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

191–200 of 212 posts

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#191

Post by arethuza »

sonnekki wrote: post #189
arethuza wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Single pedestrians/runners are almost never a problem. Even couples are OK. What can be risky is when you have a group of 3, 4 or more - they tend to be focusing more on each other than their environment and when they get startled they will often all jump in different directions.

[NB This isn't a serious problem, but I do spend a reasonable amount of time on cycle paths trying to co-exist with other path users on civilised terms!]

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#192

Post by mc32 »

graywh wrote: post #96
mc32 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yep, that's one and the same. Thanks! I think those are the best solution for intersections with semaphore lights. Stop signs might require something else.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#193

Post by jlgreco »

snowwrestler wrote: post #151
jlgreco wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

I think it is telling that I never see helmets left locked to bikes in public. Even if it is as safe as you suggest (and going by the amount of other worthless things that have been stolen off my bike, it is not...), the fact that the general public does not perceive it as such is what is relevant to the discussion.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#194

Post by pingou »

jessriedel wrote: post #111
dbreunig wrote: post #58

This article is asinine. Not once does the "journalist" mention the absurd price of NYC's program (up to $77 for 4 hours) vs. the $2 she pays in Paris. Further, let's not forget the safer bike lanes or areas in European cities. Getting hit while riding in NYC is not an 'if', it's a 'when.' The number of cycling deaths here are absurd. I'd hate to see the figures if we actively discouraged helmet use. The NYT should b…

That's a very deceptive description of the pricing. In particular, you can't take a 4 hour ride in Paris for $2 either. A quick glance at the pricing suggests the NY system is about 2-3 times more expensive (presumably because it isn't as heavily subsidized).

You can take a 4 hour ride in Paris for 2$. One day ticket is 1,70 €, first 30 minutes are free, you have to pay if your trip is more than 30 minutes or you can just take another bike for free, that will reset the countdown. Not really handy but most trips are < 30 minutes. By the way the annual fee for unlimited 30 minutes rides is only 29 € Source : velib user here.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#195

Post by jlgreco »

snowwrestler wrote: post #150
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.

It's very easy to lock a helmet up with your bike--just put the lock bar or chain through the "ear triangle" on the female clip side. Sure, someone could still steal it by cutting that strap, but what is the point of a helmet that can't be clipped on? And if bike helmets are so unpopular, why would anyone steal one to begin with? Finally, if your bike helmet is stolen, then you are simply biking home without a helmet…

If you take off you engineering hat when you look at the situation it becomes less simple.

First off, having something stolen does not merely mean you now lack that object to most normal people. Theft is a violation of your property, and by extension, yourself. Having anything stolen carries with it psychological consequences; it is unpleasant. (And this is to ingore that for many people bikes serve several roles, some of which people may see helmets as necessary and some less so. Furthermore the options are not "bike with or without a helmet" but rather "bike with or without a helmet, or just avoid the mess and get there any other number of ways". When mandatory helmet laws are in effect, that is the decision people are making).

You are also attributing to much logic and planning to theives and vandals. The people who sell their wares online are the tip of the iceberg, damn close to the "criminal masterminds" of the bike crime world. The junkie who is just looking for crape to trade or give to a pawn shop doesn't give a shit what something is worth; if he can easily steal it, he will. And the punk kids who think it is fun to trash stuff don't really care either.

If you want to leave your helmet locked to your bike, more power to you. There is no way in hell I am going to do that in a city though.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#196

Post by blaze33 »

As a daily Vélib' user from day one, I'll add some insights a one-time user may have missed:

* It's often the fastest way to get to another point less than ~5km away.

* You quickly notice how most of the traffic regulation is only designed for cars.

* You have a much better visibility of the traffic (with a correctly adjusted saddle) than a car driver.

* Maneuverability and standing start acceleration (the first seconds) are also way above the average car, so if you're used to it, you'll easily make your way in the congested traffic.

* It's common practice to run red lights or stop signs (hence the first point). There's some debate about allowing the "turn right" but we're still waiting. Still, we're not crazy but you quickly notice it makes no sense at all to stop & start a 20kg bike every 100 meters at a pedestrian crossing with obviously no pedestrians waiting or at road junction with no incoming traffic.

* Most bike lanes are overrun by clueless pedestrians.

* European cities like Paris predate cars and are more dense with smaller streets which feel much safer than higway-like american streets.

Crossing the place de l'étoile ain't for every vélib user - http://youtu.be/lay8aZlsbB0 - but it's funny to do it.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#197

Post by bunderbunder »

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…

> The majority of serious bicycle accidents are right-of-way disputes, occurring at junctions.

Makes sense, really. I recently started regularly driving a car again, and I've noticed that there's just no way motorists can be reasonably expected to anticipate something that's in the pedestrian right-of-way but moving at five times the speed of normal pedestrian traffic. In a denser area where a driver's view of the sidewalk might be obscured by parked cars, it's probably more-or-less impossible to adequately check for that kind of hazard.

Heck, pedestrians can't do it either. 6 or 7 years ago a woman was killed a couple blocks away from my house when a sidewalk cyclist hit her. There was a tall hedge at the corner impeding visibility, and they both rounded the corner at the same time - the pedestrian at a walking (i.e., perfectly safe for the sidewalk) speed, and the cyclist at bike (i.e., completely reckless for the sidewalk) speed.

By contrast, a cyclist who's in the vehicular right-of-way where they belong (and not erratically dipping into and out of the parking lane) is every bit as visible as motorized traffic. And, assuming they bother to use turn signals and at least pay lip service to traffic laws (which many don't in my city), just as predictable too.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#198

Post by mahyarm »

koide wrote: post #180
aurelianito wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Hi, I am an Argentinian. While in Spanish the word "americano" means that you were born somewhere in The Americas, in the English language the word "american" means that you were born in the USA (AKA: America). It happens a lot that words which are quite…

In the English language the word American has more than one meaning. The most prevalent is of course the gentilic, but one of the other meanings is indeed "being native or inhabitant of the American continent." The big problem with this word is that, being USA as influential in the western culture as it is, it helps corrupting the corresponding word in the languages that do have a proper gentilic like French and Span…

People use the continent names (North America, South America) if they want to make the distinction between the USA and the continental regions.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#199

Post by snowwrestler »

mikeash wrote: post #181
snowwrestler wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

No, it really is just simple physics. Arguing this point just makes it look like you don't understand the limitations of epidemiology.

Allow me to illustrate the fallacy with this joke: A man is arrested at the airport because he has a bomb in his backpack. When questioned by police he claims he brought it for safety because "what are the odds that there would be TWO bombs on the same airplane?"

Put another way: you don't need a population study to decide whether feeding rat poison to kids is a good idea.

Now if we were talking about whether mandatory helmet laws make people safer, population statistics are essential tools of policy analysis.

But if we are talking about one single head, we know the helmet increases safety based on the simple rock test I outlined above.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#200

Post by snowwrestler »

mikeash wrote: post #181
snowwrestler wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

No, it really is just simple physics. Arguing this point just makes it look like you don't understand the limitations of epidemiology.

Allow me to illustrate the fallacy with this joke: A man is arrested at the airport because he has a bomb in his backpack. When questioned by police he claims he brought it for safety because "what are the odds that there would be TWO bombs on the same airplane?"

Put another way: you don't need a population study to decide whether feeding rat poison to kids is a good idea.

Now if we were talking about whether mandatory helmet laws make people safer, population statistics are essential tools of policy analysis.

But if we are talking about one single head, we know the helmet increases safety based on the simple rock test I outlined above.

Post reply on HN