Cyclists wearing helmets seen as “less human” than those without | Hacker News Reader

Cyclists wearing helmets seen as “less human” than those without

road.cc

25 pointskitkat_new9 comments

Being a cyclist not even wearing a helmet, that doesn't surprise me ... Most car drivers don't threat any cyclist as humans to begin with

It's tribal culture and many drivers have an attitude that the roads are them and only them.

They spout ridiculous arguments about cyclists not paying taxes as an attempt to justify their aggressive behavior. Sadly in many forums, I've seen a complete lack of empathy even when cyclists get hurt or killed. (victim blaming)

Perhaps the solution is for truckers to lobby against any roading and safety improvements for ordinary vehicle owners. (taste their own medicine)

It's not tribal in my opinion.

We're under pressure from the rich to attend their businesses in exchange for means to live and thrive. We need to attend in a timely manner or face consequences culminating in a "DCM".

Cyclists stand in the way of this endeavour by either holding individual cars up, or whole roads when a large vehicle is waiting to pass.

It's plainly frustration fostered by local governmental cycling pushes whose aim is to slow traffic and lower speed related deaths.

The Lycra clad speedhump is putting themselves voluntarily and with foreknowledge in a dangerous position whilst antagonising already angry and irate drivers who can regularly manage to perform so badly they hit walls, trucks, buses, and each other.

Who in their right mind would cycle?

Honestly in cities where I cycled, the traffic was holding me up, not the other way around. ebikes are very effective and in places with heavy traffic, they are much faster than a car for short trips.

I can't recall the study, but there is also a correlation of behavior in the US where car drivers give cyclists without helmets more room.

Anecdote: It was about 1994 and I was riding my bike in the bike lane along Santa Teresa Blvd to the southeast. A VW Beetle got within 4" of my rear tire and honked their horn trying to cause me to crash and run me over. I was wearing a helmet but that wouldn't make any safety difference. I probably should've not worn a helmet to seem more like a human.

Right, but when we evaluate risk the two major variables are the likelihood and the severity of consequences.

Not wearing a helmet might (might) lower the likelihood of consequences, but it could very well lead to an increase in the severity of them.

this doesn't surprise me. I've read in a new york times article about 10 years ago, that when cyclists cycle without helmets on the average distance between them and cars around them is greater than when they do wear helmets.

Bad drivers give little space to cyclists regardless.

Buses, cars, trucks have often traveled behind me at a following distance of barely a meter behind my bicycle. Stopping suddenly would have high risk of death.

Cars and trucks have clipped my handlebars.

Cars turn in front, oblivious to cyclists existence. That or they have a complete lack of awareness: a cyclist needs braking distance like any moving object.

Not to mention opening doors or the drivers who think it's funny to harass those not in a car.

I don't ride much anymore

>> "We tested this hypothesis through a survey comprised of two-paired alternate forced choice questions to identify which image of a cyclist respondents consider to be less human," the study's abstract explains.

Doesn’t structuring a study like this ensure the outcome / headline? An image of a cyclist was going to come out as “less human” even if none of the respondents would agree with that statement.

It’s like if I showed people two images of a politician and asked them “which individual most belongs in a zoo” and then concluded bald politicians are most likely to be perceived as “belonging in a zoo”.

Would any of the respondents make or agree with that statement? It seems unlikely based on the methodology of the study.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com