I've had more bicycle than car crashes, namely 5. None of them involved cars, 2 involved other cyclists (they were at fault) and others were single bike accidents.
I've not had any bike crashes* ... *If you exclude my childhood, since I had some jumps that I used to use on the street, so lots of scraped knee's/hand's etc. And Exclude Mountain Biking, cause I have had a handful of crashes doing that. However, I haven't had any crashes while riding skatepark yet, but at 2 visits a week, that's only a matter of time. Perhaps my experience is skewed due to having only lived in places where there is good cycling infrastructure, but I imagine it varies even more wildly from country to country. With me not being a road cyclist of the Lycra persuasion (I only ride on roads more casually, rather than racing them), I guess I also don't get to see that side of things either. So I would agree that I could be totally wrong on that one.
I ride my bike like a crazy person. When I ride my mountain bike I try to slide it around everywhere and thrash it alot. I haven't had any crashes though. I tend to race everywhere up to 20-25 mph on my mountain bike and up to 35 mph on my old road bike. Not a lot of people in my area bike, but those that do tend to bike like I do, just less aggressively. It sounds very stupid, but everyone is skilled enough and knows what they're doing, so it isn't as dangerous as you would think.
The UK Govt. department of statistics would both agree and disagree. But it is worth noting that this is casualty rate per billion miles. So its worth taking into account that cyclists don't tend to do motorist mileage, and for each mile, a cyclist will typically spend more time on the road due to the speeds that they travel. Same is even more true for walking, might be less safe than cycling per mile, but individually people don't tend to walk so many miles, so the risk is reduced beyond those numbers. They also have stats that are broken down by age. These are totals. Of course, all this data is based entirely upon incidents that have been reported to the police, so the "slightly injured" numbers are likely to be out a bit due to unreported incidents. However, one would hope that there weren't any deaths that the police did not know of . So that data is probably very accurate to reality. I do wonder what the injury and death rates are for Mountain Biking. Its often said by MTB'ers that they feel safer MTB'ing than they do riding on the roads. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has a good summary of the data here: https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs...fety/cyclists/cycling-accidents-factsheet.pdf Sources: https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...d-casualties-in-road-accidents#table-ras30081 https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...d-casualties-in-road-accidents#table-ras30002
I wasn't talking about actually mountain biking, as there are no mountains or even trails in the place I live, but I own a mountain bike and take advantage of the short gears and lack of grip from the tires on cement. Where I live, people don't understand what a steering wheel is and think that their bloated crossovers have no blind spots, so I ride as fast as I can so the difference in speed is as small as possible if I get hit by a car and people have an extended window of time that they can see me if they look up from their phones.
I know it sounds weird, but thats how it is in the Southeast US. I constantly feel like I am watching a Russian dash cam when I drive with all of the crazy people out on the road. --- Post updated --- Weight reduction obviously, they are trying to make that thing a racecar.
RE: Biking discussion. I'm of the opinion that bicycles just plain don't work for road transportation. Put them on the sidewalk and they'll run over pedestrians, put them on the road and they get in the way; good luck giving them their own lanes without stealing space from motor traffic and also good luck getting them to stay in these lanes. One of the main roads that I use to get into town had a (rather expensive) bike path installed alongside it (instead of the street lights that people have been begging for for the last 20 years) some years back. Paved, runs for the first 7-8 miles of the road. Despite this I still see bicyclists on the shoulder. Keep in mind that this is a 55 MPH road with a few blind crests and maybe a couple blind corners as well... and no street lights except in a few specific areas, so at night you can't see the NMT until you're right on top of it. I even see bicyclists on the freeway. The way I see it, bicycle and pedestrian spaces need to be physically separated from automobile spaces, by either Formula 1 levels of runoff area or, preferably, some nice, sturdy walls. I'm not sure how you'd make this work with respect to people whose cars stall or who are trying to hail cabs, but it's an idea to work from.
Pretty much par for course these days. Apparently it's more important to make the driver feel safe, even if it comes at the cost of actual safety. With my Escort and its wonderful 1990s thin pillars, I have near-perfect over-the-shoulder visibility and can also adjust the mirrors to basically eliminate all blind spots (except that a motorcycle can still hide behind the D-pillar), but in a modern SUV on the rare occasion that I drive one, I don't even feel comfortable changing lanes because the pillars are so bad. Delet this.
It's vinyl covered, you can clearly see where they've even put vinyl on the glass. It has a fairly normal amount of glass, those tiny Windows aren't the real thing. Or have you never encountered camouflaged testing mules
Looks like we just got our first glimpse at the Ford "Baby Bronco." I think it definitely looks like a Renegade rival. https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-not-2020-ford-bronco-164100608.html https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/a25050309/ford-baby-bronco-jeep-first-photos/
Yesterday my school bus crashed into a van which pulled out in front of it at about 30mph... no injuries thankfully Sorry for the bad quality photos
It depends a bit really. Its more a case of whatever is cheapest. For young kids they use transit vans, since they need both a driver and an escort on board to keep an eye on them all. Those operate as a door to door service. For secondary school, they use city buses, double deckers, coaches, etc. More or less whatever they have laying around. Typically the coach companies use the older (more run down) vehicles in their fleet which are no longer modern/comfortable enough to pass for paying adults. We did occasionally get full pleather interiors though. I remember one Christmas we had a driver who would put Christmas films on the screens for the journey home. So its basically recycling. Take whatever bus is too tatty for passengers, then use those for the school runs. One thing to note is that many schools will specifically avoid city buses, since they don't have seatbelts whereas coaches do.
