Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 561 posts

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#541

Post by NickBusey »

CDSlice wrote: post #520
NickBusey wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious why you think a helmet wouldn't do much in a car crash, seeing as in any car race every driver is wearing a helmet.

I was talking about the kind of helmets bicyclists wear. The only thing a bicycle helmet would save you from in a car wreck is hitting your head against the windshield/dash which is what we have airbags and seatbelts for. Also, race cars aren't really comparable to normal driving situations since they go much faster and have a different set of constraints than normal cars. The racing helmets, rollcages, and 5 point h…

> In 2013, 50,000 people suffered fatal brain injuries; 19 percent of those were due to car crashes. Among persons aged 5 to 24, motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death from fatal TBI (Traumatic brain injury). It’s likely that a good proportion of the 9,500 people might have been saved had they been wearing a helmet in the car.

https://www.treehugger.com/cars/why-all-cars-should-be-hi-vi...

https://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/get_the_facts.html

The data disagree with you.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#542

Post by magduf »

kevstev wrote: post #509
magduf wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not advocating for mandatory helmet laws in that post, I'm just pointing out why you should wear a helmet on a bike, regardless of any laws. You, personally, will be safer with a helmet; it's a simple fact of physics. Sure, fewer cars means it's safer for cyclists, but you keep focusing on cars and ignoring other dangers with cycling: other cyclists, pedestrians, slippery/uneven roads, or just plain mistakes by t…

Do you also wear boots, an armored jacket and pants? Gloves? I bike to work every day, and spent a good part of my childhood on a bike- mountain biking on trails in the woods. I have had countless banged up knees, elbows, ankles and hands, but never had a head injury. I used to ride a motorcycle, and wore the full getup aside from pants, and I feel cyclists would be far more protected wearing a jacket and gloves. Ane…

>From that same source, roughly 1% of all head injuries admitted into hospitals are from cycling, and 60% are alcohol related.

This stat means absolutely nothing. It's coming from a place where not that many people cycle, the summary even says that cycling experienced a decline, so of course there's not going to be that many injuries from cycling when very few people are doing it. By contrast, British people drink a LOT, so of course they're going to have a lot of alcohol-related injuries. It's just like America: there's very little cycling, and a LOT of drinking and drunkenness, so it doesn't take any great intelligence to predict that there will be far more alcohol-related injuries than cycling-related ones.

And yes, maybe people there should wear drinking helmets, with the way people in those two countries love to get drunk so much.

>There is just such a focus on a fairly burdensome piece of equipment

"Burdensome"? Are you kidding me? Something that weighs a few ounces? I guess you think seatbelts are "burdensome" too.

And yes, I do wear gloves when cycling; they have pads to absorb vibration, and can be helpful if I fall and scrape my hands. They're far more "burdensome" than a helmet, since they take more time to put on (which still isn't very much).

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#543

Post by Kaiyou »

zimbatm wrote: post #307
Kaiyou wrote: post #287

I'm always wondering why it is the environment that has to change. I'm also living in a city and I neither own a car, nor a bike nor am I using public transport. I just walk everywhere I have to go. Think about why you can't just walk everywhere and if the answer is that you don't have the time, maybe you should consider just taking that time or reconsider life choices. Why can't you live near the things you need to…

There are a lot of different types of cities. European cities tend to be more dense and walk-able for historical reasons. Not everyone has the luxury of living in such nice environment or even moving places. Even as a walker, cities would be so much nicer to walk into without the threat of cars and the pollution that they generate. Imagine walking in the middle of the road, fresh air, you have the space to cross peop…

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a city without cars. And that comes from someone not even owning a car. Simply because I enjoy walking while not meeting many people. So if as many people as possible can just drive to where they want to go that leaves me with more leisure while walking.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#544

Post by ogre_codes »

magduf wrote: post #482
ogre_codes wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not debating the same thing. Nobody is suggesting that riding without a helmet is as safe as riding without. The lack of helmet laws makes me safer on my bike regardless of whether I wear a helmet or not because it means fewer people are driving cars. Cars are far more likely to injure/ kill me than a solo crash, adding barriers to getting people to adopt bikes makes cycling more dangerous. The more people on…

I'm not advocating for mandatory helmet laws in that post, I'm just pointing out why you should wear a helmet on a bike, regardless of any laws. You, personally, will be safer with a helmet; it's a simple fact of physics. Sure, fewer cars means it's safer for cyclists, but you keep focusing on cars and ignoring other dangers with cycling: other cyclists, pedestrians, slippery/uneven roads, or just plain mistakes by t…

> but you keep focusing on cars and ignoring other dangers with cycling: I ride bikes a lot, I rode 7 miles this morning on those "slippery/ uneven roads". Most of my friends ride bikes and we all know someone who has been seriously injured or killed by a car. If you eliminate cars bikes are extremely safe (for riders with reasonable hand/ eye coordination). The only injury type that comes remotely close to cars is mountain bike crashes or crashes while racing road bikes and those injuries are far less common and far less lethal than cars.

So yeah... I focus on cars, because they are by far the single biggest danger to cyclists.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#545

Post by bart_spoon »

aidenn0 wrote: post #419
brnt wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Dutchman who's lived in a few places abroad, the cycling 'problem' is quite simple: it needs to be the norm. No helmet, because neither do you require them for pedestrians. You can cycle in all weather, just as you would walking (a hard mental one, my non-Dutch partner can't get over the idea cycling is for sunshine). Public space design must start with safe (no sharp turns, looking at you France!) and separate…

I live in a very mild clime, but still don't bike when it's rainy. What do you suggest gear-wise for bicycling in say 5-10C but wet? I have a 30 minute bicycle commute that I'd like to do more often. A typical waist-length jacket leaves most of my body wet, but a longer jacket is awkward to bike in. If it's over 10C, I can just wear shorts that don't absorb water, but under 10, it gets quite uncomfortable.

Rain pants. I was a mormon missionary in northern Japan, and we rode mountain bikes everywhere, regardless of weather. Typhoons, blizzards, compacted ice and snow on the ground, all of it is actually quite easy to bike in. Assuming you already have a water proof jacket, about $30 is all you need to get some waterproof pants that can quickly be pulled over your actual pants and keeps you perfectly dry, and then removed at your destination.

Weather should really be one of the least concerns on anyone's list for cycling.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#546

Post by criddell »

cyborgx7 wrote: post #540
criddell wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that it's a little pointless to argue on global forum like HN because it's such a local issue. You don't need to convince anybody here, it's the people in your local community that are going to make the change.

Public transport infrastructure is definitely a global issue.

Not really. From where I'm sitting in Austin I don't really care if Madrid has good public transportation or not. If the people of that city decide to fund that or something else doesn't affect me nor should they care what I think.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#547

Post by CDSlice »

NickBusey wrote: post #541
CDSlice wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking about the kind of helmets bicyclists wear. The only thing a bicycle helmet would save you from in a car wreck is hitting your head against the windshield/dash which is what we have airbags and seatbelts for. Also, race cars aren't really comparable to normal driving situations since they go much faster and have a different set of constraints than normal cars. The racing helmets, rollcages, and 5 point h…

> In 2013, 50,000 people suffered fatal brain injuries; 19 percent of those were due to car crashes. Among persons aged 5 to 24, motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of death from fatal TBI (Traumatic brain injury). It’s likely that a good proportion of the 9,500 people might have been saved had they been wearing a helmet in the car. https://www.treehugger.com/cars/why-all-cars-should-be-hi-vi... https://www.…

Your first link has zero information to support that wearing a bicycle helmet would do any good, it only suggests it. Personally I doubt a bicycle helmet would do much good because they aren't designed to protect your head in such an energetic collusion. Your second link only says that motor vehicle wrecks are the cause of 20% of TBI related hospitalization. The word helmet doesn't appear in it at all.

So no, based off of your links I wouldn't say the data disagrees with me.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#548

Post by bluGill »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #445
bluGill wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could, but I don't think we will. There are a lot of fixed costs in a car, so if you need a big car for just a few % of the uses it is very hard to justify having both a small car and a big car when the big car can do both.

A lot of car overhead goes into safety: they have to be big and heavy to counteract other cars that are big and heavy. But if the they are given their own routes and are controlled by the same software, a lot of that girth could easily go away.

You need a big car to haul plywood, or all of your equipment for a weekend of camping. (backpackers get by on much less, but if the car is next to the tent you tend to pack a lot of luxuries)

Safety is a factors, but that is more weight than size, 4 full grown adults take up a lot of space.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#549

Post by kevstev »

magduf wrote: post #542
kevstev wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you also wear boots, an armored jacket and pants? Gloves? I bike to work every day, and spent a good part of my childhood on a bike- mountain biking on trails in the woods. I have had countless banged up knees, elbows, ankles and hands, but never had a head injury. I used to ride a motorcycle, and wore the full getup aside from pants, and I feel cyclists would be far more protected wearing a jacket and gloves. Ane…

>From that same source, roughly 1% of all head injuries admitted into hospitals are from cycling, and 60% are alcohol related. This stat means absolutely nothing. It's coming from a place where not that many people cycle, the summary even says that cycling experienced a decline, so of course there's not going to be that many injuries from cycling when very few people are doing it. By contrast, British people drink a…

I have to carry around a helmet- yes I find this burdensome. Real estate is hard to come by in NYC- and my commute requires a partial subway commute. When I rode a motorcycle to my job and had a cube I was annoyed by the MC helmet, but felt the risk tradeoff was worth it and could at least tuck it away. Now I am subject to the hideous open office trend, it would be a PITA. Its not the weight, its the volume, and the fact that I would have to redo my hair once I went anywhere, all to prevent an event that seems about as likely to me as winning the jackpot on a scratch off ticket. Seatbelts don't bother me at all, they are built in to the car.

Still my point about a drinking helmet stands- drinking is a dangerous activity- 60% of all hospital admissions for head injuries involve alcohol. Clearly we could reduce the severity and incidence of these injuries with helmets. It would be interesting to see how many "drinking years" it would take on average to get a head injury worthy of a hospital admission.

Driving is dangerous too- and in virtually any accident it seems likely your head is going to come into contact with something- even if it is an airbag, and the mv^2 is much higher- we could reduce the severity and incidence of head injuries if everyone wore a helmet, especially an NFL style helmet with a faceguard...

And you accept that wearing gloves is ok, but you don't wear a jacket- so you know you may fall, and possibly scrape along the ground a bit, but you don't wear a jacket that most motorcyclists consider to be basic standard gear.

Do you understand where I am going here? You assess risk a certain way and make tradeoffs in what you are willing to do to protect yourself, as do I. However, what your risk assessment has determined wearing a helmet as necessary and foolish not to, I see as just another unnecessary burden, choosing instead to wear armored gloves in winter, and accepting other risks. You may feel not wearing a helmet is something a fool does, but my years of riding have given me intuition (in other words, my developed common sense) that the head is highly unlikely to be injured, and statistics back me up on this.

If I did a lot of high speed road cycling, it would probably change things, but my rides around town where I top out cruising around 15mph and if I go down a hill hit 30 for a brief minute or two, its just not necessary or reasonably useful.

So wear your helmet, but I feel denigrating those that don't because your "common sense" tells you its necessary is misguided and somewhat ignorant.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#550

Post by Freak_NL »

grawprog wrote: post #475
Freak_NL wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a matter of risk assessment. The chance of a healthy adult cycling in the Netherlands getting a head injury that would have been prevent by a helmet are so incredibly low, that making it a requirement would have a detrimental effect on the collective health of Dutch society due to slightly lower uptake in cycling. For elderly and young children a helmet may make sense, due to the significantly higher risk of suc…

I think the terrain may play a part in it. As far as I know, the Netherlands is generally flat, where I live it's nothing but hills, people tend to wear helmets here, it's also the law, though I've never heard of it really being enforced. I've personally had a couple good falls going down hill where my helmet saved my head.

It's a combination of terrain and high quality bicycle infrastructure. There are plenty of countries were even I as a Dutchman wouldn't cycle without a helmet.
Post reply on HN