6 ms·

I Learned to Cycle Like a Dutchman

50 points by jseliger 7y ago

isostatic 7y ago
Do you wear a helmet while walking?
- snazz 7y ago
  Do you walk at up to 20 miles per hour (32 km/h) in roadways right next to cars going much faster?
  - pmontra 7y ago
    I recently saw a Dutchman explaining that they don't wear helmets because they don't cross paths with cars. Bike lanes are designed to keep cars and bicycles apart. From the article it seems that cars always give precedence to bicycles.
    - nkootstra 7y ago
      It really depends on the situation and the signs.
    - gambiting 7y ago
      The worst accident I ever had was when I collided with another bike, not a car - I flew over my handlebars and hit my head directly on the edge of a concrete slab. There was a loud crack, and in half split my....helmet. I was pretty ok(apart from severe bruises all over). My point is that whether you cross your path with cars or not is irrelevant - you're still travelling anywhere between 15-30km/h and your head is 1.5-2m above the road - it's enough of a speed and enough of a distance to kill you just from a fall, vehicles notwithstanding.
      - Kim_Bruning 7y ago
        Regular dutch (commuter) cyclists tend to ride a bit slower than 30. Sports cyclists DO wear a helmet!
    - dan_mctree 7y ago
      Cars and bicycles are mostly equals in terms of who gets to get first. Though, in cities, it's indeed common for cars to take up a lower, more careful position and they will frequently let bikes go first even if the law may've said they were allowed to go first. There's just so much stuff going on around you when you're driving a car in an inner city in the Netherlands, that it's wise to drive very carefully. In contrast, bikes have their own lanes, can use both sight and sound more easily and don't have to be so afraid of bumping into pedestrians, this means they have a far better grasp of the situation and possible risks. This combined with higher agility means they can move confidently and adjusted as needed.
    - mcv 7y ago
      It varies. Roads where cars are allowed to go over 30 kph tend to have separate bicycle paths (not always, but it's the goal). Slow streets, limited to 30 kph, often don't have separate bike paths, but since cars can't go much faster than bikes anyway, it's easy for them to give bikes the space they need. Of course in many traffic situations, bikes really do have right of way. It wasn't always like that, though. In the 1980s, cars coming from the left on an equal intersection would have right of way over a bike coming from the right. Bikes were still explicitly "lesser" traffic. This was changed in the early 1990s I think, when bikes became truly equal to cars. These days the pendulum seems to have swung in the opposite direction, and some bikes bully cars around.
  - johnchristopher 7y ago
    Doesn't matter. Here, on HN, you'll soon get in your face that study about how incident reports go up when it's made mandatory by law to wear a helmet when riding a bike.
    - isostatic 7y ago
      Probably because that's the evidence
      - johnchristopher 7y ago
        Yeah, but people conveniently forget that wearing a wig cancel that :(.
  - Someone 7y ago
    FTA: ”Studies have demonstrated that when a car hits a cyclist at speeds in excess of thirty kilometres per hour the cyclist is not likely to survive. Therefore, Bot told me, “thirty kilometres is the maximum speed in every living area in the Netherlands.”” The EU seems to concur with that. https://en.30kmh.eu/why-30kmh-20-mph/trendsetter-cities-for-30-kmh-20mph/nl-netherlands-trendsetter-for-30-kmh/ https://en.30kmh.eu/why-30kmh-20-mph/trendsetter-cities-for-...: About 50% of Dutch road network are having 30 km/h speed limits. Also, typical cyclists speed inside city centers is more like 8 miles an hour, the speed of a reasonably fast runner (https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/dutch-cycling-figures/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/dutch-cycling-... says 12.4 km/h)
    - u801e 7y ago
      > typical cyclists speed inside city centers is more like 8 miles an hour Is this referring to average speed? I suspect that this doesn't take hills into account. In my rides with a loaded trailer, my usual average speed is about 11 to 13 mph and my top speed on downhill sections ranges from 20 to 25 mph. My uphill speed is about 5 to 7 mph.
      - Someone 7y ago
        Hills are fairly rare in the Netherlands, certainly in cities, where of the day-to-day cycling takes place. In cities, cyclists typically also use their brakes more when going downhill than in the countryside because there’s more traffic and the traffic coming out of side ways can be harder to spot. So, I don’t think it makes much of a difference. Also, 20 mph downhill and 5 mph uphill gives an average speed of 8 mph, a bit lower than your claimed speed. I think that’s the generic pattern for hills: you lose more on the ascent than you gain on the descent because you spend more time on the ascent than on the descent.
        u801e 7y ago
        I'm basing my figures for max, min and average speeds as displayed by my bicycle computer. I also mentioned a loaded trailer to demonstrate that I'm actually slower than the majority of cyclists here because they're not towing around extra weight like I am (meaning their average speeds are higher than mine and they can maintain higher speeds when going up hill compared to me). Also if I were to maintain an average speed of 8 mph, then my commute where I pick up my kids in different locations would take me nearly 2 hours as opposed to about 1 hour and 15 minutes. So speed matters if you want to complete the ride in a reasonable period of time.
  - Carpetsmoker 7y ago
    Most people don't cycle at 32km/h, especially not in cities. In fact, I'd argue that doing that in most cities is just stupid.
  - u801e 7y ago
    Bicycle helmets are not tested at 20 mph or in collisions with motor vehicles.
  - u801e 7y ago
    A study titled "Head Injuries As a Cause of Road Travel Death in Cyclists, Pedestrians and Drivers" has the following quoted text in its conclusions section: > Head injuries in cyclists are often considered to be an important cause of road travel death, but this depends on the metric used for assessing importance. Pedestrians and drivers account for five and four times the number of fatal head injuries as cyclists. No-one is calling for pedestrians to wear helmets although the fatal head injury rates are similar for cyclists and pedestrians. The rate is higher for cyclists than pedestrians by time travelled and is higher for pedestrians than cyclists using distance travelled. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140518302731 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221414051...
- mobilemidget 7y ago
  That’s the Dutch reasoning... if I need one during cycling, might as well walk eat and sleep with helmet
  - isostatic 7y ago
    Some friends of mine were out recently with the kids. They had been riding so had helmets on, but had stopped at a playground for the kids. One of them started walking back and went straight over a wall, landing on his head, helmet taking the blow. Thank god people wear helmets when walking around in a children's playground!
- Luc 7y ago
  Of course not, and since I ride my bike at 15 km/h in a bicycle-friendly city, on safe paths, I don't wear one on my bike either. I wouldn't wear a helmet in the U.S. since I'd rather not risk getting on a bike at all over there.
lizmat 7y ago
Nice article. In the past years however, the number of e-bikes used by elderly people has gone up so much, that fatality for that group has gone up quite notably as well. Many elderly buy an e-bike while not having ridden a bike for many years. Meanwhile, traffic has become more difficult. And their reflexes not really what they have been. See e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/25/older-men-using-e-bikes-behind-rising-death-toll-among-dutch-cyclists https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/25/older-men-usin...
- nkootstra 7y ago
  I haven't seen that many (elderly) people in The Netherlands on e-bikes that used a helmet this year. The only people that wear helmets are the ones that have a speed padelec/mountainbiker or racing bikes.
  - lizmat 7y ago
    I guess it really makes a difference if you're cycling in the Randstad, or one of the other greater cities, or outside of them. I'd say about 50% of elderly people I see on e-bikes (and I cycle about 4000km / year, almost all outside of bigger cities) are now wearing helmets.
  - lizmat 7y ago
    pedelecs are in the same class as "brommers" (mopeds) and require wearing a helmet by law. See https://www.holland-cycling.com/blog/275-new-laws-for-speed-pedelecs-in-2017 https://www.holland-cycling.com/blog/275-new-laws-for-speed-...
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Meanwhile, in the US, we let elderly people continue driving long past the point where it's safe to do so, and then they kill not just themselves but also others. It's so commonplace the idea of an elderly driver fatally plowing through a farmer's market has become a trope.
discreteevent 7y ago
Apparently cycling in a fully upright position makes a big difference in how much sweat you produce. Also not wearing a helmet means you get to make better use of one of your major heat sinks.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  You have to keep in mind the weather there too. But I will say that cycling is surprisingly sweat-free for me (someone who typically sweats a lot). The amount of wind you're generating has a significant evaporative cooling effect that helps a lot even in hot weather. I find that when I'm biking to work, even on hot summer days, I only get noticeably sweaty when I'm sitting in the sun not moving at all waiting for a light to turn, and then when I get into a stuffy elevator at work.
- freehunter 7y ago
  This is actually pretty important. I did a 50 miles ride once and after about 30 miles the only way I could continue was by removing my helmet. My head was overheating otherwise, and every mile I continued with the helmet on, I was getting dizzier and dizzier. Only after I removed my helmet was I able to continue the ride without any negative effects. I still advocate for bicyclists wearing a helmet, but inside that recommendation is the reality that the standard American helmet I was wearing was causing me to overheat and suffer negative side effects. The only way I made it to my destination was from removing the helmet and taking the risk of crashing and suffering a major head injury. In that way, helmets are very different from automobile seat belts.
  - brianwawok 7y ago
    To be fair, there is a wide range of helmets. I have a $20 helmet that feels like you describe. I also have a $200 helmet that I can’t tell I have on. You may just need a nicer helmet...
    - freehunter 7y ago
      Agreed, which is why I said "the standard American helmet". You'd probably be hard pressed to walk into Walmart and buy a $200 helmet. Non-bikers like to make fun of cyclists wearing spandex and weird shoes and etc, without knowing that cycling can be dangerous in a way that a car or walking might not be. It's something people should be aware of. Your $20 Walmart helmet may cause your brain to overheat while you're riding. I certainly didn't know that was possible until I experienced it.
bad_user 7y ago
This year I fell off my bike twice. One time my wheels skidded while trying to get on a sidewalk and I would have hit my head if I didn't wear a helmet. Another time a girl jumped in front of me on the bike lane and I must've had 30 km/h. I pressed the breaks hard and unfortunately the breaks on my front wheel were stronger than those in the back, and my bike overturned with me falling violently on the ground. My left arm still hurts after one month and I had pain in my spleen area that kept me up at night. It's a good thing I also wear protective gloves as a fall like this can really injure your hands. I'm not a Dutchman and I'd love to live in a bike friendly city like Amsterdam. But protective gear can really save you from serious injury even with no cars around.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  If you're braking hard enough with the front brake to send you over the handlebars, whatever is going on with the rear brake is irrelevant because your rear wheel is literally lifting off the road and thus cannot possibly contribute meaningfully to braking or traction. In severe emergency braking, it's the front brake alone that matters (and sounds like you used a little too much of it). More info here: https://www.sheldonbrown.com/brakturn.html https://www.sheldonbrown.com/brakturn.html And yeah, I've been there done that going over the handlebars in a situation in which I braked too hard and had my weight too far forward, and it's no fun. Gloves definitely help prevent your hands from getting scratched up in a higher velocity bike collision.
- bluejekyll 7y ago
  This one time a van cut me off turning right across a bike lane while I was cruising at approx. 25mph on 8th St. in SF, probably too fast, and probably poorly positioned in the van's blind spot. I caught the front right wheel of the van and flew across the hood, rolled over it, landed on my back on the street and skidded to a hault on the opposite side just short of the curb. I was not wearing a helmet, but also, I suffered zero injuries–my bike on the other hand had two completely destroyed wheels. The van driver paid to fix the wheels. I started wearing a helmet after that always while riding (before that I only did while on long distance or competitive rides). I haven't had a crash since, probably because I avoid blind spots and other dangerous positions on the street. In all the years that I rode and crashed my bike as a kid, I also never suffered any serious head injuries, even this time that I crashed my bike and broke my hand protecting my face when I fell (not wearing a helmet), but today I still wear my helmet and its annoyance. Yet I have zero evidence that it has ever been useful to me. If I lived in a place where I didn't have to worry about cars murdering me all the time, like Holland, I probably would ride like I did as a kid, and not wear a helmet. That being said, I do make my kids wear helmets...
jeffk_teh_haxor 7y ago
It's fascinating that Netherlands made a deliberate, pragmatic step to take their streets back from cars in the 60's and 70's. I had assumed that they had simply never lost their love of the bike. But no, the positive situation they have today was developed as the result of conscious political action against the scourge of cars and traffic.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  There's plenty of us here in the US, especially in the large cities, that are actively trying to make this a reality here too. Join us! Here's the largest NYC group: http://transalt.org/ http://transalt.org/
yellow_postit 7y ago
The comment about slowing down even when you have the right of way in America rings particularly true to me as I was given a ticket in Seattle for being hit by a car while in a dedicated bike lane. Even in bike friendly cities in my experience you need to go beyond defensive cycling to defensive and always deferential cycling as cars (and cops) will always assume the car is in the right.
- lizmat 7y ago
  In the Netherlands, that is mostly the opposite: see https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-the-netherlands/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liabili...
- Beldin 7y ago
  Funny. In the Netherlands, there is a law that makes cyclists a protected class. In particular, while cyclist may cause an accident, the one with airbags, cage construction, bumpers and crumple zones has the responsibility to avoid accidents. This is not "its always the fault of the car driver". But: it is always the responsibility of the car driver to avoid an accident.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    In theory that's how it's supposed to be with pedestrians here, though in practice police often give a blank check to drivers no matter what, at least here in NYC.
- u801e 7y ago
  > I was given a ticket in Seattle for being hit by a car while in a dedicated bike lane. Could you be more specific about what law you violated according to the ticket? That is, what ordinance/law was listed on the ticket itself?
  - yellow_postit 7y ago
    Don’t have the number handy but it was in the failure to yield category. The officer’s line of reasoning was that in a bike lane when a car is traveling in the same direction wants to cross that lane the cyclist must always slow down and yield rather than the car waiting until it is clear for their turn to take place.
tim58 7y ago
Asking cyclist not to wear a helmet is like asking drivers not to wear a seatbelt. Yes, they are not needed if everyone follows all the safety rules. Yet accidents still happen.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Well, unlike a seat-belt, a helmet is easily stolen and needs to be kept track of by itself. This means that if the net effect of having to keep track of it is to cost you sufficiently that you choose a car or other sedentary mode of transit over a bike you may well lose more quality-adjusted life years. We shouldn't over-weight rare catastrophic events compared to common continuous damage events. In practice this means that I wear a helmet all the time in SF. But most of the time, I wouldn't wear one in Cambridge.
- Carpetsmoker 7y ago
  Except that the evidence is not clear that cycle helmets actually improve safety for adults (it is clear that it improves it for children), and cyclists will avoid cycling altogether if helmets are mandatory. Perhaps more importantly, cars carry safety risks for everyone. If I walk or cycle I am at risk of being run over by your car, my lungs get damaged due to the exhaust, the climate suffers.
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    How could helmets not improve safety for adults?
    - crispyporkbites 7y ago
      Because less people cycle, which makes cycling overall more dangerous for everyone.
    - Carpetsmoker 7y ago
      Turns out things are a bit more complex than "survival rate after being hit by a car at 40 km/h in the front": - Both cyclists and motorists tend to take slightly more risks when wearing helmets (cars give less distance when overtaking). - Mandatory helmets means fewer people cycle, so cars are less used to cyclists leading to more dangerous situations. It's been discussed many times on HN, and there is no clear-cut answer. Some research (I can't be bothered to find it all again, sorry) suggests it doesn't make a difference, other that it makes things slightly safer, and others that it makes it slightly less safe. On balance, it probably doesn't make much of a difference.
Kaotique 7y ago
In the Netherlands, it is also not allowed to bike next to highways or auto ways. Separate bicycle lanes have been made to navigate in different routes.
rocqua 7y ago
> As with so many aspects of their society, it seemed to depend on subsuming the needs of the individual to the needs of the community. It gets kind of exasperating when you see this kind of writing about your own country. Perhaps from an American perspective, it seems like some sort of socialist heaven here, but it really isn't. Our healthcare system is teetering, our elderly care system has already fallen. We are still laying down more asphalt 'because it will solve traffic jams'. Moreover, we've been eating away at some of our social safety net. Our prisons stated goal went from rehabilitation to retribution, and the police have more issues with 'confused people' which is a polite way to say people with a mental illness. One of the bigger issues is that of affordable housing. A recent report stated that 25% of renters forgo normal expenses to make rent. Moreover in the bigger cities we see foreign money guying real estate as investments just like in London or Seattle. Which brings me to the hypotheekrenteaftrek (tax rebate on mortgage interest). Which was pitched as helping the middle class afford housing, but turned into a massive tax credit for the rich. Now, we know this thing is pushing up a housing bubble, but we are afraid to do too much with the rebate for fear of popping that bubble. Not to mention the recent political push to abolish the dividend tax 'because it would help all business', not to entice Unilever and Shell to fully incorporate here. Only for the plan to be rescinded when it turned out Unilever wasn't gonna move here after all. And despite the large number of bicycles, we still have a shit-ton of cars. Whilst it is not uncommon for people to cycle to work, taking the car is still more common. And not having a car at all is a pretty rare thing. At the same time, the increase in e-bikes is causing dangerous situations, and a marked uptick in broken bones, especially among the elderly. My point being, the Netherlands aren't some perfect place to emulate, even though we have bike-lanes and drivers and cyclists here are used to seeing other cyclists on the road. Thank you for reading my rant.
- j0057 7y ago
  I agree that the hypotheekrenteaftrek should be (and is being) phased out, but it seems to me that the monetary policy of the ECB is a big factor in the current housing bubble as well -- for years they've been lowering the interest rates in the name of stimulating inflation, which also drove up housing prices.

50 points by jseliger 7y ago

isostatic 7y ago

Do you wear a helmet while walking?

snazz 7y ago
Do you walk at up to 20 miles per hour (32 km/h) in roadways right next to cars going much faster?
- pmontra 7y ago
  I recently saw a Dutchman explaining that they don't wear helmets because they don't cross paths with cars. Bike lanes are designed to keep cars and bicycles apart. From the article it seems that cars always give precedence to bicycles.
  - nkootstra 7y ago
    It really depends on the situation and the signs.
  - gambiting 7y ago
    The worst accident I ever had was when I collided with another bike, not a car - I flew over my handlebars and hit my head directly on the edge of a concrete slab. There was a loud crack, and in half split my....helmet. I was pretty ok(apart from severe bruises all over). My point is that whether you cross your path with cars or not is irrelevant - you're still travelling anywhere between 15-30km/h and your head is 1.5-2m above the road - it's enough of a speed and enough of a distance to kill you just from a fall, vehicles notwithstanding.
    - Kim_Bruning 7y ago
      Regular dutch (commuter) cyclists tend to ride a bit slower than 30. Sports cyclists DO wear a helmet!
  - dan_mctree 7y ago
    Cars and bicycles are mostly equals in terms of who gets to get first. Though, in cities, it's indeed common for cars to take up a lower, more careful position and they will frequently let bikes go first even if the law may've said they were allowed to go first. There's just so much stuff going on around you when you're driving a car in an inner city in the Netherlands, that it's wise to drive very carefully. In contrast, bikes have their own lanes, can use both sight and sound more easily and don't have to be so afraid of bumping into pedestrians, this means they have a far better grasp of the situation and possible risks. This combined with higher agility means they can move confidently and adjusted as needed.
  - mcv 7y ago
    It varies. Roads where cars are allowed to go over 30 kph tend to have separate bicycle paths (not always, but it's the goal). Slow streets, limited to 30 kph, often don't have separate bike paths, but since cars can't go much faster than bikes anyway, it's easy for them to give bikes the space they need. Of course in many traffic situations, bikes really do have right of way. It wasn't always like that, though. In the 1980s, cars coming from the left on an equal intersection would have right of way over a bike coming from the right. Bikes were still explicitly "lesser" traffic. This was changed in the early 1990s I think, when bikes became truly equal to cars. These days the pendulum seems to have swung in the opposite direction, and some bikes bully cars around.
- johnchristopher 7y ago
  Doesn't matter. Here, on HN, you'll soon get in your face that study about how incident reports go up when it's made mandatory by law to wear a helmet when riding a bike.
  - isostatic 7y ago
    Probably because that's the evidence
    - johnchristopher 7y ago
      Yeah, but people conveniently forget that wearing a wig cancel that :(.
- Someone 7y ago
  FTA: ”Studies have demonstrated that when a car hits a cyclist at speeds in excess of thirty kilometres per hour the cyclist is not likely to survive. Therefore, Bot told me, “thirty kilometres is the maximum speed in every living area in the Netherlands.”” The EU seems to concur with that. https://en.30kmh.eu/why-30kmh-20-mph/trendsetter-cities-for-30-kmh-20mph/nl-netherlands-trendsetter-for-30-kmh/ https://en.30kmh.eu/why-30kmh-20-mph/trendsetter-cities-for-...: About 50% of Dutch road network are having 30 km/h speed limits. Also, typical cyclists speed inside city centers is more like 8 miles an hour, the speed of a reasonably fast runner (https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/dutch-cycling-figures/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/dutch-cycling-... says 12.4 km/h)
  - u801e 7y ago
    > typical cyclists speed inside city centers is more like 8 miles an hour Is this referring to average speed? I suspect that this doesn't take hills into account. In my rides with a loaded trailer, my usual average speed is about 11 to 13 mph and my top speed on downhill sections ranges from 20 to 25 mph. My uphill speed is about 5 to 7 mph.
    - Someone 7y ago
      Hills are fairly rare in the Netherlands, certainly in cities, where of the day-to-day cycling takes place. In cities, cyclists typically also use their brakes more when going downhill than in the countryside because there’s more traffic and the traffic coming out of side ways can be harder to spot. So, I don’t think it makes much of a difference. Also, 20 mph downhill and 5 mph uphill gives an average speed of 8 mph, a bit lower than your claimed speed. I think that’s the generic pattern for hills: you lose more on the ascent than you gain on the descent because you spend more time on the ascent than on the descent.
      - u801e 7y ago
        I'm basing my figures for max, min and average speeds as displayed by my bicycle computer. I also mentioned a loaded trailer to demonstrate that I'm actually slower than the majority of cyclists here because they're not towing around extra weight like I am (meaning their average speeds are higher than mine and they can maintain higher speeds when going up hill compared to me). Also if I were to maintain an average speed of 8 mph, then my commute where I pick up my kids in different locations would take me nearly 2 hours as opposed to about 1 hour and 15 minutes. So speed matters if you want to complete the ride in a reasonable period of time.
- Carpetsmoker 7y ago
  Most people don't cycle at 32km/h, especially not in cities. In fact, I'd argue that doing that in most cities is just stupid.
- u801e 7y ago
  Bicycle helmets are not tested at 20 mph or in collisions with motor vehicles.
- u801e 7y ago
  A study titled "Head Injuries As a Cause of Road Travel Death in Cyclists, Pedestrians and Drivers" has the following quoted text in its conclusions section: > Head injuries in cyclists are often considered to be an important cause of road travel death, but this depends on the metric used for assessing importance. Pedestrians and drivers account for five and four times the number of fatal head injuries as cyclists. No-one is calling for pedestrians to wear helmets although the fatal head injury rates are similar for cyclists and pedestrians. The rate is higher for cyclists than pedestrians by time travelled and is higher for pedestrians than cyclists using distance travelled. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140518302731 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221414051...
mobilemidget 7y ago
That’s the Dutch reasoning... if I need one during cycling, might as well walk eat and sleep with helmet
- isostatic 7y ago
  Some friends of mine were out recently with the kids. They had been riding so had helmets on, but had stopped at a playground for the kids. One of them started walking back and went straight over a wall, landing on his head, helmet taking the blow. Thank god people wear helmets when walking around in a children's playground!
Luc 7y ago
Of course not, and since I ride my bike at 15 km/h in a bicycle-friendly city, on safe paths, I don't wear one on my bike either. I wouldn't wear a helmet in the U.S. since I'd rather not risk getting on a bike at all over there.

lizmat 7y ago

Nice article. In the past years however, the number of e-bikes used by elderly people has gone up so much, that fatality for that group has gone up quite notably as well. Many elderly buy an e-bike while not having ridden a bike for many years. Meanwhile, traffic has become more difficult. And their reflexes not really what they have been. See e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/25/older-men-using-e-bikes-behind-rising-death-toll-among-dutch-cyclists https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/25/older-men-usin...

nkootstra 7y ago
I haven't seen that many (elderly) people in The Netherlands on e-bikes that used a helmet this year. The only people that wear helmets are the ones that have a speed padelec/mountainbiker or racing bikes.
- lizmat 7y ago
  I guess it really makes a difference if you're cycling in the Randstad, or one of the other greater cities, or outside of them. I'd say about 50% of elderly people I see on e-bikes (and I cycle about 4000km / year, almost all outside of bigger cities) are now wearing helmets.
- lizmat 7y ago
  pedelecs are in the same class as "brommers" (mopeds) and require wearing a helmet by law. See https://www.holland-cycling.com/blog/275-new-laws-for-speed-pedelecs-in-2017 https://www.holland-cycling.com/blog/275-new-laws-for-speed-...
CydeWeys 7y ago
Meanwhile, in the US, we let elderly people continue driving long past the point where it's safe to do so, and then they kill not just themselves but also others. It's so commonplace the idea of an elderly driver fatally plowing through a farmer's market has become a trope.

discreteevent 7y ago

Apparently cycling in a fully upright position makes a big difference in how much sweat you produce. Also not wearing a helmet means you get to make better use of one of your major heat sinks.

CydeWeys 7y ago
You have to keep in mind the weather there too. But I will say that cycling is surprisingly sweat-free for me (someone who typically sweats a lot). The amount of wind you're generating has a significant evaporative cooling effect that helps a lot even in hot weather. I find that when I'm biking to work, even on hot summer days, I only get noticeably sweaty when I'm sitting in the sun not moving at all waiting for a light to turn, and then when I get into a stuffy elevator at work.
freehunter 7y ago
This is actually pretty important. I did a 50 miles ride once and after about 30 miles the only way I could continue was by removing my helmet. My head was overheating otherwise, and every mile I continued with the helmet on, I was getting dizzier and dizzier. Only after I removed my helmet was I able to continue the ride without any negative effects. I still advocate for bicyclists wearing a helmet, but inside that recommendation is the reality that the standard American helmet I was wearing was causing me to overheat and suffer negative side effects. The only way I made it to my destination was from removing the helmet and taking the risk of crashing and suffering a major head injury. In that way, helmets are very different from automobile seat belts.
- brianwawok 7y ago
  To be fair, there is a wide range of helmets. I have a $20 helmet that feels like you describe. I also have a $200 helmet that I can’t tell I have on. You may just need a nicer helmet...
  - freehunter 7y ago
    Agreed, which is why I said "the standard American helmet". You'd probably be hard pressed to walk into Walmart and buy a $200 helmet. Non-bikers like to make fun of cyclists wearing spandex and weird shoes and etc, without knowing that cycling can be dangerous in a way that a car or walking might not be. It's something people should be aware of. Your $20 Walmart helmet may cause your brain to overheat while you're riding. I certainly didn't know that was possible until I experienced it.

bad_user 7y ago

This year I fell off my bike twice. One time my wheels skidded while trying to get on a sidewalk and I would have hit my head if I didn't wear a helmet. Another time a girl jumped in front of me on the bike lane and I must've had 30 km/h. I pressed the breaks hard and unfortunately the breaks on my front wheel were stronger than those in the back, and my bike overturned with me falling violently on the ground. My left arm still hurts after one month and I had pain in my spleen area that kept me up at night. It's a good thing I also wear protective gloves as a fall like this can really injure your hands. I'm not a Dutchman and I'd love to live in a bike friendly city like Amsterdam. But protective gear can really save you from serious injury even with no cars around.

CydeWeys 7y ago
If you're braking hard enough with the front brake to send you over the handlebars, whatever is going on with the rear brake is irrelevant because your rear wheel is literally lifting off the road and thus cannot possibly contribute meaningfully to braking or traction. In severe emergency braking, it's the front brake alone that matters (and sounds like you used a little too much of it). More info here: https://www.sheldonbrown.com/brakturn.html https://www.sheldonbrown.com/brakturn.html And yeah, I've been there done that going over the handlebars in a situation in which I braked too hard and had my weight too far forward, and it's no fun. Gloves definitely help prevent your hands from getting scratched up in a higher velocity bike collision.
bluejekyll 7y ago
This one time a van cut me off turning right across a bike lane while I was cruising at approx. 25mph on 8th St. in SF, probably too fast, and probably poorly positioned in the van's blind spot. I caught the front right wheel of the van and flew across the hood, rolled over it, landed on my back on the street and skidded to a hault on the opposite side just short of the curb. I was not wearing a helmet, but also, I suffered zero injuries–my bike on the other hand had two completely destroyed wheels. The van driver paid to fix the wheels. I started wearing a helmet after that always while riding (before that I only did while on long distance or competitive rides). I haven't had a crash since, probably because I avoid blind spots and other dangerous positions on the street. In all the years that I rode and crashed my bike as a kid, I also never suffered any serious head injuries, even this time that I crashed my bike and broke my hand protecting my face when I fell (not wearing a helmet), but today I still wear my helmet and its annoyance. Yet I have zero evidence that it has ever been useful to me. If I lived in a place where I didn't have to worry about cars murdering me all the time, like Holland, I probably would ride like I did as a kid, and not wear a helmet. That being said, I do make my kids wear helmets...

jeffk_teh_haxor 7y ago

It's fascinating that Netherlands made a deliberate, pragmatic step to take their streets back from cars in the 60's and 70's. I had assumed that they had simply never lost their love of the bike. But no, the positive situation they have today was developed as the result of conscious political action against the scourge of cars and traffic.

CydeWeys 7y ago
There's plenty of us here in the US, especially in the large cities, that are actively trying to make this a reality here too. Join us! Here's the largest NYC group: http://transalt.org/ http://transalt.org/

yellow_postit 7y ago

The comment about slowing down even when you have the right of way in America rings particularly true to me as I was given a ticket in Seattle for being hit by a car while in a dedicated bike lane. Even in bike friendly cities in my experience you need to go beyond defensive cycling to defensive and always deferential cycling as cars (and cops) will always assume the car is in the right.

lizmat 7y ago
In the Netherlands, that is mostly the opposite: see https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-the-netherlands/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liabili...
Beldin 7y ago
Funny. In the Netherlands, there is a law that makes cyclists a protected class. In particular, while cyclist may cause an accident, the one with airbags, cage construction, bumpers and crumple zones has the responsibility to avoid accidents. This is not "its always the fault of the car driver". But: it is always the responsibility of the car driver to avoid an accident.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  In theory that's how it's supposed to be with pedestrians here, though in practice police often give a blank check to drivers no matter what, at least here in NYC.
u801e 7y ago
> I was given a ticket in Seattle for being hit by a car while in a dedicated bike lane. Could you be more specific about what law you violated according to the ticket? That is, what ordinance/law was listed on the ticket itself?
- yellow_postit 7y ago
  Don’t have the number handy but it was in the failure to yield category. The officer’s line of reasoning was that in a bike lane when a car is traveling in the same direction wants to cross that lane the cyclist must always slow down and yield rather than the car waiting until it is clear for their turn to take place.

tim58 7y ago

Asking cyclist not to wear a helmet is like asking drivers not to wear a seatbelt. Yes, they are not needed if everyone follows all the safety rules. Yet accidents still happen.

scarejunba 7y ago
Well, unlike a seat-belt, a helmet is easily stolen and needs to be kept track of by itself. This means that if the net effect of having to keep track of it is to cost you sufficiently that you choose a car or other sedentary mode of transit over a bike you may well lose more quality-adjusted life years. We shouldn't over-weight rare catastrophic events compared to common continuous damage events. In practice this means that I wear a helmet all the time in SF. But most of the time, I wouldn't wear one in Cambridge.
Carpetsmoker 7y ago
Except that the evidence is not clear that cycle helmets actually improve safety for adults (it is clear that it improves it for children), and cyclists will avoid cycling altogether if helmets are mandatory. Perhaps more importantly, cars carry safety risks for everyone. If I walk or cycle I am at risk of being run over by your car, my lungs get damaged due to the exhaust, the climate suffers.
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  How could helmets not improve safety for adults?
  - crispyporkbites 7y ago
    Because less people cycle, which makes cycling overall more dangerous for everyone.
  - Carpetsmoker 7y ago
    Turns out things are a bit more complex than "survival rate after being hit by a car at 40 km/h in the front": - Both cyclists and motorists tend to take slightly more risks when wearing helmets (cars give less distance when overtaking). - Mandatory helmets means fewer people cycle, so cars are less used to cyclists leading to more dangerous situations. It's been discussed many times on HN, and there is no clear-cut answer. Some research (I can't be bothered to find it all again, sorry) suggests it doesn't make a difference, other that it makes things slightly safer, and others that it makes it slightly less safe. On balance, it probably doesn't make much of a difference.

Kaotique 7y ago

In the Netherlands, it is also not allowed to bike next to highways or auto ways. Separate bicycle lanes have been made to navigate in different routes.

rocqua 7y ago

> As with so many aspects of their society, it seemed to depend on subsuming the needs of the individual to the needs of the community. It gets kind of exasperating when you see this kind of writing about your own country. Perhaps from an American perspective, it seems like some sort of socialist heaven here, but it really isn't. Our healthcare system is teetering, our elderly care system has already fallen. We are still laying down more asphalt 'because it will solve traffic jams'. Moreover, we've been eating away at some of our social safety net. Our prisons stated goal went from rehabilitation to retribution, and the police have more issues with 'confused people' which is a polite way to say people with a mental illness. One of the bigger issues is that of affordable housing. A recent report stated that 25% of renters forgo normal expenses to make rent. Moreover in the bigger cities we see foreign money guying real estate as investments just like in London or Seattle. Which brings me to the hypotheekrenteaftrek (tax rebate on mortgage interest). Which was pitched as helping the middle class afford housing, but turned into a massive tax credit for the rich. Now, we know this thing is pushing up a housing bubble, but we are afraid to do too much with the rebate for fear of popping that bubble. Not to mention the recent political push to abolish the dividend tax 'because it would help all business', not to entice Unilever and Shell to fully incorporate here. Only for the plan to be rescinded when it turned out Unilever wasn't gonna move here after all. And despite the large number of bicycles, we still have a shit-ton of cars. Whilst it is not uncommon for people to cycle to work, taking the car is still more common. And not having a car at all is a pretty rare thing. At the same time, the increase in e-bikes is causing dangerous situations, and a marked uptick in broken bones, especially among the elderly. My point being, the Netherlands aren't some perfect place to emulate, even though we have bike-lanes and drivers and cyclists here are used to seeing other cyclists on the road. Thank you for reading my rant.

j0057 7y ago
I agree that the hypotheekrenteaftrek should be (and is being) phased out, but it seems to me that the monetary policy of the ECB is a big factor in the current housing bubble as well -- for years they've been lowering the interest rates in the name of stimulating inflation, which also drove up housing prices.