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

701–710 of 797 posts

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

#701

Post by mcv »

nemetroid wrote: post #600
_abox wrote: 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.

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.

That's kinda the point. People can bike under very different circumstances. If you're going at breakneck speed down a mountain trail, you definitely should wear a helmet. But if you're going at a leisurely pace through well-designed traffic, it's not nearly as vital.

And it sounds to me like Pedal Me wants its riders to ride at a leisurely pace, rather than breakneck speeds.

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

#702

Post by jessaustin »

vkou wrote: post #468
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 on roadways is not a relatively safe activity. I don't know a single cyclist commuter that has not been involved in a car crash - and I'm in my early 30s.

Hi, 'vkou. Nice to meet you. I once got doored, but I didn't crash as a result. Also the car that doored me was parked at the time.

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

#703

Post by mcv »

ghaff wrote: post #646
petre wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the Netherlands normal cycle commuters almost never exceed 15 km/h. But I keep watching some Dutch road cycling youtube channel and they all wear helmets.

And cycle commuting is part of the culture which probably makes it safer as well. Would wearing helmets make it even safer? Possibly. But one can always argue for incremental safety gear and processes.

Making helmets mandatory would probably discourage cycling. That happened in Australia at some point, and nobody wants that to happen here.

That said, some cyclists here seem to be downright suicidal. Helmet or not, if you run a red light against traffic while watching your phone, you don't seem to be very attached to living. I've even seen parents direct their kids into ridiculously dangerous situations. Fortunately car drivers pay attention even to stupid cyclists here.

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

#704

Post by vegetablepotpie »

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…

Arizona stopped doing the lifetime thing. You have to renew your license in 10yrs now.

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

#705

Post by rcxdude »

frereubu wrote: post #400
bluejekyll wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the article is very short, this was still easy to miss, “… and those driving around them take greater risks too.” So it does in fact mention that both people driving around those wearing helmets as well as the cyclists themselves take greater risks. The argument is that in the GP’s anecdote that the cyclist (and perhaps even the truck driver) would have taken less risky actions preceding the crash, thus avoidin…

I know you're just elaborating the parent comment's point, so this isn't really directed at you, but the only study I've ever heard of which said anything like that was one academic riding a bike with and without a helmet, and measuring how close cars came to him. IIRC the difference was a matter of one or two centimetres and, perhaps unsurprisingly, the p-value was just under 0.05. That study was regularly thrown ar…

I agree. That same researcher has a lot of other research in the same vein. Having read some of the papers, I find them pretty unconvincing (and there are other papers which show that to the extent that 'risk compensation' is a thing, it's a short-term effect: if you increase the perceived risk of an activity, people may be more cautious for a bit, but they quickly relax into the same behaviour as before).

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

#706

Post by vegetablepotpie »

ascar wrote: post #297
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.

Can you elaborate? The US has such a high incarceration rate for in European eyes often benign offenses that I find that statement hard to believe even though I don't know the Dutch laws (I'm German). E.g. I can't imagine a Dutch person being incarcerated for injuring a cyclist unless it's on alcohol/drugs. I can totally imagine that for the US though. But I might be totally wrong. Would be really curious for some de…

Not OP, but I’d like to note that a woman in the US was convicted of vehicular manslaughter when she crossed a street on foot with her 4 year old son and they were struck by a drunk driver.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/06/14/raquel-nelson-finally...

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

#707

Post by rollcat »

tengwar2 wrote: post #671
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…

Ok, so what you are saying appears to support Pedal Me's position as reported in the article. They say: (a) wearing helmets encourages risky behaviour; (b) the added risk of accidents outweighs the increase in safety during an accident. You are giving an example of a community who only engage in a dangerous activity if they wear helmets, supporting (a). And I imagine you would agree that you are less safe wearing a h…

> wearing helmets encourages risky behaviour

By this logic, there should be no life boats on ships.

> And I imagine you would agree that you are less safe wearing a helmet and going downhill longboarding than not wearing a helmet and not going downhill longboarding?

And by this logic, we should just never leave the port.

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

#708

Post by rcxdude »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #204
wl wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're referring to Ian Walker's study. Yes, motorists on average passed helmeted cyclists closer than non-helmeted ones. The difference in average passing distance wasn't huge (1.3 m vs. 1.2 m) and was still a safe distance.

The amount of difference isn't as interesting as the fact of it. It indicates attention, which is worth a lot more than the inches.

Does it? That's a supposition, not a scientific fact. Presumably they all paid some attention by passing at a safe distance. I don't see why someone paying more attention would pass further away.

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

#709

Post by edmcnulty101 »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #17
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #9

Helmets are trying to reduce an already tiny risk. We live in a world of safety fanaticism.

Unlikely in the average but catastrophic to the individuals who lose the bet. Often society has to pay for the consequence to the victim. Which reminds me I need to get a helmet for my youngest, even though she's only a rider.

You should get them some full body Kevlar and chain mail as well. There are more shootings and stabbings than bicycle head injuries. Just to be safe.

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

#710

Post by edmcnulty101 »

harvey9 wrote: post #265
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotal fear inducing internet story. Statistically 'in real life' extremely rare for this to happen.

Yeah. But the family of the rider probably wishes she wasn't a statistic.

You can become a statistic just by walking outside.
Post reply on HN