To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets • Hacker News Board

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#181

Post by mikeash » Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 1:03 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #152

mikeash wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, and adding more programmers to a software project will always make it finish earlier (try it yourself by writing a small app with a friend), and flying is always more dangerous than driving (try losing your engines in an airplane and in a car).

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#182

Post by reinout » Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 1:08 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #144

petercooper wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Though it's hardly a new development. Seat belts have been mandatory for decades. People complain about safety restrictions like these at first but seat belt laws hav…

I don't really get what people have against seat-belts. Apart from "Nobody is going to tell me what I must do in MY car!" and some people thinking that being tossed out of your car is actually preferable scenario in most accidents. I think there's too little data about road accidents publicly available. I think all documentation from police investigations of road accidents should be anonymized and made public after s…

The number of people killed in traffic accidents in the Netherlands has dropped 80% since the 1972 high of 3000+/year. It is now at 640/year.

The main reason being given is seat belts for drivers and helmets for moped users. Info in Dutch from the official statistics bureau: http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/gezondheid-welzijn/publi...

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#183

Post by nuttendorfer » Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 1:09 PM UTC

koide wrote: post #162

mahyarm wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely a culture! In america although, the concept of race still persists everywhere, including government forums which split people's choices into appearance strains and not ethnicities or cultures.

America has no single government and is a huge mixture of cultures, from Canadians to Argentinians. I hate the fact that the USA has no proper demonym in English.

To most of the world "American" means you are from the United States of America. If somebody wants to say Canadian, they do.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#184

Post by JoeAltmaier » Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 1:11 PM UTC

BCM43 wrote: post #125

ImprovedSilence wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Must be a luck-signularity around where I live. I know several people saved by bike helmets, from small crashes of 2 bikes or bike vs immovable object. One happened last Saturday on an asphalt bike trail with no obstruction - the young man just went down and landed on his head. Busted his helmet all to hell. Got up and got back on his bike.

Lots of statistics thrown around here, and my anecdotes are not statistics, but they are a heck of a lot closer to actionable information that hot air. As for me, I don't regard a helmet as making bicycling seem dangerous, any more than wearing a raincoat makes walking outside seem dangerous. Its just part of my equipment, like the water bottle.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#185

Post by reinout » Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 1:18 PM UTC

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…

Big difference with motorbike helmets: those are integral helmets, protecting your entire head. Cycle helmets only help against direct hits on the top of your head. Crashing head-first into a car or tree (or getting a tree branch on your head).

German consumer organization tests showed that lots (60% or so) of the helmets for sale in Germany didn't even meet the head-on-collision tests as the testing isn't done by an official institute...

Wearing a cycling helmet makes sense when you've got a good chance of hitting something straight on. Like mountainbiking and hitting a tree or speed cycling at 50km/h, bend over your handlebars.

Kids? Regular cyclists? Mum with groceries? No way. Or at least: other things are more effective. Like wearing a cycling helmet as a pedestrian (who apparently hit things with their head more often!).

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#186

Post by reinout » Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 1:24 PM UTC

jarek wrote: post #54

Tiktaalik wrote: post #11

Folks in the US need to start demanding bike lanes from their elected officials. They're super cheap to build and so it's more of an issue of simply having the political will to remove a lane of traffic from exclusive car use. Such political bravery can pay off. Vancouver BC's Gregor Robertson (and his councillor slate) has been elected twice with strong mandates in large part because of his commitment to bike lanes.

Incidentally, Vancouver's bike share is well en route to a stillbirth thanks to BC's think-of-the-children (literally, http://web.archive.org/web/20100829214539/http://www.richmon... ) helmet law. It was first supposed to launch in spring of 2012, there's still no concrete date as of today.

The Dutch think-of-the-children 1970's campaign resulted in the great cycling infrastructure we have now.... A far cry from such a here's-some-body-armour-if-you-want-to-commit-suicide law.

My kids are 8 and 10 and cycle 1km to school each day without me or my wife riding along. And that's a mix of regular streets, cycle paths and residential areas. I feel pretty thankful to the ones campaigning in the 70s!

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#187

Post by reinout » Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 1:31 PM UTC

notatoad wrote: post #97

ScottBurson wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 try…

Helmets better than no helmets is not necessarily true, strangely. Perhaps on an individual right-now level, but not long term. The reason: the biggest protection you can have as a cyclist is lots of cyclists on the road. Helmets lower bike use, so in the end you'll be a lone, vulnerable road warrior...

Btw, would you also wear your cycling helmet while walking on the pavement as a pedestrian? At least in the Netherlands there are more head injuries for pedestrians that fall or hit something than cycling-related head injuries. :-)

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#188

Post by jdietrich » Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 1:34 PM UTC

lloeki wrote: post #164

jdietrich wrote: post #161

There is no evidence that segregated cycle facilities improve cyclist safety. The majority of serious bicycle accidents are right-of-way disputes, occurring at junctions. It is just as likely that segregated facilities could increase the number of accidents, by making the movements of cyclists less predictable to motorists when they merge onto general roads. It is known that sidewalk cyclists are significantly more v…

When one ton of metal hits you naked at 50kph (the legal speed limit in traffic areas of cities here in France) the acceleration alone can tear or damage your aorta with impressive odds (IIRC about 50% chance). A helmet is an extremely marginal protection. On a pure energy analysis, I'd rather have cyclists navigate with pedestrians than with cars. The latter result in a basically non-elastic collision transmitting m…

Existing pedestrian facilities are simply unsuitable for cyclists.

My regular 3km ride to the shops takes me about five minutes by bicycle. If I had to ride in the footway with pedestrians, I would be faced with two choices - either to recklessly continue at each junction and cross the road at speed, or to stop and start like a pedestrian. Doing the former would quickly prove fatal, the latter would increase my journey time fourfold.

Most footways are far too narrow, too tightly radiused and contain substantial amounts of furniture like lighting and mailboxes, which pose no danger to pedestrians but are a potentially fatal hazard to cyclists.

It also bears pointing out that European roads were built for cyclists, not motorcars. The invention of the safety bicycle prompted the widespread development of smoothly surfaced roads. Motorcar traffic represented a minority of journeys in most of Europe until long after the Second World War. Bicycles are perfectly well suited to the narrow streets of old towns, it is the motorcar that is out of place; Many enlightened local authorities are making the sensible decision to prohibit non-essential motor vehicles from town centres, improving conditions for both cyclists and pedestrians.

There is no infrastructure problem. There are many cities with substantial amounts of cycling infrastructure but low rates of cycling and poor safety; There are many cities with practically no infrastructure but huge numbers of cyclists and very good safety.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#189

Post by sonnekki » Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 1:39 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #176

nl wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy Analysis is pointless in this situation. Mixing cyclists and pedestrians is extremely dangerous in locations where pedestrians aren't used to cyclists, because pedestrians have a tendency to change directions very quickly.

Having a bell on your cycle helps a lot with this - just give it a ring a few times before overtaking people on a combined cycle/foot path and they will generally (although not always) try and do the sensible thing. In my own experience I was somewhat surprised to find that using a bell actually works a lot better than saying "Excuse me please". Also, some pedestrians will do intentionally stupid things when encounte…

I am generally a pedestrian, and in my experience when I am running on a paved path and cyclists go around me, they sometimes say "on your left" which works pretty well, but bells are great.

edit: doh!

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#190

Post by bking » Mon, Oct 01, 2012, 2:08 PM UTC

nl wrote: post #168

lloeki wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When one ton of metal hits you naked at 50kph (the legal speed limit in traffic areas of cities here in France) the acceleration alone can tear or damage your aorta with impressive odds (IIRC about 50% chance). A helmet is an extremely marginal protection. On a pure energy analysis, I'd rather have cyclists navigate with pedestrians than with cars. The latter result in a basically non-elastic collision transmitting m…

Energy Analysis is pointless in this situation. Mixing cyclists and pedestrians is extremely dangerous in locations where pedestrians aren't used to cyclists, because pedestrians have a tendency to change directions very quickly.

You do realize that there will always be an initial conflict when introducing a new system. I am fairly fresh out of college, and where I went to school (now over 20,000 students) all of what used to be streets in the middle of campus are for pedestrian traffic only. We all got along just fine with bikes being everywhere. Look at Stanford and Boulder, two very bike friendly places.

As far as helmets are concerned, I rode for my college road team, and I wore a helmet every time I touched the pedals for training and racing. We went very fast, and the competitions justified it. When I rode my beater bike to class I never wore a helmet. I was just fine.

A major reason people don't want to ride bikes to work when a helmet is required is really cosmetic, because they don't want to screw up their hair! Have you met a girl who wakes up and gets ready for work then says, "oh yeah let me mess up my hair on the way to work"? I am a dude, and If I had the option to ride A bike to work, I might not just because I need to look professional.