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

361–370 of 797 posts

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

#361

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

taeric wrote: post #347
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It concerns me that there's so many stories of bike helmets cracking in two and allegedly having saved someone's life. Bike helmets are designed to compress under impact and as such, they are very weak under tension, so when you see a helmet split into two, it indicates that it wasn't working as designed. Compressed polystyrene in the helmet would indicate that it was doing its job.

Could be both? Usually it is the outer shell that is cracked and described as split. I could see that happening more on the road style helmets, due to their shapes.

The pictures that I've seen of the various "saved my life" destroyed helmets have the polystyrene split apart - it's usually quite easy to split polystyrene if the force is applied the right (wrong) way.

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

#362

Post by Kaibeezy »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #338
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…

It concerns me that there's so many stories of bike helmets cracking in two and allegedly having saved someone's life. Bike helmets are designed to compress under impact and as such, they are very weak under tension, so when you see a helmet split into two, it indicates that it wasn't working as designed. Compressed polystyrene in the helmet would indicate that it was doing its job.

I have worn a bike helmet without fail starting in the early 80s. I have always understood that they are disposable after any hard hit. Visible or not, polystyrene compresses, cracks, crumbles, etc. The shell or skin of the helmet never seemed to matter much, so whether it splits or shreds, doesn't matter. Maybe I'll have a look for a source on this.

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

#363

Post by spicybright »

christophilus wrote: post #306
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…

I’d like to see the evidence of this. I can imagine that maybe wearing a helmet gives a false sense of security, and therefore leads to a bit more recklessness. Still, I’d bet that even if you have more accidents when wearing a helmet, you have fewer deaths.

If anything we should be making helmets that cause MORE damage to people to bring that rate down more! /s

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

#364

Post by pessimizer »

Swizec wrote: post #312
anonymousab wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You shouldn't follow up a source request with another unsourced fact, but let me follow up with yet another: the statistic are entirely different for motorcycles because motorcyclists are far more likely to have the type of accidents that helmets protect from.

Comparing the fatality rate of bicycling to the one for riding a motorcycle is not good.

edit: That's not only a claim that bicycle helmets vastly reduce the fatality of bicycle accidents (rather than just significantly reduce them), but a claim that so many unhelmeted riders die from bicycle accidents that it distorts safety figures. All of this without any safety figures.

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

#365

Post by 988747 »

anonymousab wrote: post #313
prepend wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Which sounds terrible, and goes against "innocent until proven guilty" rule. Also, in some situations it gives the driver perverse incentive to finish the cyclist off (and therefore get rid of the only witness), instead of, say, calling an ambulance.

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

#366

Post by mslate »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #341
nayuki wrote: post #241

This is very much like: > The name "Tullock's spike" refers to a thought experiment in which Tullock suggested that if governments were serious about reducing road casualties, they should mandate that a sharp spike be installed in the center of each car's steering wheel, to increase the probability that an accident would be fatal to the driver. Tullock's idea was that the normal process of risk compensation would the…

It's a good thought experiment but assumes that everyone has the same ability to assess risk, which isn't true. Not only does the ability to correctly assess risk vary greatly between individuals, it varies greatly over the lifetime of an individual and sometimes even over the course of a day for the same individual.

So the takeaway here is that some people should not be issued drivers licenses.

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

#367

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

323 wrote: post #358
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It concerns me that there's so many stories of bike helmets cracking in two and allegedly having saved someone's life. Bike helmets are designed to compress under impact and as such, they are very weak under tension, so when you see a helmet split into two, it indicates that it wasn't working as designed. Compressed polystyrene in the helmet would indicate that it was doing its job.

It's not the polystyrene which cracks, but the plastic shell holding it in place. The separation will happen after the compression force is removed, because the compression will keep the split parts close together. Meaning that the helmet falls apart after it's done the job. Also, there are various degrees of helmets, from a simple polystyrene to a mountain bike one to a motorcycle helmet. You can always go to the ne…

The pictures that I've seen of the various "saved my life" destroyed helmets have the polystyrene split apart - it's usually quite easy to split polystyrene if the force is applied the right (wrong) way.

I don't like the concept of requiring PPE for a relatively safe activity as cycling as it makes cycling seem like a far more risky activity than it is and there's also the problem of "helmet hair" which can dissuade commuters. It's telling that countries where bike helmets were mandated had a sharp downturn in the numbers of cyclists.

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

#368

Post by steve_adams_86 »

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…

I think part of the problem in the USA and Canada is that our road laws are exceedingly motorist-centric. Things that don’t seem to make sense, like drivers getting a slap on the wrist for killing cyclists, do make sense if you consider that the laws don’t expressly promote and prioritize the safety of cyclist on all road ways.

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

#369

Post by DangitBobby »

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 find the claim particularly hard to believe. I ride at least twice a week with my brother and we behave exactly the same with and without helmets. If you have a habit of always wearing your helmet, it just starts being something you don't even really consider as part of the equation. In fact, we will occasionally go almost an entire ride before realizing that one of us forgot to put on our helmet.

I find it much more likely that claims of "data shows..." are due to uncontrolled confounding factors, such as riders being more likely to wear a helmet when they perceive the ride as meeting a certain risk threshold.

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

#370

Post by cowtools »

ionwake wrote: post #355

I’m annoyed so many HNers have trouble getting their head round this. Before commenting understand that : Research studies show bike helmets increase number of injuries, due to complex reasons NOT attributed to the vehicle type or whether it was the riders fault. It is why they are not legally required in bike heavy countries like the Netherlands. I recommend you DONT comment unless you’ve done your research.

What studies? Also, the purpose of helmets is not to reduce the number of injuries, but the severity.
Post reply on HN