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

531–540 of 797 posts

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

#531

Post by usrusr »

msrenee wrote: post #451
ilikehurdles wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you cite any of those studies? Is this one of those things where studies count the accidents reported for each group without controlling for population size? I ask because there are “studies” that show there are more skiing accidents with helmets than without, but anyone who has spent a day at a ski hill can tell why that is: the vast, vast majority of people are wearing helmets. Throw a rock into a crowd of skie…

It's been over a decade since I last stepped foot in a ski area. I don't remember anyone wearing a helmet that wasn't on a snowboard. Are they more common now? It makes a lot of sense with how bad things go when they go bad plus all the trees.

It's almost ten years for me and the last thing I remember was a landslide shift from "hardly anybody" to "almost everybody" within only a few seasons (Austrian alps).

Never read any triumphant reports about how this has saved ten thousands of lives though, so I suspect that numbers aren't that impressive.

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

#532

Post by krab »

alexggordon wrote: post #344

Note, these are not normal bikes. From the article: > A major cause of head injuries is going over the handlebars, which is not possible with a 3 metre long bike. Another thing that makes us unique is our training systems, maintenance systems, and ability to track poor rider behaviour. Made me curious what they actually look like[0]. Seeing that, I’d tend to reset my presumptions about wearing helmets with these. The…

I'd like to wear helmet as a passenger as well as a driver on such bike. The helmet doesn't add almost any inconvenience, is reasonably cheap and light. Why not wear it?

I use shared bikes one-way quite often and I usually carry my helmet around, strapped to a backpack. In colder weather I would cycle in a business shirt. No issue with a helmet.

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

#533

Post by jskrablin »

bluejekyll wrote: post #389
323 wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cycling is risky. I've stopped cycling on roads with cars because I realized it's just a matter of time until I get in a serious accident. https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/wp/2016/05/12/how-saf... I'm with you on the mandatory helmet issue, I don't like it either, but mostly because I don't like needlessly restricting ones freedoms, if you want to risk your life, that's fine with me as long as you don't risk ot…

Cycling is only risky due to the shared infrastructure with cars. The thing that raises the risk is cars. We should all be demanding that our streets are made safe for all users. We already have sidewalks in many places for this reason, we just need to extend similar safe infrastructure to bicycles and other road users too. Just throwing your hands up and not asking for change is a sure way to not improve things.

People fall with their bikes when there's no cars around. And there are plenty obstacles available around the city to help you fall. Hitting your head against a road surface after falling with a bike will generally ruin your day if you are not wearing a helmet. Simple physics, really.

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

#534

Post by raegis »

dwpdwpdwpdwpdwp wrote: post #469
dougmsmith wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

>And now you know why riding with body armor is pointless. I can confidently say I am among the elite in terms of urban riding competency, having logged at least 15,000 miles riding around Los Angeles. I’ve crashed three times. Two of those were were the result of a combination of bad luck and me taking unnecessary risks. The other one was entirely unavoidable, and totally the result of a negligent driver. In that ca…

Ironically, I used to ride without a helmet, but only started when I moved to Los Angeles and had a few near-misses. Drivers here have a different idea about sharing the road than elsewhere. Biking fast through an intersection when a car traveling in the opposite direction is waiting to turn left is a recipe for disaster--they never want to wait, so I like to yield even when I have the right of way.

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

#535

Post by InCityDreams »

alexggordon wrote: post #344

Note, these are not normal bikes. From the article: > A major cause of head injuries is going over the handlebars, which is not possible with a 3 metre long bike. Another thing that makes us unique is our training systems, maintenance systems, and ability to track poor rider behaviour. Made me curious what they actually look like[0]. Seeing that, I’d tend to reset my presumptions about wearing helmets with these. The…

My friend has given me permission to freely use the video of them falling and cracking their helmet. I won't use it....because the internet is a cunt..but, things do go sideways, too.

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

#536

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

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?

> that’s likely jail time

No. It will be slap on the wrist time if there are any consequences at all. All it requires is a driver to lie about some mitigating cause they weren't responsible for.

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

#537

Post by nerdponx »

watwut wrote: post #482
nerdponx wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bike helmet has literally saved my life in multiple such occasions.

Quoted post unavailable.

Yes, riding a bike in New York City traffic is generally dangerous. I fixed it by moving out of New York City.

Except for the time on a quiet suburban street when my drivetrain inexplicably locked up (never figured out what actually happened) and threw me over the handlebars, or the time when there wasn't much traffic around but there was some slippery garbage truck sludge exudate that I didn't see, which I wiped out on. My helmet saved me in both of those situations too.

It turns out that shit happens in general no matter who or where you are, and that dressing for safety actually does keep you safe. An inflated sense of ability to protect oneself does not amount to protection in the event of a crash.

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

#538

Post by micromacrofoot »

threeseed wrote: post #508
bluejekyll wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cycling is only risky due to the shared infrastructure with cars. The thing that raises the risk is cars. We should all be demanding that our streets are made safe for all users. We already have sidewalks in many places for this reason, we just need to extend similar safe infrastructure to bicycles and other road users too. Just throwing your hands up and not asking for change is a sure way to not improve things.

> We should all be demanding that our streets are made safe for all users We should also be demanding that there is no crime as well. But outside of this fantasy land you need to accept that cyclists will be interacting with cars at multiple points in their journey from A to B. There are just too many practical issues building an entirely seperate cycling network. So until this magical day cycling should be considere…

Some very dense cities are building biking infrastructure right now, it’s not a logistical impossibility… it’s mostly a political problem

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

#539

Post by locallost »

196 points and 513 comments at the moment... obviously a very controversial topic. But would it be a very controversial topic if a taxi company announced the same thing, that taxi drivers should not wear helmets? Formula 1 drivers wear helmets, so maybe car drivers should too. People that insist on bike helmets because of their bad experience have as much to say to overall safety as people that got a head injury while driving in a car. How many injuries would a car helmet prevent and why is there no push for this, since the answer is a lot.

I guess this is my roundabout way of saying that I don't think this discussion is very rational. We accept a ton of risk in everyday life, but people get up in arms over this one thing. I guess one reason for this is that it's not viewed as a normal activity, which is a shame. And personally I view it as an instrument in preventing it ever becoming one.

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

#540

Post by RC_ITR »

davisoneee wrote: post #351
RC_ITR wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, it rightfully illicits that response. Wearing a safety device shouldn't make an activity less safe. American Football vs Rugby and the difference in CTE is often cited as the prime example of where this is true. Helmets and shoulder pads encourage riskier hits.

I don't think that example is quite so obvious. American Football is all about set plays. You line up and then charge at each other, meaning you have two lines effectively charging at each other and can focus all your effort on this one effort. Rugby is much more fluid, so the amount of direct head-on-head collisions is much lower, and the distance someone typically runs before tackling someone is much lower as the '…

I don’t want to be rude, but wide receivers and running backs get CTE as much as other positions and their movement patterns are nearly identical to rugby.

I agree linemen are a novel concept, but they’re not the only victims.

Post reply on HN