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

One year of cycling to work

hookrace.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 411 posts

Re: One year of cycling to work

#361

Post by bkor »

maw wrote: post #213
troncjb wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't need to cite anything to tell you that if you get in an accident you are better off wearing more protective gear. I don't care that very few cyclists get in bad accidents compared to walkers and joggers. I care that if I am in an accident, my brain doesn't become a smear on the pavement.

You're assuming that accidents are equally likely with and without helmets and ignoring OP's point that, on balance, you're better off biking without a helmet than not biking at all. You might actually be right here. I do not know. Either way, don't expect "I really don't need to cite anything" to convince anybody serious.

Don't understand why this has been downvoted. The research behind helmets is exactly why in The Netherlands helmets aren't mandatory. For one, they reduce the amount of people who cycle. Thus they take a car with higher speed, etc. Secondly, wearing a helmet causes cars to be less risk adverse when interacting with you. Lastly, most helmets are utter crap. They tested various and the majority sold in shops are of very poor quality (don't help at all).

Strangely, in Denmark most cyclists do wear a helmet. To me it's very inconvenient. E.g. where to store the damn thing when going anywhere?

Re: One year of cycling to work

#362

Post by dev_throw »

jteppinette wrote: post #187
lflux wrote: post #169

I've been biking to work every day for over 6 months now, though mine is considerably shorter - 2 miles in SF. I got tired of being stuck on cramped muni trains not going anywhere and figured I could use a little exercise every day.

What is your opinion on cycling in the city. I live in SOMA and haven’t started riding yet. I used to ride all the time in GA, but it definitely seems more dangerous out here.

Its totally doable, just be wary of your surroundings and try to move with the flow of other bike traffic. Moving as a herd makes you more predictable to cars.

Re: One year of cycling to work

#363

Post by jakecopp »

Retric wrote: post #204
nsedlet wrote: post #124

I commute about 6 miles each way between Brooklyn (home) and Manhattan (work). I've been raving about it to everyone I know because it's legitimately changed my life. It feels amazing, saves money, keeps me in much better shape, gives me more energy at work. It's slightly faster than the subway, and significantly faster than driving/cabbing at rush hour. I also love that transit time is very consistent (even relative…

Just be aware that heavy exercise near significant car exhaust is fairly bad for your lungs. If you go a moderate pace it's not that bad, but if you like going all out a face mask is a good investment.

I wonder how the health trade off between breathing emissions while cycling vs. lack of exercise while driving and obesity risk works.

Re: One year of cycling to work

#364

Post by bhandziuk »

u801e wrote: post #344
troncjb wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so the helmet gain is only a small marginal difference This is such, such flawed logic. If you are a cyclist getting hit by a car, the averages and statistics don't matter at all. If you are the cyclist getting hit by a car, the helmet is not a "marginal difference". Your protective gear matters. You need to consider the individual cyclist when you are making sweeping statements about the usage of protective gear.

> If you are a cyclist getting hit by a car, the averages and statistics don't matter at all. But helmet design standards do. A helmet meeting the CPSC standards isn't designed to protect you in impact with a motor vehicle.

Think about what you're saying. You'd rather it be your skull to get hit directly. Why?

Re: One year of cycling to work

#365

Post by Piskvorrr »

jvkersch wrote: post #279
ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry for the basic question, but how do you bike for 90 minutes without being covered in sweat and needing a shower when you arrive at your destination?

I'm not the original poster, and I'm about to write something gross, but I commute for long times too and I find the sweat less of an issue than I originally expected (I do live in a climate that is not overly hot and humid, though). I avoid using a backpack (in favor using panniers) so that my back isn't all sweaty, and for the rest I find that the sweat dries up quickly and doesn't leave a trace. In the worst case…

You don't. I would be worried whether the cow-orkers share this view (simply because everybody is habituated to their own smell, not noticing it as much).

Good point with the backpack though - with it, I was sweating like a racehorse, even after coming out of the shower; without, I was only sweating.

Re: One year of cycling to work

#366

Post by colanderman »

edejong wrote: post #302
abakker wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure it is appropriate to think about helmet use as having a bearing on life expectancy. The data on helmet accident avoidance is terrible. i.e. we have no idea what the severity of an accident "would have been" because that kind of data is never reported. Anecdotally, I've needed my helmet many times, but never reported its use to anyone. you could theoretically look at the injury rate for non-helmeted peopl…

Almost everyone in the Netherlands is driving without. Should give a good comparative analysis.

Not really. Cycling is everpresent in the Netherlands (at least in Amsterdam); drivers are very aware of cyclists. Not at all true in the States.

Re: One year of cycling to work

#367

Post by jac_no_k »

sandover wrote: post #126

I've been cycling to work in downtown LA for nearly 8 years, 4 miles each way. I'm faster than a car over that commute. The weather is fantastic, and I am physically in great shape. Mental benefits are huge. I've gone about 15,000 miles in dense urban environments without any accidents of any kind. There are a number of keys to this: - Think like a driver -- it helps to be a good driver first - Think, period. Don't l…

Reasonable except for the helmet part. Anecdotal: I've gone through two smashed helmets. One due to taxi vs. cyclist and another when bicycle lowsided on wet leaves at a walking pace. Both times the helmet absorbed significant damage.

Helmets are a layer in defense. It's not a perfect shield and will not help in catastrophic situations. However in the more likely situation, the helmet does help.

Current cycling helmets are well ventilated and lightweight.

We should be providing information about the risks and rewards. It's up to the cyclist to decide how they want to proceed.

Me: 32km (20mi) each way, slicing through the Tokyo metro area.

Re: One year of cycling to work

#368

Post by dionidium »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #345
dionidium wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is ZERO reason not to wear a helmet every time you leave the house. You could trip and fall at any moment! Presumably, you're willing to accept that risk. Biking without a helmet is no doubt riskier than walking without one, but both activities are well within reasonable risk-taking range. You don't need me to tell you why I don't like wearing a helmet when I bike; you already use all those same reasons to avoi…

"There is ZERO reason not to wear a helmet every time you leave the house. You could trip and fall at any moment!" Not even close to the same thing. By being that absurd, you clearly are not wanting to engage in good faith.

I'm sorry that you think my position is absurd, but I assure you it's offered in good faith. There are only trade-offs. This isn't just a comment on the wisdom of helmets; this is, as far as I can tell, an actual feature of the universe we inhabit. There aren't "problems" and "solutions to problems"; there are only trade-offs.

I (honestly and in good faith) place walking and biking in the same "helmet not required" risk category. The point isn't whether or not you adjust the risk slider further in one direction than me. The point is to respond to the assertion that there is zero reason to avoid wearing a helmet. We all know that isn't true, or we'd all wear helmets all the way down the risk scale.

Where you place "time to put on a helmet" on the scale isn't really the point. The point is that the scale obviously exists and it's obviously the case that there are places on the scale where not wearing a helmet makes sense, because if it were literally the case that there were no tradeoffs, then there'd literally be no reason not to wear one at all times.

That's the reductio proof I'm trying to illustrate.

Re: One year of cycling to work

#369

Post by Piskvorrr »

subpixel wrote: post #115
unicornporn wrote: post #34

I'm at my 12 year of every day bike commuting. Before I commuted 10 km each direction, now I'm at 6 km. If I have activities after work, I ride to them too. So my total ride length is a fair bit longer than what my commute is. The public transportation network here in Stockholm is good, but wouldn't even consider cramming myself into a packed subway train or bus. Even at this time of the year when it's -5 degrees cel…

I commuted by bike for years in NYC and frankly I do not recommend it. The traffic has always been bad but it’s now significantly worse, and the bike lanes that exist make riding even more dangerous. You are always within reach of parked cars doors, and the lack of a physical barrier on most lanes means they are often driven over by cars. Perhaps worst of all, even faulty bike lanes give cyclists a sense of entitleme…

At least on the island of Manhatto, the roads were not built for cars, either ;)

Re: One year of cycling to work

#370

Post by photojosh »

wbkang wrote: post #136
troncjb wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you don't wear a helmet, don't worry about it, it doesn't mitigate that much risk. The exercise benefits of biking do way more to increase your life expectancy than skipping a helmet does to reduce it. This is very, very stupid advice.

I totally agree. "Cyclists without helmets triple their chance of death by head injury" https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/10/15/cyclists_without...

> "Cyclists without helmets triple their chance of death by head injury"

Nope. The correct interpretation is 'cyclists without helmets who get into a serious crash triple their chance of death by head injury'. The study doesn't look at cyclists who don't crash. This is important, because you can't assume that all cyclists have an equally likely chance of having a serious crash. I'm going to be riding with a helmet on regardless of the law, but by making helmets mandatory, you kill off so much transport and utility cycling which was at low risk levels.

> The study also cites Victoria, Australia, as an example of successful legislation. Helmet use in the city increased from 31 per cent to 75 per cent after the introduction of mandatory helmet legislation, and cycling fatalities decreased by 48 per cent.

Yes, but a major reason for those reductions are because people stopped cycling after the introduction of those laws. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.html - "In 1985-6, 3.4 per cent of trips in Melbourne were by bicycle. In 2004 this was only 2.0 per cent, suggesting that cycling was still much reduced compared with before the helmet law". Trauma surgeons are happy, public health experts are not.

Post reply on HN