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

The Steady Rise of Bike Ridership in New York

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 108 posts

Re: The Steady Rise of Bike Ridership in New York

#51

Post by u801e »

hkmurakami wrote: post #47
u801e wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wear a helmet. They not only save you from dangerous environmental situations, but they save you from yourself. Given the CPSC test procedure for bicycle helmets, I seriously doubt it: http://www.helmets.org/cpscstd.htm >> 1203.15 Positional stability test Test that the helmet doesn't roll off when a 8.8 lb weight in a guided free fall from a distance of 2 feet strikes the helmet. >> 1203.16 Dynamic strength of ret…

> Regarding the last test procedure, that would be like testing the helmet on an adult male of average height, where, while standing, suddenly suffered a stroke and fell over With all due respect, do you ride a bike extensively? Because these exact sort of accidents happen all the time. I've fallen sideways from a stationary position several times over the last 5 years as an avid cyclist when I've had lapses in judgm…

> With all due respect, do you ride a bike extensively?

In the last 10 years, I've ridden about 10,000 miles give or take.

> Because these exact sort of accidents happen all the time. I've fallen sideways from a stationary position several times over the last 5 years as an avid cyclist when I've had lapses in judgment or focus when declipping from my pedals.

I've never used pedal clips. I do ride in traffic, but I doubt I average more than 15 miles per hour.

> Further, I was struck by a car from behind 2 years ago and lost consciousness, propelled forward several meters, broke several ribs, suffered large abrasions on my back. My helmet suffered dents and scratches, but my head and face were 100% fine. If not for the helmet, I would have 100% suffered from cuts and abrasions to my face

That last sentence doesn't really make sense. Bicycle helmets do not cover one's face. Also, getting hit from behind by a vehicle is the least common type of crash from what I've read.

> The fact that bicycle helmets don't protect you from every type of accident situation is a ridiculous reason to not wear one.

If they were designed in a way that would protect me in most crashes, then I certainly would wear one while riding, but given the standard I referenced, I seriously doubt it.

If FMVSS 209 stated that seat belts in cars were only tested in frontal collisions at speeds of 20 mph or less, then I wouldn't bother wearing them because I know that they wouldn't protect me while I'm driving at highway speeds. Fortunately, that's not the case and I always wear my seat belt while riding in or driving a car.

In the end, the way one rides is far more effective in mitigating the risk of getting involved in a crash (like following the rules of the road, having appropriate equipment, etc.)

Re: The Steady Rise of Bike Ridership in New York

#52

Post by hkmurakami »

u801e wrote: post #51
hkmurakami wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regarding the last test procedure, that would be like testing the helmet on an adult male of average height, where, while standing, suddenly suffered a stroke and fell over With all due respect, do you ride a bike extensively? Because these exact sort of accidents happen all the time. I've fallen sideways from a stationary position several times over the last 5 years as an avid cyclist when I've had lapses in judgm…

> With all due respect, do you ride a bike extensively? In the last 10 years, I've ridden about 10,000 miles give or take. > Because these exact sort of accidents happen all the time. I've fallen sideways from a stationary position several times over the last 5 years as an avid cyclist when I've had lapses in judgment or focus when declipping from my pedals. I've never used pedal clips. I do ride in traffic, but I do…

Thanks for the detailed clarification.

>That last sentence doesn't really make sense. Bicycle helmets do not cover one's face.

When you're propelled off your bike, some part of your head is likely to make contact with the ground (particularly if you're unconscious), along with your torso. The line formed by the outermost part of the helmet and whatever part of your torso that hits the ground is often outside of your face/head and thus helps avoid cuts/abrasions when grating against the ground.

I personally support others' right to not wear a helmet. In fact, I didn't wear one either when I lived and worked in Japan and bike commuted to the train station. I also believe the evidence and studies that show the relative ineffectiveness of current helmet designs. However, I also believe that the decision of others in wearing the helmets available for a marginal improvement in safety should be respected as well [1].

[1] The counterargument to this is if by not purchasing the current helmets and protesting for better designs, we can help spur companies to develop more robust products.

Re: The Steady Rise of Bike Ridership in New York

#53

Post by kazinator »

lisa_henderson wrote: post #21

I bike to work in New York, and I've biked around Berlin, and I would say New York still has a way to go before it catches up with Berlin. The problem that New York faces is that it is embedded in USA society, so it has to face some issues that are not about bikes, but effect bikes. An example would be the reasons people use bike helmets. No one uses bike helmets in Berlin, because Berlin is safe for bicycles, and th…

> No one uses bike helmets in Berlin, because Berlin is safe for bicycles, and that is partly due to the respect that cars and trucks show to bikers.

Bicycle helmets are not even rated for traffic accidents. It says so in their accompanying literature! They are for falls.

A couple of years ago, I went into a skid while making a turn on wet pavement and fell. I developed a huge black bruise on my right hip, and for the next six months had a pain in the right side of my rib cage. It was quite a fall. Now here is the thing: the back of head also hit the pavement quite hard, but I was wearing a helmet, so my head was okay.

There is no way I could have prevented my head from coming down. It happened so fast, that there was no time for "oh shit, I'm falling and I don't have a helmet, so I have to adjust my falling style to protect my head."

(Yes, I replaced the helmet. Not only are you supposed to after impact, but the date on it was March 1995.)

You may be able to get away without a helmet in a "safe" town, if you only ride in good weather, in broad daylight, on flat roads, go slowly, and avoid all obstacles, so that the chances of falling are vanishingly small.

Re: The Steady Rise of Bike Ridership in New York

#54

Post by cmurf »

thirsteh wrote: post #34
ams6110 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I passed a car v. cyclist crash this morning on way to work. Cyclist had evidently been riding in the pedistrian crosswalk, against the flow of traffic. Couldn't tell if he had hit a car turning across the walkway, or the car had hit him. Looked like no injuries, though the bicycle was pretty mangled.

That's something that annoys me about bikes in the US vs. Europe: People in Europe are generally taught to obey the same laws as everybody else, whereas US bicyclists, in NYC in particular, just completely wing it. When I first moved here I didn't understand why everybody hated on bicyclists; now, after nearly being hit by a bicycle slamming through a crowded crosswalk at least 10 times, I do. Yes, red lights apply t…

Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

In Denver, cars running red lights is a big problem, I see it multiple times per day, and it's terrible. Since becoming a bicyclist, I've completely reversed my position on photo red light (tickets). I still don't approve of photo radar, it's mainly a way for cities to make money. But running red lights needs to be stopped, no pun intended.

Re: The Steady Rise of Bike Ridership in New York

#55

Post by kazinator »

ymeng wrote: post #7
3pt14159 wrote: post #2

I feel like this is happening in Toronto too. At least south of Bloor where most of my friends live. Once I read the study that cyclists actually live longer (even without a helmet) on average than motorists due to better heart function I was convinced to just make the switch. It actually gets you around faster too since you can go between the stopped cars at lights, although the street car tracks really suck.

I have cycled extensively in Vancouver, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. I have had the worst experiences in Toronto. Yesterday, I attached a camera to my bicycle and had 0 incidents where I felt a driver was putting my life at risk. The camera is very visible.

> Yesterday ...

I like your comment and I'm keenly interested in seeing a picture of your camera setup (what do the driver's see). Please post it somewhere.

However, keep in mind that you don't have enough data from a practice you just put into effect yesterday. This is probably confirmation bias kicking in.

Re: The Steady Rise of Bike Ridership in New York

#56

Post by smeyer »

harmonicon wrote: post #50

Bike infrastructure is being built. Bike ridership is up, all great news. However, there remains a fundamental problem. As packed in as NYC is, it is still a huge city designed for automobiles. Many people lives 10, 20 miles away from their jobs. It is obvious from the picture in the article that many cyclists gear themselves up for a long arduous ride. Unless one is into biking or exercise most people is just not up…

>a huge city designed for automobiles. Many people live 10, 20 miles away from their jobs

I think a majority of workers in New York commute using public transit. It might be a minority of people living 10 or 20 miles out, but if so, it's still pretty close.

Re: The Steady Rise of Bike Ridership in New York

#57

Post by cmurf »

cauterized wrote: post #45
kosei wrote: post #32

While it's great to see NYC bike ridership up to 21K per weekday, and touted as growing "faster than other modes of transportation", it's misleading when you compare that the MTA has a ridership of 8.6 million daily. Currently that Bike Ridership number is a paltry 0.2% of the overall ridership. So, kudos - and I hope they improve it dramatically, but it has a long way to go, and I'm skeptical of de Blasio's goal of…

At the very least, they'd have to quadruple both the bike lane mileage and the Citibike coverage.

I don't see how NYC gets to 1% let alone 6% without pulling out car lanes and converting them into two lane bike lanes which are immutable: no parking, no blocking. Now, they get blocked the instant someone opens a car door or double parks. With higher biking density comes different speed cycling so single lane biking doesn't scale.

Denver has this crazy idea also that catering to bikes is easy and cheap, the mentality is that it's mainly just a matter of paint and "share the road" signage. Meanwhile there's no driver or cyclist education program on exactly how to share the road, so it's still adversarial "hey asshole YOU aren't sharing the road!"

Re: The Steady Rise of Bike Ridership in New York

#58

Post by darkmighty »

u801e wrote: post #51
hkmurakami wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regarding the last test procedure, that would be like testing the helmet on an adult male of average height, where, while standing, suddenly suffered a stroke and fell over With all due respect, do you ride a bike extensively? Because these exact sort of accidents happen all the time. I've fallen sideways from a stationary position several times over the last 5 years as an avid cyclist when I've had lapses in judgm…

> With all due respect, do you ride a bike extensively? In the last 10 years, I've ridden about 10,000 miles give or take. > Because these exact sort of accidents happen all the time. I've fallen sideways from a stationary position several times over the last 5 years as an avid cyclist when I've had lapses in judgment or focus when declipping from my pedals. I've never used pedal clips. I do ride in traffic, but I do…

The fact is, wearing a helmet clearly reduces head injuries.

If you are conscious of all other aspects of security, protecting your most important and magical organ (the brain) should be sound advice.

In fact, I personally might accept an overall sightly increased injury risk for better head protection -- I can go without practicing this or that sport, but I really wouldn't wish to become unable to enjoy intellectual activities as much due to a brain injury.

Re: The Steady Rise of Bike Ridership in New York

#60

Post by freehunter »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #26
cowardlydragon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I visited Houston for my mom's medical problems, and it shocked me how bike unfriendly the city was.... ... it was 80 degrees in February. ... I live in Minneapolis and this flaggergasted me. It's a year-round bike city completely wasting that opportunity.

>> I live in Minneapolis and this flaggergasted me. Minneapolis has always ranked as one of the top bike friendly cities in the country. The ironic part is most lists also include Madison, WI and Chicago IL, both midwestern cities who have year round commuters. But I agree, I have no idea why so many southern states have so many anti-biking cities.

Madison has many bike lanes that are separated from other vehicle traffic. That helps biker confidence by quite a bit. Of course, there are a also a lot of bike/bus only lanes, and the buses tend to be just as aggressive to bikers as other drivers are (and as buses are to other drivers).
Post reply on HN