34 ms·
Pedal Me bans staff riders from wearing helmets for safety reasons
- tejohnso 4y agoFrom [the tweet], "People that are taking risks that are sufficient that they feel they need to wear helmets are not welcome to work for us" [the tweet]: https://twitter.com/pedalmeapp/status/1489594692857647113?s=20&t=iobS6JFW-atF3sUklS7Ncg https://twitter.com/pedalmeapp/status/1489594692857647113?s=...
- wl 4y agoRiding on roads isn't like mountain biking where you mostly control the amount of risk you take on. Riding on roads puts you at the mercy of other people's choices. I feel the need to wear a helmet anytime I'm riding on a road for that reason.
- glenngillen 4y agoI don’t know any mountain biker that doesn’t wear a helmet. Most I ride with wear full face. I don’t think there’s any riding situation where you can think you’re in complete control of the risk.
- wl 4y agoI wear a full-face helmet on a mountain bike, too. My point is that when mountain biking, you encounter varied terrain and obstacles and you decide how to approach that based on your skill and experience. Some approaches are riskier than others. And sometimes you decide the best thing to do is just nope out and ride or walk around whatever it is.
- scotty79 4y agoThe point is the risk on the road is smaller when you don't wear a helmet because drivers take less risk with you. Even better if you are a woman in summer dress. Then the drivers give you way more space and are super careful around you. It was researched.
- judofyr 4y ago> It was researched. Citation needed please.
- wl 4y agoI think you're referring to Ian Walker's study. Yes, motorists on average passed helmeted cyclists closer than non-helmeted ones. The difference in average passing distance wasn't huge (1.3 m vs. 1.2 m) and was still a safe distance.
- Brian_K_White 4y agoThe amount of difference isn't as interesting as the fact of it. It indicates attention, which is worth a lot more than the inches.
- rcxdude 4y agoDoes it? That's a supposition, not a scientific fact. Presumably they all paid some attention by passing at a safe distance. I don't see why someone paying more attention would pass further away.
- Brian_K_White 4y agoThey moved over by coincidence? OK.
- nerdponx 4y agoI have not read the study, but I would hope that they had the cyclists wearing the same clothes and riding on the same stretch of road in all tests. Otherwise you will end up with the situation where helmeted riders are more likely to be riding fast on roads that aren't as safe for cycling, Which would naturally lead to differences in driver behavior around them.
- bombcar 4y agoAn attractive woman in a bikini on a bike probably elicits the slowest and carefullest passing by many of the drivers.
- mrpopo 4y agoHelmets protect against falls. They don't protect against cars.
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 4y agoWhen you get side-swept by a car you're going to fall. Getting rammed from the side or behind is not the only collision scenario, and getting side-swept seems like an extremely more likely scenario in London out of all places, where traffic in general is slow.
- scatters 4y agoGetting side swept will not happen if you don't undertake motor vehicles and don't allow motor vehicles to overtake you.
- darkerside 4y agoThis is sarcasm, right?
- scatters 4y agoNot sarcasm. If a car isn't beside you they can't side swipe you. You are aware that London basically doesn't have multi lane roads, right?
- darkerside 4y agoWhy would I be aware of that? A quick Google Maps search shows some multi lane roads.
- scatters 4y agoBecause this is a discussion about a London company. If you don't understand the context, you should at least be prepared to learn.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- whimsicalism 4y agoIIRC it is studied that cars behave more dangerously around bikers with helmets while they give a wide berth to unhelmeted bikers.
- tomphoolery 4y ago"it is studied" Source please? This sounds like absolute bullshit. I've known so many people who have been killed or permanently disfigured because they didn't wear a helmet while biking in a large city. Cars don't give a fuck about us.
- andrenotgiant 4y agohttps://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/bicycle-helmet-wearing-is-associated-with-closer-overtaking-by-dr https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/bicycle-he...
- gus_massa 4y agoFrom the abstract: > The distribution of overtaking events shifted just over one-fifth of a standard deviation closer to the rider – a potentially important behaviour if, as theoretical frameworks suggest, near-misses and collisions lie on a continuum. Looking at the graph in figure 1, "one-fifth of a standard" looks as unimpressive as expected. The distance from the kerb looks much more relevant. IIUC all the analysis is based on 2355 data gathered by Walker riding a bike himself a few years ago between two cities. It's not a mix of data from different persons or a mix of city and countryside rides. The most interesting part is that Walker published 5 articles about the same data, and he got a different result in each one.
- whimsicalism 4y agoYes, but you're missing that overtaking events is just one of the metrics in question. You're right that perhaps it is a big difference between cyclists, my guess would be the number of cars matters more than the number of cyclists. The study has been replicated elsewhere. > Walker published 5 articles about the same data, and he got a different result in each one. Uh, no? The 8.5 cm result has been consistent. At the margin, these things make a difference, especially given that collisions are rare as a fraction for rides taken.
- andrew_ 4y agoSeems unreachable using Brave. Continually redirects.
- bragr 4y agoI'm getting this as well
- dundarious 4y agoSame on iOS Safari. Forcibly redirects to an /amp/ suffix. Thankfully, Archive.ph could swallow that AMP garbage: https://archive.ph/I6XGG https://archive.ph/I6XGG
- perlgeek 4y agoThis assumes that the risk primarily originates from the riders, not from other traffic participants. Is there any data to substantiate this?
- sswaner 4y agoAs an active cyclist that was my first thought. Auto drivers texting while driving is my bigger concern. I wear a helmet to hopefully survive that encounter.
- sampo 4y ago> Is there any data to substantiate this? Risk compensation is a known theory in psychology. But as is normal for psychology, arguments fly back and forth, and there is no settled consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Bicycle_helmets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Bicycle_helm...
- littlestymaar 4y agoThere is none, the “risk compensation” theory is a myth invented by Sam Peltzman without any evidence for the phenomenon (but as a good member of the Chicago school of Economics, his goal wasn't to make scientific discovery backed by facts, but to create a narrative against state regulations of any kind)
- scotty79 4y agoOther participants take less risk with riders not wearing helmets. There's data on this. For example they leave more room between the bicycle and a car when they are passing.
- newaccount74 4y agoAs long as they see me I don't worry. They might do stupid stuff like honk at me or pass with small distance, but it's unlikely they'll kill me. The thing I'm afraid of is a car hitting me at high speed cause they didn't see me, that would probably kill me.
- mrgoldenbrown 4y ago
- Kaibeezy 4y ago"riders wearing helmets take greater risks" That's why I've glued 3-inch shards of broken glass to my steering wheel.
- Qub3d 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Tullock#Tullock's_spike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Tullock#Tullock's_spike (I think this was mentioned earlier but I can't find the comment, so I'll just link it again)
- op00to 4y agoI seem to remember old Camaros had this super pointy dashboard that seemed unnecessarily dangerous.
- edmcnulty101 4y agoHelmets are trying to reduce an already tiny risk. We live in a world of safety fanaticism.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoUnlikely in the average but catastrophic to the individuals who lose the bet. Often society has to pay for the consequence to the victim. Which reminds me I need to get a helmet for my youngest, even though she's only a rider.
- edmcnulty101 4y agoYou should get them some full body Kevlar and chain mail as well. There are more shootings and stabbings than bicycle head injuries. Just to be safe.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoCurious what sources you have. Because several family members and I have experienced head injuries riding bicycles, none of us have been shot at or attacked with a knife. That said, I'm down for making all private gun possession illegal.
- edmcnulty101 4y agoThere's like 250,000 shootings and stabbings in the US per year estimated. There's like 27000 bicycle head injuries in the US. I'm surprised you haven't googled it. Here's the head injury source. You can easily Google shooting and stabbings per year and add them together. https://www.nsc.org/safety-first-blog/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-surprise-you https://www.nsc.org/safety-first-blog/bicycle-safety-statist... Its pretty clear you should pick up some Kevlar and chain mail for your kids.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoThere may be some reporting issues with your data. For example how many helmets prevented would've-been-reported head injuries? How many injuries aren't reported? And how many hours on bicycle are there compared to constantly living around so many guns? A natural experiment may require comparing similar communities with and with helmet laws. Shootings and stabbings on the other had are difficult to not report. And can happen regardless of proximity to bicycles. Ultimately let's do both: get helmets for kids and get rid of so many guns.
- throw__away7391 4y agoIs this true? Anecdotally I bought a very fast electric scooter last year, but initially I didn't have a helmet. It took about two weeks to finally receive a helmet that fit me, and I didn't take it at top speed until then. I definitely feel much more secure riding with the helmet on...and take more risks than I would without it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- polote 4y agoAt my scale, I know that when I go mountain biking, when I have an helmet, I go faster and take much more risk than when I don't have an helmet. I don't have any data point about road biking, because I never wear a helmet. But thinking about it, I would also take more risks with more protective equipments
- throwaway4220 4y agoBut what is your overall safety. Like can you still get seriously injured being careful not wearing a helmet
- jtbayly 4y agoCan you still get seriously injured being careful wearing a helmet?
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 4y ago
- kzrdude 4y agoI know me, I was already going as fast as possible on a city bike. With a helmet I'm safer when actually having an accident.
- Sebb767 4y agoHow dare those guys drive on roads with cars! This seems insane. Even if the data supported this, anyone from the PR department should have seen how much bad press this generates from a mile away.
- _Wintermute 4y agoFrom their point of view, it's like if a delivery company banned drivers from installing roll-cages and racing harnesses - the initial question should be, why on earth do you think you need that?
- ericbarrett 4y agoA fall from bicycle height onto concrete can kill you if you hit your head—even if the bicycle is completely stationary. This rule is BS and I expect the company will be pressured to reverse their decision immediately. Sincerely, a guy who's probably alive because of a bicycle helmet.
- jstanley 4y agoIt's more like banning drivers from wearing seatbelts.
- Sebb767 4y agoIt's more like if a delivery company banned their drivers from installing seat belts and airbags. Even if you are a perfect driver, other people aren't and on a bike, your will be the one hurting after a crash.
- _Wintermute 4y agoNot at all. Seatbelts are a legal requirement, helmets are not. This is employees wearing body amour, which is seen as either encouraging risk-taking, or giving the illusion that the activity is risky.
- Sebb767 4y ago
- wzdd 4y agoThis is a pedicab service. A cynic would assume that Pedal Me is mandating this (and thus putting their drivers at risk) because passengers are more nervous about taking a service where the driver wears a helmet and they do not.
- searchableguy 4y agoExactly what I think as well. This might lower risk for the customers because driver may take less risk without a helmet in some situation but the risk for driver is only increased. This is optimizing for customers at the cost of drivers. I don't see any supportive extensive research linked from them .
- shrimpx 4y agoHow is it optimizing for customers, when customers don’t wear helmets either?
- robbrown451 4y agoBecause the crashes are less likely when the driver is not wearing a helmet. This is sort of the point of the article.
- shrimpx 4y agoSorry I wasn't clear. How is it optimizing for customers at the cost of drivers, which is what the post I was replying to said?
- nielsole 4y agoWhile number of crashes are likely getting reduced, head injuries to drivers may increase or be fatal.
- robbrown451 4y agoBecause the drivers are not wearing helmets and therefore increasing the risk to themselves.
- kiba 4y agoIs there a way to fight risk compensation?
- xyzzy4747 4y agoSelf control?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- EveryCrownFall 4y agoSurvivorship bias ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
- blisterpeanuts 4y agoOne good head injury and a lawsuit, and this company will be out of business. And rightfully.
- mabbo 4y agoThis feels a bit like the narrator in "Fight Club" explaining "the formula" car manufacturers use. > Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one. Pedal Me has done the math on what the average settlement for a traumatic brain injury to it's staff is going to be, multiplied by the probability of such an event, and has decided that they'll make more money without helmets. It ignores that much of the risk comes from outside of the drivers control. It ignores that driver behavior could otherwise be monitored to ensure safety. It would just be nice if it was honest- a driver with a helmet on doesn't match the sexy appeal they're going for. That people might say "if the driver needs a helmet why don't I, the rider?".
- herodoturtle 4y agoLet's see how that works out for them. Being clever. Edit: this was a tongue in cheek reference to the follow-up line in Fight Club (after the scene alluded to by OP).
- _Wintermute 4y agoThey're hugely successful in London, so pretty well I guess?
- Nextgrid 4y agoAre they? First time I'm hearing about those. Is there actual demand for this? I live in their target area and I can't ever recall a time where I wanted to combine the risks & downsides of biking and ordering a cab. If I want to bike (note: I wouldn't recommend it in Central London), I'd get the Santander bikes or the various bike-for-hire ones littering the streets and just do it myself. If I wanted to spend time fiddling with my phone, I may as well just order an Uber instead of this thing? The prices would be similar considering they both have to pay drivers and driver wages represent a significant chunk of the sticker price of any manned transport-for-hire service so I really don't see why anyone would get this thing instead of a good old Uber.
- edw519 4y agoTranslation: If you're an organ transplant candidate on a waiting list, move to an area with more Pedal Me riders.
- davidg109 4y agoDo drivers take greater risks from wearing a seatbelt? Where’s the data to substantiate their claims?
- sampo 4y ago> Do drivers take greater risks from wearing a seatbelt? Some people have suggested even that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Seat_belts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Seat_belts
- eropple 4y agoFollowed immediately in the same section by a wider, more comprehensive, more recent study roundly asserting the exact opposite.
- stephen_g 4y agoIt seems completely debunked in that case at least. I can imagine how somebody could have thought risk compensation might be a thing in the short term - such as when seatbelts were a new invention. I've seen the kind of thing like people demonstrating how their active cruise control won't let their new car crash into the car in front, which is a pretty dumb idea (even if it will almost certainly work). But that seems to wear off pretty quickly, and then having it just becomes the default and you don't think of it anymore, so I imagine any risk compensation would quickly evaporate. With bicycle helmets, they're mandatory here for riding out on the street, so it was just always the default. Anecdotally, putting on a helmet was and is just something we always did, and never changed the perception of risk because it was just the normal default. I don't even think about it, just like how I always put on the seatbelt and then don't think about it anymore.
- yellowapple 4y ago> I've seen the kind of thing like people demonstrating how their active cruise control won't let their new car crash into the car in front, which is a pretty dumb idea (even if it will almost certainly work) Guilty as charged lol (though in my case it's to better understand how ACC behaved in various situations, given my unfamiliarity with it.
- heikkilevanto 4y agoMust be a cultural thing. If someone tried this here in Denmark, they would get such a shitstorm. Helmets are generally understood to increase cyclist safety.
- Kim_Bruning 4y agoInteresting! AFAIK, in the Netherlands helmets are considered to slightly reduce safety in the general case (but this is not a strong effect). The general objective is to make infrastructure sufficiently safe so that helmets become redundant.
- loloquwowndueo 4y agoNo amount of infrastructure safety will help if you take a tumble and hit your head - a helmet would totally help. Even experienced cyclists take the occasional fall :)
- stephen_g 4y agoYeah, my dad almost died like that. On a separated bike path in very good condition, he would have only been going about 30 km/h given where it was (he can't actually remember what happened due to TBI but managed to make a full recovery after four months of hospital and rehab). Comparing the size of the foam on the impact side of the helmet vs. the other side was amazing, it was squashed to a fraction of the size. If that had been skull straight onto the concrete it would have been lights out pretty much instantly.
- mrpopo 4y agoWhich they mentioned in the article: “A major cause of head injuries is going over the handlebars, which is not possible with a 3 metre long bike. Helmets protect against falls. They don't protect against cars.
- loloquwowndueo 4y agoUnless the bike is made of rubber, you can totally hit your head somewhere on the bike. Also look at the amount of car vs. bike accidents where the cyclists head smashes against the windshield. A helmet protects in that case too.
- throwawayhelmet 4y agoOkay, true story. Years ago I struggled with this exact logic regarding skiing with helmet. After serious consideration I decided to start skiing so carefully that I do not need a helmet. As you may guess at this point, The very first day I left my helmet home, I got into an accident and got a skull fracture. I started using my helmet again after that. (But another safety related thing I have started to really doubt. Skiing alone is supposed to be risky. I do ski alone, quite a lot actually. I have gotten into my share of accidents of various seriousness. And not a single of them has been when I have been alone.)
- DeBraid 4y agoI have the exact opposite experience. My first time ever wearing a helmet on the slopes I slammed head-first into a tree. Got up, laughed it off, and rode away. Better lucky than good.
- somewhereoutth 4y agoI suspect skiing was invented to cull the clumsy (and the simply unlucky) from the ranks of the rich.
- speed_spread 4y agoThere was already Polo for that.
- qzw 4y agoWell, you would need something when it's too cold for polo.
- stjohnswarts 4y agoI had this exact talk with my rich buddy in high school once 15 years ago :) . He was heading for a ski trip that my family couldn't have afforded in my wildest dreams.
- aphroz 4y agoMichael Schumacher would disagree.
- moonbug 4y agosounds like a scummy company, with a bullshit business model.
- yellowapple 4y agoI'm sorry, and pardonner mou Français, but what in the actual fuck? Should delivery drivers not wear seatbelts because they might not be as afriad that they'll fly through the windshield? Should linemen not wear harnesses because they might be more confident working on power lines? Should warehouse workers not wear hi-vis jackets because they might be more confident working around forklifts? Should construction workers not wear helmets because they might be more confident working in areas with falling objects? And I love the "if something bad happens, it's obviously the rider's fault" mentality here. I guess cars never hit bikes, right? Or bikes hitting other bikes? Or other accidents that, you know, are entirely unavoidable or otherwise have nothing to do with the rider being at fault? If I was a staff rider, I'd be putting that helmet on and telling Pedal Me to eat an OSHA-sized bag of dicks if they have a problem with it. Banning helmets "for safety reasons" might not be the absolute dumbest thing I've read this year, but it's up there.
- polote 4y ago> If I was a staff rider, I'd be putting that helmet on and telling Pedal Me to eat an OSHA-sized bag of dicks if they have a problem with it. And then they would fire you and you will have to find a company that allow helmets and everyone will be happy
- hh3k0 4y ago> And then they would fire you, hand you a substantial financial settlement for your wrongful termination, and you will be able to collect unemployment benefits while you take your sweet time to find a company that's not garbage. FTFY
- moonbug 4y agoah, but you see, they don't actually employ you
- GuB-42 4y agoIn the case of pedal.me, they do. > At pedal me, we believe in looking after our people properly. That’s why our team are employees, not contractors.
- isitmadeofglass 4y agoThe first person fired for wearing a helmet is going to be so damn lucky. That settlement money will end up being equivalent of several lifetimes with of work. There is absolutely no way that their logic holds up in court.
- prepend 4y agoAlmost everywhere in the US is at will so there’s likely no successful lawsuit in the situation you describe. Sadly, it’s likely the first driver who dies without a helmet will result in their family filing a giant lawsuit. But that payout will be paid by insurance that is probably already factoring in the probability of such a payout.
- dawnerd 4y agoOSHA might have some thoughts on firing someone over protective equipment.
- prepend 4y agoThey might if a bicycle helmet was an osha recognized protective equipment. But it seems like the company did their homework and said it’s not. If there’s some regulation for helmets then it’s a different story. My work doesn’t require a helmet, even though it would protect me. If I wore a helmet and my employer fired me, OSHA wouldn’t give a shit.
- MrBump_ 4y agoPedal Me is a British company. Not sure how the situation might differ there c.f. the USA.
- littlestymaar 4y agoYet another example of the terrible and lasting impact the so called risk compensation myth has had on society. Another great contribution of the Chicago school of Economics to the misery of the world. About the story behind this harmful myth https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/risk-compensation-debunked-masks-rapid-tests-vaccines-safety.html https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/risk-compensation-debun...
- whimsicalism 4y agoI wonder what the largest negative impact from this kind of thought has been. My guess is it is going to be related to PrEP and HIV rates. PrEP is extremely effective and yet stigmatized due to the worry that it will decrease condom wearing.
- gonzo41 4y agoSo if a staff rider is hit by a car and they die from their head slapping against the ground, is this not a mega risk to this business that they didn't have a policy to mitigate a simple risk.
- y7 4y agoMaybe relevant: the Netherlands is probably the country with the highest use of bicycles for transport, yet no one, except for cyclists on racing bikes/MTBs or foreign tourists, ever wears a bike helmet. This is because they're only marginally effective at preventing injury, and the disadvantage of reduced cycling use if helmets are mandated results in far worse public health outcomes. See also https://dutchreview.com/culture/cycling/5-reasons-why-the-dutch-cycle-without-bike-helmets/ https://dutchreview.com/culture/cycling/5-reasons-why-the-du...
- stefan_ 4y agoHey now, don't bring reason here. We reject effective technology to stop speeding, phone use, distracted driving and regulations to make cars and trucks have no more than necessary power, weight and effective sightlines but since cyclists wear a styrofoam hat they are safe. Except those pedestrians are dying at an accelerated rate, I think they should get a helmet too. The response here are hilarious, like "they also have better infrastructure" - wow, you are soo close to getting it!
- breakfastduck 4y agoIt's not reasonable and it's not relevant to point that lack of helmet use out. 1. The road infra is entirely structured around making it safer for cyclists in NE 2. They don't BAN the use of helmets. That study is NOT a justification to BAN them. 3. No one is suggesting that they be mandated either.
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 4y agoThere is a HUGE difference between NOT REQUIRING helmets and PROHIBITING helmets.
- wasmitnetzen 4y agoTo me, that seems like a clear difference in infrastructure. If a biker shares a stretch of asphalt with a car, that's a risk for the biker and they need a helmet. In the Netherlands, this is widely understood and bikes get their own infrastructure everywhere. Only then you don't need helmets anymore at all.
- jimmyswimmy 4y agoI've wondered about this phenomenon in general, that safety equipment could cause people to take more risks because it makes them feel safer. Many years ago on Monday night football John Madden remarked that some of the hits during games seemed to occur because players felt safe using their body as a missile. The protective gear allowed them to do that, while the old leather helmets of his era did not. I know I've done incredibly risky things with equipment like wood chippers because I felt like their designs would let me stop them fast enough. I've hung off the back of boats at high speed because I had a GPS tracking radio collar on and felt confident if I fell off they'd find me. These things seemed to make sense at the time. I've thought for a while that the best safety gear is training. Rail yards to this day show some unbelievably gory videos to inculcate people to the inherent risks present there. High vis gear, helmets, etc all are important but actually knowing the risks and owning them personally is essential. Little of that seems applicable to this case though. I think wzdd's thinking is most accurate, unhelmeted passengers probably don't feel great looking ahead and seeing their driver's helmeted head.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nchudleigh 4y agoHave friends that have been saved multiple times from serious head injury by their helmet. Cases of streetcar tracks and car doors opening on them unexpectedly, no extra risk taking happening there. This approach is not right, the fact the bike is larger helps a bit but does not stop the driver or riders from being thrown from the bike. The additional risk taking factor should be curbed through other means. Removing the helmet is not the right approach.
- slackfan 4y ago
- nkozyra 4y agoIn these casual conversations non-experts weigh in and give their opinions on subjects of all varieties all the time. I'm assuming from the snark that you have some expertise in this area and if so it would probably be good to see some of it here because all I've seen from the company and commentary is anecdata.
- renewiltord 4y agoHN is the average person forming an uneducated Wikipedia search on the subject. Therefore has a massive status quo bias. They'd believe a study that said they're holding a cube over the fact that they can't find any corners. There's no reason to hate that, though. It's just not an experts forum. It's just a place for average people to chat on tech-adjacent stuff. And there's no harm in that.
- bowsamic 4y agoThat's the most London-based startup thing I've heard of
- littlestymaar 4y agoThat reminds me this hilarious french ad for bicycle helmets inspired by anti-mask's arguments : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FwSqfOUAM0&t=64s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FwSqfOUAM0&t=64s
- dhersz 4y agoThey justify their decision basically saying that helmets increase the driver's (and the people in its surroundings) willingness to take risks, while mentioning that their training system is so good that it minimizes risks, so drivers won't be in danger because of the lack of helmets. It's funny that could assume a totally different posture here: if helmets increase risks, we will use our great training system to make sure our drivers won't put themselves in dangerous situations even when wearing helmets. That would reduce dangerous driving and keep drivers' heads safer, instead of just reducing dangerous driving (which allegedly is the reason behind this decision).
- h2odragon 4y agoIndividual choice? Perhaps some people really do have more awareness without a helmet? Maybe the individual involved is the only one that can decide if a helmet is better for them or not? Why can't our prejudices on this be just our own? We don't have to mandate them for others.
- loloquwowndueo 4y agoWearing a helmet is a low-cost no-brainer and it provides increased protection. It does NOT turn riders into daredevils, fairly certain any statistics that say so don’t distinguish between single riders and those riding with cargo or passengers which are not idiots and know to adjust their riding accordingly. I’m fine with riders being able to choose whether to wear a helmet based on their skill, confidence and situation. But saying “wearing a helmet turns you into a psycho so don’t, or we’ll fire you” is really nonsensical and irresponsible.
- yellowapple 4y ago> Wearing a helmet is a low-cost no-brainer Or in this case, a low-cost keep-your-brainer.
- shrimpx 4y agoA low-cost brainer.
- jacknews 4y agoIs this the same argument as 'we should ban condoms, because people have more sex when they think they have some protection' ...
- gumby 4y agoThis is extremely context specific. It calls to mind another counter-intuitive Dutch effort, in which stop signs and speed limits were removed, which slowed traffic down and made a village safer. Traffic engineers know that too many stop signs increase the speed of driving as impatient drivers speed up between stop signs. http://www.godutch.com/newspaper/index.php?id=1557 http://www.godutch.com/newspaper/index.php?id=1557
- cheshire137 4y agoOof, this page just keeps reloading on mobile, article is unreadable.
- kylecordes 4y agoIt is interesting to see the various categories of reactions/objections, which point in different or conflicting directions. 1) The theory that this change reduces overall injury rate is true, therefore this is a good change. 2) The theory is false because of some mistake, or intentionally false, therefor this is a bad change. 3) The theory is true, but nonetheless this is a bad change because there are other factors more important than the injury rate.
- itsdrewmiller 4y agoThey argue that helmets are bad because they encourage riskier behavior, but also that they are unique in being able to track the behavior of their bikers. Shouldn't they be able to allow helmets and fire the people who behave in a riskier way due to wearing them?
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoSo now that they track risky behavior at the source, logically they can all wear helmets for increased safety.
- soheil 4y agoWhy are these monstrous things allowed in bike lanes anyway? Simple understanding of high school physics shows these things can have massive momentum not remotely comparable to that of a normal bike. KE = 1/2 m v^2 A pedestrian impact could be absolutely devastating. A fast moving heavy bike is lethal.
- nayuki 4y agoThis is very much like: > The name "Tullock's spike" refers to a thought experiment in which Tullock suggested that if governments were serious about reducing road casualties, they should mandate that a sharp spike be installed in the center of each car's steering wheel, to increase the probability that an accident would be fatal to the driver. Tullock's idea was that the normal process of risk compensation would then lead to safer driving by the affected drivers, thereby actually reducing driving fatalities. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Tullock#Tullock's_spike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Tullock#Tullock's_spike
- itronitron 4y agoNow I'm sort of curious how they died, and whether their personal automobile had any modifications to the interior.
- monkeybutton 4y agoDoesn't it only work if everyone has one? If only one or a few do, they can be as cautious as possible and still be the victim of another reckless driver who doesn't have one. It reminds me a bit of the trend where parents buy larger vehicles for their teenaged children because of their perceived safety. It ends up having the opposite overall effect because less experienced drivers are getting into accidents with larger and more deadly (to those around them) vehicles.
- itronitron 4y agoI think it would work for anyone that had one, even if they were the only one, as they would be a much more defensive driver. They would probably save money on gas as well :)
- jgeada 4y agoRisk compensation or risk homeostasis is one of those hypothesis that sound good to economists and the moralizing class, but has never been proven. https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/risk-compensation-debunked-masks-rapid-tests-vaccines-safety.html https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/risk-compensation-debun... https://www.mdpi.com/2313-576X/2/3/16/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2313-576X/2/3/16/htm Edit: added another reference
- spankalee 4y agoI once saw an accident where a cyclist going straight through an intersection was hit by an oncoming truck turning left that was impatient, didn't see the cyclist and gunned it between cars. The cyclist was launched headfirst into the bumper of a car stopped at the light and her helmet loudly cracked in two. She was still hurt, but I'm sure she would have died without that helmet. If some riders choose to not wear a helmet, that may be fine, but prohibiting helmets is irresponsible. Riders have a much higher cumulative risk of accidents that are not their fault than customers. It's a workplace safety issue.
- rhinoceraptor 4y agoShould drivers also be required to wear helmets? Driving a car is itself unsafe, motor vehicle accidents are one of the leading causes of TBIs.
- bagels 4y agoThat's what airbags are supposed to help with, thankfully.
- BrianHenryIE 4y agoYet 53,000 people a year in the US suffer traumatic brain injuries from motor vehicle crashes. If we are to believe a helmet will help a cyclist, it must be true that helmets would have helped those drivers and passengers too. The airbag argument is just distracting. "Let's not use antivirus because we already have a firewall". https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7048a3.htm#T2_down https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7048a3.htm#T2_down
- profile53 4y agoI don’t think helmets would mitigate that risk. For comparison, should bicyclists be required to wear seatbelts?
- rhinoceraptor 4y ago
- callamdelaney 4y agoIn amateur boxing (olympic & certainly in the UK) headguards have been banned because fighters are likely to take more blows to the head if they're wearing a headguard, causing more trauma and more eventual damage to the brain - not sure the analogy holds up for cycles or motorcycles though. Interestingly, bare handed boxing often results in far less head trauma - and while it tends to result in more cuts it has far less of an effect on fighters long term health.
- phtrivier 4y agoMissing info : what are the company's riders carrying ? How much are they incentived to ride fast and take risk ? I don't think barring Uber eats driver from wearing helmet would be safe. I don't know about this company, though I hope they don't absolutely ban helmet so much as not mandating them.
- itronitron 4y agoPedal Me should instead mandate that all staff riders wear helmets, but that those helmets must be 'high-visibility' (painted neon yellow, green, or pink, and with reflective stickers.) They can then tell customers that the helmets are there to improve visibility and therefore safety of their passengers.
- kijin 4y agoEven better, put their own logo on the helmets and treat it as a kind of uniform, just like the pink mustache that Lyft used to have. That would double as free advertising, too.
- timbaboon 4y agoEnd of 2020 I had a serious bike accident. I was specifically riding slowly and carefully because I did not want to fall and end up in hospital - in the middle of the second wave in SA and a shortage of hospital space. Even so, I had the most ridiculous and embarrassing crash, whilst hardly moving, and ended up in the ER. I was wearing a helmet and I still got a concussion. My helmet was broken and certainly saved me from a much more serious head injury. Additionally, the peak on the front managed to prevent my nose from smashing into the ground too (it was a weird angle). I would never cycle without a helmet ever.
- gameswithgo 4y ago
- JKCalhoun 4y agoYeah, not sure how more careful a rider you can be when you have your own toddler in a child-seat behind you — and yet my bike went down on an unexpectedly slick part of the pavement. I had a helmet on, as did my toddler. I don't buy the argument that because someone has a helmet on they're intentionally (or even subconsciously) reckless. Shit can happen.
- wolverine876 4y ago> Yeah, not sure how more careful a rider you can be when you have your own toddler in a child-seat behind you — and yet my bike went down on an unexpectedly slick part of the pavement. I had a helmet on, as did my toddler. How does one safely transport a toddler? I am not asking incredulously, but curiously. I am an experienced cyclist; I don't know if I'd feel safe doing it, but I haven't looked into it either. Maybe a helmet is sufficient? And cars aren't perfectly safe either.
- JKCalhoun 4y agoThe carrier (bike seat) I had for her had a kind of "roll cage" (more like a frame) around the perimeter such that if the bike went down on one side or the other, she would not be grinding against the pavement. Plus helmet. Safe? Well, as you say, nothing is truly safe. But I stuck to back roads and probably never exceeded 15 MPH. We would ride to the local park where she could play in the sand for a bit before we rode home again.
- Tade0 4y agoWouldn't it be so much easier to just slow these things down, considering they're electric? I always wondered why I'm such a slow cyclist. Turns out it was because I was riding shared bikes, which have a total of three gears, all of them relatively low. To reach 16km/h or 10mph in such a vehicle one would have to pedal like a maniac.
- qgin 4y agoI’m really looking forward to following this line of thinking to it’s eventual replacement of car airbags with nuclear bombs. How much more careful would drivers be if they knew a collision would kill everyone in a 100 mile radius?
- ryantgtg 4y agoI had a traumatic brain injury as a kid from a fairly-low speed* fall where my skull cracked on a sewer manhole. If someone told me I couldn’t wear a helmet I would tell them to eff off. *I have no memory of it.
- dawnerd 4y agoI can’t real the article, the page keeps reloading itself but please please wear a helmet. It’s so incredibly irresponsible not to.
- Gravyness 4y agoHere is a excerpt from the article titled "Pedal Me bans staff riders from wearing helmets for safety reasons" by Rebecca Morley (no idea who she is or how to find her on google/linkedin) on 08/02/2022 at https://bikebiz.com/pedal-me-bans-staff-riders-from-wearing-helmets-for-safety-reasons/ https://bikebiz.com/pedal-me-bans-staff-riders-from-wearing-...: > Pedal Me has explained the reasons why it has banned staff riders from wearing helmets. > In a Twitter thread, the pedal-powered passenger and cargo service said people that are taking risks that are sufficient that they feel they need to wear helmets are 'not welcome to work for us' – because its vehicles are heavy and could cause harm, and because they carry small children on the bikes. > Instead, it said it systematically works to reduce risk at the source– by thorough risk assessment, a high level of training, and near-miss reporting. > “We know that increasing helmet wearing rates make cycling more dangerous per mile – although there are confounding factors here, this indicates that overall they do not provide a strong protective effect in the round – otherwise the opposite effect,” said the company. “Extensive reading of the literature suggests that this is because while helmets definitely help in the event of a crash, that risk compensation results in more collisions. So riders wearing helmets take greater risks, and those driving around them take greater risks too. > “A major cause of head injuries is going over the handlebars, which is not possible with a 3 metre long bike. Another thing that makes us unique is our training systems, maintenance systems, and ability to track poor rider behaviour.” > [photo of twitter thread, the official place where all important things are said and done] > Pedal me: People that are taking risks that are sufficient that they feel they need to wear helmets are not welcome to work for us - because our vehicles are heavy and could cause harm, and because we carry small children on our bikes. > Clive Andrews: That would indeed be interesting to know. Compulsion is a bad idea - in either direction. What's the score, @pedalmeapp? Instead - we systematically work to reduce risk.(1/n) > Pedal Me said it observes that companies that use helmets while wearing cargo bikes seem to be ‘much more likely’ to jump red lights and take greater risks. The company said the majority of injuries to its riders occur off the bike, which it knows because of its near miss and incident reporting, and that’s its focus for tackling danger. Not sure if sharing articles here is against the rules, please let me know.
- ck2 4y agoIs their insurance aware of the "no helmet" requirement? Because if not, they might have another problem. Like motorcycles, you never see a "just a scratch" collision bike vs car. Maybe solves the cost of hospitalization if they are dead instead.
- alexggordon 4y agoNote, these are not normal bikes. From the article: > A major cause of head injuries is going over the handlebars, which is not possible with a 3 metre long bike. Another thing that makes us unique is our training systems, maintenance systems, and ability to track poor rider behaviour. Made me curious what they actually look like[0]. Seeing that, I’d tend to reset my presumptions about wearing helmets with these. There’s definitely going to be a different injury profile with these bikes than the bikes you rode as a kid. Without seeing those injury profiles I’d probably say you can’t really deduce anything from this announcement. [0] https://www.positive.news/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Pedal-Me-feat-e1635350798805-1800x0-c-center.jpg https://www.positive.news/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Pedal-M...
- cush 4y agoIt's irrelevant how much data and training they have. Accidents happen and an accident with a car and no helmet is a bad time.
- aniforprez 4y agoThis assumes that it's completely impossible to not hit your head when you fall on your side. Which is blatantly not true. This isn't a three-wheeler bike which is much harder to tip over. It's just a two wheeler that's longer. I can attest from personal experience that if you fall sideways, chances are you'll crack the side of your skull open. I got into a bike accident where someone T-boned me and if I hadn't had the helmet on, at the very least I'd have a concussion The idea that you don't need to wear a helmet cause you won't fall over the handlebars is nonsense
- op00to 4y agohelmets? but then how will you see the rider's little hat?
- jessaustin 4y agoYou have my sympathy for your accident, but you can't very well "attest from personal experience" and then describe a hypothetical that didn't occur. Have you ever had a concussion?
- ionwake 4y agoI’m annoyed so many HNers have trouble getting their head round this. Before commenting understand that : Research studies show bike helmets increase number of injuries, due to complex reasons NOT attributed to the vehicle type or whether it was the riders fault. It is why they are not legally required in bike heavy countries like the Netherlands. I recommend you DONT comment unless you’ve done your research.
- cowtools 4y agoWhat studies? Also, the purpose of helmets is not to reduce the number of injuries, but the severity.
- ionwake 4y agoYou’re most probably another American as there is less bike use there. Google the studies. They create more accidents with varying severities including death while wearing said helmet hence they are more dangerous and so aren’t made mandatory.
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 4y agoIt's on you to prove the claim. Post the full text of studies.
- mslate 4y agoThis thread is plagued with anecdotes. Very unproductive
- ionwake 4y agoRealising I’m surrounded by HNers giving a confident opinions when they are ignorant of the subject really rattles me makes me realise I take this place far too seriously. Look at the guy who replied to my comment above he just repeated another anecdote.
- dariosalvi78 4y agoHad an accident a few years back, not my fault. If it wasn't for the helmet I would sit on a wheelchair.
- cush 4y agoWhat a pointless hill to die on for a business. Do they not have more important things to be worrying about?
- holoduke 4y agoIt's interesting that in the country where you have most bikes, the Netherlands, nobody is wearing helmets. Probably because it has the safest bike road network in the world. but still. Couple of deadly incidents every year occur because of no helmet. Something similar you see in France with skiing. While in Austria everybody is wearing a helmet in France is less than half of the skiers. Something cultural i guess.
- ndsipa_pomu 4y agoI haven't seen anyone mentioning the Ian Walker study on drivers' responses to cyclists with and without helmets. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457506001540 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014...
- isbvhodnvemrwvn 4y agoI don't have access to the study, but wasn't it the one where: - the author was the only person studied - the difference wasn't that big ?
- ndsipa_pomu 4y agoThat's the one. Due to its small size, it's more indicative of an effect - it would be interesting to see if it could be replicated. There's some bike cams (Garmin?) that include a radar to measure closeness of vehicles passing, so it would be relatively easy to conduct a much larger scale.
- op00to 4y agoI worked with traumatic brain injury patients as part of my job in a neuroimaging research lab. Holy shit, wear a god damned helmet!
- cratermoon 4y ago"increasing helmet wearing rates make cycling more dangerous per mile – although there are confounding factors" WTAF kind of statistics-twisting garbage is that?
- stjohnswarts 4y agoIf they can tell if riders are being unsafe then the rest of it is drivel and helmets should be worn. Train them, monitor them, and helmet them. Whoever set this policy is an idiot. I can see helmets being optional, but banning them is some big brain stats guy who can't look at anything but stats.
- calibas 4y ago"If you're driving so dangerously that you feel the need to wear a seat belt, you shouldn't be driving a car."
- watwut 4y agoThat is actually true. If your driving style involves you feeling those seat belts or situations in which you think you might crash, the your driving style is too dangerous. Once in a few years close call? ok. Regularly feeling like you need seatbelts? You should not be driving and should take safety focused additional lessons.
- calibas 4y agoIt's not even remotely true for a car seat belt or a bike helmet. You can be extremely cautious, and still through no fault of your own have someone crash into you.
- watwut 4y agoYes accidents happen to innocent people. But no. If your driving style is such that you feel the need of seatbelt or helmet, then it is too aggressive. Otherwise said, if your biking story is "helmet saved my life 5 times" then your crash rate is super high and the common determinant is you. Likewise, safe driving style never ends with anyone saying "I am so glad I has seatbelts". It ends with people unbuckling without thinking about seatbelts at all.
- HelloNurse 4y agoCommon sense suggests that forbidding the use of safety equipment for frivolous reasons should be ridiculously illegal. Is it not so in the third world countries where Pedal Me operates?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- adamvalve 4y agoAre we getting dumber as a nation? This feel like the mask thing.
- rayiner 4y agoThe first wrongful death lawsuit over this is going to be a real wake-up call.
- tasty_freeze 4y agoIt seems like the correct approach is to penalize their staff that does risky stuff instead of this proxy metric that presumes people who ride with helmets are going to take bigger risks because of it.
- locallost 4y ago196 points and 513 comments at the moment... obviously a very controversial topic. But would it be a very controversial topic if a taxi company announced the same thing, that taxi drivers should not wear helmets? Formula 1 drivers wear helmets, so maybe car drivers should too. People that insist on bike helmets because of their bad experience have as much to say to overall safety as people that got a head injury while driving in a car. How many injuries would a car helmet prevent and why is there no push for this, since the answer is a lot. I guess this is my roundabout way of saying that I don't think this discussion is very rational. We accept a ton of risk in everyday life, but people get up in arms over this one thing. I guess one reason for this is that it's not viewed as a normal activity, which is a shame. And personally I view it as an instrument in preventing it ever becoming one.
- PufPufPuf 4y agoCars have other safety mechanisms that provide the same safety as helmets, most notably seatbelts and airbags. A better comparison would be a taxi company asking drivers to drive without those.
- locallost 4y agoThen why do so many people end up with head injuries after a car crash? Falling down, especially among the elderly, is another one of the top reasons. Quote: "People most commonly get TBIs from a fall, firearm-related injury, motor vehicle crash, or an assault" https://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/get_the_facts.html#:~:text=Research%20shows%20that%3A,of%20the%20TBI%2Drelated%20hospitalizations&text=Firearm%2Drelated%20suicide%20is%20the,deaths%20in%20the%20United%20States&text=Motor%20vehicle%20crashes%20and%20assaults,person%20may%20get%20a%20TBI https://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/get_the_facts.html#...
- carapace 4y agoCar drivers and passengers should wear helmets. Car travel is the most dangerous thing most people do regularly. It's only normalized due to a deliberate campaign of domestic propaganda: "The Real Reason Jaywalking Is A Crime (Adam Ruins Everything)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxopfjXkArM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxopfjXkArM
- devwastaken 4y agoThey'll change their position once a catastrophic injury lawsuit really changes their mind. Unfortunately it's going to take death and injury for that to happen. If you're a worker that is injured on the job there are plenty of laws and torts in place to receive compensation. My favorite catastrophic injury attorney, Attorney Tom has a YouTube channel that goes into details.
- schroeding 4y agoOof. Most bicycle accidents I was in were not caused by me, and you can only reduce the risk so much by defensive cycling. Bicycle helmets are the kind of thing that you don't need 99,9% of the time, but you will die (or be reduced to a vegetable) if you don't have it in the few cases you do need it. While they should not be mandated, they also should not be banned, IMO. Reads a bit like "We don't want our car drivers to use airbags, as the vehicles are heavy and dangerous and as such we require them to feel confident without such a safety device, so they don't drive recklessly", IMO.
- niemandhier 4y agoIs Pedal me going to pay if a cyclist is gravely injured without his own fault because he did not wear a helmet? Risk compensation ( the reason they give for the decision ) is incredible hard to measure, since it involves causality. We suck at detecting causality in observational data. Basing a decision on ( most likely ) bad statistics is madness.
- jessaustin 4y agoPossibly they might consider any fatal crash to be company-ending event? After all they could be paying the passengers' families as well as the employee's. This is the purpose of a limited-liability company, to enable the operation of potentially-insanely-risky businesses.
- cultofmetatron 4y agoI personally ride without a helmet because the added weight and reduction invisibility reduces my awareness. That said, id never force someone else to eschew wearing a helmet. You have zero guarantee that what applies for one person applies to another rider in this context
- dusted 4y agoI've often thought about how it'd affect traffic accidennts if we kept airbags and seatbelts but also placed a huge metal spike in the middle of the steering wheel.
- drdec 4y agoThis kind of analysis - that safety gear inspires reckless behavior - is used over and over again to argue against safety measures. The automobile industry used it to fight against seat belts. More recently, some people used it to argue against vaccines and/or masks. I've never bought into it.
- bigcat12345678 4y agoThis whole idea of wearing helmet results riskier behavior is about bullshit as the WMD theory of Iraq invasion. If pedal me indeed is spending resources on education and training of their employees, which they claimed allow them to maintain high standard of safety. Then, it's self evident that wearing helmet will be better, as the same training can help them overcome the tendance to be riskier wearing helmet. There is no reason to claim that training for wearing helmet and not wearing helmet would not result into equally effective results.
- michaelmrose 4y agoIt is insane to presuppose that a particular employee will take additional risk load if you allow them to take appropriate safety measures. It tries to maximize expected utility based on dubious analysis while denying people the privilege of making the vastly simpler and actually maximum choice of riding safely and wearing a helmet. Privileging complicated nonsense over straightforward analysis and the companies analysis of net utility over individual freedom to protect themselves is nuts. This is important to all but likely more so to people who would experience a larger than average risk and thus likely to be denied the ability to work in a profession they could do sufficient safety if not denied safety gear. It is thus inherently biased against many riders who have a higher risk of injury than average but not unacceptably so. It also keeps users from responding to increased risk driven by changing road conditions by substituting the companies policy for individuals judgement. For example riders cannot respond to icy road conditions or known dangerous areas. I see this as ripe for inevitable claims as far as bias against classes of individuals and injury claims. People are going to be injured in situations where they can trivially argue that a helmet would have mitigated the damage. With the rate of injury everyone who would prefer to wear a helmet ought to send a certified letter to that effect to the company. The ones that have the misfortune to be seriously injured will at least have the comfort of owning whatever is left of the company in 2023/24
- dspillett 4y ago> seem to be ‘much more likely’ I'd expect something more solid than "seem to be" as evidence from someone demanding I not wear a cycle helmet. There is evidence that some drivers are less careful around cyclists wearing helmets meaning there are more accidents, but if you look deeper into to those stats most of the extra incidents are relatively minor and on the major ones significant head injuries are more common. So more a few more incidents, but the survivability rate is still better overall with a helmet.
- avgcorrection 4y agoThe title is weird. 1. […] wearing helmets because it is less safe to wear helmets 2. […] wearing helmets if such helmet-wearing is motivated by safety concerns I’m guessing that only the first one makes sense now that I think about it. But I first thought that the riders had said, hey we want to wear helmets because we have safety concerns. And then the management said no.
- Robotbeat 4y agoI personally am skeptical of some of the lines of reasoning that the idea of “risk compensation” leads people to. Like saying masks are bad because it leads people to isolate less, etc. (this was something some authorities were saying early in the pandemic, and it damaged their credibility later on.) Like yes, there is SOME compensation, in other words it allows risk/reward for some activities to rebalance a bit, but to use this as an argument against a pretty straightforward precaution is foolishness. I’m also super skeptical of studies that aren’t, like, randomized and carefully done. Correlative studies can easily end up with the authors drawing conclusions of causation in the opposite direction of reality. “Good things are bad because of convoluted logic” is always something I’ll be skeptical of.
- mrraj 4y agoI'd assume their dataset are professional couriers, <30, skewing male, which would be a high risk-taking pool. If that's the case wouldn't that make their conclusion conditional on being in that demographic? What if you're not? Despite that, there are actually a few good examples of safety equipment causing more injury. Off the top of my head, striking combat sports have a similar opinion of headgear in sparring, it causes the participants to throw harder resulting in more head trauma. Similar sentiments with helmets & padding in football. A bit apples and oranges with cycling as these are more example of mutually assured self destruction vs a car pulling out in front of you.
- hcrean 4y agoThere is an equation governing fatality along the lines of: D% = A% * F% A% = Chance of getting into an accident F% = Chance of a given accident being fatal D% = Chance of cyclist dying in a given time period There is a possibility that the increase in A% caused by wearing a helmet is greater than the corresponding decrease in F%, in this case it is indeed safer not to wear helmets. To justify this there would have to be some VERY conclusive statistical evidence support both sides of the calculation, or the company will open itself up to a massive lawsuit the first time someone has an accident.
- AlexandrB 4y agoThis website just reloads in a loop and is impossible to read on iOS.
- mzs 4y agoPost is just this twitter thread: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1489598941326974976.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1489598941326974976.html
- btheshoe 4y ago
- jimjimjim 4y agowhy not replace car airbags with bayonets?
- stainablesteel 4y agothe big question is whether or not they're forced to drive on the side of any roads, if they are then this is dumb
- hedora 4y agoThis reminds me. I recently saw some idiots on one wheels (electric "skateboard" with a single wheel) in full stunt motorcycle garb (body armor, shin guards, motorcycle helmets and all) on a busy mixed use trail, going at least 30mph and doing stunts. It was a negligent homicide suit waiting to happen. However, banning staff from wearing bike helmets is idiotic.
- iancmceachern 4y agoYeah, but what if they get hit? The danger isn't in the speed of these bikes, but in the speed of surrounding traffic.
- justbaker 4y agoI owe my life to a helmet; I sustained a brain injury from a motocross accident as a kid which I would be here had I been helmet-less. Damn you to hell Pedal Me.