On 4/6/2021 11:38 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:47:20 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.

It doesn't offend me, except its tedious. You claim that bicycle facilities are "safety inflation." Basically any convenience from STI to discs is safety inflation. I'm sure padded bar-tape is safety inflation.

Do you find Scharf's claims tedious, that we should all be using DRL
headlights with "breathe" mode whenever we ride? How about Joerg's
claims that he'd be dead on the trail if not for disc brakes? When Bike
Portland says you need to ride through a cattle chute running between
bus stops and pedestrians on sidewalks so you can be safe?

And as someone who peeled people out of the insides of '50s and '60s cars, they were dangerous...

You're using a simplistic and binary definition of "dangerous." There's
a full spectrum between "dangerous" and "safe" but you're making a
personal judgment that treats the spectrum as black vs. white. My point
is, there's been a overwhelming tendency to shift those personal
judgments and to label more and more things as "dangerous" or at least
"not safe enough."

And I doubt you were consistent in your evaluation. Did you not ride in
cars like the ones you just labeled "dangerous"? What driver protection
was built into the ambulance you drove? Did you at least drive while
wearing a helmet?

and all that car safety inflation stuff you mention -- who cares. Be safe.

The car safety stuff was my attempt to demonstrate the existence of the
trend, or meme, or attitude by using examples that wouldn't raise your
bicycling hackles.

And with cars, I don't care much. But there is a downside for bicycling.
Every time a Scharf says "Anyone with any sense always uses a helmet and
a DRL" it _does_ imply simply riding a bike is dangerous. Someone will
say "I don't want to risk it" or "I don't want my kid to do it." My view
is, this causes net harm to society.

Again, it's not just bicycling. American kids are now restricted in
their play activities as never before. Safe Kids once published
guidelines saying kids should never be outside without adult
supervision, and kids less than age ten should never cross a street
without an adult's help. Who cares? The pediatricians and health experts
who are seeing child obesity soar.

"Safety first!" Safety safety safety! You can't be too safe! If only
_one_ life can be saved!" That's being applied to hundreds of
situations, and it's tedious and borderline neurotic. I'm far from the
only one saying so - I have books and articles on the subject. I'm just
pointing out it also applies to bicycling. Sorry that offends you.

--
- Frank Krygowski