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

541–550 of 797 posts

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

#541

Post by pbhjpbhj »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #461
pengaru wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then why are helmets not recommended for car passengers, people showering, changing a lightbulb etc Strawman much? car passengers: airbags and seatbelts are in direct conflict with and superior to helmets. people showering and changing lightbulbs are not traveling at speeds exceeding a walking pace in an orientation predisposing them for a head/facial impact for hours at a time. The full-face helmet I wear is heavi…

People do still receive head injuries from car collisions even with airbags and seatbelts, so it's reasonable to think that wearing a car helmet would provide additional head protection - it's certainly common in motorsport. I'm trying to compare activities that have a significant risk of head injuries (and deaths) with cycling and yet PPE is very rarely mentioned for them.

I mean, basically any adventurous activity where you're moving [quickly] with equipment gives rise to use of helmets - kayaking, rock climbing, roller blading, skateboarding, skiing, skydiving, horse riding, ...

Can I ask, is it only safety equipment for cycling you're against?

It looks like you're trying to argue that people shouldn't wear helmets when cycling because people in cars; that have protection from a steel cage with crumple zones, and airbags, and seatbelts, and cushioned seats; don't wear helmets.

Like, sit in your car and get someone to launch a paving slab towards you; then sit on your push bike and do the same thing ... I'd do the first without a helmet, I definitely wouldn't do the second without a helmet (or at all). I can't see how you can find these situations comparable wrt indication of benefit from a protective helmet.

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

#542

Post by _abox »

idiotsecant wrote: post #517
gernb wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I''m not defending Pedal Me but you could try to design the city so biking is safer https://www.treehugger.com/why-dutch-dont-wear-helmets-48581... Sure you can still get in an accident. That's true of everything though. I don't go for a walk in a plastic bubble just in case a car hits me https://www.google.com/search?q=cars+hitting+pedestrians&tbm...

You could have the best designed city in the world and you will still be at a high risk of your fragile brain case impacting the ground or something worse at speed. Whether you're pedaling down a country road or the busiest NYC intersection not wearing a helmet on a bike is stupid, full stop.

In the Netherlands we're doing fine without them though. Nobody wears one on a regular bike.

I've had a few times where I slipped so fast I didn't even remember what happened but every time my arm was there protecting my head. Reflexes are awesome.

Accidents can happen sure but the added hassle doesn't seem worth it. Of course things are different when you do high speed cycling or mountain biking.

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

#543

Post by PufPufPuf »

locallost wrote: post #539

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 whil…

Cars have other safety mechanisms that provide the same safety as helmets, most notably seatbelts and airbags. A better comparison would be a taxi company asking drivers to drive without those.

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

#544

Post by usrusr »

supertrope wrote: post #404
mslate wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well now we go down a rabbit hole of a complex social problem. People don't drive just to joyride. They so because many areas are zoned into car dependency. When faced with no legal way to drive: (1) Keep driving anyway without a license or with a suspended license. (2) Use public transit that takes two or three hours one way. When the bus is late again one day they get fired possibly setting off a downward spiral an…

(4) Zoning would change for less car dependency, and more demand would allow better transit (lines served more frequently and a wider selection of lines leading to less changes)

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

#545

Post by spike021 »

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…

Back in elementary school a few decades ago, they did a demonstration of what happens if you're not wearing a helmet.

They used a watermelon and dropped it from maybe 5 or 6 feet up in the air.

I refuse to ride anything without a helmet ever since.

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

#546

Post by devwastaken »

They'll change their position once a catastrophic injury lawsuit really changes their mind. Unfortunately it's going to take death and injury for that to happen.

If you're a worker that is injured on the job there are plenty of laws and torts in place to receive compensation. My favorite catastrophic injury attorney, Attorney Tom has a YouTube channel that goes into details.

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

#547

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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…

Does an employer have the right to put someone's life at risk on purpose? If so, is the employer going to be on the hook when an accident does happen?

It's one thing to risk your own life by not using safety gear.

Its another level of reckless to not provide safety gear to your employees

To forbid someone else from using their own safety gear is a level of asine behaviour that trully terrible.

But these guys top even that- they don't just dicourage employees from wearing helmets through hush-hush, hint hint, they boast about it in a public press release.

It's not your life to risk, that person is not a serf, and if I wants to wear a bulletproof vest everywhere I goes that's not the employer's concern. If ee allow this to stand, it sets a terrible precedent.

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

#548

Post by troupe »

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.

Very common now. There has been a huge shift in the last decade.

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

#549

Post by KennyBlanken »

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…

> 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.

Nope. As a cyclist, I've seen numerous people in social media groups, friends, etc post pictures of their helmets that "saved their lives." Every single time, it's cracked to pieces, with no visible denting to the polystyrene foam.

Deformation of that foam is how a helmet absorbs impact force, and cracking apart is a failure of the helmet.

Bike helmets in the US are required to pass one test - a weight being dropped directly on top of the helmet that simulates a detached adult male head falling onto the ground from about the height of an average adult male. The test makes absolutely no sense, because the whole thing is a sham.

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

#550

Post by raegis »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #433
pengaru wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cycling has a pretty high probability of crashing/falling, and in such an event there's a good chance your face/head will impact something. Not that I'm in favor of requiring wearing any safety gear, I'm totally in favor of weeding out morons from the gene pool. But to act like helmets aren't a good idea for cyclists is asinine. Personally I try always rock a full-face MTB helmet when I'm cycling.

The full-face helmets provide much better protection, but they have the trade-offs of being more uncomfortable and hotter. I'm not convinced that cycling is especially dangerous and my experience is that I've inevitably put my hands out when falling, so I think that gloves should be the first part of PPE recommended for cyclists. Luckily, I've never hit my helmet/head when coming off so I've found that a bike helmet…

> I'm not convinced that cycling is especially dangerous and my experience is that I've inevitably put my hands out when falling, so I think that gloves should be the first part of PPE recommended for cyclists.

Around 15 years ago I fractured my right arm doing the same. There were no scratches on my hands--I used my right hand to stop the fall primarily and the force was just too much. However, if I had hit my head, which was not unlikely in that particular fall, a fractured skull would have been much worse.

Post reply on HN