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

591–600 of 797 posts

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

#591

Post by u801e »

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.

> Cycling is only risky due to the shared infrastructure with cars.

Use of shared infrastructure for all vehicles is risky when the rules of movement (position and right of way) rules are not followed. Some cyclists do not follow those rules and end up in collisions. Other times, authorities paint lines that guide cyclists to ride in unsafe areas (too close to the edge of the roadway, or too close to parked vehicles), or designate areas for cyclists to ride where they're hidden from the motorists' view until both enter the intersection.

When one follows the rules of movement and rides in a predictable manner, that risk is largely eliminated.

> We already have sidewalks in many places for this reason

Sidewalks or side paths that have cyclists follow pedestrian right of way rules on approach and through intersections simply doesn't work. The reason is that cyclists move much faster than a walking pedestrian. Pedestrians walk between 2 to 4 mph, while cyclists ride between 10 to 20 mph. A pedestrian that's within a few feet of entering the roadway can be seen by a motorist in time for the motorist to stop and yield to them. On the other hand, a cyclist can be 50 feet away and not seen by the motorist before the enter the intersection. So, instead of yielding, a collision happens instead.

Cyclists move closer to vehicular speeds as opposed to pedestrian speeds (you can't ride in a straight line when going at walking pace). It makes sense for them to be treated like vehicles and follow the same rules. The rules are designed in a way to accommodate vehicles moving at different speeds.

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

#592

Post by u801e »

stevejb wrote: post #441
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.

I used to live next to a popular bike trail, that had 0 sharing with cars. Not a road within 50 meters. There were plenty of injuries. Bike vs bike, bike vs pedestrian, bike vs stationary object, distracted cyclist injures themselves. Etc. If you're going 30 km/hr in thin lycra, you can certainly injure yourself with no help from anyone or anything else.

The problem is that pedestrians treat those trails like sidewalks and cyclists treat it like a road.

Mutual yielding (where two pedestrians approach each other on a sidewalk) works perfectly fine at walking speed. It doesn't work at vehicular speeds, which is why the rules of the road exist that determine positioning and right of way. In order to travel at faster speeds, one must follow a set of rules. Relying on mutual yielding results in the collisions you mention.

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

#593

Post by Drunk_Engineer »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #520
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.

I had a helmet damaged by a roommate who knocked down a bike on a stand. The polystyrene was cracked completely through but remained bonded to the shell. They are supposed to break like that. Older styles of construction are going to be less durable but if it keeps the structure constrained to your head it will to a better job than nothing.

LOL...they are not supposed to break like that.

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

#594

Post by u801e »

bluejekyll wrote: post #463
stevejb wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to live next to a popular bike trail, that had 0 sharing with cars. Not a road within 50 meters. There were plenty of injuries. Bike vs bike, bike vs pedestrian, bike vs stationary object, distracted cyclist injures themselves. Etc. If you're going 30 km/hr in thin lycra, you can certainly injure yourself with no help from anyone or anything else.

This is a common issue in this discussion. People using bikes for sport is a different category for cyclist than an urban and/or casual rider. When cycling for sport you should always wear a helmet.

There are many people who cycle for transportation. In order to utilize cycling for transportation, people need to maintain higher speeds, or spend a lot more time commuting each way. Just dismissing their needs by calling them sports cyclists because they ride at faster speeds doesn't do anyone any favors.

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

#595

Post by prepend »

dawnerd wrote: post #340
prepend wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost everywhere in the US is at will so there’s likely no successful lawsuit in the situation you describe. Sadly, it’s likely the first driver who dies without a helmet will result in their family filing a giant lawsuit. But that payout will be paid by insurance that is probably already factoring in the probability of such a payout.

OSHA might have some thoughts on firing someone over protective equipment.

They might if a bicycle helmet was an osha recognized protective equipment. But it seems like the company did their homework and said it’s not. If there’s some regulation for helmets then it’s a different story.

My work doesn’t require a helmet, even though it would protect me. If I wore a helmet and my employer fired me, OSHA wouldn’t give a shit.

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

#596

Post by u801e »

op00to wrote: post #427
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.

No one has ever been injured cycling on a trail! It’s amazing how the laws of physics no longer apply once you stop sharing infrastructure with motor vehicles. More seriously, you can easily hit a rock or something and go over the handlebars on a bike path.

Bike paths also tend to have more surface hazards because they're not designed following stringent standards that designers of roads have to follow.

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

#597

Post by u801e »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #393
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Cycling in a vacuum is safe-ish and not a particularly risky affair. Cycling on a shared road with automobiles going eight times your speed and weighing some 250 times your bipedal vehicle’s weight is not so safe.

Differences in speed and mass are largely irrelevant if collisions don't occur. You can minimize the risk of a collision by following the rules of movement on the road (right of way and positioning) and anticipate if someone isn't following those rules and take appropriate action to avoid a collision before it's imminent.

If passenger cars, large trucks and buses. and motorcycles can share the road, so can pedalcyclists.

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

#598

Post by hatsunearu »

rollcat wrote: post #359
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…

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…

Somewhat unrelated but in car culture aftermarket safety gear like roll cages, bucket seats, racing harnesses, HANS and helmets are seen as cool and badass. It's a good sight.

Though there are some problems, like if you start running the race safety gear, you need to go all out--you can't have a bucket seat and a race harness without also using a helmet and HANS, your head is vulnerable, and if you run a roll cage without a helmet your head is vulnerable. But in race events a lot of people run "cool" safety gear and people have a good attitude towards it.

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

#599

Post by u801e »

seunosewa wrote: post #528
rhinoceraptor wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, the average person likely drives much more than rides a bicycle, so they're much more likely to be injured in a car accident. But no one would suggest mandatory helmet use for drivers, even though that would likely prevent many times more deaths and injuries than mandatory bicycle helmets.

Seatbelts and airbags provide very good protection for drivers' heads. If cars didn't have those, drivers would need helmets.

Many motorists do suffer head injuries in crashes.

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

#600

Post by nemetroid »

_abox wrote: post #542
idiotsecant wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn’t the Netherlands very flat? I would probably feel safe without a helmet if it weren’t for the hills. My usual ten minute ride has an elevation difference of 35 m.
Post reply on HN