5 ms·

Ugh, here we go again. I can see that modern government struggles with many complex issues for which there are no foolproof or easy timely solutions, but really

by maurits 13y ago

Ugh, here we go again. I can see that modern government struggles with many complex issues for which there are no foolproof or easy timely solutions, but really, bicycles seem to bring out a specific kind of stupid. It really is not rocket science. If you want to make cycling safe you need: 1) Physically separated bike lanes, also on junctions 2) Traffic laws that protect the weaker participant Contrast this little video from New Zealand showing a car hitting a cyclist and the police response [1], with a car right hooking 4 cyclists and causing a "bruised knee" in the Netherlands [2]. This video shows some infrastructure considerations in Groningen, a major city in the north [3] where incidentally I have yet to spot a single helmet or highvis vest. Not that helmets are without merit. There is quit a bit of scientific proof that wearing leathers, helmets, neck restraints and 5 point seatbelt will reduce the number of fatalities of car passengers. [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEgXQIAyGF8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEgXQIAyGF8 [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeJ-d86pKsw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeJ-d86pKsw [3]: http://youtu.be/cWf5fbSUNAg http://youtu.be/cWf5fbSUNAg

hauk1 13y ago
I do agree with your argument, but helmets helps with more than just car vs bike accidents. People have an uncanny tendency to fall and injure themselves without the help of a car. Groningen and the Nederland dont have any hills to speak off, but when you get to high speeds on a bike its good to be protected when you fall. This law protects the biker against any trauma to the head while biking. Its is very easy to wear a helmet and a great way to be a role model for younger people.
- Jemaclus 13y ago
  Yes, great point. I wear my helmet not because of fear of getting hit by a car (because, let's face it, if a car hits me, there's likely a lot more to worry about), but mainly because of all the times I've fallen on my own (from losing my balance, swerving to dodge something, getting a tire stuck in the trolley tracks, etc), my head has almost always made contact with pavement. My helmet has saved me from -- at the very least -- a painful bump on the head, and more likely from concussions.
  - iluvuspartacus 13y ago
    Also if you get a decent helmet and you ride at a decent clip, 35km+, it actually can be cooler. Your coiffed hair however may suffer.
- dorfsmay 13y ago
  The first cause of death due to head trauma is car accident. Economically and humanly, it would have a greater impact to make wearing helmet of peiple in cars. Why aren't there any laws mandating helmet wearing in cars?
jbrooksuk 13y ago
It's also costly and time consuming for them to do so. Sure, let's just go redo EVERY road marking and whilst we're at it, let's add in some new traffic laws. Perhaps over the next couple of decades, maybe longer. But definitely not in a week. This way, the job lies with the citizens. They can easily go pick up a helmet for cheap. It's up to them to pick the correct equipment now.
FireBeyond 13y ago
Yes, because bicyclists don’t have accidents, other than cars hitting them. Funnily, it seems that there is a distinct correlation between those that fight for their freedom to not wear a helmet, who also rail against “socialized medicine” and mandatory insurance, despite the fact that they will receive such care. — a paramedic who has seen more than his fair share of non-helmet-wearing, non-vehicular-involvement bike accidents.
jusben1369 13y ago
With all due respect, I wonder if you answered a question that wasn't asked? I think the author's want to increase ridership, not improve safety. To take it a step further they're arguing that a measure taken to improve safety (wearing helmets) has in fact decreased ridership.
corny 13y ago
It's not rocket science but it is pretty complex. Bike safety can't be solved with just helmet laws or bike lanes. Factors which affect safety include: - proximity to cars (parked and driving) - speed of cars when bikes are riding alongside cars - speed of bikes (some bike lanes encourage riding too fast) - visibility of the roadway (esp. in turns and at intersections) - visibility of cyclists (mandatory front and rear lights at night) - public attitudes and respect for each other (general civic politeness on the part of all road users) - consistently marked and maintained roads and bikeways - fairness in enforcing the rules of the road (both cyclists and drivers need to be consistently stopped and reminded or ticketed for infractions) Bike lanes on their own don't solve all of the above problems. Putting all the blame in driver-cyclist accidents on the driver doesn't help build respect between road users. If the cycling infrastructure is wanting (as it is in almost every major city), a helmet law is a good temporary measure to at least prevent some injuries.
cylinder 13y ago
They have this law in Melbourne and it angers me to no end, especially because they have a bike share program. You are expected to go to a 7-11 nearby and buy a helmet. Yes, it completely kills the convenience, and point, of the bike share program. Unsurprisingly, the bike share doesn't do well. Compare to New York which has put in physically separated bike lanes on most Manhattan avenues and painted bike lanes on the narrower streets. Bike share launched in May and had over ten million miles ridden in its first five months. Almost no riders wear helmets. There has yet to be a single serious accident on CitiBike. Melbourne on the other hand has nowhere near the same ridership yet there have been deaths. One was caused by a woman being hit by a tram -- no physical separation. Yet the nanny state continues.

by maurits 13y ago

hauk1 13y ago

I do agree with your argument, but helmets helps with more than just car vs bike accidents. People have an uncanny tendency to fall and injure themselves without the help of a car. Groningen and the Nederland dont have any hills to speak off, but when you get to high speeds on a bike its good to be protected when you fall. This law protects the biker against any trauma to the head while biking. Its is very easy to wear a helmet and a great way to be a role model for younger people.

Jemaclus 13y ago
Yes, great point. I wear my helmet not because of fear of getting hit by a car (because, let's face it, if a car hits me, there's likely a lot more to worry about), but mainly because of all the times I've fallen on my own (from losing my balance, swerving to dodge something, getting a tire stuck in the trolley tracks, etc), my head has almost always made contact with pavement. My helmet has saved me from -- at the very least -- a painful bump on the head, and more likely from concussions.
- iluvuspartacus 13y ago
  Also if you get a decent helmet and you ride at a decent clip, 35km+, it actually can be cooler. Your coiffed hair however may suffer.
dorfsmay 13y ago
The first cause of death due to head trauma is car accident. Economically and humanly, it would have a greater impact to make wearing helmet of peiple in cars. Why aren't there any laws mandating helmet wearing in cars?

jbrooksuk 13y ago

It's also costly and time consuming for them to do so. Sure, let's just go redo EVERY road marking and whilst we're at it, let's add in some new traffic laws. Perhaps over the next couple of decades, maybe longer. But definitely not in a week. This way, the job lies with the citizens. They can easily go pick up a helmet for cheap. It's up to them to pick the correct equipment now.

FireBeyond 13y ago

Yes, because bicyclists don’t have accidents, other than cars hitting them. Funnily, it seems that there is a distinct correlation between those that fight for their freedom to not wear a helmet, who also rail against “socialized medicine” and mandatory insurance, despite the fact that they will receive such care. — a paramedic who has seen more than his fair share of non-helmet-wearing, non-vehicular-involvement bike accidents.

jusben1369 13y ago

With all due respect, I wonder if you answered a question that wasn't asked? I think the author's want to increase ridership, not improve safety. To take it a step further they're arguing that a measure taken to improve safety (wearing helmets) has in fact decreased ridership.

corny 13y ago

It's not rocket science but it is pretty complex. Bike safety can't be solved with just helmet laws or bike lanes. Factors which affect safety include: - proximity to cars (parked and driving) - speed of cars when bikes are riding alongside cars - speed of bikes (some bike lanes encourage riding too fast) - visibility of the roadway (esp. in turns and at intersections) - visibility of cyclists (mandatory front and rear lights at night) - public attitudes and respect for each other (general civic politeness on the part of all road users) - consistently marked and maintained roads and bikeways - fairness in enforcing the rules of the road (both cyclists and drivers need to be consistently stopped and reminded or ticketed for infractions) Bike lanes on their own don't solve all of the above problems. Putting all the blame in driver-cyclist accidents on the driver doesn't help build respect between road users. If the cycling infrastructure is wanting (as it is in almost every major city), a helmet law is a good temporary measure to at least prevent some injuries.

cylinder 13y ago

They have this law in Melbourne and it angers me to no end, especially because they have a bike share program. You are expected to go to a 7-11 nearby and buy a helmet. Yes, it completely kills the convenience, and point, of the bike share program. Unsurprisingly, the bike share doesn't do well. Compare to New York which has put in physically separated bike lanes on most Manhattan avenues and painted bike lanes on the narrower streets. Bike share launched in May and had over ten million miles ridden in its first five months. Almost no riders wear helmets. There has yet to be a single serious accident on CitiBike. Melbourne on the other hand has nowhere near the same ridership yet there have been deaths. One was caused by a woman being hit by a tram -- no physical separation. Yet the nanny state continues.