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

721–730 of 797 posts

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

#721

Post by mh- »

MandieD wrote: post #649
runamok wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention the risk of getting hit by another snowboarder or skier.

Before 2009: very few adult skiers in Austria and Germany wore helmets, pretty much only the racers and children who were legally required to. I felt like a dork wearing mine, but I experienced a scary near-miss my first season on these relatively crowded slopes. After 2009: at least 80% of adult skiers in Austria and Germany wear helmets, from the looks of things. Most frequent non-wearers are very old, permanently…

That's also the year Natasha Richardson died from a head injury she received while skiing. That was all over the news (at least in the US/Canada, and probably England).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Richardson#Injury_and_...

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

#722

Post by scatters »

darkerside wrote: post #251
scatters wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting side swept will not happen if you don't undertake motor vehicles and don't allow motor vehicles to overtake you.

This is sarcasm, right?

Not sarcasm. If a car isn't beside you they can't side swipe you. You are aware that London basically doesn't have multi lane roads, right?

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

#723

Post by robbrown451 »

shrimpx wrote: post #636
robbrown451 wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the crashes are less likely when the driver is not wearing a helmet. This is sort of the point of the article.

Sorry I wasn't clear. How is it optimizing for customers at the cost of drivers , which is what the post I was replying to said?

Because the drivers are not wearing helmets and therefore increasing the risk to themselves.

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

#724

Post by michaelmrose »

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #487
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…

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.

Can you provide some evidence that helmets provide additional benefits when used in combination with airbags and seatbelts? Specifically actual testing. You would probably want to look at auto racing. My gut feeling is that even a slight decrease in visibility in a car wherein visibility is already limited would make a collision more likely and airbags would already provide substantial cushioning for your head so long as the seatbelt keeps the driver in the car.

I think helmets in a car would be a net loss.

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

#725

Post by [deleted] »

MandieD wrote: post #649
runamok wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention the risk of getting hit by another snowboarder or skier.

Before 2009: very few adult skiers in Austria and Germany wore helmets, pretty much only the racers and children who were legally required to. I felt like a dork wearing mine, but I experienced a scary near-miss my first season on these relatively crowded slopes. After 2009: at least 80% of adult skiers in Austria and Germany wear helmets, from the looks of things. Most frequent non-wearers are very old, permanently…

[deleted]

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

#726

Post by ryandrake »

mh- wrote: post #721
MandieD wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before 2009: very few adult skiers in Austria and Germany wore helmets, pretty much only the racers and children who were legally required to. I felt like a dork wearing mine, but I experienced a scary near-miss my first season on these relatively crowded slopes. After 2009: at least 80% of adult skiers in Austria and Germany wear helmets, from the looks of things. Most frequent non-wearers are very old, permanently…

That's also the year Natasha Richardson died from a head injury she received while skiing. That was all over the news (at least in the US/Canada, and probably England). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Richardson#Injury_and_...

Interesting. I wonder if these 2009 events were a turning point worldwide. I recently returned to downhill skiing after last skiing in the 90s, and was absolutely shocked by the number of skiers wearing helmets. Like 90-95%. Whereas when I skied as a young man in the 90s, it was something like 0-2% (basically only a handful of children). The skier side of my brain still can’t get used to the idea of wearing one of these ridiculous things, but then again the logical side of my brain points out that I wear a helmet while cycling so it makes sense. Almost everything else about downhill skiing is pretty much the same today (the skis are shorter and fatter for some reason), but the helmet wearing was a massive sea change that happened without me.

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

#727

Post by jessaustin »

naniwaduni wrote: post #557
nayuki wrote: post #241

This is very much like: > The name "Tullock's spike" refers to a thought experiment in which Tullock suggested that if governments were serious about reducing road casualties, they should mandate that a sharp spike be installed in the center of each car's steering wheel, to increase the probability that an accident would be fatal to the driver. Tullock's idea was that the normal process of risk compensation would the…

Setting aside whether reverse risk compensation actually works (and it would be absolutely bizarre to have >100% risk compensation), Tullock's spike has the problem that it makes driving less effective , i.e. people get from point A to point B more slowly. If your policy goal is for people to drive less then sure. If your goal is for people to be safer in the course of achieving their actual objective of getting from…

That's really not the point. The thought experiment doesn't consider the safety, and far less the convenience (did you call this "effectiveness"?), of drivers. Rather, it examines the safety of all those who suffer the presence of drivers: pedestrians, cyclists, road workers, wild animals, unleashed dogs, etc.

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

#728

Post by JKCalhoun »

wolverine876 wrote: post #668
JKCalhoun wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, not sure how more careful a rider you can be when you have your own toddler in a child-seat behind you — and yet my bike went down on an unexpectedly slick part of the pavement. I had a helmet on, as did my toddler. I don't buy the argument that because someone has a helmet on they're intentionally (or even subconsciously) reckless. Shit can happen.

> Yeah, not sure how more careful a rider you can be when you have your own toddler in a child-seat behind you — and yet my bike went down on an unexpectedly slick part of the pavement. I had a helmet on, as did my toddler. How does one safely transport a toddler? I am not asking incredulously, but curiously. I am an experienced cyclist; I don't know if I'd feel safe doing it, but I haven't looked into it either. May…

The carrier (bike seat) I had for her had a kind of "roll cage" (more like a frame) around the perimeter such that if the bike went down on one side or the other, she would not be grinding against the pavement. Plus helmet.

Safe? Well, as you say, nothing is truly safe. But I stuck to back roads and probably never exceeded 15 MPH. We would ride to the local park where she could play in the sand for a bit before we rode home again.

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

#729

Post by jessaustin »

aniforprez wrote: post #429
alexggordon wrote: post #344

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…

You have my sympathy for your accident, but you can't very well "attest from personal experience" and then describe a hypothetical that didn't occur.

Have you ever had a concussion?

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

#730

Post by wolverine876 »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #728
wolverine876 wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, not sure how more careful a rider you can be when you have your own toddler in a child-seat behind you — and yet my bike went down on an unexpectedly slick part of the pavement. I had a helmet on, as did my toddler. How does one safely transport a toddler? I am not asking incredulously, but curiously. I am an experienced cyclist; I don't know if I'd feel safe doing it, but I haven't looked into it either. May…

The carrier (bike seat) I had for her had a kind of "roll cage" (more like a frame) around the perimeter such that if the bike went down on one side or the other, she would not be grinding against the pavement. Plus helmet. Safe? Well, as you say, nothing is truly safe. But I stuck to back roads and probably never exceeded 15 MPH. We would ride to the local park where she could play in the sand for a bit before we ro…

Thanks. The 'roll cage' I hadn't thought of.

> But I stuck to back roads and probably never exceeded 15 MPH.

Seems safer than driving on a highway at 70 mph, even with the seatbelts, airbags, and steel.

Post reply on HN