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

561–570 of 797 posts

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

#561

Post by carapace »

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…

Car drivers and passengers should wear helmets. Car travel is the most dangerous thing most people do regularly. It's only normalized due to a deliberate campaign of domestic propaganda: "The Real Reason Jaywalking Is A Crime (Adam Ruins Everything)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxopfjXkArM

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

#562

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #541
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stee…

I'm not "against" cycle helmets, but think that their benefits are over-sold. The big issue is when people think that bike helmets are an important safety aspect of cycling, when they're probably not even in the top ten. It's interesting to see different countries' attitudes towards road safety and cycle helmets.

For the record, I always wear a bike helmet here in the UK, but I am not convinced that they really provide much benefit. There's plenty of different studies on bike helmets and a lot of them are very flawed (quite often ones that are sponsored by helmet manufacturers), which is worrying as it should be easy to demonstrate if they are having a big effect on road safety. My opinion is that population wide, they do provide a small benefit, but they can also act as a barrier to cycling for some people, so it's best to not over-emphasise them.

The health benefits from active travel are undeniable, so I'd prefer cycling to be promoted as much as possible and talking about helmets is missing the point.

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

#563

Post by hgomersall »

usrusr wrote: post #519
Kaibeezy wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, it's a crumble zone that might add a few precious millimeters to the very short deceleration path of the brain if limbs and reflexes fail to do that job completely. Disintegration means that it's doing its job. That's a completely different story from the primary task of the helmets for rock climbers, construction workers or soldiers, which is distributing a small, concentrated impact (a rock or a dropped tool…

Rock climbing helmets differ in design substantially. Loads of modern ones are more like bike helmets - recognising, I suggest, that most head injuries climbing are head hitting the crag rather than rocks falling, making it more like cycle impacts. That said, I've no real insight into what makes one design better over another.

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

#564

Post by tezza »

dougmsmith wrote: post #445
eloff wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a near miss like this that really scared me in Vancouver. I was going straight, and the light went yellow just before I got to the intersection. Thinking like a car, I speed up to clear the intersection before the red light. An oncoming car in the left lane also sped up to make a left turn. I don't remember if he indicated, certainly I didn't see it. We both slammed on the brakes and narrowly missed each other.…

Quoted post unavailable.

Seriously dangerous advice. Well done being lucky on repeat, but luck is all it is.

I was cycling safely from Coogee to the City in Sydney.

A lady driving her kids to school rear ended me at a round about.

My head smashed straight into the asphalt. Fortunately helmets are more or less legal requirements in Australia or else I would have been dead or brain-damaged.

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

#565

Post by [deleted] »

bagels wrote: post #500
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It has the effect of stopping the driving of those with poor risk assessment and judgement too though.

[deleted]

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

#566

Post by hgomersall »

altcognito wrote: post #346
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.

Basically, crumple zones for heads. If you could demonstrate that the helmet was splitting and taking energy with it maybe you could make an argument for splitting, but it seems unlikely that this is a mode of operation.

Why not? Given every helmet I've seen in a significant crash was split somehow, my assumption is that splitting is an important part of the energy absorption.

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

#567

Post by jules »

cush wrote: post #414
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…

I'd bet a Dutch cyclist would wear a helmet when riding on American roads, with American drivers in American cars.

As a Dutch cyclist I would certainly use a helmet on American roads (or not use a bicycle at all). Furthermore, in the Netherlands the delivery drivers that use bicycles are asked to wear a helmet by their employer. Riders of E-bikes that are able to accelerate without pedalling and those that are able to accelerate above 25 km/h are required to wear a helmet by law. I'm certain that the majority of the Dutch would think it is completely insane that a delivery company is prohibiting the use of helmets on their E-bikes, even if it was in the Netherlands.

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

#568

Post by cultofmetatron »

I personally ride without a helmet because the added weight and reduction invisibility reduces my awareness.

That said, id never force someone else to eschew wearing a helmet. You have zero guarantee that what applies for one person applies to another rider in this context

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

#569

Post by GVIrish »

gorgoiler wrote: post #471
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…

With that level of violence it is the same scenario and the same outcome for a car. If we insist that cyclists protect themselves against multiple tonnes of kinetic energy impact, we should insist on the same protection for car drivers.

We already do. Crash safety standards, seatbelts, and mandatory air bags dramatically decrease injury and death in crashes, and numerous other safety mandates reduce the chance of a crash in the first place.

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

#570

Post by rollcat »

jasonkester wrote: post #475
rollcat wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Background: I do downhill longboarding as a hobby. > If some riders choose to not wear a helmet [...] ...we take their board from them, until they show up with one. This sport is almost completely unregulated (outside of official events), but somehow the community has developed an incredibly strong culture of keeping both yourself and the others around you safe. I guess something about being a niche sport, perhaps a…

What do you suppose happened to the rest of skateboarding that pushed it in the opposite direction? Watching the olympics this summer, it was amazing to watch the street skating events with none of the competitors wearing any sort of protective gear. And it’s not like they didn’t need it either. They were getting wrecked in falls to the point where some of the couldn’t even finish the competition. It was nuts watchin…

> What do you suppose happened to the rest of skateboarding that pushed it in the opposite direction?

Widdershin's response is excellent, but I'll add a bit more context: the physical similarities between a skateboard and a longboard are very superficial (we can barely trade any hardware at all); that extends to the respective communities, which also have disjoint histories.

Longboarders trace their roots to surfers; likely someone bored of waiting for a good wave has put skateboard trucks on their surfboard. Some niche longboarding cultures/disciplines were inspired by surfing/SUP (surfskate, pumptrack, land paddle), and one major longboarding discipline is a lot about moving on and around the board ("dancing" on it).

In these other longboarding communities (perhaps except pumptrack), you will see people using helmets and other safety gear much less often, and it's probably fair. But I've never, ever been dissed by any of these people for wearing a helmet, even if just cruising.

Post reply on HN