Live data from Hacker News

To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

nytimes.com

91–100 of 212 posts

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#91
post #32
post #6

What's so wrong with helmets?

I have a bike helmet but only wear it for some rides - i.e. the long-distance or fast ones. When I ride into town for shopping, I don't wear it. I hope it will always remain my personal choice. Anyway, the arguments are: a) Mandatory bike helmets mean you can't run a bike-share scheme because who wants to wear a much-used sweaty helmet? How can the people running the scheme sanitise them? b) Mandatory bike helmets pu…

> a) Mandatory bike helmets mean you can't run a bike-share scheme because who wants to wear a much-used sweaty helmet? How can the people running the scheme sanitise them?

The idea being tossed around in Vancouver is to have a helmet rental station integrated with the bike station that will steam-sanitize the helmets. The bike share implementation date has already slipped a year from original plan of spring of 2012, so it'll be a couple more months until we can tell how well it'll work. What that'll do for cost of the program is also a question...

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#92
post #8

This 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…

In Japan there are no bike lanes whatsoever and people use bike everyday in dense cities to go from one place to another, because it's pratical and saves you time. Nobody wears helmets and you would look like a fool here if you were the only one to do so. On top of that, there is no need for bike lanes in Japan because cyclists are not supposed to go on the roads where the cars go. Instead, cyclists are supposed to stay on the sidewalk/pavement with the pedestrians. Of course this means you need to have sidewalk/pavements larger than usual but this does the trick: you are technically avoiding very dangerous collisions this way, since most collisions would happen between pedestrians and cyclists rather than between cars and cyclists.

I do not look the news for that kind of things but I have never heard of any cyclists getting killed in Japan at least in the recent past.

Helmets are stupid because the biggest problem is to avoid car and cyclists collision in the first place. Having something on your head will never save you if you get into a collision at 50km/h.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#93
I ride 100 miles a week or so for fitness. Always wear a helmut. I recently moved to a new town. It has a college nearby (US) and was immediately struck by how many 20 somethings weren't wearing helmuts. It irritated me at first. Then I realized something else. Just how many people were riding period. And how free and happy they look riding around with the wind in their hair.

I've really come around over two years and now don't wear one when I ride recreationally. I'm sure it's riskier than not but nearly all physical activity is riskier than sitting on a couch - in the short run.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#94

Cycling 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…

As a still somewhat new Boulder resident, I agree with this. I lived here for a year as a freshman and only saw the city by bus. I came back recently owning a car, and saw more of the town, but it was a bit difficult to get around in all the traffic.

Then I got a bike, and the valley opened up to me. I practically had to relearn my way around using the extensive network of bike lanes and bike paths, but I feel a lot more freedom of movement. I was worried about safety at first, but now I am more comfortable riding than driving.

I know I'm spoiled by this city though. The ride from South Boulder to the shopping district can take you along a gorgeous paved path following a stream under a canopy of trees between suburb neighborhoods. I never feel a need for a helmet.

Downtown boulder has a bike sharing program, but I don't know how much use it gets since practically the whole town rides.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#95
post #67

To Encourage Biking, Cities should do two things, and two things only: - Bike lanes. Physically separated bike lanes. This is not rocket science. Trains have rails, airplanes have a nice bit of tarmac and bikes should have a space tailored to their specific needs as well. Typically in the Netherlands, bikes are banned from roads that are 50km/h and up. And they don't need to battle it out with fast traffic, for there…

Cities can do that, but states need to do three things as well: compulsory registration, licensing, and insurance for bicycles.

Why? Nobody knows how many bikes are really out there, and noboby does any enforcement of traffic laws wrt them. As I walk to work, I observe all manner of braindead behavior on the parts of cyclists. Also, cyclists don't behave consistently unless they are real enthusiasts -- many of them don't know the rules of the road. (becuase they don't know them!)

Registration or licensing would at least establish a minimum standard of training. Insurance would enforce compliance -- cyclists with bad records would become uninsurable. Insurance would also bring a powerful lobbying force to the state legislatures to improve road conditions for bikes.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#96
post #85
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume this doesn't allow cars to make a right turn during a red light. That, and the long path for cyclists to make a left turn are probably what would make a lot of people in the US resist this design. (I think it looks like a good idea, however.)

We could try the box-style left turns that are deployed in Asia (s well as a few places in the US). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juNLGZrb5Ak

Like a hook turn? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_turn

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 precautio…

Anecdatum: I recently learned that an old friend of mine had died in a bike accident. No other vehicle was involved; he hit a road hazard (I'm not sure exactly what, but perhaps an uncovered storm drain) and landed on his head. He was wearing a helmet, but it didn't save him. I've always worn a helmet when cycling -- and I'll continue to do so -- but I've never had an accident in which it mattered, and I don't think…

As i said, a helmet doesn't remove all risk. I don't mean to imply that as long as you're wearing a helmet you're invincible.

There seems to be a strong opinion in these comments that because a bike helmet isn't a magical force field that prevents any possible injury, you shouldn't wear one (with the implication that because helmets don't protect you from every possible injury, you shouldn't ride a bike). All i'm trying to say is that helmets are better than no helmets, and no matter what safety precautions you take, risk is inherent in everything we do.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 road…

Not really -- a helmet protects you from head injury. Is a car seatbelt useless because it doesn't do much for a side collision?

I don't ride much, but one time I was out is the rain and had to swerve on a intersection that happened to be made of cobblestone, and ended up going down hard on the slick stone. Had I not been wearing a helmet, I would have had a severe head trauma.

That type of accident is pretty common, and wearing the helmet avoids lots of needless suffering.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#99
post #76
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people insist on pretending all of Europe is full of bike lanes? In most inner cities there often isn't room for bike lanes, or the lane is just a line on the asphalt. I bike to work every day in Amsterdam, not a single bike lane on my route, I have to share the road with cars, trams, buses, trucks and scooters. The only traffic that actually poses a regular challenge because of their erratic movements and ten…

> The only traffic that actually poses a regular challenge because of their erratic movements and tendency to step into the road without looking are American tourists on foot... Was that really necessary? The racial stereotype detracts from your your argument, and frankly, one erratic pedestrian looks the same as another to a fast moving cyclist, much as one erratic cyclist looks the same as another to a driver.

Maybe it's a stereotype and it definitely doesn't apply to everyone but I've never seen so much confusion as on american roads. I'm from Italy and we're routinely made fun of for the mess that is our traffic, the reality though is that in Italy it is way more predictable and correct, blinkers are always used for example, than in SF where I've lived for the past 5 years. Italy has very few miles of bicycle lanes and yet most people don't use an helmet.

As I ride around town on a bike, there are all sorts of people that either just don't look when crossing, or look at the sky when moving sideways on a lane, or simply cross lanes reserved for bikes with the idea that pedestrians always have precedence.

Many cyclists are also guilty of the same types of sins by stopping in the middle of the street without so much as moving on the side or they are simply not capable of riding a bike in a city or they just perform U turns without looking at oncoming traffic. A friend of mine unfortunately died on a bike here in SF, was it because she wasn't wearing an helmet? Nope, it was because she turned left without looking and a food truck ran over her. She was the first and only fatality for bike accident last year.

When I passed my Driving License test here in SF the examiner told me that it's usually the americans that gave her the most troubles while europeans tended to always pass at the first try.

So maybe it's a stereotype but it seems to me that the american government went out of their way to try to protect pedestrians and defend cyclists with the result that they now walk around without their brain sparing the necessary few cycles to keep themselves safe on the street.

EDIT: A funny thing that I've seen happening only here are cars that go through half of a cross-road and when they see you coming they just stop in the middle occupying the whole lane and forcing you to try to stop in a short space. If they went through instead of stopping there would have been no issues. This happens to me so often that I can't help laughing at it every time I see it.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#100
post #76
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people insist on pretending all of Europe is full of bike lanes? In most inner cities there often isn't room for bike lanes, or the lane is just a line on the asphalt. I bike to work every day in Amsterdam, not a single bike lane on my route, I have to share the road with cars, trams, buses, trucks and scooters. The only traffic that actually poses a regular challenge because of their erratic movements and ten…

> The only traffic that actually poses a regular challenge because of their erratic movements and tendency to step into the road without looking are American tourists on foot... Was that really necessary? The racial stereotype detracts from your your argument, and frankly, one erratic pedestrian looks the same as another to a fast moving cyclist, much as one erratic cyclist looks the same as another to a driver.

"American" is not a race. If anything it's the opposite.
Post reply on HN