Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Some cities are now encouraging people to ride bikes without wearing a helmet, because brain damage makes everything more fun and potato   (nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid, prices, no pressure, docking station, potatoes, National Highway  
•       •       •

8968 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Oct 2012 at 8:36 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



215 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-10-04 08:35:10 AM  
I wear a bike helmet because I know there people like me driving cars.
 
2012-10-04 08:37:17 AM  
I don't get it. I thought potato was a number?
 
2012-10-04 08:37:39 AM  
I'd like to comment on this, but I can't since I don't have a New York Times login.
 
2012-10-04 08:38:36 AM  
That's the second paywall in ten minutes.
 
2012-10-04 08:38:48 AM  
I wear a bike helmet because I was wearing one the day I flew off my bike, and I am not a potato, and that may be why.
 
2012-10-04 08:39:03 AM  
This is no joke, I was in a bicycle accident once without a helmet and now I can't snail tea wreck good worm.
 
2012-10-04 08:40:26 AM  
Would you rather people exercise? or would you rather a smaller number of people not risk brain injury?

You can force people to wear a helmet to exercise when you are ready to pay for their diabetes meds.
 
2012-10-04 08:40:35 AM  
Basically, the premise here is that helmets make people not want to bike and the city leaders are saying that the whole point of helmets is to prevent head injuries due to high speed collisions, which they state are rare in urban environments. As someone who HAS had a high-speed bicycle accident, I kindly tell those leaders to go pound sand. My helmet was cracked completely through and I didn't even get a concussion. Without it, I probably would at best, have serious brain injuries.
 
2012-10-04 08:41:07 AM  
sheep are told to wear a helmet and sheep wear it. i saw a grown up man on roller skates wearing a helmet the other day. Not sure what the danger was.
 
2012-10-04 08:42:08 AM  

orclover: Would you rather people exercise? or would you rather a smaller number of people not risk brain injury?

You can force people to wear a helmet to exercise when you are ready to pay for their diabetes meds.


We all belong to the Obamacare Shared Risk Club, now. We are allowed to people how to live their lives.
 
2012-10-04 08:43:21 AM  
Good. No helmets, no seat belts, no illusion of safety. Thin out the retards who think they can get away with any of the above and life will be a lot nicer for the rest of us.
 
2012-10-04 08:44:07 AM  
Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.
 
2012-10-04 08:45:34 AM  

orclover: Would you rather people exercise? or would you rather a smaller number of people not risk brain injury?


Death to the nanny state. There are too many rules and regulations that make everything unfun. So we'll have a few extra potatoes; someone has to watch daytime TV.
 
2012-10-04 08:45:51 AM  
I'm going to hell, but I laughed. Thanks, Subby.
 
2012-10-04 08:46:44 AM  
I will not rest until it is legal to drive over a Critical Mass group ride.
 
2012-10-04 08:46:49 AM  

Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.


Not so sure. The one in London seems to work OK.
 
2012-10-04 08:48:40 AM  
I've taken some head injuries.
I entertain a lot easier these days.

Those two points may be unrelated.
 
2012-10-04 08:49:50 AM  
I don't ride with a helmet, and haven't for well over 30 years, but then again I don't put myself in harms way; if I were one of these morons who ride for speed and who want to be complete cocksuckers on two wheels at @ 30 MPH, then yeah, I'd wear a brain bucket too... hit one tiny rock with those pencil tires and it's pretty much all over.

I would also be amused if someone actually tried to encourage helmetless biking in my city: the current kill numbers for the year so far sits at roughly one a week. Needless to say, I don't ride at night here anymore, because that would basically be a death wish. As if that weren't bad enough, some other cocksuckers keep stealing the ghost bike memorials put up in the honor of the scores that have been killed here.
 
2012-10-04 08:49:57 AM  
Well, older Republicans are dying off. They need to replenish the pond, as it were.
 
2012-10-04 08:50:07 AM  
I think the article states it perfectly. It's really simple.

I recently bought a biking helmet but have been biking for years. But because I started riding technical mountain bike trails where crashing spectacularly is a real threat, Cruising at 5mph on the shoulder or sidewalks in my suburb on the way to work, not so much.

I have long worn a full face lid on the motorcycle, and I'd rather have one on the trails on the bicycle as well (working on it) because wiring your jaw shut after it lands on a boulder probably isn't fun. Just like shaving my chin down at 50mph on the motorcycle probably isn't either.

I don't wear my bicycle helmet commuting to work. As I gain speed and possibly take to the roads and on a road bike, I might consider it.

They are absolutely right, people will just not ride if you require it. They don't want to mess up their hair.
 
2012-10-04 08:50:18 AM  

SniperJoe: Basically, the premise here is that helmets make people not want to bike and the city leaders are saying that the whole point of helmets is to prevent head injuries due to high speed collisions, which they state are rare in urban environments. As someone who HAS had a high-speed bicycle accident, I kindly tell those leaders to go pound sand. My helmet was cracked completely through and I didn't even get a concussion. Without it, I probably would at best, have serious brain injuries.


Emphasis added... I think that there is great thought going into this. Most urban bikers of european cities don't go fast at all, and therefore the risk of being in a high-speed accident are basically nil. In NYC the only people on bikes are crazy mo-fos who are willing to dart through the taxi traffic, etc... so helmets are a damn good idea. It is, as the author suggested, a catch-22. We need to promote bicycle traffic to the point where there is slow but efficient bike traffic, much like the car traffic currently on the roads during rush hour.
 
2012-10-04 08:50:41 AM  
So, all of the people who rode bikes when there were no bike helmets are either dead of disabled?
 
2012-10-04 08:51:17 AM  

ModernLuddite: I will not rest until it is legal to drive over a Critical Mass group ride.


Ya know.... I ride fairly regularly, to include having done a few century rides...and even I think those people are morons.

There are plenty of roads (including some that could be commuting roads) near me that I won't set (2 wheeled) tire on, because they're narrow, hilly and windy- all of which scream at me "bad idea" for biking.
 
2012-10-04 08:51:28 AM  
Cue the anecdotes from the few with bad luck.

If you get hit by a car get a good assault lawyer and take it from there.

Meanwhile it's true that people go decades without an accident. WAY less than cars, where I can see the whole safety puzzle, bike riders, especially on paths, are in pretty good shape.
 
2012-10-04 08:54:30 AM  

juvandy: Good. No helmets, no seat belts, no illusion of safety. Thin out the retards who think they can get away with any of the above and life will be a lot nicer for the rest of us.


And it could do wonders for organ donation...
 
2012-10-04 08:54:39 AM  

SmellsLikePoo: Emphasis added... I think that there is great thought going into this. Most urban bikers of european cities don't go fast at all, and therefore the risk of being in a high-speed accident are basically nil. In NYC the only people on bikes are crazy mo-fos who are willing to dart through the taxi traffic, etc... so helmets are a damn good idea. It is, as the author suggested, a catch-22. We need to promote bicycle traffic to the point where there is slow but efficient bike traffic, much like the car traffic currently on the roads during rush hour.


The problem is that while bike traffic may not be moving at high-speed, automobile traffic often does. It's simple physics at that point. From a risk point of view, I completely understand what they're trying to do, and as you state, it is a bit of a catch-22. However, the difficulty is that I don't think the risk is quite as small as these managers make it out to be.
 
2012-10-04 08:54:53 AM  

SniperJoe: Basically, the premise here is that helmets make people not want to bike and the city leaders are saying that the whole point of helmets is to prevent head injuries due to high speed collisions, which they state are rare in urban environments. As someone who HAS had a high-speed bicycle accident, I kindly tell those leaders to go pound sand. My helmet was cracked completely through and I didn't even get a concussion. Without it, I probably would at best, have serious brain injuries.


A helmet while mountain biking up and down craggy hills, sane. A helmet for a toddler zipping in and out of the street, sane. A helmet for a nice leisurely ride around the park or to the store to get milk, pants on head retarded. Its not an extreme death defying sport every time you get on two wheels. If it is, you need to settle the hell down before you give yourself a heart attack.
 
2012-10-04 08:55:53 AM  
I am so mad at the anti-ladder-helmet lobby. They've convinced people you don't need to wear helmets when doing things like using a ladder. I mean, it's as safe as riding a bike, they say.

PEOPLE: WEAR YOUR LADDER HELMETS! YOU COULD FALL!

 
2012-10-04 08:57:56 AM  

GORDON: orclover: Would you rather people exercise? or would you rather a smaller number of people not risk brain injury?

You can force people to wear a helmet to exercise when you are ready to pay for their diabetes meds.

We all belong to the Obamacare Shared Risk Club, now. We are allowed to people how to live their lives.


Accidentally?
 
2012-10-04 08:57:58 AM  
Well they have a point, helmets only work in certain accidents. It's not going to save you when a car runs you over.
 
2012-10-04 08:58:02 AM  
When I ride my bike without a helmet I get weird looks, but the looks were weirder 15 years ago when I would also be smoking.
 
2012-10-04 08:59:54 AM  

I have never worn and will never wear a helmet while riding a bicycle. Motorcycle; yeah, but not on a bike.

When I was a kid, wearing a helmet on a bike would have been dangerous because my friends would have whooped my ass for being a wussy.

/We gave Dennis a pass
//He was special
///But he was still our friend.

 
2012-10-04 09:02:00 AM  
When I could ride a bike (knees are farking GONE... at 29...):

I bailed going down a trail in the Beartooth mountains. Nailed a log, went flying through the air like Superman and EL KABONGed myself into a pine. Came to about a half-minute later.

Helmet was split the fark in two, bike was good. Dizzy, chomped my tongue so hard, it was sticking out of my mouth and was staggering as I walked.

Had a mild concussion and the helmet saved my ass.

I think it should be your choice, personal safety equipment shouldn't be regulated.

However; you better believe if I could today, I'd still wear a helmet.
 
2012-10-04 09:02:22 AM  

acad1228: I have never worn and will never wear a helmet while riding a bicycle. Motorcycle; yeah, but not on a bike.When I was a kid, wearing a helmet on a bike would have been dangerous because my friends would have whooped my ass for being a wussy. /We gave Dennis a pass
//He was special
///But he was still our friend.


On one of my rides a few weeks ago, I hit 38 mph coming down off a hill on my bike. Is falling off a bicycle at nearly 40 mph any less dangerous than crashing a motorcyclye at 40 mph?
 
2012-10-04 09:02:22 AM  

bikerbob59: So, all of the people who rode bikes when there were no bike helmets are either dead of disabled?


No; just a higher percentage of them than the ones who wore helmets.

I've had two identical, low speed falls from a bike. No helmet: concision. Helmet: no concision. I'll keep wearing that helmet.
 
2012-10-04 09:02:49 AM  
I haven't worn a helmet in 45 years or so. I think I crashed a bike last when I was ten, and tore up my knee. Of course I ride casually and by the rules I was taught as a child. I pull over and let cars by if there's any question of road space. I walk the bike across intersections. I have fat tires that can deal with the occasional patch of sand. When biking with a friend we ride single file. I'm out there for recreation, not to get somewhere by a deadline.

I don't wear bright yellow spandex and demand that distracted drivers of three thousand pound vehicles respect my "rights." Same deal as boating, or even walking across a crosswalk, you may have the right of way, but it won't make you any less dead when the other guy screws up.
 
2012-10-04 09:03:42 AM  
salonmonster.com
 
2012-10-04 09:05:07 AM  

hiker9999: acad1228: I have never worn and will never wear a helmet while riding a bicycle. Motorcycle; yeah, but not on a bike.When I was a kid, wearing a helmet on a bike would have been dangerous because my friends would have whooped my ass for being a wussy. /We gave Dennis a pass
//He was special
///But he was still our friend.

On one of my rides a few weeks ago, I hit 38 mph coming down off a hill on my bike. Is falling off a bicycle at nearly 40 mph any less dangerous than crashing a motorcyclye at 40 mph?


Good point, but I don't ride for speed. Trudging uphill at 12 mph is a great workout.
 
2012-10-04 09:05:11 AM  

Jedekai:

I think it should be your choice, personal safety equipment shouldn't be regulated.



Maybe it's because I grew up in the helmet and seatbelt era, but I actually see the need for 'em, Don't like 'em, but I understand why they're needed.

And I agree completely... they shouldn't be mandatory, and you shouldn't have to pay the government if you don't use them, and in the end, it's on your head if you wind up dead from something that could have been prevented with a helmet or a seatbelt.
 
2012-10-04 09:05:14 AM  
Why we shouldn't bike with helmets.

Once upon a time, cars were guests on our streets- and unpleasant ones at that. They moved in, and suddenly the streets became places for cars, as opposed to a public space that cars used- along with many other functions. It's a fascinating inversion- roadways became entirely about cars. Their purpose became a system for moving traffic.

For most of the 20th century, this new philosophy of city planning sucked the vitality and life out of cities. Now the trend is reversing itself, and it's a good trend. Anything that gets more people using the roadways for things other than automobile transportation is good. Bicycles have the added benefit of improving the public health. And the more people we have on bikes, the fewer we have in cars- meaning the risks of collision decrease.

//I wear a helmet, because why not? I like my head. I'm attached to it.
 
2012-10-04 09:06:16 AM  

meanmutton: bikerbob59: So, all of the people who rode bikes when there were no bike helmets are either dead of disabled?

No; just a higher percentage of them than the ones who wore helmets.

I've had two identical, low speed falls from a bike. No helmet: concision. Helmet: no concision. I'll keep wearing that helmet.


You sure about that?
 
2012-10-04 09:07:15 AM  
And adult riding a bike on a mature and safe bike system cannot be truthfully likened to bike messages in New York. I ride a lot on good, car free urban trails with no helmet (Colorado baby) but I wear one when I am biking or snowboarding in the mountains.
 
2012-10-04 09:07:56 AM  

Mercury: Well, older Democrats are dying off. They need to replenish the pond, as it were.


That's sexist or something. Knock it off. ;)
 
2012-10-04 09:08:53 AM  

Jedekai: meanmutton: bikerbob59: So, all of the people who rode bikes when there were no bike helmets are either dead of disabled?

No; just a higher percentage of them than the ones who wore helmets.

I've had two identical, low speed falls from a bike. No helmet: concision. Helmet: no concision. I'll keep wearing that helmet.

You sure about that?


It's so bad, he can only count to yam.
 
2012-10-04 09:10:00 AM  

Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.


What a typical knee jerk American response.

Parisian streets and traffic are far worse than NYC, and yet bike share works quite well there (you haven't experienced gridlock during rush hour until you've witnessed some jackass getting stuck in the middle of a 6 way intersection).

There's a really simple reason why urban biking is so much more prevalent in European cities and why the bikes can function tandem with cars: enforcement of traffic laws for both cars and bikers.

A lot of European cities have street lights for bikes (Manhattan has several of these along Broadway). This helps to condition bikers to comply with the law, specifically not running reds. The only bikers who run reds and stop lights in Europe are American tourists. On the car side, in many places they must always yield to bikers, and its enforced.
 
2012-10-04 09:10:33 AM  
Wast there a study on Fark saying that helmets can cause more head injuries? Yes, they can save you from nasty injuries, but they can cause some as well. I think it was because a helmet makes your head 25% bigger, thus more prone to hitting things your bare head would have missed.

I think helmets are a problem for a ride-share program because what, do you have one on your belt just in case you decide to go for a ride later? And I'm not wearing som lice-ridden shared helmet. That's like bowling shoes, but worse.
 
2012-10-04 09:12:08 AM  

CruJones: Yes, they can save you from nasty injuries, but they can cause some as well.


Well, interestingly, the video I linked describes the testing process for helmets. They put the helmet on a dummy. They stand the dummy up. Then they let the dummy fall forward onto the crown of the helmet.
 
2012-10-04 09:14:52 AM  

fireclown: Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.

Not so sure. The one in London seems to work OK.


Montreal has an extensive system as well. It's just getting started in Toronto.
 
2012-10-04 09:16:17 AM  
FTFA: "But many European health experts have taken a very different view: Yes, there are studies that show that if you fall off a bicycle at a certain speed and hit your head, a helmet can reduce your risk of serious head injury. But such falls off bikes are rare - exceedingly so in mature urban cycling systems."

Anecdotal, but a kid in my year in HS died when he got hit by a car and slammed his head into the ground. No helmet on. Died of severe brain trauma.

Falling off a bike on to your head or otherwise getting hit on the head is rare, yes, but then, so are car accidents, at least from person to person. Does that mean we ought to do away with airbags and seatbelts?

People won't ride with a helmet, fine. Let em. But if they get killed by a head injury, don't expect too much sympathy from me.
 
2012-10-04 09:16:41 AM  

Rapmaster2000: When I ride my bike without a helmet I get weird looks, but the looks were weirder 15 years ago when I would also be smoking.


Can you blame them? 

imageshack.us
 
2012-10-04 09:18:14 AM  

Tat'dGreaser: Well they have a point, helmets only work in certain accidents. It's not going to save you when a car runs you over.


Run me clear over? Probably not.

For the pickup that hit-and-runned me into a ditch, though, 15 years ago, breaking multiple bones and smashing the hell out of the helmet I was wearing? I can't conclusively prove that it helped me, but I'm glad I was wearing it then and wear them regularly today. When people ask about it, I show them the surgery scars on my arm.
 
2012-10-04 09:19:14 AM  
Not all cycling activities carry identical risk, and no safety practices come without costs. Sometimes, the costs outweigh the benefits. Sometimes not. The problem with the law is it is a blunt mechanism, and once it gets going it is exceedingly difficult to redirect.
 
2012-10-04 09:20:09 AM  
despite seat belts, airbags, crumple zones, etc. one of the most common injuries for car drivers remain head injuries. So why don't we make car drivers wear helmets?
 
2012-10-04 09:20:50 AM  
I grew up not wearing a bike helmet. I never saw the need to. Even after I took a header off a retaining wall breaking my wrist, blacking out with a concussion for 10 minutes, I never batted an eye in the direction of a helmet. I had scraped knees/knuckles from all the times my tires slid out from under me, and I still didn't see the need for a helmet.

I see the way people drive their cars/trucks these days. It's not so much driving badly, but their inattentive driving with talking/texting with cellphones that if it's not another vehicle on the road they barely see it. I wear a helmet every time I get on my bike now.
 
2012-10-04 09:22:02 AM  
1: Wearing a helmet when riding ANYTHING on two, (or three) wheels is insurance, as is wearing a seat-belt when driving a car, (gee.....there are laws requiring that) ........ or in other words; "just in case something bad happens".

2: Insurance is required by law to operate a motorized vehicle. Why? Because the farking things can hurt/kill and damage property.

3: If a person NOT wearing a helmet suffers injuries and is un-insured or involved with an UIM, (up to and including death/Persistent Vegetative State), guess who picks up the bill? Uh huh....US: the taxpayer. If that person's injuries could be mitigated by wearing a helmet, less cost to taxpayers.
(This is known commonly as "enlightened self-interest).

4: The argument that "low-speed =/= risk" is invalid, simply falling onto a hard surface can cause TBI/broken bones/death, the chances of injury increase when traveling faster than walking-speed.

/You will note I do not differentiate between bicycle and motorcycle riders. Why? Not surrounded by metal or restrained inside said metal box.
//I know, this is Fark, don't confuse the issue with logic.
 
2012-10-04 09:22:13 AM  

Tanishh: People won't ride with a helmet, fine. Let em. But if they get killed by a head injury, don't expect too much sympathy from me.


If only that was enough to stop legislation.

People find it strange that I am pro-helmet laws for motorcycles and anti for bicycles. I have 4 motorcycle helmets, I even airbrush them as a hobby.
 
2012-10-04 09:22:24 AM  

hiker9999: On one of my rides a few weeks ago, I hit 38 mph coming down off a hill on my bike. Is falling off a bicycle at nearly 40 mph any less dangerous than crashing a motorcyclye at 40 mph?


Depends, does your bicycle weigh 400+ lbs?
 
2012-10-04 09:23:43 AM  

SniperJoe: Basically, the premise here is that helmets make people not want to bike and the city leaders are saying that the whole point of helmets is to prevent head injuries due to high speed collisions, which they state are rare in urban environments. As someone who HAS had a high-speed bicycle accident, I kindly tell those leaders to go pound sand. My helmet was cracked completely through and I didn't even get a concussion. Without it, I probably would at best, have serious brain injuries.


I fell off my bike, sans-helmet at 14, got a concussion, am fine now. Still ride helmet free. They're not such sticklers about it if you're over 16.

My accident happened before helmet laws were enacted, long before
 
2012-10-04 09:25:22 AM  
Oh as of the first of this month, vehicular manslaughter is a crime in my state. :)
 
2012-10-04 09:26:49 AM  
In 44 years of living, most of those during the era where nobody wore helmets, I have never known a single person who sustained a head injury while biking. In my sample group of ten other people at work, nobody else had either. Nobody, including me, had even heard of a case.

Car accidents with injuries related to no seatbelt use, yes. Bike accidents, no.

I shake my head at the helmeted folks riding at 5mph on the park paths by house. Why not wear knee pads and elbow protection too? Lol. The term sheeple has never had a better application than when applied to bike helmet nazis.
 
2012-10-04 09:27:21 AM  
As a kid, I learned that the bike I had was very bad to use in a step downhill path in the forest, especially when you try to turn on a side path 3/4 down that hill, and find that the release the pedals brakes and rocks just aren't much to rely on.

I was airborne a good 10-15 feet but luckily, a tree was there to stop me.

And no, I didn't wear an helmet, they didn't exist then.

It wasn't too bad, I ended up with my forehead a bit banged up and my mom freaked over the blood.

But I learned an important lesson that day: My skull had an extra thickness of re-enforcement in the front, so I can literally headbutt like they do in movies.
 
2012-10-04 09:28:15 AM  
I just don't feel comfortable riding without a helmet these days. Although, something that always cheeses me off is the people wearing helmets that are either un-secured (and won't stay on in a crash - why get all the drawback of looking like a dork and none of the protective benefit), or are missing the shell (basically just the styrofoam - again, looks like arse and reduces protection).
 
2012-10-04 09:28:56 AM  

thornhill: There's a really simple reason why urban biking is so much more prevalent in European cities and why the bikes can function tandem with cars: enforcement of traffic laws for both cars and bikers.


I think this is true, but it's not the only reason that biking won't work in American cities. If you enforced European-style laws on most American cities, gridlock would paralyze them.

However, I am tired of bikers playing both sides of the fence. If they're on the roads, they need to obey traffic laws just like a car. They're smaller and we can't see them as well.

The only bikers who run reds and stop lights in Europe are American tourists. On the car side, in many places they must always yield to bikers, and its enforced.

This I'd never support, as part of the above. If you ride a bike, and do something stupid, you should inherit the consequences. If that includes death, well, Darwin grins.
 
2012-10-04 09:33:35 AM  

CruJones: Wast there a study on Fark saying that helmets can cause more head injuries? Yes, they can save you from nasty injuries, but they can cause some as well. I think it was because a helmet makes your head 25% bigger, thus more prone to hitting things your bare head would have missed.


I think you mean neck injuries.
But yeah, I don't want to put on a helmet either. Why protect the brain, if your neck can break break as a result?

It seems as if there are three types of cyclists who wear helmets:

1) The insecure ones who should probably have their own lane - they wobble and scare easily.

2) The 'I'm invincible now - look at my helmet!'-crowd. They are assholes and their actions reflect it, whether it be texting or going the wrong way.

3) The sensible herd animal, who follows the rules and aren't being a menace in some way. Unfortunately, these have a very short halflife and will quickly turn into either 1) or 2) depending on their level of confidence.
 
2012-10-04 09:34:17 AM  
Number One cause of head and neck injuries in America? Falling off of horses!
Lets see you make them wear helmets!

That wont happen because its lots easier to give a ticket to bicycle riders.
Yep, its all about money
 
2012-10-04 09:34:27 AM  
And by 'break break' I mean break your neck.
 
2012-10-04 09:35:08 AM  
I don't ride a bike because helmets are gay.
 
2012-10-04 09:35:19 AM  

G.I.R.B.: 1: Wearing a helmet when riding ANYTHING on two, (or three) wheels is insurance, as is wearing a seat-belt when driving a car, (gee.....there are laws requiring that) ........ or in other words; "just in case something bad happens".

2: Insurance is required by law to operate a motorized vehicle. Why? Because the farking things can hurt/kill and damage property.

3: If a person NOT wearing a helmet suffers injuries and is un-insured or involved with an UIM, (up to and including death/Persistent Vegetative State), guess who picks up the bill? Uh huh....US: the taxpayer. If that person's injuries could be mitigated by wearing a helmet, less cost to taxpayers.
(This is known commonly as "enlightened self-interest).

4: The argument that "low-speed =/= risk" is invalid, simply falling onto a hard surface can cause TBI/broken bones/death, the chances of injury increase when traveling faster than walking-speed.

/You will note I do not differentiate between bicycle and motorcycle riders. Why? Not surrounded by metal or restrained inside said metal box.
//I know, this is Fark, don't confuse the issue with logic.


1. True but irrelevant. Grown don't ask questions like should we have any kind of insurance at all? And don't conclude things like anything that lessens the chance of injury is a good thing. They have to assess how MUCH benefit you get at what cost AT tHE MARGIN.

2. My legs are not motors.

3. Citation please.

4. Risk therefore helmet. I already covered that.
 
2012-10-04 09:37:24 AM  
Author has never biked in nyc. The danger isn't falling off your bike, it's getting hit by a car.
 
2012-10-04 09:37:53 AM  
also, pedestrians need platemail, because my butt hurts at the thought of teh accidents that could happen
 
2012-10-04 09:39:26 AM  

Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.


A: the bikes suck and aren't worth stealing

B: your credit card is attached to the bike
 
2012-10-04 09:41:06 AM  
I have been in hundreds of bike races--- always wear a helmet racing because I have to. I wear a helmet training as well--- since it doesn't take much to hit speeds of 50mph flying down hills, etc...

A helmet did nothing to save my face when I flew over the bars in a nasty crash, nor have they helped when I have gone down in corners (and it is much better to go down with a bike, than up, if you know what I mean).

That said, there is something liberating about not wearing a helmet--- like when I tow my kids to daycare in a bike trailer. Sure, I might not be the best example for them, but I am biking at walking speed, and I am falling no further than if I fell while standing up.

A helmet is NOT insurance. Insurance is a transference of risk to a third party. Insurance does nothing to prevent an unwanted event from happening. Your insurance does not reduce the likelihood of your house being broken into--- it just replaces what was taken. A helmet is designed to be a preventative barrier as a form of risk mitigation. It is designed to be a barrier to protect your head after the undesired crash occurs.

As such, if you really REALLY care about your noggin' you might consider a full face helmet of a motorcycle helmet. Bike helmets weigh a fraction of a pound, and are so fragile as to be rendered as non-reusable in the event of a single crash (hence the crash replacement programs helmet makers offer).

Guess who picks up the tab when fat lazy people who never bike with or without helmets get serious heart disease? That is far more costly than a few outliers who suffer TBI from bike accidents.

G.I.R.B.: 1: Wearing a helmet when riding ANYTHING on two, (or three) wheels is insurance, as is wearing a seat-belt when driving a car, (gee.....there are laws requiring that) ........ or in other words; "just in case something bad happens".

2: Insurance is required by law to operate a motorized vehicle. Why? Because the farking things can hurt/kill and damage property.

3: If a person NOT wearing a helmet suffers injuries and is un-insured or involved with an UIM, (up to and including death/Persistent Vegetative State), guess who picks up the bill? Uh huh....US: the taxpayer. If that person's injuries could be mitigated by wearing a helmet, less cost to taxpayers.
(This is known commonly as "enlightened self-interest).

4: The argument that "low-speed =/= risk" is invalid, simply falling onto a hard surface can cause TBI/broken bones/death, the chances of injury increase when traveling faster than walking-speed.

/You will note I do not differentiate between bicycle and motorcycle riders. Why? Not surrounded by metal or restrained inside said metal box.
//I know, this is Fark, don't confuse the issue with logic.

 
2012-10-04 09:44:01 AM  
Al Franken on Ronald Reagan's opposition to motorcycle helmet laws:

Earlier today, you said you were against mandatory motorcycle helmets because that was a limit to personal freedom. Yet you are against decriminalization of marijuana because marijuana causes brain damage. Can't not wearing a motorcycle helmet cause brain damage a lot quicker by, for example, the head splitting open so that actual material from the road enters the brain?
 
2012-10-04 09:45:14 AM  
I've always worn a helmet (full face) when riding a motorcycle, and I've always worn a helmet when riding a bicycle.

Speed or environment don't really factor into the decision. Helmets are, for the most part, designed to protect the head from the impact that would occur if the cyclist were to fall over sideways -- approximately a 13 mph impact of the head on the ground. The speed at which your head hits pavement doesn't vary with the speed at which you're biking. At 30 mph your head is still going to hit the ground at about the same 13 mph if you crash (and don't hit something else along the way -- a car, tree, etc) -- as it would if you were cruising along at 5 mph. Given as much, if you're into the whole helmet thing, you really ought to be wearing one anytime there's a reasonable possibility of a crash.
 
2012-10-04 09:45:28 AM  

Public Savant: 3) The sensible herd animal


Don't forget (4): the guy who's a driver, but is using a bike. I fall into that category. When I'm on my bike, I want to put the bare minimum of effort into the experience. I can cut the cognitive load significantly by simply obeying the laws of the road. I still have to be aware of other drivers, and recognize that not everyone is going to obey the law- just because I'm lazy doesn't mean I don't ride defensively.

If I stop at the light and wait for the green, I don't have to worry (as much) about other traffic. If I signal my turns, I don't have to worry (as much) about getting sideswiped. If I clearly maintain space in my lane, and keep pace with traffic, I don't have to worry (as much) about what other drivers are doing.
 
2012-10-04 09:45:36 AM  

thornhill: Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.

What a typical knee jerk American response.

Parisian streets and traffic are far worse than NYC, and yet bike share works quite well there (you haven't experienced gridlock during rush hour until you've witnessed some jackass getting stuck in the middle of a 6 way intersection).

There's a really simple reason why urban biking is so much more prevalent in European cities and why the bikes can function tandem with cars: enforcement of traffic laws for both cars and bikers.

A lot of European cities have street lights for bikes (Manhattan has several of these along Broadway). This helps to condition bikers to comply with the law, specifically not running reds. The only bikers who run reds and stop lights in Europe are American tourists. On the car side, in many places they must always yield to bikers, and its enforced.


bullshiat.

I take it that you've never stopped for a red light in Paris and been cursed at by French people for stopping. or have had to jump out of bike paths due to Parisian mothers using bike lanes for their strollers.

also, it is generally not possible for Velib to be used by American tourists. you need a card chip on your credit card for it to work, and most Americans don't have that. they take bike tours instead, and if their guide is having them go through red lights, is it the tourists' fault?
 
2012-10-04 09:45:46 AM  

sodomizer: thornhill: There's a really simple reason why urban biking is so much more prevalent in European cities and why the bikes can function tandem with cars: enforcement of traffic laws for both cars and bikers.

I think this is true, but it's not the only reason that biking won't work in American cities. If you enforced European-style laws on most American cities, gridlock would paralyze them.


This isn't just about bringing European style laws, but about how you condition people to follow the law without a cop always being present.

With traffic signals, people think, or convince themselves, that traffic signals are for cars, not people. Traffic signals for bikes are a very clear way of telling bikers that this traffic signal is for them.

Further, another advantage of traffic signals for bikes is that they can be on a different cycle than the car singlas. For example, in Amsterdam, at a lot of intersections there are brief windows when only bikes are allowed to enter the intersection. If bikers know that they'll get time to go through the intersection without a car, then they're much more willing to wait for their turn in the cycle.

The only bikers who run reds and stop lights in Europe are American tourists. On the car side, in many places they must always yield to bikers, and its enforced.

This I'd never support, as part of the above. If you ride a bike, and do something stupid, you should inherit the consequences. If that includes death, well, Darwin grins.


That's not what the purpose is: it's about protecting bikers from cars that are being agressive towards bikers. A common scenario I can think of is if a car and a bike come to a stop sign intersection at the same time. As a matter of safety, the car should always let the biker go through the intersection first.

European law makes it clear that cars always need to take the high road -- no pun intended -- when dealing with bikers. You may joke about a biker getting what they deserve when they do something stupid, but when you're the one who kills a biker, you're going to feel different.
 
2012-10-04 09:45:56 AM  

saugoof: despite seat belts, airbags, crumple zones, etc. one of the most common injuries for car drivers remain head injuries. So why don't we make car drivers wear helmets?


+1
 
2012-10-04 09:50:12 AM  
I cycle everyday, and I really don't understand why you WOULDN'T wear a helmet. Are they really that difficult for people to wear? Is it because of your hair or something? Or is this really a problem only with certain groups of people (ahem..hipsters...) that wouldn't look "cool" wearing a helmet?

I guess it really depends on why you're riding: exercise (certainly wear a helmet), commuting (probably wear a helmet), or just farting around (depends, I guess). Dunno, just don't see any real drawbacks to wearing one.
 
2012-10-04 09:50:36 AM  

thornhill: European law makes it clear that cars always need to take the high road -- no pun intended -- when dealing with bikers.


In the early days of motorcars, common law held that the larger vehicle was automatically at fault in an accident. If a car struck a pedestrian, it was the driver's fault, regardless of what the pedestrian was doing. A concerted effort by auto-manufacturers was employed to change that law. The AAA's pedestrian safety programs were initially employed to reverse the traditional notions of roadway safety.
 
2012-10-04 09:50:39 AM  
It works this way in Toronto (decently successful bike share program, no helmet requirement for adults). Just from looking around I'd say about half to two-thirds of the bike riders wear helmets. And I definitely fit into the category of people who ride less because of a helmet requirement - even though there's no helmet law, I have kids, and I'm not going to make myself a hypocrite about helmets. Every morning I walk out of my house and can choose whether to take public transit or get on my bike. Last year I rode my bike a ton, this year I barely rode it at all. The difference? Sigh.... last year I had shorter hair and the helmet didn't matter as much. I admit it seems stupid but I'm on my way to work, I don't like getting there sweaty and disheveled, and the helmet impacts both.
 
2012-10-04 09:50:52 AM  
Why should you wear a helmet? 

cdn.cnwimg.com
 
2012-10-04 09:54:51 AM  

G.I.R.B.: 1: Wearing a helmet when riding ANYTHING on two, (or three) wheels is insurance, as is wearing a seat-belt when driving a car, (gee.....there are laws requiring that) ........ or in other words; "just in case something bad happens".

4: The argument that "low-speed =/= risk" is invalid, simply falling onto a hard surface can cause TBI/broken bones/death, the chances of injury increase when traveling faster than walking-speed.


As already noted, your understanding of insurance is weak.

Also, did you spend your child-hood wrapped in bubblewrap or something? How can you possibly argue that because there is a risk of "simply falling onto a hard surface" that helmets must be mandated by law. Do you wear a helmet every hour? Or better yet, you should probably wear one in bed... you may roll off the bed in your sleep! I suppose you could always raise the gate on your crib to prevent rolling out... but I digress....
 
2012-10-04 09:56:37 AM  

fireclown: Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.

Not so sure. The one in London seems to work OK.


Paris Bike-Sharing System Succumbing to Vandals

"Of the 15,000 bicycles originally disbursed for the program, more than half have disappeared, reports the BBC, presumed to be stolen. Some Velib customers have even taking to filming their Velib (mis)adventures and posting the destruction of the bikes on video-sharing sites like YouTube (here's one). The practice apparently even has its own catchy nickname: "Velib extreme."

Nearly all of the original bikes have been replaced. At an estimated cost of roughly $500 each, the cost for replacing the entire fleet of 20,000 bikes would run about $10 million."


For New York I'm going to ballpark it and say multiply by a factor of about ten.
 
2012-10-04 09:56:47 AM  

G.I.R.B.: /You will note I do not differentiate between bicycle and motorcycle riders. Why? Not surrounded by metal or restrained inside said metal box.


How is this different than being a pedestrian?

threeblindwives.files.wordpress.com
G.I.R.B. heads out for an afternoon of fun

 
2012-10-04 09:56:59 AM  
NYC's shared bicycle system is too expensive.

if you want to do a 2 hour bike ride, you need a $10 24-hour pass, plus $13 in overtime fees.

if you have an annual membership, the $10 fee is waived, but overtime charges are not, just reduced somewhat ($9 for a 2 hour ride)
 
2012-10-04 09:57:03 AM  
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the real solution here is for people to stop being such pussies about having to wear a helmet and mess up their hair or whatever.
 
2012-10-04 09:58:12 AM  
Whatever. All you pussies can have your helmets, I'll continue to ride my street bike the way I always have, Shorts, flip flops, a cig hanging out of my mouth and an open six pack in the front rack. Hell, I never, ever even wore a motorcycle helmet for short trips in nice weather until the goddamn nanny state stepped in.
 
2012-10-04 09:58:13 AM  

Jedekai: meanmutton: bikerbob59: So, all of the people who rode bikes when there were no bike helmets are either dead of disabled?

No; just a higher percentage of them than the ones who wore helmets.

I've had two identical, low speed falls from a bike. No helmet: concision. Helmet: no concision. I'll keep wearing that helmet.

You sure about that?


Maybe he's talking about whether he can make a concise argument for either.
 
2012-10-04 10:01:20 AM  
Link

/that's what I"m talkin' bout.
 
2012-10-04 10:02:20 AM  
I ride more recklessly when helmeted. Took a header goin' darn fast, smooshed the styro to paper-thinness. Don't wear one to ride around the block to the convenience. Hard shells protect against poky things only. Guy upthread was right; if you do wear one, wear it tightly.

//concision should be striven for
//concussions we should probably seek to avoid
 
zez
2012-10-04 10:04:44 AM  

Nurglitch: I just don't feel comfortable riding without a helmet these days. Although, something that always cheeses me off is the people wearing helmets that are either un-secured (and won't stay on in a crash - why get all the drawback of looking like a dork and none of the protective benefit), or are missing the shell (basically just the styrofoam - again, looks like arse and reduces protection).


or on backwards
 
2012-10-04 10:04:47 AM  
i.imgur.com

You see?! No helmet! You've all been convinced you don't need a helmet on a ladder. And sure, 99% of the time you won't fall, but that 1 time you do and hit your head on the hard floor, you'll be sorry!

MANDATE LADDER HELMETS NOW!
 
2012-10-04 10:06:10 AM  

Sybarite: fireclown: Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.

Not so sure. The one in London seems to work OK.

Paris Bike-Sharing System Succumbing to Vandals

"Of the 15,000 bicycles originally disbursed for the program, more than half have disappeared, reports the BBC, presumed to be stolen. Some Velib customers have even taking to filming their Velib (mis)adventures and posting the destruction of the bikes on video-sharing sites like YouTube (here's one). The practice apparently even has its own catchy nickname: "Velib extreme.

Nearly all of the original bikes have been replaced. At an estimated cost of roughly $500 each, the cost for replacing the entire fleet of 20,000 bikes would run about $10 million."


For New York I'm going to ballpark it and say multiply by a factor of about ten.


Vandalism of bikes has declined, and the system achieved profitability in 2011.

another neat stat for the bike helmet debate: In addition, during this time, only six people have died in traffic accidents involving rental bicycles.

Link
 
2012-10-04 10:06:39 AM  

markfara: I'd like to comment on this, but I can't since I don't have a New York Times login.


That's retarded.

Also, as an ex-bike courier who switched from bandanna to helmet after seeing what happened when a human head met a concrete-base mailbox, you wish it killed you.

Unfortunately, the usual outcome is that you lie semi-paralyzed in a rehab centre for the rest of your days, screaming at the air and sporting a smaller hat size.

/brain injuries suck.
 
2012-10-04 10:07:39 AM  

Sybarite: fireclown: Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.

Not so sure. The one in London seems to work OK.

Paris Bike-Sharing System Succumbing to Vandals

"Of the 15,000 bicycles originally disbursed for the program, more than half have disappeared, reports the BBC, presumed to be stolen. Some Velib customers have even taking to filming their Velib (mis)adventures and posting the destruction of the bikes on video-sharing sites like YouTube (here's one). The practice apparently even has its own catchy nickname: "Velib extreme."

Nearly all of the original bikes have been replaced. At an estimated cost of roughly $500 each, the cost for replacing the entire fleet of 20,000 bikes would run about $10 million."


For New York I'm going to ballpark it and say multiply by a factor of about ten.



I guess I don't understand how 'vandals' can get away with that. Is the rental system not tied to a credit card? I would assume that if a bike is returned severely damaged, or just not returned at all, the repair/replacement cost is billed to the card.

On a different note, I wonder if the $1-2M per year it takes to repair the bikes is offset by the reduced need to increase capacity in the Metro. Maybe the vélib customers are so few it doesn't matter, but it's a thought...
 
2012-10-04 10:08:48 AM  

orclover: Would you rather people exercise? or would you rather a smaller number of people not risk brain injury?

You can force people to wear a helmet to exercise when you are ready to pay for their diabetes meds.


I'm from Canada, so this amuses me.

How about "mandatory organ harvesting unless you opt out with a check box?"

With great freedom comes great res...oh, look, a fresh liver!"
 
2012-10-04 10:08:53 AM  
The only cycling accident I had as an adult (nobody wore helmets on bikes when I was a kid) resulted in ligament damage and broken bones in my wrists. At no point did my head impact on the ground. The only reason my helmet got scraped up was because it was hanging from my handlebars, and the bike landed on it.
 
2012-10-04 10:12:59 AM  

Loomy: Sybarite: fireclown: Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.

Not so sure. The one in London seems to work OK.

Paris Bike-Sharing System Succumbing to Vandals

"Of the 15,000 bicycles originally disbursed for the program, more than half have disappeared, reports the BBC, presumed to be stolen. Some Velib customers have even taking to filming their Velib (mis)adventures and posting the destruction of the bikes on video-sharing sites like YouTube (here's one). The practice apparently even has its own catchy nickname: "Velib extreme."

Nearly all of the original bikes have been replaced. At an estimated cost of roughly $500 each, the cost for replacing the entire fleet of 20,000 bikes would run about $10 million."

For New York I'm going to ballpark it and say multiply by a factor of about ten.


I guess I don't understand how 'vandals' can get away with that. Is the rental system not tied to a credit card? I would assume that if a bike is returned severely damaged, or just not returned at all, the repair/replacement cost is billed to the card.

On a different note, I wonder if the $1-2M per year it takes to repair the bikes is offset by the reduced need to increase capacity in the Metro. Maybe the vélib customers are so few it doesn't matter, but it's a thought...


the system cannot tell if the bike returns damaged. you only get charged if you fail to return the bicycle.

also, the charge does not offset the cost of a bike replacement. the bike itself costs 400 euros, but the charge for not returning it is just 150.
 
2012-10-04 10:14:04 AM  

give me doughnuts: The only cycling accident I had as an adult (nobody wore helmets on bikes when I was a kid) resulted in ligament damage and broken bones in my wrists. At no point did my head impact on the ground. The only reason my helmet got scraped up was because it was hanging from my handlebars, and the bike landed on it.



I've never quite understood the 'helmet hanging from handlebars' behaviour. Is it because the cycling one is currently engaged in isn't quite dangerous enough to warrant a helmet, but may warrant it later? Do they think they'll be able to slip it on sneakily enough after they spot the cops that they won't be caught anyway (in a place with helmet laws, obviously)? I just don't get it.
 
2012-10-04 10:14:59 AM  

mochunk:

They are absolutely right, people will just not ride if you require it. They don't want to mess up their hair.


Ironic, isn't it, that one of the arguments in favour of helmets is that you can have an open-lid casket.

Extruded grey matter and skull chunks...it's Dippity Don't.

To be honest with all you Live Free And Die types, it's of little consequence to me if you want to get rid of helmets and seatbelts because your tinfoil headbands buzz with paranoia over the nanny state. Physics offers the same Darwin Award to everyone. It's all meat moving at speed. What holds together better when flung from a moving car: ground hamburger on a styrofoam tray or a sausage in a casing.

Take your time here.
 
2012-10-04 10:15:19 AM  
I've been down on bicycles with and without helmets. Wear a helmet.
 
2012-10-04 10:15:24 AM  

The Wizard of Frobozz: [i.imgur.com image 267x400]

You see?! No helmet! You've all been convinced you don't need a helmet on a ladder. And sure, 99% of the time you won't fall, but that 1 time you do and hit your head on the hard floor, you'll be sorry!

MANDATE LADDER HELMETS NOW!


It's both funnier and sadder when you are familiar with government safety regulations, which that guy is in violation of.
 
2012-10-04 10:16:21 AM  
Having grown up once upon a time, I think anyone over age of 8 6 wearing a helmet looks silly. Except for racers or the previously brain damaged.
 
2012-10-04 10:17:14 AM  

SniperJoe: Basically, the premise here is that helmets make people not want to bike and the city leaders are saying that the whole point of helmets is to prevent head injuries due to high speed collisions, which they state are rare in urban environments. As someone who HAS had a high-speed bicycle accident, I kindly tell those leaders to go pound sand. My helmet was cracked completely through and I didn't even get a concussion. Without it, I probably would at best, have serious brain injuries.


What? No one forces ANYONE to not wear a helmet.
 
2012-10-04 10:18:14 AM  
I rode bikes a lot as a kid, never had a helmet, never saw or heard mention of a helmet.

I walked to school, too, a mile or so each way, in inner-city Detroit.

What has changed? Kids have to be wrapped in bubble-pack now, and delivered and picked up everywhere.
 
2012-10-04 10:18:49 AM  

The Wizard of Frobozz: [i.imgur.com image 267x400]

You see?! No helmet! You've all been convinced you don't need a helmet on a ladder. And sure, 99% of the time you won't fall, but that 1 time you do and hit your head on the hard floor, you'll be sorry!

MANDATE LADDER HELMETS NOW!



Well, you've convinced me. I'm going to retro-fit all my ladders when I get home tonight.
i1060.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-04 10:19:36 AM  

dumbobruni: thornhill: Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.

What a typical knee jerk American response.

Parisian streets and traffic are far worse than NYC, and yet bike share works quite well there (you haven't experienced gridlock during rush hour until you've witnessed some jackass getting stuck in the middle of a 6 way intersection).

There's a really simple reason why urban biking is so much more prevalent in European cities and why the bikes can function tandem with cars: enforcement of traffic laws for both cars and bikers.

A lot of European cities have street lights for bikes (Manhattan has several of these along Broadway). This helps to condition bikers to comply with the law, specifically not running reds. The only bikers who run reds and stop lights in Europe are American tourists. On the car side, in many places they must always yield to bikers, and its enforced.

bullshiat.

I take it that you've never stopped for a red light in Paris and been cursed at by French people for stopping. or have had to jump out of bike paths due to Parisian mothers using bike lanes for their strollers.

also, it is generally not possible for Velib to be used by American tourists. you need a card chip on your credit card for it to work, and most Americans don't have that. they take bike tours instead, and if their guide is having them go through red lights, is it the tourists' fault?


1. The whole chip card issue was solved like two or three years ago by allowing people to pay online. Just go to the Velib website and you can purchase 1 and 7 day rentals. They e-mail you pin that you enter in at the kiosk. You can also pay with a Navigo pass that tourists can buy.

2. The French and most, if not all Europeans chide any non-biker in a bike lane.
 
2012-10-04 10:19:40 AM  

SmellsLikePoo: G.I.R.B.: /You will note I do not differentiate between bicycle and motorcycle riders. Why? Not surrounded by metal or restrained inside said metal box.

How is this different than being a pedestrian?

[threeblindwives.files.wordpress.com image 485x362]
G.I.R.B. heads out for an afternoon of fun


Exactly my point, with a picture, so everyone can understand it, or at least relate to it.
 
2012-10-04 10:20:12 AM  

Public Savant: CruJones: Wast there a study on Fark saying that helmets can cause more head injuries? Yes, they can save you from nasty injuries, but they can cause some as well. I think it was because a helmet makes your head 25% bigger, thus more prone to hitting things your bare head would have missed.

I think you mean neck injuries.
But yeah, I don't want to put on a helmet either. Why protect the brain, if your neck can break break as a result?

It seems as if there are three types of cyclists who wear helmets:

1) The insecure ones who should probably have their own lane - they wobble and scare easily.

2) The 'I'm invincible now - look at my helmet!'-crowd. They are assholes and their actions reflect it, whether it be texting or going the wrong way.

3) The sensible herd animal, who follows the rules and aren't being a menace in some way. Unfortunately, these have a very short halflife and will quickly turn into either 1) or 2) depending on their level of confidence.


I think you forgot

4) Those of us who mostly wear a helmet because our girlfriend will give us hell if we don't, but follow all the same laws cars do, are perfectly confident on your bikes, and still get run off the road by assholes who think that risking our life is worth them getting where they're going twenty second faster.

I did have a scare last night biking home, why do you ask?
 
2012-10-04 10:20:36 AM  

Inflatable Rhetoric: SmellsLikePoo: G.I.R.B.: /You will note I do not differentiate between bicycle and motorcycle riders. Why? Not surrounded by metal or restrained inside said metal box.

How is this different than being a pedestrian?

[threeblindwives.files.wordpress.com image 485x362]
G.I.R.B. heads out for an afternoon of fun

Exactly my point, with a picture, so everyone can understand it, or at least relate to it.


PS I rollerblade with knee pads and wrist guards. No helmet.
 
2012-10-04 10:22:48 AM  

dumbobruni: the system cannot tell if the bike returns damaged. you only get charged if you fail to return the bicycle.

also, the charge does not offset the cost of a bike replacement. the bike itself costs 400 euros, but the charge for not returning it is just 150.



Hmm... yeah, I guess I was thinking the next customers would balk at using the damaged bike, and eventually it would be noticed by vélib employees, but then the chain-of-custody is broken ("who's to say the bike wasn't damaged in situ by less adventurous vandals", the vélibe-extreme-er might say in his defense).

The no-return charge is odd, though. I doubt any customers would raise a fuss over a punitive no-return charge (say, 500 euros), since only outlaws would steal a vélib bike, so I'm surprised they set it so low. Who would want to steal an absurdly heavy, low-top-speed, somewhat ugly bicycle is a different matter...
 
2012-10-04 10:24:32 AM  

Litig8r: I've always worn a helmet (full face) when riding a motorcycle, and I've always worn a helmet when riding a bicycle.

Speed or environment don't really factor into the decision. Helmets are, for the most part, designed to protect the head from the impact that would occur if the cyclist were to fall over sideways -- approximately a 13 mph impact of the head on the ground. The speed at which your head hits pavement doesn't vary with the speed at which you're biking. At 30 mph your head is still going to hit the ground at about the same 13 mph if you crash (and don't hit something else along the way -- a car, tree, etc) -- as it would if you were cruising along at 5 mph. Given as much, if you're into the whole helmet thing, you really ought to be wearing one anytime there's a reasonable possibility of a crash.


this.

unless you can break your fall (not impossible but not easy on a bike), your head is vulnerable regardless of speed.
 
2012-10-04 10:24:33 AM  

dumbobruni: NYC's shared bicycle system is too expensive.

if you want to do a 2 hour bike ride, you need a $10 24-hour pass, plus $13 in overtime fees.

if you have an annual membership, the $10 fee is waived, but overtime charges are not, just reduced somewhat ($9 for a 2 hour ride)


The NYC system is meant to be an alternative to taxi, subway or really long walk.

The fee structure is to discourage people from taking the bikes out for two hours for a joy ride and hogging them. If you want to use a bike for several hours, go to one of the many rental places near any of the large parks.
 
2012-10-04 10:24:38 AM  
I don't think helmets should be required by law. for the most part, they're probably a great safety idea. but, I don't care.

first off, I am not a bike rider for exercise. I bike slowly, just to get around for fun, usually during a time when traveling by car is complicated and I plan on drinking too much. when I bike during carnivale or other festivals, a lot of automobile traffic is banned or seriously impeded.

finally, new orleans is very bike friendly. there are dedicated bike lanes downtown (not to mention, the traffic is uniformly slow). in other areas, there are side streets no one uses (and when they do, they can't go fast, because the poor quality of the streets is a natural speed deterrent), there are extremely large lanes, perpetually slow traffic, bike friendly medians, bike paths off the street, and other bike friendly coincidences and contrivances. if you know the city you can plot out a path to get wherever you want to go that offers little exposure to automobile traffic.
 
2012-10-04 10:24:59 AM  
piss off nanny state
 
2012-10-04 10:25:28 AM  

Loomy: give me doughnuts: The only cycling accident I had as an adult (nobody wore helmets on bikes when I was a kid) resulted in ligament damage and broken bones in my wrists. At no point did my head impact on the ground. The only reason my helmet got scraped up was because it was hanging from my handlebars, and the bike landed on it.


I've never quite understood the 'helmet hanging from handlebars' behaviour. Is it because the cycling one is currently engaged in isn't quite dangerous enough to warrant a helmet, but may warrant it later? Do they think they'll be able to slip it on sneakily enough after they spot the cops that they won't be caught anyway (in a place with helmet laws, obviously)? I just don't get it.


dangerous cycling? If cycling is so dangerous, it should be banned.

Of course you don't get it. Forget the helmet, you have nothing for it to protect.
 
2012-10-04 10:25:40 AM  
I had someone open a car door into me on my bike. Luckily didn't crash into it, but it reinforced why I wear the helmet. It's not always about what I do, but what others do that I can't predict.
 
2012-10-04 10:25:54 AM  

pravetz8c: sheep are told to wear a helmet and sheep wear it. i saw a grown up man on roller skates wearing a helmet the other day. Not sure what the danger was.


By all means don't wear one. Just don't have the same insurance company as me nor use some sort of public insurance, and it's all good. Also, don't brain out near me or my family. No one wants to see that shiat.
 
2012-10-04 10:27:46 AM  

wingding: piss off nanny state


Exactly.
 
2012-10-04 10:29:43 AM  
Okay, everyone who doesn't want to wear a helmet, tell me why not. Not something about "The GOVERNMENT CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!" but what's wrong with it.
 
2012-10-04 10:34:22 AM  

I May Be Crazy But...: I think you forgot

4) Those of us who mostly wear a helmet because our girlfriend will give us hell if we don't, but follow all the same laws cars do, are perfectly confident on your bikes, and still get run off the road by assholes who think that risking our life is worth them getting where they're going twenty second faster.

I did have a scare last night biking home, why do you ask?


Also, THIS.

/Had a scare this morning myself. had to dive off the road to avoid a front collision with an idiot on the wrong side of the road.
 
2012-10-04 10:36:03 AM  
I don't wear a helmet, not because it makes you look like you can count to potato, but just because.
 
2012-10-04 10:37:27 AM  

thornhill: Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.

What a typical knee jerk American response.



So typical that Boston and DC already have bike sharing programs?
 
2012-10-04 10:38:28 AM  
Just scanned an article that said that wearing helmets helps in such few cases as to be useless/a roll of the dice.

I surprised we don't see runners wearing them, after all you can stumble and bang your head running, too.
 
2012-10-04 10:38:42 AM  

Sybarite: fireclown: Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.

Not so sure. The one in London seems to work OK.

Paris Bike-Sharing System Succumbing to Vandals

"Of the 15,000 bicycles originally disbursed for the program, more than half have disappeared, reports the BBC, presumed to be stolen. Some Velib customers have even taking to filming their Velib (mis)adventures and posting the destruction of the bikes on video-sharing sites like YouTube (here's one). The practice apparently even has its own catchy nickname: "Velib extreme."

Nearly all of the original bikes have been replaced. At an estimated cost of roughly $500 each, the cost for replacing the entire fleet of 20,000 bikes would run about $10 million."


For New York I'm going to ballpark it and say multiply by a factor of about ten.


Why? London has a lot more theft than NYC.
 
2012-10-04 10:40:14 AM  

dumbobruni: Loomy: Sybarite: fireclown: Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.

Not so sure. The one in London seems to work OK.

Paris Bike-Sharing System Succumbing to Vandals

"Of the 15,000 bicycles originally disbursed for the program, more than half have disappeared, reports the BBC, presumed to be stolen. Some Velib customers have even taking to filming their Velib (mis)adventures and posting the destruction of the bikes on video-sharing sites like YouTube (here's one). The practice apparently even has its own catchy nickname: "Velib extreme."

Nearly all of the original bikes have been replaced. At an estimated cost of roughly $500 each, the cost for replacing the entire fleet of 20,000 bikes would run about $10 million."

For New York I'm going to ballpark it and say multiply by a factor of about ten.


I guess I don't understand how 'vandals' can get away with that. Is the rental system not tied to a credit card? I would assume that if a bike is returned severely damaged, or just not returned at all, the repair/replacement cost is billed to the card.

On a different note, I wonder if the $1-2M per year it takes to repair the bikes is offset by the reduced need to increase capacity in the Metro. Maybe the vélib customers are so few it doesn't matter, but it's a thought...

the system cannot tell if the bike returns damaged. you only get charged if you fail to return the bicycle.

also, the charge does not offset the cost of a bike replacement. the bike itself costs 400 euros, but the charge for not returning it is just 150.


In the NY system it will be $1000 for not returning a bicycle.
 
2012-10-04 10:41:02 AM  

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: /Had a scare this morning myself. had to dive off the road to avoid a front collision with an idiot on the wrong side of the road.


Ooh, that's good.

Best I've had is some guy coming out of a gas station who wasn't looking. It looked more impressive than it was because I decided that a flying leap over my own handlebars was preferable to being run over like he did to my bike. I don't think he's normally a bad or vicious driver, but that he'd had a really long day - he was just staring at me and stammering while I dragged my bike out from under his car. I ended up making sure he was okay instead of he other way around.
 
2012-10-04 10:44:25 AM  

douchebag/hater: Just scanned an article that said that wearing helmets helps in such few cases as to be useless/a roll of the dice.

I surprised we don't see runners wearing them, after all you can stumble and bang your head running, too.


And something could fall on you while you're watching TV, too. Or sleeping.
 
2012-10-04 10:44:38 AM  

douchebag/hater: Just scanned an article that said that wearing helmets helps in such few cases as to be useless/a roll of the dice.

I surprised we don't see runners wearing them, after all you can stumble and bang your head running, too.


SHHHHHHHHHH!
 
2012-10-04 10:47:22 AM  

douchebag/hater: I surprised we don't see runners wearing them,


Here's how you sell it to 'em if you want to. Don't tell them it's to protect their head, tell them it helps their aerodynamics.
 
2012-10-04 10:47:38 AM  

Moopy Mac: thornhill: Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.

What a typical knee jerk American response.

So typical that Boston and DC already have bike sharing programs?


Typical in the sense that is so special that no outside idea could ever work here.
 
2012-10-04 10:53:25 AM  

Inflatable Rhetoric: douchebag/hater: Just scanned an article that said that wearing helmets helps in such few cases as to be useless/a roll of the dice.

I surprised we don't see runners wearing them, after all you can stumble and bang your head running, too.

And something could fall on you while you're watching TV, too. Or sleeping.


Or on a ladder.
 
2012-10-04 10:54:03 AM  

sodomizer: orclover: Would you rather people exercise? or would you rather a smaller number of people not risk brain injury?

Death to the nanny state. There are too many rules and regulations that make everything unfun. So we'll have a few extra potatoes; someone has to watch daytime TV.


Those rules and regulations also give the dumber people the idea that nothing can hurt them because the government takes care of all that. Then they do get hurt and they sue.
 
2012-10-04 10:57:01 AM  
I don't really understand. When I put my helmet on, it takes about a second and I don't really notice it being on my head after that. Do you people have some sort of fancy Steampunk helmet that weighs fifty pounds and takes half an hour and a team of three to get on and off? If not, how is a helmet possibly enough of an inconvenience to spend your time whining about?
 
2012-10-04 10:58:23 AM  

dumbobruni: also, the charge does not offset the cost of a bike replacement. the bike itself costs 400 euros, but the charge for not returning it is just 150.


400E? That's what, $450 US? Snazzy. The ones in the UK can't be worth near that. They're lousy bikes, built like tanks. The idea is that nobody would want to steal them.
 
2012-10-04 10:58:36 AM  
I wear a helmet when riding singletrack and during road rides, but almost never when riding with my kids around the block or a quick trip to 7-11. I know how to fall with some grace while going 5-10mph, not so much when going 20 on a singletrack or 30 on the road, or after being hit by a car. Just be sensible fer farks sake.

/ok, FINE! 12-15mph on singletrack, 20-25mph on the road.
//...nitpickers
 
2012-10-04 10:59:03 AM  

Chameleon: I don't really understand. When I put my helmet on, it takes about a second and I don't really notice it being on my head after that. Do you people have some sort of fancy Steampunk helmet that weighs fifty pounds and takes half an hour and a team of three to get on and off? If not, how is a helmet possibly enough of an inconvenience to spend your time whining about?


I don't whine about it.
 
2012-10-04 11:00:24 AM  

Chameleon: If not, how is a helmet possibly enough of an inconvenience to spend your time whining about?


Good question.
 
2012-10-04 11:02:26 AM  

SniperJoe: Basically, the premise here is that helmets make people not want to bike and the city leaders are saying that the whole point of helmets is to prevent head injuries due to high speed collisions, which they state are rare in urban environments. As someone who HAS had a high-speed bicycle accident, I kindly tell those leaders to go pound sand. My helmet was cracked completely through and I didn't even get a concussion. Without it, I probably would at best, have serious brain injuries.


Having been in two bike wrecks, one with and one without a helmet, and having my dad, who was wearing a helmet, sit in the hospital for 3 days recuperating from a major hit to the head after wrecking on his bike I can honestly say that anyone who rides a bike (motorized or not) without a helmet is foolish.

I have not ever talked to anyone who has survived a wreck while wearing a helmet that actually said "without this helmet I would have been the same as before" but I have heard from, and seen, plenty of people that regret not wearing a helmet.

Head injuries are serious business and a simple measure to help prevent them is to wear a helmet. Honestly, I don't see a problem with helmet laws whether on bicycles or motorcycles. Unless you like to count to potato.w
 
2012-10-04 11:03:30 AM  

Chameleon: I don't really understand. When I put my helmet on, it takes about a second and I don't really notice it being on my head after that. Do you people have some sort of fancy Steampunk helmet that weighs fifty pounds and takes half an hour and a team of three to get on and off? If not, how is a helmet possibly enough of an inconvenience to spend your time whining about?


If I skated in traffic, I'd be more concerned.
Actually, I would just quit.
 
2012-10-04 11:04:46 AM  
 
2012-10-04 11:22:14 AM  
I don't care how I look, I've hit my head a little just falling while getting used to a new set of clip in pedals. Also, I'm an idiot and like to ride my mtb wherever, and usually about 20ish mph. Usually uneventful, but sometimes beavers wandering around or a good sized confused few point buck standing on the path, or those damn unseen obstacles when off of the path. Hell it feels weird sans helmet just wheeling around the yard after working on the bike.
 
2012-10-04 11:25:52 AM  
But if everyone starts wearing Safety Helmets, where will we get the "donated organs" for transplants? Won't somebody thnik of the Kidneys?
 
2012-10-04 11:26:03 AM  
okey ill put it the way an OT said it to me...

She didn't support kids wearing a helmet while riding. She has said that accidents that would have killed on impact now become vegetable for life/ pain for life accidents.

Just sayin...

never wore one and neither do my kids. learn how to do it right and dont go high speed
 
2012-10-04 11:29:51 AM  
Valiente Smartest
Funniest
2012-10-04 10:14:59 AM


mochunk:

They are absolutely right, people will just not ride if you require it. They don't want to mess up their hair.

Ironic, isn't it, that one of the arguments in favour of helmets is that you can have an open-lid casket.

Extruded grey matter and skull chunks...it's Dippity Don't.

To be honest with all you Live Free And Die types, it's of little consequence to me if you want to get rid of helmets and seatbelts because your tinfoil headbands buzz with paranoia over the nanny state. Physics offers the same Darwin Award to everyone. It's all meat moving at speed. What holds together better when flung from a moving car: ground hamburger on a styrofoam tray or a sausage in a casing.


despite being a major dickhead, I agree and am happy you also realize how stupid helmet laws are.
 
2012-10-04 11:32:11 AM  

I_Am_Weasel: I wear a bike helmet because I know there people like me driving cars.


If you think that a bike helmet will do you any good at all when a car hits you, you may be right to worry.
 
2012-10-04 11:36:15 AM  

SniperJoe: The problem is that while bike traffic may not be moving at high-speed, automobile traffic often does. It's simple physics at that point.


Indeed. At high relative speeds there is far more energy around than a bike helmet can deal with. Their only use is in soaking up small amounts of energy from low speed accidents ... and even then the physics is not wholly on your side, because the increased moment arm hugely increases the torque on our cervical vertebrae. So fewer scraped scalps, which is good, but more quadriplegias, which is bad.
 
2012-10-04 11:37:09 AM  

attention span of a retarded fruit fly: okey ill put it the way an OT said it to me...

She didn't support kids wearing a helmet while riding. She has said that accidents that would have killed on impact now become vegetable for life/ pain for life accidents.

Just sayin...

never wore one and neither do my kids. learn how to do it right and dont go high speed


And the accidents that would have been vegetable for life now are getting up and walking it off.

You and your OT have some specious goddamn reasoning.
 
2012-10-04 11:38:43 AM  

orbister: I_Am_Weasel: I wear a bike helmet because I know there people like me driving cars.

If you think that a bike helmet will do you any good at all when a car hits you, you may be right to worry.


I was quite literally hit by a pickup (pushed off the road into a ditch), and yes, really do think my helmet did me good. Lucky it wasn't worse, yes, but possible.
 
2012-10-04 11:39:39 AM  
Head injuries are extremely common in car accidents. Those of you who always wear helmets when cycling - do you wear them when driving? If not, why not?
 
2012-10-04 11:44:13 AM  
Riding my motorcycle - Full street gear
Riding a mountain bike down the CO mountains black diamond trails - Full MX gear
Riding around my hood - No, I don't own a cute little bike helmet
Riding a bicycle down curvy mountain roads hitting 30+mph - Full street gear
I love the guys in spandex, they have no protection and better hope they can twist their head in a crash to avoid all the unprotected spots on a bike helmet.
But really, no matter what you ride or do, it should be a choice to wear whatever, or nothing at all.
 
2012-10-04 11:50:52 AM  

thornhill: dumbobruni: thornhill: Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.

What a typical knee jerk American response.

Parisian streets and traffic are far worse than NYC, and yet bike share works quite well there (you haven't experienced gridlock during rush hour until you've witnessed some jackass getting stuck in the middle of a 6 way intersection).

There's a really simple reason why urban biking is so much more prevalent in European cities and why the bikes can function tandem with cars: enforcement of traffic laws for both cars and bikers.

A lot of European cities have street lights for bikes (Manhattan has several of these along Broadway). This helps to condition bikers to comply with the law, specifically not running reds. The only bikers who run reds and stop lights in Europe are American tourists. On the car side, in many places they must always yield to bikers, and its enforced.

bullshiat.

I take it that you've never stopped for a red light in Paris and been cursed at by French people for stopping. or have had to jump out of bike paths due to Parisian mothers using bike lanes for their strollers.

also, it is generally not possible for Velib to be used by American tourists. you need a card chip on your credit card for it to work, and most Americans don't have that. they take bike tours instead, and if their guide is having them go through red lights, is it the tourists' fault?

1. The whole chip card issue was solved like two or three years ago by allowing people to pay online. Just go to the Velib website and you can purchase 1 and 7 day rentals. They e-mail you pin that you enter in at the kiosk. You can also pay with a Navigo pass that tourists can buy..


you can't pay with a 7-14 day navigo pass. Only the annual pass works with Velib.

the Paris Tourism website has a lot of unhappy travelers regarding Velib. In my own experience with the velib stations, many don't have working keypads, and several stations don't have keypads at all.
 
2012-10-04 11:53:16 AM  

Johnnyflash: But really, no matter what you ride or do, it should be a choice to wear whatever, or nothing at all


I see why your name is Flash
 
2012-10-04 11:58:42 AM  

Loomy: give me doughnuts: The only cycling accident I had as an adult (nobody wore helmets on bikes when I was a kid) resulted in ligament damage and broken bones in my wrists. At no point did my head impact on the ground. The only reason my helmet got scraped up was because it was hanging from my handlebars, and the bike landed on it.


I've never quite understood the 'helmet hanging from handlebars' behaviour. Is it because the cycling one is currently engaged in isn't quite dangerous enough to warrant a helmet, but may warrant it later? Do they think they'll be able to slip it on sneakily enough after they spot the cops that they won't be caught anyway (in a place with helmet laws, obviously)? I just don't get it.


Hang the helmet on the handlebars on the 2 hour ride uphill at 6mph. Put it on at the top for the 30-40mph descent.
 
2012-10-04 12:03:30 PM  

orbister: Head injuries are extremely common in car accidents. Those of you who always wear helmets when cycling - do you wear them when driving? If not, why not?


The car's body, the "crumple zones", the internal frame and particularly the air bags are all doing to a greater degree what a helmet does.

Compared to the 1968 Volkswagen my old man drove us as kids (now with belts! And untempered glass in the windows!), even the shiattiest car on the road is a frigging fighter jet worth of "safety outs".

Interestingly, for the basis of comparison, I'm a sailor who wears a self-inflating PFD in anything over 10 knots, and always when I sail alone. In heavier weather, I use safety tethers to stay aboard. At the high end of sailing for speed, crew have started to wear helmets because one of the most common causes of death at sea is getting "boomed" when the wind snaps the mainsail over, turning the boom into a 20 foot long, gale-powered sledgehammer whacking a watermelon.

It's not always possible to duck, and a direct hit would crush even a helmeted head. But a glancing blow with a helmet could mean the difference between a laceration/bruise and a future in a sheltered workshop yelling at unwoven baskets.

That's the logic of a helmet: it can turn the major into the minor. If you fall under an 18-wheeler, you're dead regardless, but if you are sideswiped and bounce your forehead off a curb or a pole, you may be able to survive it with marbles safely in the bag.

Far be it from me to hate on freedom and all. May St. Gary of Busey guide you.
 
2012-10-04 12:04:48 PM  

hiker9999: On one of my rides a few weeks ago, I hit 38 mph coming down off a hill on my bike. Is falling off a bicycle at nearly 40 mph any less dangerous than crashing a motorcyclye at 40 mph?


I flew off of a mountain bike while going down a mountain at ~30 mph (maybe more? also not wearing a helmet) and it was absolutely horrifying. I landed about 5' from a huge boulder that could have ended my life (or at least made network television interesting). I walked away with just a couple broken bones, and luckily my head was spared.

That being said, I'll always wear a helmet while riding on mountains, but will still forego it while pedaling slowly through the neighborhoods. It really is a matter of context whether or not a helmet is appropriate.

(however... I must say that someone in my hometown died while slowly pedaling his bike through the neighborhood, but that was a result of him being sucker punched and falling backward to hit his head on the curb)
 
2012-10-04 12:06:26 PM  
Valiente Smartest
Funniest
2012-10-04 12:03:30 PM


orbister: Head injuries are extremely common in car accidents. Those of you who always wear helmets when cycling - do you wear them when driving? If not, why not?

The car's body, the "crumple zones", the internal frame and particularly the air bags are all doing to a greater degree what a helmet does.

Compared to the 1968 Volkswagen my old man drove us as kids (now with belts! And untempered glass in the windows!), even the shiattiest car on the road is a frigging fighter jet worth of "safety outs".

Interestingly, for the basis of comparison, I'm a sailor who wears a self-inflating PFD in anything over 10 knots, and always when I sail alone. In heavier weather, I use safety tethers to stay aboard. At the high end of sailing for speed, crew have started to wear helmets because one of the most common causes of death at sea is getting "boomed" when the wind snaps the mainsail over, turning the boom into a 20 foot long, gale-powered sledgehammer whacking a watermelon.

It's not always possible to duck, and a direct hit would crush even a helmeted head. But a glancing blow with a helmet could mean the difference between a laceration/bruise and a future in a sheltered workshop yelling at unwoven baskets.

That's the logic of a helmet: it can turn the major into the minor. If you fall under an 18-wheeler, you're dead regardless, but if you are sideswiped and bounce your forehead off a curb or a pole, you may be able to survive it with marbles safely in the bag.

Far be it from me to hate on freedom and all. May St. Gary of Busey guide you


That's dangerous and dumb. It should be against the law.
 
2012-10-04 12:09:27 PM  

doubled99: Valiente Smartest
Funniest
2012-10-04 12:03:30 PM


orbister: Head injuries are extremely common in car accidents. Those of you who always wear helmets when cycling - do you wear them when driving? If not, why not?

The car's body, the "crumple zones", the internal frame and particularly the air bags are all doing to a greater degree what a helmet does.

Compared to the 1968 Volkswagen my old man drove us as kids (now with belts! And untempered glass in the windows!), even the shiattiest car on the road is a frigging fighter jet worth of "safety outs".

Interestingly, for the basis of comparison, I'm a sailor who wears a self-inflating PFD in anything over 10 knots, and always when I sail alone. In heavier weather, I use safety tethers to stay aboard. At the high end of sailing for speed, crew have started to wear helmets because one of the most common causes of death at sea is getting "boomed" when the wind snaps the mainsail over, turning the boom into a 20 foot long, gale-powered sledgehammer whacking a watermelon.

It's not always possible to duck, and a direct hit would crush even a helmeted head. But a glancing blow with a helmet could mean the difference between a laceration/bruise and a future in a sheltered workshop yelling at unwoven baskets.

That's the logic of a helmet: it can turn the major into the minor. If you fall under an 18-wheeler, you're dead regardless, but if you are sideswiped and bounce your forehead off a curb or a pole, you may be able to survive it with marbles safely in the bag.

Far be it from me to hate on freedom and all. May St. Gary of Busey guide you

That's dangerous and dumb. It should be against the law.


So should the doctrines of eminent domain and manifest destiny, but there you go.
 
2012-10-04 12:12:12 PM  
tank2vich: Loomy: give me doughnuts: The only cycling accident I had as an adult (nobody wore helmets on bikes when I was a kid) resulted in ligament damage and broken bones in my wrists. At no point did my head impact on the ground. The only reason my helmet got scraped up was because it was hanging from my handlebars, and the bike landed on it.


I've never quite understood the 'helmet hanging from handlebars' behaviour. Is it because the cycling one is currently engaged in isn't quite dangerous enough to warrant a helmet, but may warrant it later? Do they think they'll be able to slip it on sneakily enough after they spot the cops that they won't be caught anyway (in a place with helmet laws, obviously)? I just don't get it.


Hang the helmet on the handlebars on the 2 hour ride uphill at 6mph. Put it on at the top for the 30-40mph descent.


Hey! That makes a ton of sense. I must say I usually see it on people pedalling with their heels, one hand on the bars, swerving along the sidewalk, but yours is actually a very good example of strategic helmet use.
 
2012-10-04 12:14:40 PM  

TheGreenMonkey: Having been in two bike wrecks, one with and one without a helmet, and having my dad, who was wearing a helmet, sit in the hospital for 3 days recuperating from a major hit to the head after wrecking on his bike I can honestly say that anyone who rides a bike (motorized or not) without a helmet is foolish.


Anyone who assume all bike riding is risky enough to wear a helmet is foolish.
 
2012-10-04 12:15:31 PM  
Im against mandatory helmet rules, be it pedal or motor bikes. IMO its kinda an America freedom thing...in this country we should have the right to choose if we want to wear a helmet or not. You know the risks, you make the choice. If insurance companies want to mandate it for certain coverages thats fine too.

Most of my generation (Im 35) grew up riding bikes without helmets, took some gnarly falls too. We knew we could be hurt, we could have asked our parents for helmets if we were worried, but we didnt.

Also should be noted, at summer camp they were handing us Marlin .22 rifles and a handful of bullets at around 12 years old too.
 
2012-10-04 12:26:44 PM  
Not wearing a helmet is no big deal, just don't smoke while riding a bike.
 
2012-10-04 12:28:28 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-04 12:38:00 PM  
Everyone should wear helmets all the time! Head injuries are traumatic and serious whatever the proximate cause, and should be avoided at all cost. What's $30 against the possibility that you or someone you love might have a serious brain injury that could have easily been avoided by a subtle, sexy and unobtrusive fashion accessory?

And another thing: speed limits should be set at just below average walking sheep speeds, so that we can get where we're going safely too. And all laws, education and entertainment should be mandated to ensafen those least able amongst us. Won't somebody think of the fearful ignorant morons?
 
2012-10-04 12:40:06 PM  

Valiente: That's dangerous and dumb. It should be against the law.

So should the doctrines of eminent domain and manifest destiny, but there you go.


actually, sovereign immunity is the one that bothers me the most.
 
2012-10-04 12:41:58 PM  

Deep Contact: Not wearing a helmet is no big deal, just don't smoke while riding a bike.


bah! I have a cup holder on my bike for the alcoholic beverage of my choice, and I smoke, it's like I'm my own rolling bar... anything less is uncivilized.
 
2012-10-04 12:46:14 PM  

doubled99: Valiente Smartest
Funniest
2012-10-04 12:03:30 PM


orbister: Head injuries are extremely common in car accidents. Those of you who always wear helmets when cycling - do you wear them when driving? If not, why not?

The car's body, the "crumple zones", the internal frame and particularly the air bags are all doing to a greater degree what a helmet does.

Compared to the 1968 Volkswagen my old man drove us as kids (now with belts! And untempered glass in the windows!), even the shiattiest car on the road is a frigging fighter jet worth of "safety outs".

Interestingly, for the basis of comparison, I'm a sailor who wears a self-inflating PFD in anything over 10 knots, and always when I sail alone. In heavier weather, I use safety tethers to stay aboard. At the high end of sailing for speed, crew have started to wear helmets because one of the most common causes of death at sea is getting "boomed" when the wind snaps the mainsail over, turning the boom into a 20 foot long, gale-powered sledgehammer whacking a watermelon.

It's not always possible to duck, and a direct hit would crush even a helmeted head. But a glancing blow with a helmet could mean the difference between a laceration/bruise and a future in a sheltered workshop yelling at unwoven baskets.

That's the logic of a helmet: it can turn the major into the minor. If you fall under an 18-wheeler, you're dead regardless, but if you are sideswiped and bounce your forehead off a curb or a pole, you may be able to survive it with marbles safely in the bag.

Far be it from me to hate on freedom and all. May St. Gary of Busey guide you

That's dangerous and dumb. It should be against the law.


Is that why it's an Olympic sport?
 
2012-10-04 12:47:18 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: I wear a bike helmet because I know there people like me driving cars.


How do you hit a cyclist in your head with your car??? I'm seriously curious what logic drivers apply when they shout "get a helmet!" at me. I always should back, "You, too!"
 
2012-10-04 12:48:48 PM  

Tanishh: FTFA: "But many European health experts have taken a very different view: Yes, there are studies that show that if you fall off a bicycle at a certain speed and hit your head, a helmet can reduce your risk of serious head injury. But such falls off bikes are rare - exceedingly so in mature urban cycling systems."

Anecdotal, but a kid in my year in HS died when he got hit by a car and slammed his head into the ground. No helmet on. Died of severe brain trauma.

Falling off a bike on to your head or otherwise getting hit on the head is rare, yes, but then, so are car accidents, at least from person to person. Does that mean we ought to do away with airbags and seatbelts?

People won't ride with a helmet, fine. Let em. But if they get killed by a head injury, don't expect too much sympathy from me.


I know for a fact that there are people walking the street, sitting in their home, working or doing some shopping without a helmet. Some of them will get hit by a car and get some form of brain damage. If only they had worn a helmet at each and every moment of their lifes.

Hell, I'm betting 1k in your local currency that there are people who were driving in a car with seatbelts and airbags who died because if a head injury caused by an accident. Should they wear helmets to?
 
2012-10-04 12:59:03 PM  
Do you get more points for helmeted riders or less?
 
2012-10-04 01:09:43 PM  
When I rode, I never wore a helmet. Cycling helmets can prevent minor head trauma in some situations, but the types of accidents that may result in serious head trauma are rather rare, and a cycling helmet is not going to help when one is hit by a car. They will certainly not prevent a concussion of other impact force injuries. Not even high-tech motorcycle and racing helmet can do this. I think the serve to make a rider feel safer and, of course, are a part of the costume all riders seen to need to wear these days.
 
2012-10-04 01:15:57 PM  
give me doughnuts Smartest
Funniest
2012-10-04 12:46:14 PM


doubled99: Valiente Smartest
Funniest
2012-10-04 12:03:30 PM


orbister: Head injuries are extremely common in car accidents. Those of you who always wear helmets when cycling - do you wear them when driving? If not, why not?

The car's body, the "crumple zones", the internal frame and particularly the air bags are all doing to a greater degree what a helmet does.

Compared to the 1968 Volkswagen my old man drove us as kids (now with belts! And untempered glass in the windows!), even the shiattiest car on the road is a frigging fighter jet worth of "safety outs".

Interestingly, for the basis of comparison, I'm a sailor who wears a self-inflating PFD in anything over 10 knots, and always when I sail alone. In heavier weather, I use safety tethers to stay aboard. At the high end of sailing for speed, crew have started to wear helmets because one of the most common causes of death at sea is getting "boomed" when the wind snaps the mainsail over, turning the boom into a 20 foot long, gale-powered sledgehammer whacking a watermelon.

It's not always possible to duck, and a direct hit would crush even a helmeted head. But a glancing blow with a helmet could mean the difference between a laceration/bruise and a future in a sheltered workshop yelling at unwoven baskets.

That's the logic of a helmet: it can turn the major into the minor. If you fall under an 18-wheeler, you're dead regardless, but if you are sideswiped and bounce your forehead off a curb or a pole, you may be able to survive it with marbles safely in the bag.

Far be it from me to hate on freedom and all. May St. Gary of Busey guide you

That's dangerous and dumb. It should be against the law.

Is that why it's an Olympic sport?


So is boxing. Your point?
 
2012-10-04 01:18:08 PM  

flynn80: Do you get more points for helmeted riders or less?


Depends. If you just hit them like normal, less. But if you can make their helmet come off without popping their head or something. you get double points.
 
2012-10-04 01:20:36 PM  
Thought experiment: identify 100 thirty-year-olds who regularly ride a bike without a helmet, and 100 thirty-year-olds who don't ride bikes. What will the two groups look like forty years later?

Some of the cyclists might have died from head trauma, right? But the survivors are, in general, fitter than the non-cyclists. Which factor dominates?

Hemet laws are about the assumption that the head trauma is a bigger factor. TFA is pointing out that that's a bad assumption.

/posting from work
//rode my bike here
///with a helmet
 
2012-10-04 01:22:39 PM  

JackieRabbit: a cycling helmet is not going to help when one is hit by a car


It's helped me the two times I've hit the road because of a car. Maybe my head wouldn't have been hurt either time, but my helmet certainly got banged up. When we say "hit by a car", we're not talking about being run over (bump-ba-bump "Honey, did you hear something?") but being sideswiped, having your back tire clipped, things like that. So the big danger to you now IS falling off your bike, it's just not because you're clumsy, it's because someone did it to you.
 
2012-10-04 01:24:44 PM  

Valiente: The car's body, the "crumple zones", the internal frame and particularly the air bags are all doing to a greater degree what a helmet does.


Nonetheless, head injuries are extremely common in car crashes. Since there are so many more car crashes, many more serious injuries and deaths could be averted by making it compulsory to wear helmets in cars, and anyone concerned by the statistics enough to wear a helmet when cycling should also be wearing a helmet while driving.

Interestingly, for the basis of comparison, I'm a sailor who wears a self-inflating PFD in anything over 10 knots, and always when I sail alone. In heavier weather, I use safety tethers to stay aboard.

I'm a sailor too. My briefing to new crew is simple. "This is a lifejacket. I will make it easier to find and recovery your body if you go over board. This is a safety harness. It will stop you going overboard."

At the high end of sailing for speed, crew have started to wear helmets ...


Not just speed sailors. Boom strikes are by far the most common cause of death or serious injury to recreational sailors, yet few (including myself) wear hard hats. There are occasional mutterings about making them mandatory, or at least advised, for children on RYA dinghy courses, but the RYA is currently agin' it.
 
2012-10-04 01:33:54 PM  
I have had three serious bicycle accidents in my life.

1. Going down a hill at speed. Uneven pavement where the concrete curb had subsided from the asphalt. Non-helmeted head met ground. Went to the hospital for that one.
2. Car passes me, then suddenly makes turn in front of me immediately after passing (should have saw it coming, but he passed me on the right and then turned left, which is unusual). Destroyed front bike tire, rolled over hood. Helmeted head met hood. No hospital.
3. Going down a hill in winter after visiting a client's house. Switchback road and unexpected black ice (unexpected because the temps had dropped unexpectedly). Wrapped in winter clothes, they were shredded instead of my skin. Helmeted head met ground. No hospital.

Still, I don't think people should be forced to wear helmets if they do not want to. I just don't think such people are very bright.
 
2012-10-04 01:38:57 PM  

Mi-go amigo:

Still, I don't think people should be forced to wear helmets if they do not want to. I just don't think such people are very bright.


I dont think people should be forced to ride their bicycles at safe speeds if they do not want to. I just don't think such people are very bright.
 
2012-10-04 01:47:19 PM  

Sachlpch: I grew up not wearing a bike helmet. I never saw the need to. Even after I took a header off a retaining wall breaking my wrist, blacking out with a concussion for 10 minutes, I never batted an eye in the direction of a helmet. I had scraped knees/knuckles from all the times my tires slid out from under me, and I still didn't see the need for a helmet.

I see the way people drive their cars/trucks these days. It's not so much driving badly, but their inattentive driving with talking/texting with cellphones that if it's not another vehicle on the road they barely see it. I wear a helmet every time I get on my bike now.


Exactly. I'm almost 40, when I was a kid I rode a BMX a mile to school. Wiped out hard a few times, got a few scars, never wore a helmet.

Now, when I commute on bike, I wear a goddamed helmet, because people these days are just not all there, and I fully understand that I am the only person that is ultimately responsible for my own safety - and that helmet (as well as staying alert to the clueless drivers around me) is part of that.
 
2012-10-04 01:52:28 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: JackieRabbit: a cycling helmet is not going to help when one is hit by a car

It's helped me the two times I've hit the road because of a car. Maybe my head wouldn't have been hurt either time, but my helmet certainly got banged up. When we say "hit by a car", we're not talking about being run over (bump-ba-bump "Honey, did you hear something?") but being sideswiped, having your back tire clipped, things like that. So the big danger to you now IS falling off your bike, it's just not because you're clumsy, it's because someone did it to you.


As I said, they can help prevent injury in some situations. I don't know what yours were. But last year I came upon an accident in the mountains where a cyclist was hit by a car. His head wasn't damaged, but he went into the windshield hard. His helmet could not stopped his neck from being broken. I heard later that he was pronounced DOA at the hospital. When a bicycle and a car tangle at high speed, the car is going to win and no amount of protective gear is going to help. I quit riding because I understood this and after a few incidents with cars that resulted in my coming off the bike, I decided that another form of exercise was better for my health. I enjoyed hiking/walking much more.
 
2012-10-04 02:01:11 PM  

Captain Horatio Mindblower: Thought experiment: identify 100 thirty-year-olds who regularly ride a bike without a helmet, and 100 thirty-year-olds who don't ride bikes. What will the two groups look like forty years later?

Some of the cyclists might have died from head trauma, right? But the survivors are, in general, fitter than the non-cyclists. Which factor dominates?


I think you are missingt he point. If people don't have to wear helmets, more will ride.

Now trying this right now in a place like NYC is stupid because it isn't set up for bikes, but in many places in Europe it is. When you have bike lanes that are respected, then the need for helmets goes way down.
 
2012-10-04 02:01:40 PM  
Anyone who rides a bike to work wearing spandex stretch trousers also tends to:

1. Own a TV but haven't turned it on in years
2. Drink microbrewery beer
3. Watch Japanese children's cartoons on a Mac
4. Appreciate the warmth of vinyl phonograph records
5. Read books at Starbucks
6. Claim to prefer girls with small breasts
7. Make snide remarks about Wal-Mart.
8. Walk past a smoker and force pretentious coughing noises
9. Take comfort in believing size doesn't matter
10. Feign disgust at the idea of eating a Big Mac
 
2012-10-04 02:07:22 PM  

JackieRabbit: I May Be Crazy But...: JackieRabbit: a cycling helmet is not going to help when one is hit by a car

It's helped me the two times I've hit the road because of a car. Maybe my head wouldn't have been hurt either time, but my helmet certainly got banged up. When we say "hit by a car", we're not talking about being run over (bump-ba-bump "Honey, did you hear something?") but being sideswiped, having your back tire clipped, things like that. So the big danger to you now IS falling off your bike, it's just not because you're clumsy, it's because someone did it to you.

As I said, they can help prevent injury in some situations. I don't know what yours were. But last year I came upon an accident in the mountains where a cyclist was hit by a car. His head wasn't damaged, but he went into the windshield hard. His helmet could not stopped his neck from being broken. I heard later that he was pronounced DOA at the hospital. When a bicycle and a car tangle at high speed, the car is going to win and no amount of protective gear is going to help. I quit riding because I understood this and after a few incidents with cars that resulted in my coming off the bike, I decided that another form of exercise was better for my health. I enjoyed hiking/walking much more.


The only thing I'm arguing with is the reasoning behind this statement. That, in my experience of course, tangling doesn't mean I'm suddenly sitting in the driver's lap, it means he's pushing me into a parked car or something. And in that situation, a helmet can do do a lot of good. Mind you, I commute on my bike, I don't ride through the countryside for exercise - that seems like it would increase your chances of getting turned into road hamburger more.
 
2012-10-04 02:10:19 PM  

letrole: Anyone who rides a bike to work wearing spandex stretch trousers also tends to:


Apparently they're very comfortable and display your equipment in a flattering way. This is a friend of mine's reason for wearing those things. Didn't do him a lot of good, as far as I know, but at least he was comfortable.
 
2012-10-04 02:21:42 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: Apparently they're very comfortable and display your equipment in a flattering way. This is a friend of mine's reason for wearing those things. Didn't do him a lot of good, as far as I know, but at least he was comfortable.


This. I uh, have a friend who only rides with bike shorts, under normal shorts. They're damn near the best thing ever (literally), my friend tells me.
 
2012-10-04 02:23:27 PM  
Wear a helmet to save my brain? I guess, after all, it is my second favorite organ.
 
2012-10-04 02:24:37 PM  

Fissile: Wear a helmet to save my brain? I guess, after all, it is my second favorite organ.


I always knew you had an unnatural attraction to the gall-bladder.
 
2012-10-04 02:29:26 PM  
I shared my bike once in NYC. I guess I was an early adotper...

/still waiting for it to be returned
//its been a long wait
 
2012-10-04 02:34:53 PM  

angry_scientist: I May Be Crazy But...: Apparently they're very comfortable and display your equipment in a flattering way. This is a friend of mine's reason for wearing those things. Didn't do him a lot of good, as far as I know, but at least he was comfortable.

This. I uh, have a friend who only rides with bike shorts, under normal shorts. They're damn near the best thing ever (literally), my friend tells me.


that's why everytime before I go cycling, I apply a few good strokes with a ball-peen hammer... by the time I get out on the bike, everything swells up and looks really great in my tights.
 
2012-10-04 02:36:27 PM  

liam76: I think you are missingt he point. If people don't have to wear helmets, more will ride.


No one (except minors, in a minority of states) has to. Adults are free to ride without a helmet in every single state in the US, and there's really no movement to change that.

This is where it gets weird. I get yelled at by someone at a bike rack because I'm wearing a helmet about once a year. Um... the fact that I wear one does not actually mean that I'm advocating some law that everyone has to. Really.
 
2012-10-04 02:43:13 PM  

Lawnchair: liam76: I think you are missingt he point. If people don't have to wear helmets, more will ride.

No one (except minors, in a minority of states) has to. Adults are free to ride without a helmet in every single state in the US, and there's really no movement to change that.


I was under the impression a lot of cities require it, could be way off.

I know where I work it is required.


Lawnchair: This is where it gets weird. I get yelled at by someone at a bike rack because I'm wearing a helmet about once a year. Um... the fact that I wear one does not actually mean that I'm advocating some law that everyone has to. Really


Doesn't matter where you are or what the subject is you are going to run into an asshole.
 
2012-10-04 03:00:46 PM  
Bicycle helmets increase serious head injuries because they make people wearing 2 ounces of Styrofoam feel indestructable. They would need to be much more substantial to provide any significant protection.
They also make you look like a dork.
 
2012-10-04 03:07:58 PM  

JackieRabbit: His helmet could not stopped his neck from being broken.


It's possible that his helmet contributed. When you move the point of force application almost twice as far away from the top of the spine, you can do all sorts of nasty biomechanical things.
 
2012-10-04 03:19:35 PM  

brewswane: Number One cause of head and neck injuries in America? Falling off of horses!


Um, no. Not even in the top ten:

The following 20 sports/recreational activities represent the categories contributing to the highest number of estimated head injuries treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms in 2009.
Cycling: 85,389
Football: 46,948
Baseball and Softball: 38,394
Basketball: 34,692
Water Sports (Diving, Scuba Diving, Surfing, Swimming, Water Polo, Water Skiing, Water Tubing): 28,716
Powered Recreational Vehicles (ATVs, Dune Buggies, Go-Carts, Mini bikes, Off-road): 26,606
Soccer: 24,184
Skateboards/Scooters: 23,114
Fitness/Exercise/Health Club: 18,012
Winter Sports (Skiing, Sledding, Snowboarding, Snowmobiling): 16,948
Horseback Riding: 14,466
Gymnastics/Dance/Cheerleading: 10,223
Golf: 10,035
Hockey: 8,145
Other Ball Sports and Balls, Unspecified: 6,883
Trampolines: 5,919
Rugby/Lacrosse: 5,794
Roller and Inline Skating: 3,320
Ice Skating: 4,608

Source: Link
 
2012-10-04 03:20:43 PM  

trippdogg: They also make you look like a dork.


So does scar tissue.
 
2012-10-04 03:33:10 PM  
Darwinism

let's face it, we obviously have too many stupid people surviving to breed

no helmet laws, no seatbelts, stop with the warning notices to avoid injuring yourself doing something completely 'tarded.

save the planet!
 
xcv
2012-10-04 03:36:40 PM  
I wear a helmet when riding a bike at slow speeds in urban areas mostly because I've heard healthcare providers mock their cyclist patients that weren't wearing helmets at the time of injury. Shame is a more powerful motivator than other reasons I've heard.
 
2012-10-04 03:52:16 PM  
I wear a helmet. The danger IMHO is not so much that you'll be run over and crushed but hit and knocked down. When you go down, you will hit the road. The road is hard. If your head hits the road, you will be potato. I don't want to be potato so I wear a helmet always.

I also don't ever bike sidewalks. People who bike on sidewalks are potato IMHO. Ever see how cars handle sidewalks at driveways and intersections? They roll right through the sidewalk without checking to see if they're about to hit someone someone on a bike (or running).
 
2012-10-04 04:09:07 PM  
gloves are more important than helmets because cyclist fall on their hands first
helmets are a nice safety feature i'd say 90% of cyclist in friendly madison wi use.
 
2012-10-04 04:11:54 PM  

politech: I shared my bike once in NYC. I guess I was an early adotper...

/still waiting for it to be returned
//its been a long wait


Did you at least wipe the seat off?
 
2012-10-04 04:32:25 PM  
I can't wait until they implement this NYC bike share thingee, today they announced the launch date got bumped to next spring.
 
2012-10-04 04:39:27 PM  
I agree with the point they are making. Leisurely riding at a low rate of speed is safe without a helmet. I never wore a helmet as a kid, wrecked more times than I can count and was neve seriously hurt. Rider should use their own judgement on whether a helmet is called for. Rolling around a park at 5-10 miles an hour, then no....rolling down a winding mountain road at 35+, then yeah, better wear a helmet.
 
2012-10-04 04:47:54 PM  

fireclown: trippdogg: They also make you look like a dork.

So does scar tissue.


Chicks did scars.
Neo told me that.
 
2012-10-04 04:58:29 PM  
I saw a parent pulling their toddler in a wagon and the (non-retarded) child had a helmet on.
 
2012-10-04 06:19:03 PM  

Litig8r: I've always worn a helmet (full face) when riding a motorcycle, and I've always worn a helmet when riding a bicycle.

Speed or environment don't really factor into the decision. Helmets are, for the most part, designed to protect the head from the impact that would occur if the cyclist were to fall over sideways -- approximately a 13 mph impact of the head on the ground. The speed at which your head hits pavement doesn't vary with the speed at which you're biking. At 30 mph your head is still going to hit the ground at about the same 13 mph if you crash (and don't hit something else along the way -- a car, tree, etc) -- as it would if you were cruising along at 5 mph. Given as much, if you're into the whole helmet thing, you really ought to be wearing one anytime there's a reasonable possibility of a crash.


Here's the thing though. For your head to hit the ground (first) from just "falling over" the bike would pretty much have to be lifted off the ground and rotate sideways on an axis running nose to tail down the middle of the bike. If you fall over sideways (whether you just tip or if you take a corner too fast and lose traction) while riding at even moderate speeds, your legs, torso and at least one arm are all going to touch pavement before your head gets anywhere near it. If you're doing 5-10 MPH and you lose your balance you're going to skin the hell out of the leg you fall on and that's it. So why would helmets be designed for that case?
 
2012-10-04 08:17:47 PM  
just be careful out there
 
2012-10-04 10:28:12 PM  
I just wanna know if I'm on anybody's lawn right now. So many sprouted outta nowhere.

/the thread-killer was the reference to moving "faster than the speed of walking". Consarnit.
 
2012-10-04 10:40:09 PM  

SniperJoe: Basically, the premise here is that helmets make people not want to bike and the city leaders are saying that the whole point of helmets is to prevent head injuries due to high speed collisions, which they state are rare in urban environments. As someone who HAS had a high-speed bicycle accident, I kindly tell those leaders to go pound sand. My helmet was cracked completely through and I didn't even get a concussion. Without it, I probably would at best, have serious brain injuries.


And in Pittsburgh James Pierce was wearing a helmet and had front and rear lights on when some jackass plowed him over and sped away.

/then they said it was his fault for hogging the road...
//yeah, in front of the East End Food co-op it's 2 lanes which are wide enough for a bike and a small car at the same time in each, though that's really not a good idea
///and there's not much traffic at 5:45AM in the summer

//// it's really just the case that motorists are entitled assholes who don't givce a fark about anyone but themselves
 
2012-10-04 10:44:39 PM  

ModernLuddite: I will not rest until it is legal to drive over a Critical Mass group ride.


As a cyclist, THANK YOU!

I farking HATE those guys!
 
2012-10-04 10:53:10 PM  

thespindrifter: I don't ride with a helmet, and haven't for well over 30 years, but then again I don't put myself in harms way; if I were one of these morons who ride for speed and who want to be complete cocksuckers on two wheels at @ 30 MPH, then yeah, I'd wear a brain bucket too... hit one tiny rock with those pencil tires and it's pretty much all over.

I would also be amused if someone actually tried to encourage helmetless biking in my city: the current kill numbers for the year so far sits at roughly one a week. Needless to say, I don't ride at night here anymore, because that would basically be a death wish. As if that weren't bad enough, some other cocksuckers keep stealing the ghost bike memorials put up in the honor of the scores that have been killed here.


You really need a few good locks, and a cheap - possible broken - frame.

Of course, they're probably just scrapping them...
 
2012-10-04 11:02:32 PM  

Rapmaster2000: When I ride my bike without a helmet I get weird looks, but the looks were weirder 15 years ago when I would also be smoking.


That's standard practice now. Seriously, I see it all of the time. Especially when I go to the "hip youth" areas.
 
2012-10-05 01:07:26 AM  

hiker9999: acad1228: I have never worn and will never wear a helmet while riding a bicycle. Motorcycle; yeah, but not on a bike.When I was a kid, wearing a helmet on a bike would have been dangerous because my friends would have whooped my ass for being a wussy. /We gave Dennis a pass
//He was special
///But he was still our friend.

On one of my rides a few weeks ago, I hit 38 mph coming down off a hill on my bike. Is falling off a bicycle at nearly 40 mph any less dangerous than crashing a motorcyclye at 40 mph?


Heh, I hit over fifty in the Rocky Mountains with a full touring rig. Yeah, I wear helmets when I ride, moto or pedal-powered. I've broken over half a dozen helmets in MTB and road crashes. Only one of those was I hit by a motor vehicle. Still, I think mandating helmets for either endeavors is asinine.
 
2012-10-05 03:35:22 AM  

thornhill: Sybarite: Bike sharing program in New York? Yeah, good luck with that.

What a typical knee jerk American response.

Parisian streets and traffic are far worse than NYC, and yet bike share works quite well there (you haven't experienced gridlock during rush hour until you've witnessed some jackass getting stuck in the middle of a 6 way intersection).

There's a really simple reason why urban biking is so much more prevalent in European cities and why the bikes can function tandem with cars: enforcement of traffic laws for both cars and bikers.

A lot of European cities have street lights for bikes (Manhattan has several of these along Broadway). This helps to condition bikers to comply with the law, specifically not running reds. The only bikers who run reds and stop lights in Europe are American tourists. On the car side, in many places they must always yield to bikers, and its enforced.


They don't enforce crap here. And you must not have spent much time in Paris, or you would know that bikes running the red lights is a huge problem.
/16 going on 17 years in and around Paris
 
2012-10-05 08:28:02 AM  

dumbobruni: the Paris Tourism website has a lot of unhappy travelers regarding Velib. In my own experience with the velib stations, many don't have working keypads, and several stations don't have keypads at all.


I'd go as far as to say the key pads never work. I've tried about 7 or 8 times and have never been able to use them.
 
Displayed 215 of 215 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report