On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 22:47:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/6/2021 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 9:48:01 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 10:50 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:14:15 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/6/2021 1:04 AM, James wrote:
On 5/4/21 2:16 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/4/2021 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:

I'm not yelling at you although I do get tired of the incessant
"safety inflation" rant when people buy something that makes it
easier for them to ride...

I think "safety inflation" is real. It applies not only to bicycles,
it's pervasive in modern American society; I can probably give dozens
of examples. I own books on related topics.

But it certainly does apply to bicycles and bicycling, in many ways
that have nothing to do with making it easier to ride. Again, I can
give examples, although you can certainly think of them yourself.

I don't know why this observation is so distasteful to you.


In spite of the safety inflation of chilumen bike lights, the rampant
policing of bicycle helmet wearing (in Melbourne/Australia) and shaming
of people for not wearing hi vis clothing, wearing earbuds, or riding a
little too fast in a shared pedestrian/cycling zone;

Fatalities in the state of Victoria/Australia show an increasing trend
(which is difficult to see where the annual fatality rate was
approximately 8 a decade ago, but is now closer to 10), and the reported
injury count has changed from about 300 annually to 500 over the same
period, _and_ according to the National Cycling Participation Survey,
regular cycling has lost about 200,000 people over a similar period.

So safety inflation, targeted policing and fewer people cycling
regularly has resulted in more deaths and injuries.

Yay!
You need to take the long view. The trend is good, in that when
bicycling drops to ever lower numbers and bike injuries climb ever
higher, people will finally accept that riding is incurably dangerous.
It will become much easier to outlaw it entirely, thereby preventing
those ten deaths per year.

(And people must not be allowed to bring up comparative numbers of
deaths or injuries due to motoring, pedestrian travel, cardio-vascular
problems, etc. Those are off-topic!)

Yes, soon you'll be driven underground and will have to ride a Peloton bike!
Did you ever wonder why indoor bicycling is as popular as it is?

No -- but if you're saying its because people are cowering in fear because of safety inflation, then you're out of touch with the gym scene.

Let me interject that you seem a bit confused about what "safety
inflation" is intended to mean. It's more complicated than simply
labeling something as dangerous. It's a demand for ever more safety
precautions, with the implication that what was recently considered
adequately safe is now considered dangerous. If you want to discuss
this, you might keep that in mind.

There have always been people who feel riding a bike on a road is
dangerous. Most of them are demonstrably wrong (although most probably
wouldn't understand the demonstration). I'm sure that a large number of
indoor cyclists (a group comprising much more than the "gym scene") are
part of that fearful group. But that in itself is not necessarily
evidence of safety _inflation_. Perhaps the charitable way to describe
it is timidity caused by lack of knowledge.

And a lot of what you call safety inflation is people just not wanting to deal with traffic.

You're definitely missing the concept. Let's try a non-cycling example.
I just borrowed a friend's new car to get takeout food for a shared
dinner. Some of its features, compared to cars deemed safe enough 15
years ago:

Instead of two airbags (once considered plenty) it has a constellation
of airbags. Pretty much the entire interior inflates in case of a crash.
It's safer than before.

Instead of simple side view mirrors (once considered sufficient) it has
mirrors with internal turn signal lights and a sensor system to tell if
there's a car in a blind spot. It also has lights in the mirrors that
come on any time a door is cracked. They're safer than before.

Of course it has anti-lock brakes. Those were on some cars 15 years ago,
but now they're on all cars. Because it's safer.

It has "lane departure assist" or something like that. It nudges the car
back in the lane if it "sees" you getting too close to a lane line.
Somehow, we used to be safe enough without that.

It has all wheel drive, even though it's not an off-road vehicle and
never will be. I've always felt safe enough being driven by just two of
the four wheels. But all wheel is now promoted, for "safety" reasons, on
regular roads.

It has a backup camera. Once upon a time, we used mirrors to back up.
The camera is easier, of course - but it's also safer.

I could probably go on, but here's my major point: There was a time when
nobody thought a car was dangerous because it had only belts instead of
air bags, simple mirrors without cameras, ordinary brakes, two wheel
drive and steering that you had to operate yourself to stay in a highway
lane. But now, at least for many people, that's just not safe enough.

It's possible to give a myriad of other examples, not just cars or
bicycles. Safety inflation is a fact. Again, I don't know why pointing
this out offends you.

But Frank, safety sells :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.