11 ms·

As a Dutchman who's lived in a few places abroad, the cycling 'problem' is quite simple: it needs to be the norm. No helmet, because neither do you require them

by brnt 7y ago

As a Dutchman who's lived in a few places abroad, the cycling 'problem' is quite simple: it needs to be the norm. No helmet, because neither do you require them for pedestrians. You can cycle in all weather, just as you would walking (a hard mental one, my non-Dutch partner can't get over the idea cycling is for sunshine). Public space design must start with safe (no sharp turns, looking at you France!) and separate cycling lanes. Perhaps the fact that urban cycling infra is a much cheaper/efficient use of public land could be more emphasized. In urban areas, cycling is faster, and electric biking is expanding your reach a few times over. There are people who bike a 30km commute without breaking a sweat (see bike highways). Sure, there will always be situations where it will be difficult, such as steep areas (electric bikes can do a lot here, as well as accepting a little sweating which is normal in NL) or heat that exceeds body temperatures which in turn makes expiration impossible (no easy solutions for this one). But that leaves most of the urban areas on this globe perfectly suitable for cycling, which would be in everybody's favor, and their own first and foremost.

aidenn0 7y ago
I live in a very mild clime, but still don't bike when it's rainy. What do you suggest gear-wise for bicycling in say 5-10C but wet? I have a 30 minute bicycle commute that I'd like to do more often. A typical waist-length jacket leaves most of my body wet, but a longer jacket is awkward to bike in. If it's over 10C, I can just wear shorts that don't absorb water, but under 10, it gets quite uncomfortable.
- renjimen 7y ago
  Rain pants? Pretty standard here in Copenhagen. It helps if it's coldish, otherwise you either sweat more or cycle slower. A change of shoes and socks can also be appreciated if it's tipping it down.
- adrianN 7y ago
  5-10C but wet is easy mode. Use a rain jacket, rain pants, and rain spats (optional). It's harder when it's warm and wet, as you can choose between getting wet from the rain, or sweating under your waterproof gear.
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    Warm and wet is easy because I just change clothes at work. There's a shower at my office.
- wool_gather 7y ago
  Cycling pants. You shouldn't have too much trouble finding waterproof pants to go with your jacket. There are some that fit over other clothes (which also provide a lot of insulation if it's cold) and some you wear as if they were regular pants. You can also get shoe covers.
- brnt 7y ago
  Personally I use acceptance ;) Which I think is an important ingredient that most Dutch citizens learn as they start cycling to high school regardless of weather: it won't always be pleasant. In the rain I'll get wet, no biggy. At work I won't be the only one putting a coat and shoes on the heater to dry. Some discomfort is present in all modes of transport, this is the one I chose to put up with. I also use a raincoat with cap and rain pants, which should fall over your shoes. However, I only use this in heavy rain, because with light rain I get wet anyway from my own sweat (wet rain gear usually does not breathe enough for me). Then there is the rain radar [1], but is probably not available for your locale ;) [1] https://buienradar.nl https://buienradar.nl
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    Right, it was 19 miles to bike from my house to my HS, which is a bit far, and long enough that a bus was faster (though at least most of it was separated from automobile traffic).
- throw0101a 7y ago
  I find that it's not actual rain that's the problem, but the risk of rain. I hardly every get wet on my commute, but if it says 60-70% chance of precipitation, then that may prevent some people. I find it handy to simply have a pannier with my rain gear: * https://www.rei.com/c/cycling-jackets https://www.rei.com/c/cycling-jackets * https://www.rei.com/c/cycling-tights-and-pants https://www.rei.com/c/cycling-tights-and-pants It's not heavy, though a bit bulky, and if it does actually start coming down, one can just pull over and put it over one's regular clothes. If you can, try to ensure that whatever over-gear you get says "breathable": wearing the equivalent of a garbage bag reduces comfort. I personally wear the funny-looking cycle attire as well, but that's because I like to pedal hard to get some cardio (instead of going to the gym). If you pedal at a slower pace then you may not work up a sweat--at least not after ~2 weeks once you're in better shape.
- namibj 7y ago
  The German military has some literal pullover pant+jacket rain combo. It is quite robust woven nylon on the outside with PTFE membrane below (shielded from the inner garments with thin woven PET). You need gloves to prevent moisture wicking up, and might have to get creative around the face/hood/chin border, but otherwise this (I'd suggest a civil clone; the original seems to only exist in Flecktarn) should do the trick. And it's highly breathable.
- bart_spoon 7y ago
  Rain pants. I was a mormon missionary in northern Japan, and we rode mountain bikes everywhere, regardless of weather. Typhoons, blizzards, compacted ice and snow on the ground, all of it is actually quite easy to bike in. Assuming you already have a water proof jacket, about $30 is all you need to get some waterproof pants that can quickly be pulled over your actual pants and keeps you perfectly dry, and then removed at your destination. Weather should really be one of the least concerns on anyone's list for cycling.
fennecfoxen 7y ago
> electric biking is expanding your reach a few times over. Electric bikes are motorcycles, and I don't want vehicles with the speed and acceleration characteristics of a motorcycle in my bike lane, if you please. postscript: my very concerns for my safety seem to be getting voted down a lot considering that our friend the Dutchman here has given a rather nice reply recognizing the substantive nature of this conflict
- brnt 7y ago
  So in NL, this is tackled with a tiered classification, in which the lowest tier (<25kph) is a bike, middle tier (25-45kph) is classified scooter (under certain circumstances and in certain cities such as Amsterdam you must use the car lanes) and 45kph and up is indeed a motorcycle, which means helmet+suitable clothing and car-lane only (but not highways). This is not ideal, as the (fast) electric bike is new, also in NL, and people will misanticipate them (which I've experienced first hand). You're right, mixing speeds is a bad idea. This will improve with better infra (wider cycling paths, bike highways) and getting used to this new vehicle. On the other hand, the problem is similar to the scooter, which also doesn't fit the car or bike class, so perhaps with time a new type of lane must be invented. Some cities/political parties in NL are thinking of lowering the car speed limit from 50 to 30 (in urban area), which will facilitate mixing in scooters and electric bikes with car traffic. Another important fact is liability: heavier vehicles are more liable (weight makes responsible). So in any accident between, say, car and electric bike, the car will be at fault by default, unless there is proof to the contrary. This leads to more cautious driving.
  - openfuture 7y ago
    It should be classified by acceleration not velocity. Weight and velocity are also important (potential energy which could cause harm) but acceleration is the right way to sort things into lanes, there can also be an energy constraint for the lane but acceleration is about being able to anticipate the behavior of something so that you can avoid the accident in the first place. Electric bikes can accelerate fast and the user will also not care as much about stopping (and losing hard won inertia) this could invalidate some expectation and cause an accident.
willis936 7y ago
Are you suggesting that helmet not be the norm when riding bikes? Biking is more dangerous than walking, even if you did it on an isolated trail. Is looking cooler worth the increased risk of a traumatic brain injury? I’m okay with society thinking it isn’t.
- helen___keller 7y ago
  > looking cooler I don't think it's about looking cooler, it's about barrier to entry. It's like adding a 15 character requirement to passwords on your application and rotating them weekly. Most people will give up on your application before they even give it a try. OPs point is that cities should make it a goal for biking to be safe regardless of if you have a helmet. I daresay biking without a helmet in Copenhagen is vastly safer than biking with a helmet in any city in the states.
  - willis936 7y ago
    Biking isn’t safe enough to not wear a helmet just because there have been changes to make biking less likely to have an accident. If putting on a helmet is too much work then physically moving yourself to your destination is wayyy too much work. That is to say, it isn’t too much work and it isn’t a barrier to entry. At the very least citizens should appreciate the danger of biking without a helmet even if they choose to do it. Willing the problem away because biking is good on paper isn’t good enough.
    - 99052882514569 7y ago
      Biking isn't completely safe. Do helmets really help all that much? Very questionable[0]. Wearing a helmet, for example, promotes less safe behaviour by both cyclists and by drivers around them. The sense of safety a helmet gives you when you cycle is mostly a false one. Lack of cycling infrastructure is a far greater danger anyway. In countries with the best cyclist safety records, no one wears or owns bike helmets, like not figuratively 'no one', but literally, no one. Can't be a very significant standalone determinant of bike safety then, can it? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Effectiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Effectiveness
stronglikedan 7y ago
> No helmet While I don't think they should be required, I do think they should be worn. I've had a low-speed spill where the helmet saved my head considerably - I hit the pavement so hard my glasses were flattened out. You fall much faster, even at low speeds, and you fall much farther from a bike, than a pedestrian would fall.
- Freak_NL 7y ago
  It's a matter of risk assessment. The chance of a healthy adult cycling in the Netherlands getting a head injury that would have been prevent by a helmet are so incredibly low, that making it a requirement would have a detrimental effect on the collective health of Dutch society due to slightly lower uptake in cycling. For elderly and young children a helmet may make sense, due to the significantly higher risk of such injuries (due to reduced physical responses and inexperience). And for racing bicycles wearing a helmet is the norm. A helmet can significantly reduce the impact of a fall, but the risk of that fall is so low that the measure becomes statistically meaningless. It is akin to always wearing a hard hat when you leave your home, because it would save you from serious brain injury if a brick fell on your head. Of course, bricks don't generally fall out of the sky, but you can never be too sure… This doesn't mean that all safety measures are nonsense — having working lights and functioning brakes do reduce the chances of accidents. It is also tempting to compare the helmet to seatbelts in a car, but there the chance of needing them is simply much higher. One well-researched source on the negative effects of bicycle helmets if made mandatory in the Netherlands (in Dutch): https://www.fietsersbond.nl/nieuws/fietshelmen-en-veiligheid/ https://www.fietsersbond.nl/nieuws/fietshelmen-en-veiligheid...
  - brnt 7y ago
    That source even shows numbers that helmets increase the risk of injury, which I've seen presumed to be due to the perception of safety and less careful driving by other road users. The source summarizes helmets as 'safety theater' based on what seems to be pretty well researched data.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    In almost every other context in which risk of physical harm comes up the overwhelmingly dominant opinion is that forgoing any means of reducing that risk is a non-starter more or less regardless of cost. Anyone suggesting that risk and cost/benefit need to be assessed is received about as well as someone proclaiming god doesn't exist in the middle of a church circa 1500. As a safety heretic I fully agree with you that people can make their own decisions on helmet use but why should cycling get special treatment here? On every other issue of physical safety the HN gods have ruled the other way.
jsinai 7y ago
>In urban areas, cycling is faster, and electric biking is expanding your reach a few times over. In Cambridge, UK, where I used to live it once took me quicker to ride to the same destination than a taxi. In fact it’s well known that cycling in Cambridge’s city centre is much faster than taking a car.
- EForEndeavour 7y ago
  Cycling is often the fastest choice in cities. This spring, Uber revealed that even walking is as fast or faster than ride-sharing in many urban centres: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/22/uber-data-reveals-motoring-slower-than-walking-in-many-cities https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/22/uber-dat...
- aqme28 7y ago
  I bike faster than cars easily in much of New York, and sometimes the subway as well.

by brnt 7y ago

aidenn0 7y ago

I live in a very mild clime, but still don't bike when it's rainy. What do you suggest gear-wise for bicycling in say 5-10C but wet? I have a 30 minute bicycle commute that I'd like to do more often. A typical waist-length jacket leaves most of my body wet, but a longer jacket is awkward to bike in. If it's over 10C, I can just wear shorts that don't absorb water, but under 10, it gets quite uncomfortable.

renjimen 7y ago
Rain pants? Pretty standard here in Copenhagen. It helps if it's coldish, otherwise you either sweat more or cycle slower. A change of shoes and socks can also be appreciated if it's tipping it down.
adrianN 7y ago
5-10C but wet is easy mode. Use a rain jacket, rain pants, and rain spats (optional). It's harder when it's warm and wet, as you can choose between getting wet from the rain, or sweating under your waterproof gear.
- aidenn0 7y ago
  Warm and wet is easy because I just change clothes at work. There's a shower at my office.
wool_gather 7y ago
Cycling pants. You shouldn't have too much trouble finding waterproof pants to go with your jacket. There are some that fit over other clothes (which also provide a lot of insulation if it's cold) and some you wear as if they were regular pants. You can also get shoe covers.
brnt 7y ago
Personally I use acceptance ;) Which I think is an important ingredient that most Dutch citizens learn as they start cycling to high school regardless of weather: it won't always be pleasant. In the rain I'll get wet, no biggy. At work I won't be the only one putting a coat and shoes on the heater to dry. Some discomfort is present in all modes of transport, this is the one I chose to put up with. I also use a raincoat with cap and rain pants, which should fall over your shoes. However, I only use this in heavy rain, because with light rain I get wet anyway from my own sweat (wet rain gear usually does not breathe enough for me). Then there is the rain radar [1], but is probably not available for your locale ;) [1] https://buienradar.nl https://buienradar.nl
- aidenn0 7y ago
  Right, it was 19 miles to bike from my house to my HS, which is a bit far, and long enough that a bus was faster (though at least most of it was separated from automobile traffic).
throw0101a 7y ago
I find that it's not actual rain that's the problem, but the risk of rain. I hardly every get wet on my commute, but if it says 60-70% chance of precipitation, then that may prevent some people. I find it handy to simply have a pannier with my rain gear: * https://www.rei.com/c/cycling-jackets https://www.rei.com/c/cycling-jackets * https://www.rei.com/c/cycling-tights-and-pants https://www.rei.com/c/cycling-tights-and-pants It's not heavy, though a bit bulky, and if it does actually start coming down, one can just pull over and put it over one's regular clothes. If you can, try to ensure that whatever over-gear you get says "breathable": wearing the equivalent of a garbage bag reduces comfort. I personally wear the funny-looking cycle attire as well, but that's because I like to pedal hard to get some cardio (instead of going to the gym). If you pedal at a slower pace then you may not work up a sweat--at least not after ~2 weeks once you're in better shape.
namibj 7y ago
The German military has some literal pullover pant+jacket rain combo. It is quite robust woven nylon on the outside with PTFE membrane below (shielded from the inner garments with thin woven PET). You need gloves to prevent moisture wicking up, and might have to get creative around the face/hood/chin border, but otherwise this (I'd suggest a civil clone; the original seems to only exist in Flecktarn) should do the trick. And it's highly breathable.
bart_spoon 7y ago
Rain pants. I was a mormon missionary in northern Japan, and we rode mountain bikes everywhere, regardless of weather. Typhoons, blizzards, compacted ice and snow on the ground, all of it is actually quite easy to bike in. Assuming you already have a water proof jacket, about $30 is all you need to get some waterproof pants that can quickly be pulled over your actual pants and keeps you perfectly dry, and then removed at your destination. Weather should really be one of the least concerns on anyone's list for cycling.

fennecfoxen 7y ago

> electric biking is expanding your reach a few times over. Electric bikes are motorcycles, and I don't want vehicles with the speed and acceleration characteristics of a motorcycle in my bike lane, if you please. postscript: my very concerns for my safety seem to be getting voted down a lot considering that our friend the Dutchman here has given a rather nice reply recognizing the substantive nature of this conflict

brnt 7y ago
So in NL, this is tackled with a tiered classification, in which the lowest tier (<25kph) is a bike, middle tier (25-45kph) is classified scooter (under certain circumstances and in certain cities such as Amsterdam you must use the car lanes) and 45kph and up is indeed a motorcycle, which means helmet+suitable clothing and car-lane only (but not highways). This is not ideal, as the (fast) electric bike is new, also in NL, and people will misanticipate them (which I've experienced first hand). You're right, mixing speeds is a bad idea. This will improve with better infra (wider cycling paths, bike highways) and getting used to this new vehicle. On the other hand, the problem is similar to the scooter, which also doesn't fit the car or bike class, so perhaps with time a new type of lane must be invented. Some cities/political parties in NL are thinking of lowering the car speed limit from 50 to 30 (in urban area), which will facilitate mixing in scooters and electric bikes with car traffic. Another important fact is liability: heavier vehicles are more liable (weight makes responsible). So in any accident between, say, car and electric bike, the car will be at fault by default, unless there is proof to the contrary. This leads to more cautious driving.
- openfuture 7y ago
  It should be classified by acceleration not velocity. Weight and velocity are also important (potential energy which could cause harm) but acceleration is the right way to sort things into lanes, there can also be an energy constraint for the lane but acceleration is about being able to anticipate the behavior of something so that you can avoid the accident in the first place. Electric bikes can accelerate fast and the user will also not care as much about stopping (and losing hard won inertia) this could invalidate some expectation and cause an accident.

willis936 7y ago

Are you suggesting that helmet not be the norm when riding bikes? Biking is more dangerous than walking, even if you did it on an isolated trail. Is looking cooler worth the increased risk of a traumatic brain injury? I’m okay with society thinking it isn’t.

helen___keller 7y ago
> looking cooler I don't think it's about looking cooler, it's about barrier to entry. It's like adding a 15 character requirement to passwords on your application and rotating them weekly. Most people will give up on your application before they even give it a try. OPs point is that cities should make it a goal for biking to be safe regardless of if you have a helmet. I daresay biking without a helmet in Copenhagen is vastly safer than biking with a helmet in any city in the states.
- willis936 7y ago
  Biking isn’t safe enough to not wear a helmet just because there have been changes to make biking less likely to have an accident. If putting on a helmet is too much work then physically moving yourself to your destination is wayyy too much work. That is to say, it isn’t too much work and it isn’t a barrier to entry. At the very least citizens should appreciate the danger of biking without a helmet even if they choose to do it. Willing the problem away because biking is good on paper isn’t good enough.
  - 99052882514569 7y ago
    Biking isn't completely safe. Do helmets really help all that much? Very questionable[0]. Wearing a helmet, for example, promotes less safe behaviour by both cyclists and by drivers around them. The sense of safety a helmet gives you when you cycle is mostly a false one. Lack of cycling infrastructure is a far greater danger anyway. In countries with the best cyclist safety records, no one wears or owns bike helmets, like not figuratively 'no one', but literally, no one. Can't be a very significant standalone determinant of bike safety then, can it? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Effectiveness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Effectiveness

stronglikedan 7y ago

> No helmet While I don't think they should be required, I do think they should be worn. I've had a low-speed spill where the helmet saved my head considerably - I hit the pavement so hard my glasses were flattened out. You fall much faster, even at low speeds, and you fall much farther from a bike, than a pedestrian would fall.

Freak_NL 7y ago
It's a matter of risk assessment. The chance of a healthy adult cycling in the Netherlands getting a head injury that would have been prevent by a helmet are so incredibly low, that making it a requirement would have a detrimental effect on the collective health of Dutch society due to slightly lower uptake in cycling. For elderly and young children a helmet may make sense, due to the significantly higher risk of such injuries (due to reduced physical responses and inexperience). And for racing bicycles wearing a helmet is the norm. A helmet can significantly reduce the impact of a fall, but the risk of that fall is so low that the measure becomes statistically meaningless. It is akin to always wearing a hard hat when you leave your home, because it would save you from serious brain injury if a brick fell on your head. Of course, bricks don't generally fall out of the sky, but you can never be too sure… This doesn't mean that all safety measures are nonsense — having working lights and functioning brakes do reduce the chances of accidents. It is also tempting to compare the helmet to seatbelts in a car, but there the chance of needing them is simply much higher. One well-researched source on the negative effects of bicycle helmets if made mandatory in the Netherlands (in Dutch): https://www.fietsersbond.nl/nieuws/fietshelmen-en-veiligheid/ https://www.fietsersbond.nl/nieuws/fietshelmen-en-veiligheid...
- brnt 7y ago
  That source even shows numbers that helmets increase the risk of injury, which I've seen presumed to be due to the perception of safety and less careful driving by other road users. The source summarizes helmets as 'safety theater' based on what seems to be pretty well researched data.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  In almost every other context in which risk of physical harm comes up the overwhelmingly dominant opinion is that forgoing any means of reducing that risk is a non-starter more or less regardless of cost. Anyone suggesting that risk and cost/benefit need to be assessed is received about as well as someone proclaiming god doesn't exist in the middle of a church circa 1500. As a safety heretic I fully agree with you that people can make their own decisions on helmet use but why should cycling get special treatment here? On every other issue of physical safety the HN gods have ruled the other way.

jsinai 7y ago

>In urban areas, cycling is faster, and electric biking is expanding your reach a few times over. In Cambridge, UK, where I used to live it once took me quicker to ride to the same destination than a taxi. In fact it’s well known that cycling in Cambridge’s city centre is much faster than taking a car.

EForEndeavour 7y ago
Cycling is often the fastest choice in cities. This spring, Uber revealed that even walking is as fast or faster than ride-sharing in many urban centres: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/22/uber-data-reveals-motoring-slower-than-walking-in-many-cities https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/22/uber-dat...
aqme28 7y ago
I bike faster than cars easily in much of New York, and sometimes the subway as well.