Live data from Hacker News

Pedal Me bans staff riders from wearing helmets for safety reasons

bikebiz.com

681–690 of 797 posts

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

#681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it okay for you to set the acceptable risk bar and steal boards from anyone that doesn't agree? For the same reason we enforce seatbelts in cars: Enough people died. Then those who saw them die decided on these rules so we don't need to go through the same pain. The fact that you don't get this shows that the rules work.

The seatbelt thing is somewhat illogical. Like if that's the level of risk we deem acceptable for society then things like wingsuit diving and probably even motorcycles, longboarding and bicycling on city streets should also be illegal. Especially if measured by any objective metric like fatality risk per passenger mile.

This is an imperfect process, and there's a balance to be made. Sure, we can be too paternalistic, and putting too many onerous restrictions on things (or on banning things outright that people have a reasonable desire to do). I think banning motorcycles would fall under that. Sure, riding a motorcycles is far more likely to get you injured or killed than riding in a car, but I think most people would consider banning motorcycles to be too extreme.

It's not fully objective. We're emotional humans, and that's ok. We're going to do things that are risky, and some people are going to get hurt or killed doing them. But that doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and give up. We can still make it less likely people will get hurt doing those activities by requiring some safety measures must be taken.

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

#682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is junk science. The authors simply did the ANSI drop-test in a lab test. In the real-world, 99% of bike crashes with death/severe injury are the result of car-crashes -- which the ANSI drop-test does not model correctly at all.

It's usually a junk comment to call something junk science.

They are claiming 90% risk reduction based on a laboratory model. That model obviously does not track with reality (show me any country where bike helmets reduced death/injury by that amount). If a model does not correlate with the real world, then it is by definition...junk.

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

#683
There is an equation governing fatality along the lines of:

D% = A% * F%

A% = Chance of getting into an accident

F% = Chance of a given accident being fatal

D% = Chance of cyclist dying in a given time period

There is a possibility that the increase in A% caused by wearing a helmet is greater than the corresponding decrease in F%, in this case it is indeed safer not to wear helmets. To justify this there would have to be some VERY conclusive statistical evidence support both sides of the calculation, or the company will open itself up to a massive lawsuit the first time someone has an accident.

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

#685
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…

They're marginally effective on Dutch roads, which were overhauled to be cyclist-safe decades ago, with new roads being safe by default. The Dutch approach unfortunately does not reflect even remotely on North American cities. You need a helmet, because stroads[1] guarantee accidents.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM

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

#686

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…

This assumes that it's completely impossible to not hit your head when you fall on your side. Which is blatantly not true. This isn't a three-wheeler bike which is much harder to tip over. It's just a two wheeler that's longer. I can attest from personal experience that if you fall sideways, chances are you'll crack the side of your skull open. I got into a bike accident where someone T-boned me and if I hadn't had t…

helmets? but then how will you see the rider's little hat?

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

#687

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 wish more people would see this! Judging by 95% of the comments on here, people think it's just "helmets in general" that they're talking about. The don't seem to realize that these are not normal bikes.

yes these are obviously special physics-defying bicycles where if you fall over you don't crack your skull open.

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

#688
post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not sure exactly what your point is. The risky behavior being referred to in the article is partly going faster than one should. You're basically making the same point, in order to go faster you feel you must wear a helmet, which if you flip around, you don't go as fast when not wearing a helmet. Not going as fast is less risky behavior.

Now you can decide you want to bike faster, and by all means (and I would make this choice as well), when riding aggressively in any context, you should wear a helmet.

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

#689
post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

" In absolute terms, more people were killed in a car accident (237) than in a bicycle accident (203) last year, but this is different per kilometre travelled. Traffic mortality per billion vehicle-km was much higher among cyclists than among passenger car occupants (11 versus 1.6 deaths). " ( https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2020/31/decline-in-road-fatali... )

Is it as much about vehicle-km or per vehicle-km? At the end of the day people generally will avoid super long trips on a bicycle because it’s slow and strenuous.
Post reply on HN