I've ridden bike thousands of times. And I've never worn, owned, or even touched a helmet. Like nobody else my age ever does in my country. It started to become a trend to let children wear a helmet here since the last 5 years or so though, and of course those coureurs with their flashy bicycle clothing have been doing it forever already...
To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
41–50 of 212 posts
Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
#42Until there is a distinct change in driver attitudes, riding without a helmet in most of the US is just nuts. Sure, there are places like Portland with dedicated bike lanes and an overall emphasis on pro-bike culture, but it is a rare spot. In the bay area, there is a very large biking community -- road, mountain, around town, etc. The problem is, the infrastructure isn't there for bikes compared to Amsterdam. We hav…
the fact is that a helmet is not enough to guarantee your safety - if cycling without one is "nuts", cycling with one is too.
This really hits it. A helmet isn't some all protective force field. If a truck is going to run you over, a helmet isn't going to save you.
I think helmets are associated with bikes, because before we used bikes to commute, which involves simply riding about town, we used bikes to rip through the woods inches away from trees and sharp rocks, or jumped them off of mounds of dirt, or flung road bikes down mountain roads at 50per. (at least those three seem to sum up my first 23 years of existence) I live in DC, got old, but still NEVER commute with a helmet, and feel perfectly safe all the time. In fact, tons more safe than when I try to get a training ride in. (for which I wear a helmet)
Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
#43This article is great but it does itself a pretty big disservice by pretty much ignoring a lot of why many of the European cities which have successful programs are successful. Namely they have made significant investment into infrastructure to make bicycling safer, many times prioritizing bike traffic over auto traffic. I ride quite a bit, live in Berkeley which has numerous "Bicycle Boulevards [1]" and I'm pretty c…
Here in Italy, most places don't seem to have all that much in terms of programs or much to encourage cycling - or at least if they do, they're fairly recent.
What they do have are densely populated cities, making driving expensive and inconvenient, and cycling a better option in terms of the number of places you can reach in a given amount of time.
Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
#44Until there is a distinct change in driver attitudes, riding without a helmet in most of the US is just nuts. Sure, there are places like Portland with dedicated bike lanes and an overall emphasis on pro-bike culture, but it is a rare spot. In the bay area, there is a very large biking community -- road, mountain, around town, etc. The problem is, the infrastructure isn't there for bikes compared to Amsterdam. We hav…
the fact is that a helmet is not enough to guarantee your safety - if cycling without one is "nuts", cycling with one is too.
A helmet might not guarantee safety, but it is an effective protection against a brain injury. If you fall off your bike and break your collarbone or leg or something, it's not really a big deal. Bones heal with virtually no permanent damage, brain injuries don't.
It isn't about removing all risk - some danger is inherent in pretty much everything you do. The point is to manage the risk, and take acceptable precautions where they are convenient.
Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
#45It's apparently not very clear whether bike helmets increase or decrease biker safety: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/09/bike-helmet-doubts.htm...
every of these articles manipulate the data to make you believe a simple fact "helmet or no helmet is the same". Just use common sense instead (yeah I know it's so freaking hard). If you're going to ride on a safe road, bike path, etc, like many people do, helmet or no helmet makes an insignificant difference. If you're going to ride in traffic, in SF, NYC or Paris, that is where you want to wear one. If you're going…
Common sense is an awful way to evaluate risk. Common sense will tell you that it's safer to drive than to fly when traveling, for example.
Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
#46[deleted]
Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
#47Cycling is extremely appealing if you separate roads for cars from roads for bikes. Boulder is a city that gets this right. As a cyclist in Boulder, you can get almost anywhere in town with minimal riding on a normal street. The network of bike/pedestrian paths is so well integrated into the city. I loved biking everywhere in Boulder. In Austin or New York I would rather walk and take public transit. NYC and the Conn…
Davis and Isla Vista (where UCSB is) are two cities in California where bicycling is great. The infrastructure is certainly nice but the main thing that makes it great is that there are so many bicycles that they run the streets. Cars are second class citizens and just have to drive slow and wait a lot. Safety in numbers. It's very similar in Vietnam with motorbikes (electric scooters). They do whatever they want, because there are so many of them, and the cars just have to wait.
I see a pretty decent number of bikes riding around near where I live in Mountain View but I'm scared for them. They are always riding solo and surrounded by cars who may or may not even be aware they are there.
Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
#48This article is great but it does itself a pretty big disservice by pretty much ignoring a lot of why many of the European cities which have successful programs are successful. Namely they have made significant investment into infrastructure to make bicycling safer, many times prioritizing bike traffic over auto traffic. I ride quite a bit, live in Berkeley which has numerous "Bicycle Boulevards [1]" and I'm pretty c…
As a driver, those bicycle boulevards, like Vermont Ave, in Berkeley are confusing to me. I just don't know what is supposed to be different about those streets, they seem like regular streets except for the designation.
Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
#49There is an association in France that is lobbying against helmets for bike commuters (and advocating them for competitive cyclist) and they have collected a pretty large amount of data on the issue:
http://www.fubicy.org/spip.php?article191
it turns out that head injuries are not very common when riding at slow speed. An helmet would actually be more useful for a pedestrian.
Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
#50What's so wrong with helmets?
I find this the most important question. They aren't expensive (£15) and if you're going to bike then you're going to get sweaty, rained-on, etc with or without a helmet. So I guess if you're put off cycling by a simple helmet then I really cannot seeing you sticking with it through any kind of adverse weather either.
Bicycles can be left locked up where-ever you go, but helmets either need to be carried around once you arrive, or you need some place to put them.