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

Pedal Me bans staff riders from wearing helmets for safety reasons

bikebiz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 797 posts

Re: Pedal Me bans staff riders from wearing helmets for safety reasons

#311

Post by analog31 »

gus_massa wrote: post #141
andrenotgiant wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/bicycle-he...

From the abstract: > The distribution of overtaking events shifted just over one-fifth of a standard deviation closer to the rider – a potentially important behaviour if, as theoretical frameworks suggest, near-misses and collisions lie on a continuum. Looking at the graph in figure 1, " one-fifth of a standard " looks as unimpressive as expected. The distance from the kerb looks much more relevant. IIUC all the anal…

Indeed the researcher was his own test subject.

Re: Pedal Me bans staff riders from wearing helmets for safety reasons

#312

Post by Swizec »

anonymousab wrote: post #301
prepend wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of those situations where there is a lot of fear and anecdotes but data shows that more accidents and injuries occur with helmets than without. A company should design their safety protocol well and it includes what equipment workers should and should not wear to protect them best. So prohibiting helmets is very responsible. Criticizing them seems to be taking an irrational stance that it’s better to addr…

> but data shows that more accidents and injuries occur with helmets than without. This demands proof, citation, and of course, controlling for how many cyclists in an area wear helmets vs. not.

Same statistic for motorcycles. You are more likely to be injured in a crash if you wear a helmet.

Because otherwise you go in the dead column.

Re: Pedal Me bans staff riders from wearing helmets for safety reasons

#313

Post by anonymousab »

prepend wrote: post #300
sokoloff wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also significant legal penalties for being at-fault and injuring/killing a cyclist in the Netherlands as compared to the US.

Aren’t the at fault vehicular manslaughter laws in the US the same for drivers who hit cars, cyclists, and pedestrians? If you kill a cyclist in the US and you’re at fault, that’s likely jail time (same for hitting a car or pedestrian). What’s missing in US laws vs Netherlands?

In the Netherlands and several other European countries, there is presumed/strict liability on the part of the automobile driver. Regardless of fault, a car driver has responsibility for any accident between their car and a bicycle. There is of course more nuance to this, but that's the basic overlying principle.

A joke I heard a few times was "If a bike fell out of the air onto a parked car, the car owner is going to court."

Re: Pedal Me bans staff riders from wearing helmets for safety reasons

#314

Post by macintux »

prepend wrote: post #300
sokoloff wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also significant legal penalties for being at-fault and injuring/killing a cyclist in the Netherlands as compared to the US.

Aren’t the at fault vehicular manslaughter laws in the US the same for drivers who hit cars, cyclists, and pedestrians? If you kill a cyclist in the US and you’re at fault, that’s likely jail time (same for hitting a car or pedestrian). What’s missing in US laws vs Netherlands?

There’s a morbid joke in the U.S.: if you want to kill someone, do it while they’re riding a bicycle.

Certainly the perception is that drivers don’t face jail time in such a situation.

Re: Pedal Me bans staff riders from wearing helmets for safety reasons

#315

Post by practice9 »

buildingsramen wrote: post #287
spankalee wrote: post #272

I once saw an accident where a cyclist going straight through an intersection was hit by an oncoming truck turning left that was impatient, didn't see the cyclist and gunned it between cars. The cyclist was launched headfirst into the bumper of a car stopped at the light and her helmet loudly cracked in two. She was still hurt, but I'm sure she would have died without that helmet. If some riders choose to not wear a…

Did you read the article? These bikes are 2-3 meters long. There is no chance of this type of injury occurring with them.

Unless Pedal Me provide open-source data on which they based this decision, I don't believe it is based on safety.

It's seems like marketing and cost-cutting issue for them.

Customer: "Driver is wearing a helmet, and nobody provided helmets for us.. Are we in danger?"

Pedal Me: "Say no more.. "

Plus it seems they only bought caps & jackets for their drivers previously, no safety gear. Drivers are replaceable, aren't they? (\s)

And other thing, why is a 3 meters long bike road-legal?

Re: Pedal Me bans staff riders from wearing helmets for safety reasons

#316

Post by aasasd »

spankalee wrote: post #272

I once saw an accident where a cyclist going straight through an intersection was hit by an oncoming truck turning left that was impatient, didn't see the cyclist and gunned it between cars. The cyclist was launched headfirst into the bumper of a car stopped at the light and her helmet loudly cracked in two. She was still hurt, but I'm sure she would have died without that helmet. If some riders choose to not wear a…

Another such example is drivers or passengers opening cars' doors without looking in the mirrors. A car's doors are reinforced plenty while having relatively sharp-ish metal ‘lip’ on the butt end, and you really don't want to run into one from that angle.

Re: Pedal Me bans staff riders from wearing helmets for safety reasons

#318

Post by mint2 »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #268
mcherm wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because one person disagrees doesn't mean it isn't reasonable. I've met people who (claim to) believe the earth is flat, but surely no one would consider that belief "reasonable". So I'm curious what the REASONING is behind your feeling that offering passengers the option to wear a helmet is unreasonable. Personally, I would AGREE that offering passengers on a pedicab the option of a pineapple would be unreasona…

Quoted post unavailable.

One of the hackers news guidelines is to take the generous view of comments rather than reply based on the most negative readings. Often the negative readings can turn out to be an uncommon, Nonstandard interpretation.

Yes The context of the scope of the word “the” in the comment that you’re replying to is not specifically written out, but most people and the poster will infer it to be the context of the binary choice being discussed, either offer or not offer helmets to passengers, and not the global choice of offering them hover boards, bags of octopus, or helmets or etc

Re: Pedal Me bans staff riders from wearing helmets for safety reasons

#319

Post by Cerium »

buildingsramen wrote: post #287
spankalee wrote: post #272

I once saw an accident where a cyclist going straight through an intersection was hit by an oncoming truck turning left that was impatient, didn't see the cyclist and gunned it between cars. The cyclist was launched headfirst into the bumper of a car stopped at the light and her helmet loudly cracked in two. She was still hurt, but I'm sure she would have died without that helmet. If some riders choose to not wear a…

Did you read the article? These bikes are 2-3 meters long. There is no chance of this type of injury occurring with them.

I'm not sure about that. If the bike gets stuck either you go over the front or you wish you did.

I have had my bike's wheel get physically jammed into a train track and went over the front. I was wearing a helmet, though I didn't hit my head. I was practicing Aikido back then and did a nice roll resulting in no injury. There is no way I could do that today.

Re: Pedal Me bans staff riders from wearing helmets for safety reasons

#320

Post by kwatsonafter »

prepend wrote: post #296
spankalee wrote: post #272

I once saw an accident where a cyclist going straight through an intersection was hit by an oncoming truck turning left that was impatient, didn't see the cyclist and gunned it between cars. The cyclist was launched headfirst into the bumper of a car stopped at the light and her helmet loudly cracked in two. She was still hurt, but I'm sure she would have died without that helmet. If some riders choose to not wear a…

This is one of those situations where there is a lot of fear and anecdotes but data shows that more accidents and injuries occur with helmets than without. A company should design their safety protocol well and it includes what equipment workers should and should not wear to protect them best. So prohibiting helmets is very responsible. Criticizing them seems to be taking an irrational stance that it’s better to addr…

It's a common misconception amongst amateur cyclists that because helmets marginally increase the chance of neck injury and that head injuries are relatively uncommon on bicycles that helmets deliver negative returns in terms of safety but as others have pointed out the data doesn't seem to suggest this is actually the case. Also in terms of common sense consider that all professional cyclists wear helmets when they're competing.

I'm getting real sick of the, "your feelings" talk. You used to get socked in the eye for talking to people that way in public. There's a better way of expressing your point than speaking to proverbial others as though they're children. It's enormously toxic.

Post reply on HN