Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 212 posts

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#121

Post by barrkel »

ekianjo wrote: post #92
mikeryan wrote: 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 s…

Helmets (including motorbike helmets) are designed to protect you from a vertical fall of about 2 meters and hitting your head at that speed. If you have a collision at 50km/h, chances are you'll be hitting the ground from a height similar to that.

I don't know how many such collisions you've been in, but I've been in about 6 motorbike accidents of fairly light severity, including hitting a car at about 50km/h. I bounced off the front of that car and landed head-first on the road. But I had no injuries at all - in large part because I was wearing a helmet.

That said, I'm not in favour of making bicycle helmets mandatory, and I think cyclists should be allowed to use the pavement for safety, as long as they are courteous and don't go too fast (no more than 10km/h or so) when close to pedestrians.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#122

Post by zobzu »

mikeash wrote: post #60
zobzu wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statistic of how many head injuries you get if your head is smashed against a car door or the ground at high speed? I suggest you make the experiment, because, I can only guess it hurts every time, and uhm, that's not backed by any statistic. -- I'm not allowed to reply because this has been down-voted, so i'll reply here: the study you linked is a net result of people NOT riding bicycles because they don't want to r…

I'm incredibly disappointed with the quality of conversation in this thread. I expected a nice conversation about risks versus benefits. Instead, I see a bunch of people arguing with anecdotes and insults, and turning on anyone who makes even the slightest attempt to look at the situation rationally.

Given how many messages you sent with the same tone as when you replied to me, I am not surprised you feel that way.

I did give you the link you asked for and full explanation, but instead of discussing those, you're deriving the discussion with complains, which IMO, aren't valid. I'm guessing, and I might be wrong, but I'm guessing, it's partially because you do not accept my point of view as even possible.

I don't see any insult in my messages, by the way. Oh and since I've been upvoted back, I can actually reply now. Yay.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#123

Post by ekianjo »

barrkel wrote: post #121
ekianjo wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Helmets (including motorbike helmets) are designed to protect you from a vertical fall of about 2 meters and hitting your head at that speed. If you have a collision at 50km/h, chances are you'll be hitting the ground from a height similar to that. I don't know how many such collisions you've been in, but I've been in about 6 motorbike accidents of fairly light severity, including hitting a car at about 50km/h. I bou…

I mean, I am not against helmets if it makes you or anyone else feel safer when biking or cycling, but making it mandatory is stupid. It is up to everyone to take their own responsibility and assume the consequences of their actions. I am appalled that in a country like the US which WAS known to value individual responsibility it has become mandatory to wear helmets when cycling.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#124

Post by alex_c »

dialtone wrote: post #99
scoot wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 y…

See, here you seem to be generalizing from "my experience with traffic in SF" to "drivers in the US".

For what it's worth, I found drivers in the Bay Area to be more timid and hesitant (and therefore more unpredictable) than anywhere else I've driven in North America.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#125

Post by BCM43 »

ImprovedSilence wrote: post #42
papalalu wrote: post #25

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…

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.

Actually: http://www.active.com/cycling/Articles/Bike_helmet_crushed__...

But, in general your point is correct. There are some dramatic examples where a bike helmet saved someones life, but statically it is unlikely.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#126

Post by biafra »

ekianjo wrote: post #123
barrkel wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Helmets (including motorbike helmets) are designed to protect you from a vertical fall of about 2 meters and hitting your head at that speed. If you have a collision at 50km/h, chances are you'll be hitting the ground from a height similar to that. I don't know how many such collisions you've been in, but I've been in about 6 motorbike accidents of fairly light severity, including hitting a car at about 50km/h. I bou…

I mean, I am not against helmets if it makes you or anyone else feel safer when biking or cycling, but making it mandatory is stupid. It is up to everyone to take their own responsibility and assume the consequences of their actions. I am appalled that in a country like the US which WAS known to value individual responsibility it has become mandatory to wear helmets when cycling.

Is it really? In all the states of the US? Maybe the reason is to discourage people from cycling?

I use a bicycle to commute to work every day. I think, I really should get a helmet. But I do not think they should be mandatory. I have been run over (more like bumped into) by a car more than once. But I was lucky and had no injuries at all. With my motorcycle it is a whole different story I had two real accidents and thanks to my helmet I am still able to write this.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#127

Post by portlander52232 »

jlgreco wrote: post #50
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Helmets can safely be left on the bike, because used helmets have no resale value.

I have left my helmet unattended for 8-10 hours a day in downtown Portland for four years, no thefts, even with fancy helmets.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#128

Post by jlgreco »

portlander52232 wrote: post #127
jlgreco wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Helmets can safely be left on the bike, because used helmets have no resale value. I have left my helmet unattended for 8-10 hours a day in downtown Portland for four years, no thefts, even with fancy helmets.

Bikes themselves have almost no retail value; they are stolen despite this because it is so easy to steal them and because the consequences are largely non-existent. A helmet wouldn't last 30 minutes hanging from your bike in a larger/crummier city than Portland; people would steal it just because they could.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#130

Post by pmahoney »

pmcginn wrote: post #40
rayiner wrote: post #6

What's so wrong with helmets?

I commute to work by bike in Philadelphia, and not just in the good weather. In the last year I've missed three days--once the day after I cracked a rib going down in snow and twice when I woke up to a flat tire and didn't have time to swap it out and make it to work on time. (I've got better tires and am much better at replacing a tube, now.) You know the old saying, cheap/good/fast, pick two? With bike helmets it's…

You comment and m0nty's about Specialized brand helmets meeting a stricter standard prompted me to do a little helmet research. I was a bit skeptical of the slim Bern helmets. I think simple physics demands that to stop a moving head on impact slowly enough to avoid concussion, one must use a (dorky?) a "spaceship on your head" helmet. There's no getting around that to go from velocity v to 0 without accelerating more than some threshold time requires a certain amount of space.

Now, I don't know if the thresholds chosen by ANSI or Snell or whomever will make a real difference in a crash, but Consumer Reports rated Bern helmets poorly in "impact absorption".

http://bikeportland.org/2012/05/31/nutcase-bern-helmets-rece...

Post reply on HN