of roads will get blocked up. Then, some stupid biker(like myself) will think they can get through these unmoving cars and just makes it worse.
This doesn't mean that bikeshares are safer than a normal bike, though. 0:31 They're not the same kinds of bikes. You could just as easily say that a safer kind of bike is safer than your bike, and not bring bike sharing into it at all.
What I think is weird about helmets is that even though it makes sense to protect your head, the Netherlands has 22.5 million bikes, nobody wears a helmet there, and they are the safest country for cyclists in the world. I think maybe the cycle paths have something to do with it. Also, I'm not sure if helmets can protect from being hit by a car, does anyone know any studies about that?
A mountain bike does pretty much the same. Just don't use a speed bike...these bikes can go very fast but are much more fragile.
So, nothing about the bikes specifically being shared makes them safer. Got it. Go buy a big, heavy, slow, brightly painted bike, only ride it in dense urban areas, and you're covered too.
I'm surprised that one of the reasons listed wasn't drivers being more worried about damaging city property than the property of individuals. Not to say that drivers make the decision to hit cyclists on their own bikes, but I would be surprised if the bikes being city property didn't come into play to some degree.
They're mostly private companies when has anyone ever seen a headline news story about anyone being chased after the city for breaking a city-owned bike with their car causing people to drive more dangerously around non-city owned bikes that's a bit of a stretch
the last bike I had was a perfect fit to my body for both height and weight. 5'3" short legs and medium torso. it was a 24" girls/womens Schwinn Ranger Mountain bike. it was my best friend for 6 years. I used it on back trails and neighborhood riding thru 6 different zip codes and a lot of woods/dirt trails. I used it for city riding too but it was a great bike for EVERYDAY USE. my city is Seattle i live in, our bike share js called "PRONTO BIKES" . what a stupid name. bike share bikes are too big and awkward for me, their brakes suck, they cost money for every use, they're easy for bike thieves to ride away on God forbid I wanna stop at a cafe for a snack, they don't come with locks for quick pit stops, they're only allowed on streets with Green Bike Lanes, etc. plus it's not a personal use bike, so nobody's Body is physically comfortable with it for practical use. I say bike shares are a rip off and waste of money, just shitty tourism money maker is also it does. so no, they're not safer. a person's everyday use personal bike is safer.
Completely disagree. it all has to do with a better built bike infrastructure, places that have bike sharing are only there because of it.
Define regular bike please?
People who tend to use their own bikes, ride far more often than bike share people. Some riders can do more miles in year than ride share cyclist in their entire life span.
This video seems like a promotion for bike share programs.
I dunno about your neck of the woods but ride share here is pricey. Renting a bike for 2 days is enough cost equivalent of buying an average new bike.
Blue Cross is supposed to be bringing their bike share system to New Orleans.
21 out of 100M are fatal. Lol that's like nothing. No thanks bike share, I will use my own bike...
exactly.
I love how Americans think the bike on the left at 0:33 is a 'regular bike'....
I don't know why you choose to compare a road racing bike as an example of an 'average' bike. Most commuters I see are on mountain bikes or hybrids - essentially similar in most respects to these bike share bikes, just more efficient and better made. I think your first point is invalid and unnecessary - the simple fact that bike share stations tend to be in bike-friendly (...er) locations likely explains most or all of the difference in crashes.
E-Bike are fast and can't stop fast enough a car drives through a Intersection and the yare way heavier. I've had 2 E-Bikes and I know.
Seriously? Don't wear a helmet? Seriously? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
take the red pill, think DUTCH
0,000021% fatality rate? did i do the maths correctly?. If i did, that's many orders of magnitude safer than cars, on the US. Didnt know they were THAT safe.
In Melbourne (Victoria, Australia) they gave you the helmets for free (or you can buy one from 7-11 for AU$5).
unfortunately since then there has been a fatality.....July 1st in Chicago her name was Virginia Murry.
42lbs too heavy for speed? I take my 45lb full suspension mountain bike down ski slopes at like 45-50mph lol. But in all seriousness, idk how a cumbersome commuter bike handled by an inexperienced rider is any safer than someone who is riding a purpose built bike that is comfortable and confident on it and is wearing a HELMET? I sense a bit of ignorance from someone who really doesn't know anything about bikes, let alone riding one with others in consideration.