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

321–330 of 797 posts

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

#321

Post by staticman2 »

y7 wrote: post #63

Maybe relevant: the Netherlands is probably the country with the highest use of bicycles for transport, yet no one, except for cyclists on racing bikes/MTBs or foreign tourists, ever wears a bike helmet. This is because they're only marginally effective at preventing injury, and the disadvantage of reduced cycling use if helmets are mandated results in far worse public health outcomes. See also https://dutchreview.co…

If you ever visit Amsterdam you'll see there are hardly any cars on the road and those that are have to drive at something like 5 miles an hour to avoid all the pedestrians and bicycles.

It's nothing like riding a bike in the U. S.

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

#322

Post by kqr »

ntoskrnl wrote: post #228
Nextgrid wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that as another commenter points out, passengers wouldn't feel safe next to a helmet-wearing driver while not wearing one themselves. The proper solution here is to provide helmets for passengers as well, but that raises more problems - they needs to be a way to sanitize them, multiple sizes might need to be available (I assume they need to be sized properly for adequate protection?), etc. The aforemen…

"We're sorry your husband got a concussion, but at least his passenger felt safe!" This isn't the 70s. Just give everyone helmets. Passengers included. And yes you should clean them. If you're running a business I'm sure you can afford some little bottles of alcohol spray.

But if it's about safety, why don't actual car taxi cab companies provide helmets for their passengers? It's easier to get a serious head injury in a car than on a bicycle.

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

#323

Post by anonymousab »

stfp wrote: post #226
wasmitnetzen wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, that seems like a clear difference in infrastructure. If a biker shares a stretch of asphalt with a car, that's a risk for the biker and they need a helmet. In the Netherlands, this is widely understood and bikes get their own infrastructure everywhere. Only then you don't need helmets anymore at all.

One flaw in this logic: helmets don't protect against cars ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

They don't protect from the part where the car directly hits the rest of your body straight on, or the bike itself. Every single part that happens immediately after that - such as the fall, flying through the air, or what have you, the parts that always come afterwards - is where the helmet can provide life-saving protection.

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

#324

Post by lyschoening »

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.

Of course going over the handlebars is possible with a cargo bike. The cyclist will hit the cargo area before they hit the pavement, which makes these situations no less dangerous.

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

#325

Post by School-Cotton »

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?

It’s not a matter of what’s actually written in the laws but of police/prosecutorial discretion.

Whatever laws are on the books are virtually never actually enforced against motorists, because motorism (and disdain/resentment against cyclists) is deeply embedded in the culture.

The default reaction of the median American (or at least, the median law enforcer) to any accident involving a motorist and a cyclist, regardless of actual fault, is “fucking bikers always breaking laws, running red lights and stop signs, if they want to take our lanes and slow us down, why don’t they think they have to follow rules like a REAL vehicle,” etc.

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

#326

Post by amscanne »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #284
y7 wrote: post #63

Maybe relevant: the Netherlands is probably the country with the highest use of bicycles for transport, yet no one, except for cyclists on racing bikes/MTBs or foreign tourists, ever wears a bike helmet. This is because they're only marginally effective at preventing injury, and the disadvantage of reduced cycling use if helmets are mandated results in far worse public health outcomes. See also https://dutchreview.co…

Read what the Dutch cycling union has to say about helmets. https://www.fietsersbond.nl/de-fiets/accessoires/fietshelmen... https://www-fietsersbond-nl.translate.goog/de-fiets/accessoi... I live here and I'll say that almost all bicycle delivery drivers where helmets in NL. Lost of riders wear helmets here, but I agree that most people just riding to work or going shopping do not. I will also note that probably the l…

That page is about the idea of helmet mandates, not about the safety of an individual decision to wear one.

I think people most on the thread understand that there are negative consequences to mandates. The question is about whether you as a rational individual should choose to wear one.

I think the answer to that is an irrefutable yes, if you want to reduce your risk of catastrophic head injury. But that doesn’t mean it should be mandated. We take calculated risks all the time, and the law can’t know all the variables and circumstances for each person at each moment. The mandate is ineffective because the most important safety factor for bicycles is frequency of cycling — the more bikes there are on the road, the more everyone is aware of them. But if you still had all those cyclists and put helmets on them, they would be slightly safer.

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

#327

Post by darkerside »

allears wrote: post #290
darkerside wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Helmets reduce peripheral vision. I would absolutely be comfortable banning helmets in cars if people started wearing them and causing more accidents.

My bicycle helmet sits on top of my head, and has nothing to do with peripheral vision. Do you wear yours pulled down low over your forehead? If so you're doing it wrong.

The strap makes it more difficult to turn your head if it's properly tight. Probably also will hit your head on the ceiling if you're in a sedan.

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

#328

Post by Etheryte »

ascar wrote: post #297
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.

Can you elaborate? The US has such a high incarceration rate for in European eyes often benign offenses that I find that statement hard to believe even though I don't know the Dutch laws (I'm German). E.g. I can't imagine a Dutch person being incarcerated for injuring a cyclist unless it's on alcohol/drugs. I can totally imagine that for the US though. But I might be totally wrong. Would be really curious for some de…

When we lived in the Netherlands, my wife rode her bike infront of a car at an unmarked crossing where the car had every right of way. The car driver sued for repair fees, but in the end, the car driver had to pay her compensation instead. It doesn't matter that he had right of way, he was the "stronger" side and hurt someone weaker by not being cautious enough. There's obviously more nuance to the laws there, but this is a good example of the common mentality.

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

#329

Post by pugets »

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…

I don’t know if the UK is sufficiently litigious, but if this were in the US, one bad accident causing a head injury would lead to the company being sued into the Stone Age.

Helmets may inadvertently create more accidents, but they also protect the most vital organ in your body during those accidents.

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

#330

Post by taeric »

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…

I'm curious to know what your data is. Offhand, sounds more like most riding is with helmets, so will dominate the numbers. But it's being interpreted as causal? Feels unlikely. What is the mechanism?
Post reply on HN