8 ms·

This article is great but it does itself a pretty big disservice by pretty much ignoring a lot of why many of the European cities which have successful programs

This article is great but it does itself a pretty big disservice by pretty much ignoring a lot of why many of the European cities which have successful programs are successful. Namely they have made significant investment into infrastructure to make bicycling safer, many times prioritizing bike traffic over auto traffic. I ride quite a bit, live in Berkeley which has numerous "Bicycle Boulevards [1]" and I'm pretty comfortable riding sans helmet. I happily rented a bike in Amsterdam and never even considered using a helmet. Riding my bike to work in SF (or to the articles point NYC)? You're damn straight I'm wearing a helmet. [1] Bicycle Boulevards are streets (open to bikes and cars) that tend to run parallel to primary traffic arteries that tend to have fewer Stop Signs and every 3 or 4 blocks auto traffic isn't allowed through (usually big planters in the middle of the street) so it keeps the auto traffic down.

davidw 14y ago
Here in Italy, most places don't seem to have all that much in terms of programs or much to encourage cycling - or at least if they do, they're fairly recent. What they do have are densely populated cities, making driving expensive and inconvenient, and cycling a better option in terms of the number of places you can reach in a given amount of time.
- msrpotus 14y ago
  Density might be even more important--even with bike lanes, people won't bike if the distances are too far.
btipling 14y ago
As a driver, those bicycle boulevards, like Vermont Ave, in Berkeley are confusing to me. I just don't know what is supposed to be different about those streets, they seem like regular streets except for the designation.
- rms 14y ago
  It takes a while to figure out the traffic flow in Berkeley, but basically most streets except for main arterial roads have some form of periodic traffic calming. So some of the bicycle boulevards have speed bumps, some have traffic circles, some go do not enter after 3 or 4 blocks. Basically just a marginal annoyance to try and get non-local drivers onto other roads.
MikeCapone 14y ago
You are absolutely right. Streetfilms.org is a great place to see short videos that show how the Europeans/Scandinavians do it. Here are a few examples: http://www.streetfilms.org/cycling-copenhagen-through-north-american-eyes/ http://www.streetfilms.org/cycling-copenhagen-through-north-... http://www.streetfilms.org/copenhagens-car-free-streets-and-slow-speed-zones/ http://www.streetfilms.org/copenhagens-car-free-streets-and-... http://www.streetfilms.org/copenhagen-cargo-bikes/ http://www.streetfilms.org/copenhagen-cargo-bikes/ They also have many films about infrastructure, like physically separated bike lanes; http://www.streetfilms.org/physically-separated-bike-lanes/ http://www.streetfilms.org/physically-separated-bike-lanes/ You can also look up films about places like Amsterdam for more.
rickmb 14y ago
Why do people insist on pretending all of Europe is full of bike lanes? In most inner cities there often isn't room for bike lanes, or the lane is just a line on the asphalt. I bike to work every day in Amsterdam, not a single bike lane on my route, I have to share the road with cars, trams, buses, trucks and scooters. The only traffic that actually poses a regular challenge because of their erratic movements and tendency to step into the road without looking are American tourists on foot... Bike lines are convenient, but no more than that, and just as much of a red herring as helmets when it comes to safety. Safety in urban traffic is a people problem.
- FrojoS 14y ago
  >Why do people insist on pretending all of Europe is full of bike lanes? Because as a tourists only stick to the main roads which often have bike lanes. Anyway, in my experience the situation in Europe is much better than in the US. My datapoints: Munich, Kopenhagen, Zurich Bay, Boston, Portland
- _delirium 14y ago
  I wouldn't say they're widespread in Europe, but I moved from the SF Bay Area to Copenhagen, and they're certainly a big factor here. The "bicycle highways", completely separated and wide lanes that form major arteries through the city, make it much easier to bike to work from most places, without danger of car interference, or of being "doored" by parked cars opening their doors. Some other efforts: 1) the traffic lights on several major arteries have been synchronized to typical bike speeds, rather than car speeds, so in good circumstances you can ride their whole length without hitting a red light (they call this a "green wave"), and 2) of the three bridges over the central harbor, one is bicycle/pedestrian-only (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryggebroen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryggebroen), with another no-car bridge under construction. Obviously other aspects also matter, such as a compact and flat city, but I think all these help considerably as well.
  - alook 14y ago
    Doesn't Copenhagen also structure its traffic protocols around bicycle commuters? For instance, letting cyclists go on a green light several seconds before cars, in order to ensure that nearby drivers can see them? Copenhagen has done studies [1] indicating that every mile driven accounts for some net economic loss (due to the harmful health effects of sedentary lifestyles, pollution, the cost to the commuter of gas/cars, the cost to society of maintaining automotive infrastructure), where very mile ridden constitutes a net economic gain (decreased healthcare costs due to being more active, lower personal cost of owning a bicycle, etc). If the US spent more time looking at commuting from an economic and health perspective, we'd probably find that more government action is needed, beyond "Bike to work day" [1] http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/node/38206 http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/node/38206
ekianjo 14y ago
In Japan there are no bike lanes whatsoever and people use bike everyday in dense cities to go from one place to another, because it's pratical and saves you time. Nobody wears helmets and you would look like a fool here if you were the only one to do so. On top of that, there is no need for bike lanes in Japan because cyclists are not supposed to go on the roads where the cars go. Instead, cyclists are supposed to stay on the sidewalk/pavement with the pedestrians. Of course this means you need to have sidewalk/pavements larger than usual but this does the trick: you are technically avoiding very dangerous collisions this way, since most collisions would happen between pedestrians and cyclists rather than between cars and cyclists. I do not look the news for that kind of things but I have never heard of any cyclists getting killed in Japan at least in the recent past. Helmets are stupid because the biggest problem is to avoid car and cyclists collision in the first place. Having something on your head will never save you if you get into a collision at 50km/h.
- barrkel 14y ago
  Helmets (including motorbike helmets) are designed to protect you from a vertical fall of about 2 meters and hitting your head at that speed. If you have a collision at 50km/h, chances are you'll be hitting the ground from a height similar to that. I don't know how many such collisions you've been in, but I've been in about 6 motorbike accidents of fairly light severity, including hitting a car at about 50km/h. I bounced off the front of that car and landed head-first on the road. But I had no injuries at all - in large part because I was wearing a helmet. That said, I'm not in favour of making bicycle helmets mandatory, and I think cyclists should be allowed to use the pavement for safety, as long as they are courteous and don't go too fast (no more than 10km/h or so) when close to pedestrians.
  - ekianjo 14y ago
    I mean, I am not against helmets if it makes you or anyone else feel safer when biking or cycling, but making it mandatory is stupid. It is up to everyone to take their own responsibility and assume the consequences of their actions. I am appalled that in a country like the US which WAS known to value individual responsibility it has become mandatory to wear helmets when cycling.
malandrew 14y ago
Don't forget to mention that dooring isn't really problem in European cities. Most European cities separate the bike lane from parked cards. For people in bike lanes, that's the main risk that would cause an accident where a helmet would help prevent injury.
- sopooneo 14y ago
  It's true. Around Boston, the bike lanes pretty much exactly designate the zone in which you are at risk for dooring.
  - malandrew 14y ago
    Same for San Francisco, NYC and pretty much every other city in the US. Only recently has SF begun to plan for the separation of parking and bike lanes. I believe a pretty significant number of bike deaths in NYC last year were attributable to dooring.
andreimaxim 14y ago
I live in Bucharest, which pretty much is as bike unfriendly as you can get. There are some bike lanes, but all of them are on the sidewalks where you might see a car parked or you might have to avoid a tree or a bus station, so they are pretty much unusable in my opinion. On top of that, there is a large number of aggressive or simply ignorant bike riders, so you can occasionally get some strong words simply because you're riding your road bike on, you know, the road. That being said, I never wear a bike in the city. There are a couple of reasons for that: First, it hinders my sight. I'd rather be able to catch a glimpse of a car trying to overtake me than have my head protected when I hit that car. Second, most road bike helmets offer some sort of protection only when you hit the road with the top front of your head. They offer little protection when you fall sideways, which is probably the most common type of fall. Third, I'm not so sure that a helmet might do anything for me: I ride a bike, ski and even skate a bit and I've fell down a lot, but I've never hit my head once because my instinct was to protect my head with my hands. Last, it's a matter of personal taste: I sweat a lot and I'd feel awkward if I had to wash my hair every time I ride my bike somewhere. That being said, I always wear a helmet when I plan a medium or long ride. I usually ride faster than in the city and a helmet might make the difference. Also, I always wear a helmet if I'm riding my mountain bike in the forest because there are branches that seem high enough, but guess what, they aren't. I also wear a Road ID, just in case. As a bottom line, I strongly believe that bike helmets don't offer safety. A little, yes, but hitting your head hard where it's protected by your helmet is just one of the injuries, especially when you ride next to the curb. I think it's a lot better to watch out and try to prevent any accidents.

davidw 14y ago

Here in Italy, most places don't seem to have all that much in terms of programs or much to encourage cycling - or at least if they do, they're fairly recent. What they do have are densely populated cities, making driving expensive and inconvenient, and cycling a better option in terms of the number of places you can reach in a given amount of time.

msrpotus 14y ago
Density might be even more important--even with bike lanes, people won't bike if the distances are too far.

btipling 14y ago

As a driver, those bicycle boulevards, like Vermont Ave, in Berkeley are confusing to me. I just don't know what is supposed to be different about those streets, they seem like regular streets except for the designation.

rms 14y ago
It takes a while to figure out the traffic flow in Berkeley, but basically most streets except for main arterial roads have some form of periodic traffic calming. So some of the bicycle boulevards have speed bumps, some have traffic circles, some go do not enter after 3 or 4 blocks. Basically just a marginal annoyance to try and get non-local drivers onto other roads.

MikeCapone 14y ago

You are absolutely right. Streetfilms.org is a great place to see short videos that show how the Europeans/Scandinavians do it. Here are a few examples: http://www.streetfilms.org/cycling-copenhagen-through-north-american-eyes/ http://www.streetfilms.org/cycling-copenhagen-through-north-... http://www.streetfilms.org/copenhagens-car-free-streets-and-slow-speed-zones/ http://www.streetfilms.org/copenhagens-car-free-streets-and-... http://www.streetfilms.org/copenhagen-cargo-bikes/ http://www.streetfilms.org/copenhagen-cargo-bikes/ They also have many films about infrastructure, like physically separated bike lanes; http://www.streetfilms.org/physically-separated-bike-lanes/ http://www.streetfilms.org/physically-separated-bike-lanes/ You can also look up films about places like Amsterdam for more.

rickmb 14y ago

Why do people insist on pretending all of Europe is full of bike lanes? In most inner cities there often isn't room for bike lanes, or the lane is just a line on the asphalt. I bike to work every day in Amsterdam, not a single bike lane on my route, I have to share the road with cars, trams, buses, trucks and scooters. The only traffic that actually poses a regular challenge because of their erratic movements and tendency to step into the road without looking are American tourists on foot... Bike lines are convenient, but no more than that, and just as much of a red herring as helmets when it comes to safety. Safety in urban traffic is a people problem.

FrojoS 14y ago
>Why do people insist on pretending all of Europe is full of bike lanes? Because as a tourists only stick to the main roads which often have bike lanes. Anyway, in my experience the situation in Europe is much better than in the US. My datapoints: Munich, Kopenhagen, Zurich Bay, Boston, Portland
_delirium 14y ago
I wouldn't say they're widespread in Europe, but I moved from the SF Bay Area to Copenhagen, and they're certainly a big factor here. The "bicycle highways", completely separated and wide lanes that form major arteries through the city, make it much easier to bike to work from most places, without danger of car interference, or of being "doored" by parked cars opening their doors. Some other efforts: 1) the traffic lights on several major arteries have been synchronized to typical bike speeds, rather than car speeds, so in good circumstances you can ride their whole length without hitting a red light (they call this a "green wave"), and 2) of the three bridges over the central harbor, one is bicycle/pedestrian-only (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryggebroen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryggebroen), with another no-car bridge under construction. Obviously other aspects also matter, such as a compact and flat city, but I think all these help considerably as well.
- alook 14y ago
  Doesn't Copenhagen also structure its traffic protocols around bicycle commuters? For instance, letting cyclists go on a green light several seconds before cars, in order to ensure that nearby drivers can see them? Copenhagen has done studies [1] indicating that every mile driven accounts for some net economic loss (due to the harmful health effects of sedentary lifestyles, pollution, the cost to the commuter of gas/cars, the cost to society of maintaining automotive infrastructure), where very mile ridden constitutes a net economic gain (decreased healthcare costs due to being more active, lower personal cost of owning a bicycle, etc). If the US spent more time looking at commuting from an economic and health perspective, we'd probably find that more government action is needed, beyond "Bike to work day" [1] http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/node/38206 http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/node/38206

ekianjo 14y ago

In Japan there are no bike lanes whatsoever and people use bike everyday in dense cities to go from one place to another, because it's pratical and saves you time. Nobody wears helmets and you would look like a fool here if you were the only one to do so. On top of that, there is no need for bike lanes in Japan because cyclists are not supposed to go on the roads where the cars go. Instead, cyclists are supposed to stay on the sidewalk/pavement with the pedestrians. Of course this means you need to have sidewalk/pavements larger than usual but this does the trick: you are technically avoiding very dangerous collisions this way, since most collisions would happen between pedestrians and cyclists rather than between cars and cyclists. I do not look the news for that kind of things but I have never heard of any cyclists getting killed in Japan at least in the recent past. Helmets are stupid because the biggest problem is to avoid car and cyclists collision in the first place. Having something on your head will never save you if you get into a collision at 50km/h.

barrkel 14y ago
Helmets (including motorbike helmets) are designed to protect you from a vertical fall of about 2 meters and hitting your head at that speed. If you have a collision at 50km/h, chances are you'll be hitting the ground from a height similar to that. I don't know how many such collisions you've been in, but I've been in about 6 motorbike accidents of fairly light severity, including hitting a car at about 50km/h. I bounced off the front of that car and landed head-first on the road. But I had no injuries at all - in large part because I was wearing a helmet. That said, I'm not in favour of making bicycle helmets mandatory, and I think cyclists should be allowed to use the pavement for safety, as long as they are courteous and don't go too fast (no more than 10km/h or so) when close to pedestrians.
- ekianjo 14y ago
  I mean, I am not against helmets if it makes you or anyone else feel safer when biking or cycling, but making it mandatory is stupid. It is up to everyone to take their own responsibility and assume the consequences of their actions. I am appalled that in a country like the US which WAS known to value individual responsibility it has become mandatory to wear helmets when cycling.

malandrew 14y ago

Don't forget to mention that dooring isn't really problem in European cities. Most European cities separate the bike lane from parked cards. For people in bike lanes, that's the main risk that would cause an accident where a helmet would help prevent injury.

sopooneo 14y ago
It's true. Around Boston, the bike lanes pretty much exactly designate the zone in which you are at risk for dooring.
- malandrew 14y ago
  Same for San Francisco, NYC and pretty much every other city in the US. Only recently has SF begun to plan for the separation of parking and bike lanes. I believe a pretty significant number of bike deaths in NYC last year were attributable to dooring.

andreimaxim 14y ago

I live in Bucharest, which pretty much is as bike unfriendly as you can get. There are some bike lanes, but all of them are on the sidewalks where you might see a car parked or you might have to avoid a tree or a bus station, so they are pretty much unusable in my opinion. On top of that, there is a large number of aggressive or simply ignorant bike riders, so you can occasionally get some strong words simply because you're riding your road bike on, you know, the road. That being said, I never wear a bike in the city. There are a couple of reasons for that: First, it hinders my sight. I'd rather be able to catch a glimpse of a car trying to overtake me than have my head protected when I hit that car. Second, most road bike helmets offer some sort of protection only when you hit the road with the top front of your head. They offer little protection when you fall sideways, which is probably the most common type of fall. Third, I'm not so sure that a helmet might do anything for me: I ride a bike, ski and even skate a bit and I've fell down a lot, but I've never hit my head once because my instinct was to protect my head with my hands. Last, it's a matter of personal taste: I sweat a lot and I'd feel awkward if I had to wash my hair every time I ride my bike somewhere. That being said, I always wear a helmet when I plan a medium or long ride. I usually ride faster than in the city and a helmet might make the difference. Also, I always wear a helmet if I'm riding my mountain bike in the forest because there are branches that seem high enough, but guess what, they aren't. I also wear a Road ID, just in case. As a bottom line, I strongly believe that bike helmets don't offer safety. A little, yes, but hitting your head hard where it's protected by your helmet is just one of the injuries, especially when you ride next to the curb. I think it's a lot better to watch out and try to prevent any accidents.