13 ms·

I am always annoyed with articles promoting safe cycling when illustrating pictures show cyclists without helmets or any other form of protective gears. In Bel

I am always annoyed with articles promoting safe cycling when illustrating pictures show cyclists without helmets or any other form of protective gears. In Belgium there is a small movement promoting bikes and there are all kind of hipsters, bobo and 50 years old grey hair vegan on fake vintage bikes riding without helmets and without any sense of road conduct. Good bikers wearing yellow jackets and helmets are really rare ; I am beginning to think the formers are ruining the latters's image.

biehl 14y ago
Sorry, in Denmark there are plenty of good bikers that are not wearing yellow jackets and helmets. Why should they? The cycle superhighways are about safe-for-biking infrastructure, so you can dress as you like when biking. In central Copenhagen quite a lot of people bike in suits which is awesome.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  If I walk in suit, or rather, in business-casual clothing, I get sweaty in much of the US. When cycling I'm aiming for minimally-covering clothing, and a shower is still helpful. Much of continental Europe is cooler than the US, northern Europe even more so.
- arethuza 14y ago
  Having survived a cycling accident that probably would have killed me if I hadn't been wearing a helmet that occurred on a perfectly "safe" traffic free track I would urge everyone to always wear a cycling helmet.
  - bryanlarsen 14y ago
    You use the word "track" which implies you were cycling at a high speed, so you are quite likely correct. Studies show quite a clear benefit for wearing helmets if you are travelling above 20km/hr. The benefits of a helmet are much less significant if you are biking less than 20km/hr.
    - arethuza 14y ago
      By track I meant a rural unsurfaced road - the accident was completely my own fault, but I fell off and my head hit a post at the side of the road. My helmet broke into fragments and although I was unconscious for a while (I had no idea how long) it was my helmet rather than my skull that broke into pieces.
      - jarek 14y ago
        You probably realize this but I just want to note that helmets and skulls have very different failure modes (by design in helmet's case) and just because your helmet split into pieces doesn't necessarily mean your skull would have as well.
        alexfoo 14y ago
        Indeed, I can't find the link to the video where they show many different brands of cycle helmet splitting into pieces when heading a football (soccer) dropped from a certain height (which causes no injury for someone heading it without wearing a helmet). (Pro-choice and anti-compulsion on the helmet issue. I choose not to wear one. I cycle 5,000 miles a year - 10,000 miles in a good year - cycle commuting in London, UK and leisure riding or touring.)
        arethuza 14y ago
        Probably, but as I was knocked out by my head hitting the post as I skidded along the ground still attached to my bike I hate to think what would have happened if I wasn't wearing a helmet. It's not exactly an experiment I want to re-run.
      - sophacles 14y ago
        There are more requirements for "safe" than "traffic free". In fact, there are arguments that 'safe' and 'traffic free' are semi-orthoganal, that is you can have safe conditions with traffic, and unsafe conditions without it. For instance, an unsurfaced road provides many ways in which a bicycle can easily be toppled - loose gravel/dirt, weird bumps caused by rocks, washouts, etc, hence probably not 'safe', at least compared to a smoothly paved surface which is kept obstacle free.
  - barrkel 14y ago
    Bear in mind that a requirement like that may actually kill more people through dissuading people from the exercise a bike provides.
  - kaybe 14y ago
    I wear one too since I had a close call, but I wonder whether that is actually an improvement. That time I only grazed my head because of martial arts falling training that told me to turn in midair and roll - but I wonder how that move would have ended with a few centimetres more material on my head.
akgerber 14y ago
The largest danger in cycling comes from automobiles; Denmark's infrastructure, which keeps cyclists away from automobiles and automobiles at low speeds in shared areas, and their high standards for driver skills and behavior, make their country one of the safest places in the world to bicycle: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cyclists-three-times-more-likely-to-die-on-uk-roads-than-abroad-1833150.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cyclists-thre... This safety in numbers declines with every onerous requirement one proposes to ride a bike. Australia has less cyclists & is a more dangerous place to ride on account of a mandatory helmet law: http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australias-helmet-law-disaster http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australias-helmet-la... Why should a bicyclist be required to wear a yellow helmet & jacket to be called "good"? Certainly reasonable road conduct should be demanded from all road users, but first from automobile drivers, who cause the vast majority of injuries & deaths on the streets.
- johnchristopher 14y ago
  "Why should a bicyclist be required to wear a yellow helmet & jacket to be called "good"? Certainly reasonable road conduct should be demanded from all road users, but first from automobile drivers, who cause the vast majority of injuries & deaths on the streets." 1. First of all, it is mandatory in my country. 2. Wether the accident is the biker's fault or the car driver's fault or anything else you are way better wearing a protective helmet if you fall off your bike. Head trauma is not something to be dismissed on the basis that wearing an helmet isn't mandatory or - gasp - fashionnable. 3. Regarding the yellow jacket: without it most bicylists are simply invisible in night traffic. In broad daylight there are easier to see and thus one can be more cautious around them. Remember that cyclists are "weak" road users. 4. > Why should a bicyclist be required to wear a yellow helmet & jacket to be called "good"? Certainly reasonable road conduct should be demanded from all road users, but first from automobile drivers, who cause the vast majority of injuries & deaths on the streets. Wearing a helmet and yellow jacket are really good signs that the biker knows what he is doing. Especially in a country (mine) where it is mandatory. Especially in a country (mine) where car culture is overtly agressive towards cyclists. There is absolutely no reason not to wear protective gear when riding a bike (especially in a city). Even if there were no cars on the road. edit: removed personnal rant
bryanlarsen 14y ago
I am always annoyed with articles promoting safe cycling when illustrating pictures show cyclists on fancy bikes wearing fancy clothes. You don't need fancy clothes and a fancy bike to commute to work, in fact those are often a liability. Pretty much the only people in Copenhagen that wear helmets are racers. Yet the fatality rate in Copenhagen for cyclists is an order of magnitude less than it is in North America, where a good percentage of cyclists wear helmets.
peterwwillis 14y ago
"Good bikers wearing yellow jackets and helmets" The yellow jacket is really only useful in low-light conditions. Bright flashing lights are a much better form of identification than this, imho, and it's one piece of safety equipment nobody in DC ever seemed to own, though their fashionable bike safety apparel was quite solid. I find that "road conduct" is not something most bikers have until they've been hit by a couple cars. At that point they become aware of the fact that cars either don't see them or ignore them, and they become much safer cyclists.
Entlin 14y ago
Maybe they're wearing an invisible bicycle helmet. Think such a thing doesn't exist? Well think again: http://www.hovding.com/en/how/ http://www.hovding.com/en/how/
- johnchristopher 14y ago
  Wa. That is... incredible! edit: http://www.cycle-helmets.com/imgs/yehudamoon1.jpg http://www.cycle-helmets.com/imgs/yehudamoon1.jpg :)
jules 14y ago
To a dutch person (and probably to a danish person too) this is as strange as saying that people walking on sidewalks and crossing the street should wear yellow jackets and helmets. Cycling, like walking, is not a dangerous activity.
- johnchristopher 14y ago
  According to the articles I've been reading for the last hour it's actually more dangerous when you are wearing yellow jackets and helmets :]
reinhardt 14y ago
Oh the horror, reckless cyclists riding unprotected! Would be funny to see your reaction when you find out that people in Denmark often smoke on a bike.
- johnchristopher 14y ago
  Well, surely not as funny as when the dutch girl I dated for two years told me she reads book while riding. :)
Tsagadai 14y ago
I am a happier cyclist having moved to a country without pointless restrictions in the name of collective safety. If people want to brain themselves that should be their own choice. Encouraging people to take responsibility for their own actions is more important than some dictated decree from above. What is the advantage of no gear? Well, I can get on my bike and get to and from the store in 5 minutes (I live in a safe country, I don't even lock my bike up most of the time). Five minutes. The roads around my home are so complex and steep that it is nigh on impossible for a car to travel faster than a cyclist. Having an arbitrary requirement would only act to discourage people from cycling. For the record, I routinely cycle around 80km a week, mainly commuting. I am only on a road for 30 seconds in the entire trip (basically, the last part to my house). With practically no enforcement (I've never seen police on bike paths or talking to cyclists) cycling is safer and easier than what I have experienced elsewhere. When the main risk is to your own wellbeing, most people are sensible enough to not kill themselves without the nanny state holding their hand.

biehl 14y ago

Sorry, in Denmark there are plenty of good bikers that are not wearing yellow jackets and helmets. Why should they? The cycle superhighways are about safe-for-biking infrastructure, so you can dress as you like when biking. In central Copenhagen quite a lot of people bike in suits which is awesome.

dredmorbius 14y ago
If I walk in suit, or rather, in business-casual clothing, I get sweaty in much of the US. When cycling I'm aiming for minimally-covering clothing, and a shower is still helpful. Much of continental Europe is cooler than the US, northern Europe even more so.
arethuza 14y ago
Having survived a cycling accident that probably would have killed me if I hadn't been wearing a helmet that occurred on a perfectly "safe" traffic free track I would urge everyone to always wear a cycling helmet.
- bryanlarsen 14y ago
  You use the word "track" which implies you were cycling at a high speed, so you are quite likely correct. Studies show quite a clear benefit for wearing helmets if you are travelling above 20km/hr. The benefits of a helmet are much less significant if you are biking less than 20km/hr.
  - arethuza 14y ago
    By track I meant a rural unsurfaced road - the accident was completely my own fault, but I fell off and my head hit a post at the side of the road. My helmet broke into fragments and although I was unconscious for a while (I had no idea how long) it was my helmet rather than my skull that broke into pieces.
    - jarek 14y ago
      You probably realize this but I just want to note that helmets and skulls have very different failure modes (by design in helmet's case) and just because your helmet split into pieces doesn't necessarily mean your skull would have as well.
      - alexfoo 14y ago
        Indeed, I can't find the link to the video where they show many different brands of cycle helmet splitting into pieces when heading a football (soccer) dropped from a certain height (which causes no injury for someone heading it without wearing a helmet). (Pro-choice and anti-compulsion on the helmet issue. I choose not to wear one. I cycle 5,000 miles a year - 10,000 miles in a good year - cycle commuting in London, UK and leisure riding or touring.)
      - arethuza 14y ago
        Probably, but as I was knocked out by my head hitting the post as I skidded along the ground still attached to my bike I hate to think what would have happened if I wasn't wearing a helmet. It's not exactly an experiment I want to re-run.
    - sophacles 14y ago
      There are more requirements for "safe" than "traffic free". In fact, there are arguments that 'safe' and 'traffic free' are semi-orthoganal, that is you can have safe conditions with traffic, and unsafe conditions without it. For instance, an unsurfaced road provides many ways in which a bicycle can easily be toppled - loose gravel/dirt, weird bumps caused by rocks, washouts, etc, hence probably not 'safe', at least compared to a smoothly paved surface which is kept obstacle free.
- barrkel 14y ago
  Bear in mind that a requirement like that may actually kill more people through dissuading people from the exercise a bike provides.
- kaybe 14y ago
  I wear one too since I had a close call, but I wonder whether that is actually an improvement. That time I only grazed my head because of martial arts falling training that told me to turn in midair and roll - but I wonder how that move would have ended with a few centimetres more material on my head.

akgerber 14y ago

The largest danger in cycling comes from automobiles; Denmark's infrastructure, which keeps cyclists away from automobiles and automobiles at low speeds in shared areas, and their high standards for driver skills and behavior, make their country one of the safest places in the world to bicycle: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cyclists-three-times-more-likely-to-die-on-uk-roads-than-abroad-1833150.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cyclists-thre... This safety in numbers declines with every onerous requirement one proposes to ride a bike. Australia has less cyclists & is a more dangerous place to ride on account of a mandatory helmet law: http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australias-helmet-law-disaster http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australias-helmet-la... Why should a bicyclist be required to wear a yellow helmet & jacket to be called "good"? Certainly reasonable road conduct should be demanded from all road users, but first from automobile drivers, who cause the vast majority of injuries & deaths on the streets.

johnchristopher 14y ago
"Why should a bicyclist be required to wear a yellow helmet & jacket to be called "good"? Certainly reasonable road conduct should be demanded from all road users, but first from automobile drivers, who cause the vast majority of injuries & deaths on the streets." 1. First of all, it is mandatory in my country. 2. Wether the accident is the biker's fault or the car driver's fault or anything else you are way better wearing a protective helmet if you fall off your bike. Head trauma is not something to be dismissed on the basis that wearing an helmet isn't mandatory or - gasp - fashionnable. 3. Regarding the yellow jacket: without it most bicylists are simply invisible in night traffic. In broad daylight there are easier to see and thus one can be more cautious around them. Remember that cyclists are "weak" road users. 4. > Why should a bicyclist be required to wear a yellow helmet & jacket to be called "good"? Certainly reasonable road conduct should be demanded from all road users, but first from automobile drivers, who cause the vast majority of injuries & deaths on the streets. Wearing a helmet and yellow jacket are really good signs that the biker knows what he is doing. Especially in a country (mine) where it is mandatory. Especially in a country (mine) where car culture is overtly agressive towards cyclists. There is absolutely no reason not to wear protective gear when riding a bike (especially in a city). Even if there were no cars on the road. edit: removed personnal rant

bryanlarsen 14y ago

I am always annoyed with articles promoting safe cycling when illustrating pictures show cyclists on fancy bikes wearing fancy clothes. You don't need fancy clothes and a fancy bike to commute to work, in fact those are often a liability. Pretty much the only people in Copenhagen that wear helmets are racers. Yet the fatality rate in Copenhagen for cyclists is an order of magnitude less than it is in North America, where a good percentage of cyclists wear helmets.

peterwwillis 14y ago

"Good bikers wearing yellow jackets and helmets" The yellow jacket is really only useful in low-light conditions. Bright flashing lights are a much better form of identification than this, imho, and it's one piece of safety equipment nobody in DC ever seemed to own, though their fashionable bike safety apparel was quite solid. I find that "road conduct" is not something most bikers have until they've been hit by a couple cars. At that point they become aware of the fact that cars either don't see them or ignore them, and they become much safer cyclists.

Entlin 14y ago

Maybe they're wearing an invisible bicycle helmet. Think such a thing doesn't exist? Well think again: http://www.hovding.com/en/how/ http://www.hovding.com/en/how/

johnchristopher 14y ago
Wa. That is... incredible! edit: http://www.cycle-helmets.com/imgs/yehudamoon1.jpg http://www.cycle-helmets.com/imgs/yehudamoon1.jpg :)

jules 14y ago

To a dutch person (and probably to a danish person too) this is as strange as saying that people walking on sidewalks and crossing the street should wear yellow jackets and helmets. Cycling, like walking, is not a dangerous activity.

johnchristopher 14y ago
According to the articles I've been reading for the last hour it's actually more dangerous when you are wearing yellow jackets and helmets :]

reinhardt 14y ago

Oh the horror, reckless cyclists riding unprotected! Would be funny to see your reaction when you find out that people in Denmark often smoke on a bike.

johnchristopher 14y ago
Well, surely not as funny as when the dutch girl I dated for two years told me she reads book while riding. :)

Tsagadai 14y ago

I am a happier cyclist having moved to a country without pointless restrictions in the name of collective safety. If people want to brain themselves that should be their own choice. Encouraging people to take responsibility for their own actions is more important than some dictated decree from above. What is the advantage of no gear? Well, I can get on my bike and get to and from the store in 5 minutes (I live in a safe country, I don't even lock my bike up most of the time). Five minutes. The roads around my home are so complex and steep that it is nigh on impossible for a car to travel faster than a cyclist. Having an arbitrary requirement would only act to discourage people from cycling. For the record, I routinely cycle around 80km a week, mainly commuting. I am only on a road for 30 seconds in the entire trip (basically, the last part to my house). With practically no enforcement (I've never seen police on bike paths or talking to cyclists) cycling is safer and easier than what I have experienced elsewhere. When the main risk is to your own wellbeing, most people are sensible enough to not kill themselves without the nanny state holding their hand.