Top seven most common (absolute) beginner mistakes

[Cerbera]

40 minutes ago, Mono said:

When a body is in linear motion, like the rider riding an EUC at constant speed, then removing a force acting on it does not make it rotate.

Yes it does, if that body is only being supported / held up by pedals, which are newly free to rotate around an axle ! If the pedals rotate, as they do when a motor cuts out, then anything standing on them does the same, and does so at any speed or while stationary ! You can run off a fall where you had motor power to the end, but not otherwise. Fortunately the apparent fact that we won't ever agree about this doesn't stop either of us doing whatever we feel is best and enjoying our respective rides !

Edited April 29, 2023 by Cerbera

[The Brahan Seer]

1 hour ago, Mono said:

2 hours ago, Cerbera said:

If that is the case, then you should be able to stand on your wheel with it powered off, surely ?

No, I have no idea why one would be an implication of the other.

This might help explain the options to some degree even though the pedals are pretty low..

 

[Cerbera]

That's an interesting video for sure, but in his case I think he can only remain upright because he has trained specifically to be in that situation continuously, and has to spend far more attention and energy balancing front and back - in fact that is his primary aim here.

This is different from what happens in EUC cut-outs, because of the sudden change from 'supported' to 'not'. Although I would happily concede that the guy in this video is doing an admirable job here, I still think he'd face-plant on an EUC in which motor power suddenly ceased !

[rcgldr]

7 hours ago, Mono said:

When a body is in linear motion, like the rider riding an EUC at constant speed, then removing a force acting on it does not make it rotate.

Even at constant forward speed, the motor is exerting a forward torque onto the wheel+tire, and a backward torque on the EUC, which in turn exerts a backwards torque onto the rider, coexistent with the rider exerting a forward torque onto the EUC, equal to the torque the motor exerts onto the wheel+tire. The rider is leaning forwards a bit more to generate the forward torque (the rider could shift feet forwards a bit to generate forward torque). So there are torques as well as forces involved.

During a cutout, the horizontal force nearly goes to zero (just momentum of the EUC), but the upwards force from the pedals (a reaction to the downwards force from the rider onto the pedals) remains, and since that it behind the riders center of mass, it generates a forward torque.

At slow speed, a rider might be able to recover similar to recovering from a stumble while walking or running. Lando Cycle gets a few steps in before rolling when the V8F blew a fuse due to Lando trying to accelerate too hard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAEOnvDNaYw&t=749s

 

 

Edited April 29, 2023 by rcgldr

[mrelwood]

17 hours ago, Mono said:

Removing the motor push of the wheel from the equation does not create a rotation. The remaining force then is gravity which pulls the body down, it doesn't rotate the body. We need an additional force to create a rotation, for example, sticking out a foot touching the (moving) ground

@Cerbera’s example of trying to balance on a powered off wheel is actually very relevant. That’s exactly the situation you’re in if the wheel powers off, speed or no speed.

 You say that the first thing is that the rider starts falling down. But you are forgetting the platform the rider is standing on. It doesn’t suddenly disappear. While the gravity pulls you down right when the wheel powers off, your feet are on the pedals and your muscles are tense enough to keep you upright. That’s a rigid entity, and if the CoG is forward from the wheel’s axle, the gravity creates a forward rotation. Like a broomstick falling forward on a skateboard.

 But it all depends completely on where your CoG is at.

17 hours ago, Mono said:

I have been riding straight into a curb

Based on what you tell about the situation, I would assume that you weren’t accelerating. And we already know that you only ride at low speeds. If you had been accelerating and the wheel stopped on a curb, the situation would’ve been quite different.

17 hours ago, Mono said:

With the "correct" acceleration movement, the body describes a curve forward and down in space, but it does not rotate in or by itself.

If the CoG of a standing human being moves forward in relation to one’s feet, that indeed is called a rotation. And you can’t accelerate without moving the CoG forward. In other words, you can’t start to accelerate without creating a rotational movement to your body.

17 hours ago, Mono said:

I am almost certain, we can find overleans from the stillstand on Youtube where the rider just walks away.

Sure. For example when trying to launch from behind an obstacle. An overlean gives you a platform to jump off of, since the pedals tilt forward during a certain amount of time. And the wheel isn’t running away from you.

However if the wheel turns off, there isn’t much anything for you to jump off of, since the wheel’s shell is free to rotate on its bearings, just as if you were trying to balance on the wheel while it’s powered off. Any force you apply at the balls of your feet will be practically as if you were trying to jump in mid air.

Years ago I saw a video of a guy trying to accelerate moderately hard on a wheel that he thought was powered on. But the wheel was actually powered off. The guy slammed to the ground with a straight body, fast.

17 hours ago, Mono said:

I suspect it's common that riders do not ride with an adequate body provision which would let them get away in these situations

Since that is the case, wouldn’t it be a good idea to recommend them to use a reasonable amount of protective gear since they are clearly at risk of injuring themselves due to not having had the luxury of attending your EUC riding classes?

17 hours ago, Mono said:

In these days I also strongly believed that a pedal clip is unrecoverable, is an inevitable faceplant. I am not convinced of that anymore at all.

A pedal clip is a pedal clip, while another is a whole another. I’ve had only one. It happened at a very slow speed. As the pedal got stuck behind a grassy bump, the wheel turned to the side a bit. My foot kept on going forwards though, ending up with my heel at the very front of the pedal. You should be able to guess what happened then… A perfect analogy of a banana peel slip on an EUC. I fell on my back pretty straight, and hit my head on the ground quite hard. Thank goodness I had a helmet!

17 hours ago, Mono said:

Just to be clear, the discussion started with the question whether faceplants at walking speed are inevitable

Of course they’re not inevitable, just as much as they’re not impossible. It depends on so many factors. That’s not the question I’ve been commenting on though.

17 hours ago, Mono said:

all my personal experience from running off various adverse events is from below 20km/h.

I don’t think I’ve had a single such adverse event at below 20km/h.

17 hours ago, Mono said:

The physics though hold irrespectively of speed 

But the amount of stuff that happens during one’s reaction time is very different.

[Unventor]

17 hours ago, The Brahan Seer said:

This might help explain the options to some degree even though the pedals are pretty low..

 

This is relative low speed and I wounder how much he had to practice to be able to do that. 

A side question how much protective gear do he wear and why? 

I assume he is aware that what he is doing is not a stable thing. And he gave felt it from more that a few falls. 

Let's view it from it is a semi stable platform as a EUC and the all of a sudden it is not. How fast do we think the rider can adjust to this new situation. 

Like any other thing there will be some that is better than others but most will not master it. Same as football, there is one or two Messi but not all will reach that level. 

When I were younder and healthy I might have none a better job but these day I am old and have bad back and knees and hips. All effected of inflammation in my body. I get medication to keep impact in check. But riding EUC had a much better effect overall for me. But I know I take risks that is why I gear up same as the guy in the video. I just found putting on a MC suit is fairly fast and it gives better protection form sliding damage/scratches/burn of the skin. 

[Mono]

19 hours ago, Cerbera said:

Fortunately the apparent fact that we won't ever agree about this doesn't stop either of us doing whatever we feel is best and enjoying our respective rides !

Right, it's kinda strange and sad though, as one of us must have a wrong conception of something rather simple but somewhat important. Or we just talk past each other which happens too a lot.

3 hours ago, mrelwood said:

You say that the first thing is that the rider starts falling down. But you are forgetting the platform the rider is standing on. It doesn’t suddenly disappear.

A free spinning wheel disappears pretty quickly though, unless you have spent hours and hours of training to balance a BC wheel.

3 hours ago, mrelwood said:

Based on what you tell about the situation, I would assume that you weren’t accelerating.

I don't know, but it makes no difference AFAICS.

3 hours ago, mrelwood said:

If the CoG of a standing human being moves forward in relation to one’s feet, that indeed is called a rotation.

OK, true, the lower legs rotate around the knees. If that's the rotation we were talking about, then I agree, and the same is true in a cut off scenario. I had understood you mean that the entire body of the rider is rotating, as we were implying that the rotation leads to a faceplant.

3 hours ago, mrelwood said:

However if the wheel turns off, there isn’t much anything for you to jump off of, since the wheel’s shell is free to rotate on its bearings, just as if you were trying to balance on the wheel while it’s powered off. Any force you apply at the balls of your feet will be practically as if you were trying to jump in mid air.

Right, I totally agree, assuming you can jump off is a recipe for disaster. The life saving reflex is to bend the knees and hips, like the opposite of jumping off.

3 hours ago, mrelwood said:

Since that is the case, wouldn’t it be a good idea to recommend them to use a reasonable amount of protective gear since they are clearly at risk of injuring themselves due to not having had the luxury of attending your EUC riding classes?

Wouldn't it even be better to urge them to educate themselves better, given they don't have the luxury? Kinda my point, a large part of the time spent in gear discussions may be spent better elsewhere such that more people get aware how to ride safer and it becomes community wisdom.

 

Edited April 30, 2023 by Mono

[Mono]

19 hours ago, Cerbera said:

Fortunately the apparent fact that we won't ever agree about this doesn't stop either of us doing whatever we feel is best and enjoying our respective rides !

Let's still try to explore this a little: which one is in your mind more difficult to handle or run off:

1. The motor shuts off but the wheel can still freely spin like a BC wheel, that is, the motor just stops pushing, or
2. the wheel blocks suddenly, like when something gets stuck between shell and tire or when the board fries?

Edited April 30, 2023 by Mono

[Cerbera]

1 hour ago, Mono said:

Let's still try to explore this a little: which one is in your mind more difficult to handle or run off:

1. The wheel shuts off but can still freely spin like a BC wheel, that is, the motor just stops engaging/pushing, or
2. the wheel blocks suddenly, like when something gets stuck between shell and tire or when the board fries?

In my mind, 2 would be easiER to run off, because you can perhaps still use the pedals as a rigid spring-board for your 'exit jump' in the last moments of the event.

Whereas is situation 1 the pedals are free to rotate, and you are standing on those, so you rotate with them and any exit jump won't have any support, especially since we push with our toes (forward of axle) to try and walk / jump forward.

Personally though, I think both events would end up with rider on ground, as both happen with a suddenness that is beyond human reaction time.

The main point I am arguing though, is NOT whether it is possible or not to escape these situations and remain upright, but rather that gearing up makes sense in either situation, and is sensible even at walking speeds !

I am not coming from a 'holier-than-thou' standpoint in this regard. I rode my Airwheel and MS3V for 5 years+ between them and didn't feel the need for a helmet in all that time - not even a rubbish little cycle one ! And I had my fair share of falls, and run-offs, and was lucky enough to never hit my head once in any of them ! But all those falls, despite not causing 'serious' injury (no broken bones or anything), really hurt other bits of me (shins, ankles, hands etc) which took ages to fully heal, so other armour became quite comprehensive quite quickly in an effort to mitigate a repeat of those things.

When the Master arrived, with its pedals almost a foot higher than anything I had ridden before it suddenly dawned on me just how essential I now considered a helmet ! And much better body armour, because falls from that height, at any speed are really gonna wreck me without it ! Perhaps, when we are 'young and springy' we can get away with more, but at 50, I am 'old and creaky' so want all the protection I can get !

And yet of course I am still doing ALL the things to avoid falling in the first place, like regular services and system checks, riding at suitable speeds for the environment and doing the constant vigilance ! Touch wood, apart from the hilarious 'fall-over-the-front' episode I had on Day 2 when I hadn't worked out how to communicate forward authority to it, I haven't yet fallen off my Master in the 7 months I've had it, but remain constantly prepared for the possibility !

Edited April 30, 2023 by Cerbera

[mrelwood]

2 hours ago, Mono said:

Wouldn't it even be better to urge them to educate themselves better, given they don't have the luxury? Kinda my point, a large part of the time spent in gear discussions may be spent better elsewhere such that more people get aware how to ride safer and it becomes community wisdom.

These two aspects can’t be seen as an either or situation, since they aim to help largely in different situations. Suggesting people to ride only at 25km/h max is absurd, and will only be taken as a joke, 100%. The experience you have gathered from crashes and how you have thought through the physics of what happened just isn’t applicable for a very large group of riders and riding situations.

 Of course riding safer and defensively is what everybody should vouch and aim for, and I’m definitely one of the people to bring this up, sometimes even in situations where it irks some people the wrong way. But what can be realistically expected from this? That all riders would remain below 25km/h and therefore they would no longer need protective gear? Come on.

Edited April 30, 2023 by mrelwood

[woke rider]

This discussion does get at certain principles and barriers though despite some bickering. As a general rule, when I gear up I do take more chances, even a little bit of gear is helpful such as bare minimum of helmet and wrist guards. Education is important as well as knowing what conditions will make our wheels cut out. I will share 7 my personal newbie mistakes:

1) I didn't learn on playground parallel bars.

2) I didn't make a plan where I was going to learn.

3) I didn't limit my my early sessions to 20 minutes. I was over-stimulated and over excited and worked myself to exhaustion.

4) I didn't have any gear, and I didn't even wear my bicycle helmet because I was discourage by not having a motocross helmet.

5) I should have bought some basic gear before I spent all of my money ($450) on winning the auction for my wheel and had nothing left for gear. I should have at least bought shin guards (I received a shin laceration bruise on my first day), worn my bicycle helmet, and bought some wrist guards (they aren't even that expensive).

6) I should have brought a buddy to make sure I didn't over practice, make sure I was following my own advice, video, and call for help if I got hurt.

7) I shouldn't have tried to show off when I didn't even know how to ride yet (cracked the inner case trying to ride up a grassy knoll).

Okay those are mine, honestly, what are your 7 mistakes, that you actually think you made?

Edited April 30, 2023 by earthtwin
more info

[Cerbera]

27 minutes ago, earthtwin said:

Okay those are mine, honestly, what are your 7 mistakes, that you actually think you made?

Most of mine were 'behavioural mistakes'.

1. Imagining I could predict with some degree of certainty what pedestrians or unleashed dogs were going to do next !

2. Pride comes before a fall. Don't show off (unless you are absolutely sure you are going to get away with it).

3. Not wearing a helmet for the first 5 years. It was luck alone that I avoided head injury in that time.

4. Not being vigilant enough to the immediately approaching surfaces (applies much more off-road and with non suspension wheels)

5. Bailing too early.

6. Not being prepared enough for disaster in the middle of nowhere.

7. Not loading shopping bags properly for balance and weight distribution !

Aside from that it was mainly all legitimate ride-learning and getting-used-to-wheel-characteristics type mistakes we all make, which are not worth of note !

[woke rider]

50 minutes ago, Cerbera said:

Most of mine were 'behavioural mistakes'.

Thank you for being honest! These are most helpful for newbies. It takes a lot of fortitude to disclose our true mistakes.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Mono]

On 4/30/2023 at 12:04 PM, Cerbera said:

In my mind, 2 would be easiER to run off, because you can perhaps still use the pedals as a rigid spring-board for your 'exit jump' in the last moments of the event.

When the wheel blocks, it abruptly decelerates, whereas the body keeps moving. That is, the wheel will disappear behind the rider in almost an instance.

I can see where another misunderstanding may come from: "running off" to me does not mean to jump, that is, push with the feet towards the wheel, but rather the opposite. The very first action when "running off" is to disengage any force the feet put on the wheel (by flexing/softening the knees, thereby also preventing that a body rotation occurs). Disengaging any force on the wheel has the positive side effect that the wheel may recover from an overpowering (overlean) or a slip. As a reflex, this is seriously counterintuitive: we usually stiffen and stretch the legs when we lose footing or when anything unexpected happens. Therefore it needs some effort to acquire this reflex.

The second part of "running off" is to the bring at least one knee (and then the foot) in front of the body, or both knees if one wants to escape with a knee-slide.

On 4/30/2023 at 1:23 PM, mrelwood said:

These two aspects can’t be seen as an either or situation, since they aim to help largely in different situations. Suggesting people to ride only at 25km/h max is absurd, and will only be taken as a joke, 100%.

On the flipside, normalizing when people break the law consistently and put others into danger is not a particularly good joke to me. In many countries, the speed for EUCs is limited by the law (like for all motorized devices in almost all circumstances) and there is some real good reason why this is so (in short, fewer fatalities of innocent bystanders). If it is legal, by all means, go as fast as the law allows you to. I couldn't care less, as long as you don't endanger other people. I apologize if you got the impression that I said otherwise.

I totally believe in your right to go as fast as you want (within the laws), to take any unnecessary risk you like (to have fun or for whatever reason you see fit) and to kill or hurt yourself (not others though) and I am also totally willing to personally contribute monetarily to your recovery through a publicly financed health insurance system.

On 4/30/2023 at 1:23 PM, mrelwood said:

The experience you have gathered from crashes and how you have thought through the physics of what happened just isn’t applicable for a very large group of riders and riding situations.

The faster one goes, the more important are body predispositioning and internalised reflexes that help ride out critical situation or prevent violent faceplants. There is no magic wall at 19.87km/h where everything changes and the g-force which brings the rider down does actually not change at all. Practicing any skill can't start at speeds of 40 or 30km/h. One has to start low and slowly increase the speed while adjusting to the changing dynamics. Flexible knees and hips are for sure (one of) the most important body predispositioning for downhill skiing at 100km/h just as they are at 25km/h.

On 4/30/2023 at 1:23 PM, mrelwood said:

 Of course riding safer and defensively is what everybody should vouch and aim for, and I’m definitely one of the people to bring this up, sometimes even in situations where it irks some people the wrong way. But what can be realistically expected from this? That all riders would remain below 25km/h and therefore they would no longer need protective gear? Come on.

Right, this is exactly what I expect. I want prison time (no probation) for anybody not meeting my expectations or wearing gear. That's my final word.

The obsession is not on my side though. I do not bring in the must-wear-gear topic unsolicited and stay on it forever. I just kindly responded to clarify that there is not only one position on this topic and that the evidence is much less straightforward than people usually think (which seems to madden some people). Gear does not interest me, unsurprisingly, even though safety does. And my obsession is with riding technique.

Edited May 2, 2023 by Mono

[mrelwood]

2 hours ago, Mono said:

When the wheel blocks, it abruptly decelerates, whereas the body keeps moving. That is, the wheel will disappear behind the rider in almost an instance.

The rider will also hit the ground “in almost an instance”. It would be more beneficial to talk about actual measures of time than to share each others feelings about how fast these things happen.

2 hours ago, Mono said:

normalizing when people break the law consistently and put others into danger is not a particularly good joke to me.

Perhaps not the putting others into danger, but breaking the law is what happens constantly. That’s just realism, and has nothing to do with what you or I think about it. In Europe there are extremely few riders that obey the law. Riding at 25km/h doesn’t make faster wheels legal, you need a wheel that can’t be adjusted to go faster than 25km/h. For example Inmotion V5.

2 hours ago, Mono said:

There is no magic wall at 19.87km/h where everything changes

There kind of is, at least for some crashes. You either might be able to run it off, or you absolutely can’t.

2 hours ago, Mono said:

and the g-force which brings the rider down does actually not change at all.

Gravity doesn’t, other forces do. For example when your feet hit the ground.

The latest crash I read about was a collision with a car that started to make a U-turn without looking. One can think about riding in traffic what one will, but it just is something that people do. In many places in the US that’s the only place to ride. Anyway, the rider got broken bones here and there. He himself estimated that without extensive safety gear he would be in a much much worse condition, or perhaps even dead without the chest protector.

 Is there a specific riding technique you have on mind for such collisions?

[redsnapper]

On 4/28/2023 at 6:24 AM, Mono said:

I'd say it is foolish to discuss protective gear without specifying the scenario, to make strong claims about risks without referring to data, or to use "this can happen (at any speed)" as an argument for anything without relating events to their (estimated) probabilities.

Low probabilities are difficult to navigate, so I don't think it makes sense to say any behavior trying to mitigating them, or not mitigating them, is foolish. Wear whatever you like, I just oppose absolute prescriptive claims like it's a must to wear... and there can't possible a negative effect of wearing... The main thing which is very clear from the data and logical from the mechanisms is that risk is highly correlated with speed. That is, the faster you go, the more inclined you should be to wear protection, and the slower you go the less relevant it is. That is, for beginners, it's rather not (while shin protection can be highly relevant for comfort which can be highly relevant for advancing quicker). Finally, I'd consider it as a problem to advise gear to beginners because they may speed up to 30km/h in their first session, instead of advising them to never ever go that fast in their first 10-30 hours of riding.

I will reword my original statement to - imo helmet and gloves are prudent protection while doing EUC. Tricking around your front yard probably of little benefit since you are not moving at speed. But falling off an EUC at 20kph (pretty slow) imo can cause a serious head injury that could be mitigated via helmet. Data is always the best way to sort this out but I am not going on a deep dive on this. It is intuitive to me (having wiped out a few times) but everyone is obviously free to do whatever they want. From

https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-surprise-you

One-third of non-fatal bicyclist injuries are to the head. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), a majority of the 80,000 cycling-related head injuries treated in emergency rooms each year are brain injuries.

 

GHSA: Percent of U.S. Bicyclist Fatalities by Helmet Use, 2015 

 

The GHSA recommends a “Three E” approach – engineering, education and enforcement – for bicycle safety. An essential component of education is wearing a properly fitted helmet. A bike helmet is a cyclist’s best line of defense, reducing risk of head injury by more than 50%. For severe head injuries, the protective benefit is even higher.

My thinking is that if I crash without a helmet and become a burden to my wife and kids when a helmet could have prevented that, then I'm a selfish idiot. I like the thrill of EUC and living life fully but when I can reduce risk with minimal hassle, I will do it... I can't speak for other beginners but on my 1st EUC session I was pushing the wheel to more than 20kph. And riding an EUC under 20kph is pretty boring (unless you are tricking) so I cannot imagine too many people staying at speeds below 20kph. And 20kph is arbitrary - dunno what the data says about speed and head injuries while cycling? And I doubt cyclists crash for the same reasons as EUC and they probs don't have the same falling dynamics. All I know is that when I ride without a helmet and spy the pave whizzing by under me, I consider what happens to my head if the controller fails and the wheel stops balancing - and I really don't like that feeling! 

[Mono]

On 5/2/2023 at 4:46 PM, mrelwood said:

The rider will also hit the ground “in almost an instance”.

It takes about 0.32 seconds until the knees touch ground (50cm down travel, the g-force, as we established, does not depend on speed). At 25km/h this is 2.2m of travelled horizontal distance (that is, if the wheel is blocked the rider loses touch probably after less than 0.1 seconds). Changes of direction become more difficult with increasing speed. As to whether a body rotation is unpreventable, we apparently can't find a common ground of agreement. Established facts are that people can walk or run or knee-slide away from the wheel disappearing under them just as that they can faceplant like a stiff stick. That people do not inevitably behave like stiff sticks is another established fact.

On 5/2/2023 at 4:46 PM, mrelwood said:

It would be more beneficial to talk about actual measures of time than to share each others feelings about how fast these things happen.

See above.

On 5/2/2023 at 4:46 PM, mrelwood said:

In Europe there are extremely few riders that obey the law. Riding at 25km/h doesn’t make faster wheels legal, you need a wheel that can’t be adjusted to go faster than 25km/h.

I suspect there are many thousands of riders who ride effectively legally in Europe, though true, it is probably not the majority of European riders. My understanding of the legal situation in France which I suspect to be the largest European community (if it's not Russia) is that all wheels are sold in a street legal state even though the tiltback speed limit can be changed in the app. Of course, many people change the setting or shop from outside, so...

Calling riding a wheel below the legal speed limit which was set via the app as "illegal" is rather a meaningless word game in this context, in particular when it will not be prosecuted.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Mono

[mrelwood]

1 minute ago, Mono said:

Calling riding a wheel below the legal speed limit which was set via the app as "illegal" is rather a meaningless word game in this context, in particular when it will not be prosecuted.

The few fines that locals have gotten have explicitly mentioned the maximum speed of the wheel, and they have been fined based on that.

[Mono]

1 hour ago, mrelwood said:

The few fines that locals have gotten have explicitly mentioned the maximum speed of the wheel, and they have been fined based on that.

If the locals had not limited their wheel to the legal speed limit (which I suspect to be the case, given your previous rants about speed limits), the fine is in my eyes totally justified. On the other hand, if they can show that they never unlocked the wheel speed, they should rather not get a fine even if the letters of the law may disagree in the literal sense.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Mono

[Mono]

On 5/2/2023 at 4:46 PM, mrelwood said:

The latest crash I read about was a collision with a car that started to make a U-turn without looking.

I am pretty confident that this is a slight misrepresentation of what actually happened. The driver was most likely looking but not spotting anything (which is a relevant detail when it comes to a safety discussion).

On 5/2/2023 at 4:46 PM, mrelwood said:

One can think about riding in traffic what one will, but it just is something that people do.

[...]

Is there a specific riding technique you have on mind for such collisions?

OK, let the thread steal begin.

Right, the rider was heavily injured (it probably qualifies as life changing injuries, they are also life threatening with some lowish probability) riding at 25-30mph and despite wearing full gear, which illustrates the problem with (relying on) gear. If the description of events is somewhat close to the truth, there would have been at least two obvious and simple ways (and some less obvious) to avoid the accident or such severe injuries and none of them would be (relying on) (more) gear.

It's kinda funny how the obvious riding technique that prevents this kind of life threatening collisions seems to be beyond acceptable imagination (which seems to be absorbed by gear optimization). Hint: it's the single most important safety technique when driving. While to you, the accident seems to look like an example of how gear saves lives, to me, the accident suspiciously looks like an example of how confidence in gear leads to a disaster (luckily without fatalities in this case but still pretty disastrous).
 

On 5/3/2023 at 1:10 AM, redsnapper said:

The GHSA recommends a “Three E” approach – engineering, education and enforcement – for bicycle safety. An essential component of education is wearing a properly fitted helmet.

The old discussion again, however by now, I would consider it a known fact that helmets are not the answer to bicycling safety.

This sentence from the article you linked is telling:

Quote

Alarmingly, more than half of adults in the U.S. report never wearing a helmet, and more than half of cyclists killed in crashes in 2016 were not wearing one.

This sentence suggests a zero or even positive correlation between wearing a helmet and getting killed. Maybe this is why it is called "alarming"?

In reality, there is nothing alarming in cyclists not wearing a helmet: this large Canadian study (an extended summary is given here) investigated the data from >22,000 hospitalizations and >3.5 billion trips (not million but billion, the hospitalization rate is 1 per 160,000 trips with 1 brain injury in 1 million trips) over six years and found zero significant difference in injuries with helmet laws whereas the helmet use was 39% without a law and 67% with a law (which is a 70% "increase"). The odds of a brain injury was more than 1.5 times larger in districts with helmet law (Figure 4). A summary reads

Quote

We compared exposure-based hospitalization rates for bicycling injuries between Canadian jurisdictions with different cycling mode shares and helmet laws.
Hospitalization rates for traffic-related injuries were lower with higher cycling mode shares, a “safety-in-numbers” association consistent with results elsewhere.
Helmet laws were not associated with reduced hospitalization rates for brain, head, scalp, skull or face injuries.
Females had lower bicycling hospitalization rates than males, consistent with results found elsewhere and for other travel modes, an effect often attributed to conservative risk choices.

The following data give also a rough idea how helmets can't possibly be the answer to cycling safety, in blue the helmet wearing rate ordered decreasingly from left (55%) to right (1%) and in yellow the fatality rate per billion km, more or less decreasing from left (~43) to right (~11) too 

Now you will say "but The Netherlands have a totally different bike infrastructure and culture than the US". True, but the Canadian study shows that the unreasonable ineffectiveness of helmets in cycling safety is not "just" a between countries and cultures effect.

Now to repeat the (less) obvious again: the data do not imply that a helmet can't prevent an injury in an accident. They rather imply that there are much more important factors at play when it comes to bicycle safety such that helmets play at best an insignificant side role (if any, as they have possible adverse effects before an accident which may entirely cancel their benefits).

On 5/3/2023 at 1:10 AM, redsnapper said:

My thinking is that if I crash without a helmet and become a burden to my wife and kids when a helmet could have prevented that, then I'm a selfish idiot. I like the thrill of EUC [...]

You do what you do, don't take what I write as personal advise, as it is not.

By far the most effective way to reduce the risk to become a burden to society or family is by understanding how to behave reasonably safe and abide by it. Looping safety discussions again and again around gear may unfortunately be quite effective in distracting people from the best methods of choice to prevent injuries.

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Mono

[mrelwood]

 

4 hours ago, Mono said:

the fine is in my eyes totally justified.

Justified or not, I described the situation only to demonstrate that your claim of “it will not be prosecuted” was incorrect.

3 hours ago, Mono said:

I am pretty confident that this is a slight misrepresentation of what actually happened. The driver was most likely looking but not spotting anything

Who’s into word games now? The driver didn’t look with necessary detail.

3 hours ago, Mono said:

riding at 25-30mph and despite wearing full gear, which illustrates the problem with (relying on) gear.

You seem to assume that because he was wearing gear, he must’ve relied on it instead of other methods, and therefore must’ve ignored necessary safe riding practices. Or do speeds of more than 25km/h automatically determine that he wasn’t riding in a safe manner?

3 hours ago, Mono said:

there would have been at least two obvious and simple ways (and some less obvious) to avoid the accident or such severe injuries

Let me guess, riding at half the speed is one of them? US riders seem to be pretty unanimous about speeds lower than the rest of the traffic being unsafe.

3 hours ago, Mono said:

Looping safety discussions again and again around gear may unfortunately be quite effective in distracting people from the best methods of choice to prevent injuries.

The best method to avoid traffic related injuries will always be to stay home instead. But that is just an extreme example of an unacceptable solution. And as we’ve clearly seen, acceptable methods to some are unacceptable to others, and vice verse. Therefore implying about knowing what the general best practices are seems a bit presumptuous.

[redsnapper]

@Mono - I am trying to understand your perspective - is it that helmets/gear are useless? and people should therefore use only other (behavioral,etc.) means to stay safe?  i don't think anyone believes helmets allow riders to operate without considering other non-gear related safety considerations. helmets are simply one part of the equation (along with rider vigilance, env awareness, terrain considerations, etc)... seems reasonable to want to protect the brain in case all other means fail (controller dies, obstacle you cannot avoid,etc.) while acknowledging that helmets can only provide a limited level of protection and are there only to help possibly minimize the severity of head trauma. 

Edited May 4, 2023 by redsnapper

[conecones]

So everyone is piling on @Mono as expected but I agree with many of this points. We need to be realistic with what can be done to given that laws are not very flexible and the people who make them are not the brightest, but something needs to be tabled so there is at least SOME measure of enforcement for bad behaviour and public safety.

Legalizing EUC's everywhere bicycles are allowed with a fair low speed limit 25 or 32 km/h opens the door for riders to buy insurance. Regarding the speed itself, it should be set low for two reasons: 1) Matches existing infrastructure designed for bicycles/scooters. 2) Matches existing/already established laws regarding e-bikes/e-scooters. The low speed limit is the only way to get EUC accepted by the public and allow them to go mainstream. These laws can perhaps be amended in the future if EUC's can be built as safe as motorcycles, but that's not likely to happen at all or anytime soon.

Going back to the original point of this thread and how it relates to safety gear - I want to highlight a point that often gets missed/dismissed: Protective gear changes people's riding habits. This is very important for a new rider to understand. A related point is that laws also change people's habits. Therefore I am a supporter of focusing on skill(and self-awareness), not on gear, and support enforcement & legalization instead of hoping it stays in the "grey zone".

If you disagree, instead of relying on "hard data" that may or may not exist, why not try a simple thought experiment? Let's imagine a crazy law was passed, that specifically requires all EUC riders to NOT wear any gear, including helmets. Would it be reasonable to assume then that the average speed of riders will decrease? What if this crazy law was then amended to require all EUC riders to ride on the road ONLY (no bike paths allowed, and that a minimum speed of 50 km/h must be maintained (so that it does not disrupt car traffic). Would it be reasonable to assume then that the ridership will drop? If you can agree that these two laws will cause average speed and ridership to drop, then perhaps the points about NOT focusing on safety gear and legalizing a very low speed limit seems more reasonable approaches for promoting what we all want: Less Rider Injuries/Collisions/Accidents. 

I think EUC riding should be in the category of an "extreme sport" due to the high skill requirement and high risk for injury, but there is a somewhat strange phenomenon in this community surrounding gear - it seems like the typical opinion is to prioritize gear above all else. It's almost like some kind of fetish. You don't see this kind of behaviour in other extreme sports such as BMX freestyle, MTB Downhill/Freeride, Snowboarding, etc.

Let's do another thought experiment:
Scenario 1 - Rider posts about getting hit by a car, suffers serious injuries. Rider also states that no gear was warn.
Community response: "OMG, you're a dumb shit for not wearing gear. WTF where you thinking? You could have died. Next time wear gear you bozo!

Scenario 2 - Exactly the same as Scenario 1, except Rider states that they were fully geared up.
Community response: "OMG, thank goodness for that gear. What gear did you wear? Where can I buy it? Have you tried this other ABCXYZ brand?? I have it myself, love it, makes me feel so safe and saved me multiple times. Wish you speedy recovery! 

Asking questions about what lead up to the collision almost always starts an argument about assigning blame. 

This kind of behaviour isn't in the BMX/MTB/Skateboarding community. In fact its almost the opposite, the more beginner you are, the more gear you wear, and the better you get, you start to wear less or more targeted gear based on your falling habits/riding style. An experienced rider usually ends up with less gear than beginners overall, so there is a definite difference in mentality.

[The Brahan Seer]

6 hours ago, Mono said:

The driver was most likely looking but not spotting anything (which is a relevant detail when it comes to a safety discussion).

This is a very important point and one I have brought up on this forum before which didn't go down well.

Although we look with our eyes you actually see with the Brain. Most of your vision is a construct from memory which is why sometimes you can enter a room and not notice when something really obvious has changed.

More often than not drivers will not see you not because they are not looking but their brain isn't expecting you to be there. This is even more pronounced in areas you are very familiar with. 

The way to try to eliminate this is to always look twice. 

The best thing we can do is imagine no one ever sees us ever and ride defensively.

Learning safe riding and roadcraft training is the best way to lower your risk of an accident and is why we need to pass tests to ride motorcycles. Prevention is always better than cure.

Gear is certainly not a cure but is certainly important as we all understand.

29 minutes ago, conecones said:

Asking questions about what lead up to the collision almost always starts an argument about assigning blame. 

This kind of behaviour isn't in the BMX/MTB/Skateboarding community.

I have never noticed on this forum people thinking in this way.

I think most peoples intention asking about gear is because they want to find out what works and how well.

32 minutes ago, conecones said:

so there is a definite difference in mentality.

I think the difference in gear mentality is because on an EUC you can fall off through no fault of your own incredibly easily whilst bicycles and the like won't throw you to the ground due to cutout, low battery or malfunction.

[Cerbera]

 

37 minutes ago, conecones said:

It's almost like some kind of fetish. You don't see this kind of behaviour in other extreme sports such as BMX freestyle, MTB Downhill/Freeride, Snowboarding, etc.

I think it's more that people have accepted we are in the 'power age' of EUCs, where speed, performance and torque are valued above, or at least developed before the sort of safety and redundancy we are just beginning to see in wheels now, so gearing up to the max is merely sensible prevention and pre-planning. Yes, it is 'expecting to fall' to some extent, but that is not an unreasonable expectation to have for anyone who rides with any degree of regularity, or is willing to trust an early batch machine.

I think we DO see a lot of this behaviour in BMX and MX particularly - very rare I see one of those guys not geared up to the very max... and the sheer range and cost of snowboarding armour / accessories seems to suggest it is a thing there too. People just wanna do mad things, and try not to get hurt while doing them, and I can't really blame them for that.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Cerbera