Live data from Hacker News

To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

nytimes.com

151–160 of 212 posts

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This simply isn't true; just try comparing ebay searches for "used bike" vs "used bike helmet."

Anecdotally, in the DC area people lock their helmets to their bikes all the time. I've had one bike stolen here but never a helmet. In fact when they stole my bike, they left the helmet that was locked up with it.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#152
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mother worked in a head trauma unit while I was young, and I particularly take umbrage with that last bullet point. While wearing a helmet won't do you much good when you ignore a stop sign and get plowed over by an SUV, neither will a seat belt save your life if you lose control going 110 down a tree-lined rural highway.

I'm rather shocked at the number of comments in this thread that just extrapolate anecdotes. Your mother's profession has nothing to do with this whatsoever, unless it involved studying the actual statistics of bicycle helmet safety .

Whether a bike helmet makes you safer has nothing whatsoever to do with statistics; it is simple physics. You can try it yourself by hitting your head with a rock--with and without the helmet on.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#153
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…

Motorbike helmets are in no way comparable to bicycle helmets. Bicycle helmets have to be very light due to the physical activity exerted by their wearers.

Another thing you'll rarely hear bicycle advocates say is that cycling on the pavement is safer. It most definitely is not, due to the speed difference between pedestrians and cyclists. This is not only dangerous to pedestrians: drivers aren't used to checking for fast moving objects on the pavement. Worse, pavements are rarely constructed with good vehicle visibility in mind. It's also hard to figure out which rules apply (pedestrian or road?), unlike when everyone is sharing the lane.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#154
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…

I live in Bucharest, which pretty much is as bike unfriendly as you can get. There are some bike lanes, but all of them are on the sidewalks where you might see a car parked or you might have to avoid a tree or a bus station, so they are pretty much unusable in my opinion. On top of that, there is a large number of aggressive or simply ignorant bike riders, so you can occasionally get some strong words simply because you're riding your road bike on, you know, the road.

That being said, I never wear a bike in the city. There are a couple of reasons for that:

First, it hinders my sight. I'd rather be able to catch a glimpse of a car trying to overtake me than have my head protected when I hit that car. Second, most road bike helmets offer some sort of protection only when you hit the road with the top front of your head. They offer little protection when you fall sideways, which is probably the most common type of fall. Third, I'm not so sure that a helmet might do anything for me: I ride a bike, ski and even skate a bit and I've fell down a lot, but I've never hit my head once because my instinct was to protect my head with my hands.

Last, it's a matter of personal taste: I sweat a lot and I'd feel awkward if I had to wash my hair every time I ride my bike somewhere.

That being said, I always wear a helmet when I plan a medium or long ride. I usually ride faster than in the city and a helmet might make the difference. Also, I always wear a helmet if I'm riding my mountain bike in the forest because there are branches that seem high enough, but guess what, they aren't. I also wear a Road ID, just in case.

As a bottom line, I strongly believe that bike helmets don't offer safety. A little, yes, but hitting your head hard where it's protected by your helmet is just one of the injuries, especially when you ride next to the curb. I think it's a lot better to watch out and try to prevent any accidents.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#155
My experience of the bike-hire scheme in Brisbane (Australia) is that helmet laws are a problem, but not the problem. The legal requirement to wear a helmet is a bit tiresome, and the communal helmets they supply to get around it are a figleaf at best, but helmet law or no, riding a bicycle in Brisbane is harder than it has to be.

The problem, as others have pointed out, is road design and driver attitudes. Going any significant distance involves either riding (legally) on footpaths, or riding in traffic. There's a nice bicycle path along the river, plus some pictures of bikes in doorzones. That's about it for central Brisbane. It's not that hilly but it's definitely not flat. I don't mind riding in traffic, but I say that as a bike racer (albeit an old, fat bike racer) who used to be a courier. Driver attitudes, well, 95% of them are fine, maybe more. There's a small minority who are deranged and vicious and it's socially acceptable to behave that way in a car. It's all do-able, but it needs some unintuitive techniques (ride in the middle of the road in some situations, for example) and, ideally, a bit of fitness. I don't know as I'd recommend it to neophytes.

That helmet laws are the problem is an appealing conclusion, because it's a quick fix: repeal the helmet law. Changing infrastructure OTOH is hard and changing attitudes in harder still. I'd like it to be as simple as repealing a law, especially one where the benefits are so unclear. I just don't think it is.

In terms of the popularity of the bike hire scheme, I can only say that there are a couple of dozen hire bikes out the front of my workplace at the start of the day and it's down to a couple by day's end. I'm not aware of the official figures, but my highly subjective impression is that they're getting used more than when it started. A less convoluted signup process probably has something to do with it, plus the fact that it's a pleasant time of year to cycle.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#156
post #149
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.

It's not a stereotype, it's a very real an observation. I'm not a particularly "fast moving" cyclist (stereotype much?), I ride at a leisurely pace (Amsterdam, remember?), so I have plenty of time to observe what happens around me. The accents are unmistakable as they apologize or otherwise verbally react whenever I have to brake hard and/or swerve to avoid them.

Well I bicycle commute to central London, and I can assure you that the clueless tourists are a fixture, and evenly distributed among nationalities and races.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#157
post #91
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I'd heard about Vancouver. It seems like a kludgy solution when (for example) the "Boris Bike" hire scheme in London (UK) has 15M journeys with no fatalities or serious injuries. So you could just not have helmets for bike-hire riders and do away with a lot of expense. I suspect the politicians are not fully aware of the arguments one way or the other, and just assume that more safety gear must make you more safe.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#159
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…

> I bike to work every day in Amsterdam, not a single bike lane on my route Really? I don't visit Amsterdam that often, but the rest of NL really is full of bike lanes. I agree with the GP post: in order to safely bike around without helmet, you need infrastructure that takes bikes into account. Also, traffic that expects bikes. And maybe your particular work-route does not have bike lanes, but the road designs do ta…

There are bike lanes in Amsterdam (not living there, but living in NL), but I can believe that some streets don't have any.

The main difference though is that in NL, (car) drivers are used to have bikes around them (and are usually bike riders themselves).

The only problem I can see is indeed tourists (not only americans) that are not used to so many bikes and to bike lanes.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#160
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't Copenhagen also structure its traffic protocols around bicycle commuters? For instance, letting cyclists go on a green light several seconds before cars, in order to ensure that nearby drivers can see them? Copenhagen has done studies [1] indicating that every mile driven accounts for some net economic loss (due to the harmful health effects of sedentary lifestyles, pollution, the cost to the commuter of gas/…

The government has an economic incentive, since it's financially responsible for the health care costs for all of it's citizens. The US isn't fully responsible.

Which is funny given than the US spends more public money on health per capita than those with socialized healthcare.
Post reply on HN