Slog
News & ArtsThursday, August 18, 2011
Transportation What's Getting in the Way of More People Riding Bicycles?
Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 2:14 PM
Draconian helmet laws, according to a post at the Daily Sightline. They write in favor of bike sharing programs that would "blanket urban areas with hundreds, even thousands, of identical, sturdy bikes and give people a huge network of convenient stations to park them at," but, they continue, "over-zealous helmet laws are blocking a transport revolution."
Forcing casual riders to don helmets is a high barrier to bike sharing. It depresses ridership, getting in the way of the overwhelming health and safety benefit of having more bikes on the roads. Providing headwear at kiosks or local businesses raises concerns about sanitation (lice!) and safety (cracked helmets). Casual, would-be riders weigh those concerns and decide to keep walking.
Besides, no bike-sharing program tells people not to wear helmets. They just leave wearing one as a personal choice.
More of the anti-helmet thinking over here.
4
More people would wear helmets if they didn't "ruin" their hair. Bandana's and those breatheable skullcaps can help there. The pro-helmet propaghanda machine needs to team up with hair stylits to display hairstyles that can survive helmets.
5
I once worked with people who suffered brain damage from a lack of helmets. It is a very sad way to spend your life and very expensive for all of us as well.
6
What an utter crock of shit - the number of city residents who don't currently ride a bike because they aren't available through a bike sharing program is infinitesimal.
7
Cops will give you a $103 ticket for riding without a helmet, meanwhile they tell you to "just go get a helmet and bring it to court with you and the judge will let you off with no fine."
These laws aren't just stupid they are a complete and total waste of taxpayer money to enforce.
These laws aren't just stupid they are a complete and total waste of taxpayer money to enforce.
8
""blanket urban areas with hundreds, even thousands, of identical, sturdy bikes"
Which we'll then have to pay to recover from Skyway and Clichy-sous-Bois. No thanks.
Which we'll then have to pay to recover from Skyway and Clichy-sous-Bois. No thanks.
9
@5 With that way of thinking we should outlaw everything, cause someone might get hurt, and we as taxpayers might have to pay for it.
12
@9 No. "Everything" isn't equally hazardous, and every outcome from every hazard is not equally costly. Enforcing helmet laws is much cheaper than the death and disability they prevent, even though most bike riders will not be critically injured. The few who are cost society a shit-ton of money.
13
"Forcing casual drivers to wear seatbelts is a high barrier to car sharing. It depresses driving, getting in the way of the overwhelming health and safety benefit of having more cars on the road." if it applies to bikes, then it applies to cars, too... right?! the argument is ludicrous!
Folks don't ride bikes for a number of reasons (weather, hills, traffic, fear of sweat, lack of secure parking, etc.), but 'not wanting to wear a helmet' is so far down the list of reasons it's ridiculous to foist that as the reason folks are not bicycling.
Folks don't ride bikes for a number of reasons (weather, hills, traffic, fear of sweat, lack of secure parking, etc.), but 'not wanting to wear a helmet' is so far down the list of reasons it's ridiculous to foist that as the reason folks are not bicycling.
14
Cycling in urban environments, like bike shares cover is no more dangerous than being a pedestrian.
since we haven't (yet) mandated that peds need to wear helmets because we sure as FUCK cant keep cars from running people over, the thinking goes like this:
OH THAT ACTIVITY IS SO DANGEROUS I REQUIRES A HELMET, I SHOULDN'T DO IT.
= less bike rides.
I know this really bothers the liberal nanny state, and all those anecdotal head injury's but reading is hard on most of you so I figured I could skip to the end.
since we haven't (yet) mandated that peds need to wear helmets because we sure as FUCK cant keep cars from running people over, the thinking goes like this:
OH THAT ACTIVITY IS SO DANGEROUS I REQUIRES A HELMET, I SHOULDN'T DO IT.
= less bike rides.
I know this really bothers the liberal nanny state, and all those anecdotal head injury's but reading is hard on most of you so I figured I could skip to the end.
15
My sister worked in an Emergency Room: hear enough of those stories and you'll see the commonsense of helmets (and staying off motorcycles.)
My father had a friend who lost the top of his skull on a sidewalk curb when his motorcycle crashed, in the days before helmets were mandatory.
As Darwin Law as it would be to lose those grown but sulky babies who don't want to wear a helmet, just 'cuz, I'd rather my tax payer dollars didn't pay for their coma.
My father had a friend who lost the top of his skull on a sidewalk curb when his motorcycle crashed, in the days before helmets were mandatory.
As Darwin Law as it would be to lose those grown but sulky babies who don't want to wear a helmet, just 'cuz, I'd rather my tax payer dollars didn't pay for their coma.
16
@7, that sounds like a pretty effective law to me. The point isn't to fill the coffers, it's to get people to wear helmets. And that's what's happening.
17
@13: You missed that this is about bike sharing, not bike ownership. Bike sharing is an ad hoc system where you pick up a bike at one place and drop it at another, rather than owning it. With helmet laws, you can't participate in bike sharing unless you carry a bike helmet with you everywhere on the off chance that you might choose to rent a bike.
18
All of you are wrong.
The rain and mist and lack of workplace shower facilities with clean towels and lockers is the actual obstacle, you hipsters.
Oh, and @5 is correct.
The rain and mist and lack of workplace shower facilities with clean towels and lockers is the actual obstacle, you hipsters.
Oh, and @5 is correct.
19
I've spent a week in Harborview with staples in my chest and a week at home with post-concussion symptoms. Give me the staples any day. Brain trauma is like no other injury: you never know if you'll ever recover. Wear the fucking helmet!
20
There are a lot of marginal effects like that. Another one that discourages me from riding more is, in a lot of cases, it's actually easier to park a car. Think about it in terms of your typical grocery store experience. Parking a car involves driving into a space, locking the door, and walking away. Bikes, however, are easily stolen, whole or in pieces. So to park a bike, you have to find a suitable solid object to lock it to (often difficult in your typical strip mall environment), lock the frame to the solid object, lock both wheels and sometimes the seat to the frame...and then finally you can go about your business. It's a much bigger hassle.
21
Since we don't have lane-separated bicycle-only paths-of-travel, as are found in many European cities - and won't anytime in the near future - and instead force cyclists to share routes with motor vehicles, helmet laws are both reasonable and necessary.
22
@17 YOU missed the point. folks say "no" to bike sharing for all the other reasons (weather, traffic, sweat, etc.) long before they consider whether or not to wear a helmet.
Sure, that helmet requirement might be the last straw for them, but it's no where near the first.
Sure, that helmet requirement might be the last straw for them, but it's no where near the first.
23
The sweat issue would be lessened if we had more bicycle routes that didn't share space with cars. Bicycle advocates like to talk about 'vehicular cycling,' but the fact is to safely do that you have to be traveling at a high percentage of the speed that motor traffic is traveling at. This generally precludes the kind of leisurely pace that would allow you to arrive at your destination without smelling like a locker room.
24
Perhaps the real problem is that these idiots are targeting the wrong audience: "Casual, would-be riders weigh those concerns and decide to keep walking."
To what benefit do we convert pedestrians to cyclists? With the exception of possibly making it harder for some of these reckless assholes on bikes to hit me, I don't see much benefit personally, to society or to the planet converting pedestrians.
Wouldn't it be better to build park-n-ride(a-bike)s?
To what benefit do we convert pedestrians to cyclists? With the exception of possibly making it harder for some of these reckless assholes on bikes to hit me, I don't see much benefit personally, to society or to the planet converting pedestrians.
Wouldn't it be better to build park-n-ride(a-bike)s?
25
Why not rent helmets with some sort of removable cloth head covering?
One could be chained to each bike at each location (with multiple head cloths, so they could be changed with each rider.)
Big fucking problems solved.
One could be chained to each bike at each location (with multiple head cloths, so they could be changed with each rider.)
Big fucking problems solved.
26
I like the helmet law, and as a cyclist I'd wear a helmet even without it. But I don't see the harm of making an exception for people using bike share bikes.
27
What a bullshit 'finding' -- I would ride in seattle to work if not for the hills in between my house and work. I rode several times a week to work in Albuquerque.
28
Bike helmets aren't effective. Seattle and Dallas are the only major US cities with mandatory bike helmet laws for adults. Motorcycles - yes. Cars and pedestrians - helmets would probably save lives. Bikes - nope.
Bike helmet laws haven't been proven to reduce bike injuries or fatalities, but there's excellent evidence that they decrease ridership and increase injuries by making biking more dangerous in a city.
Meanwhile, Barcelona's bike share program (no helmets required) saves an average of 12 lives per year, and reduced vehicle carbon emissions by a full 1%.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gree…
Bike helmet laws haven't been proven to reduce bike injuries or fatalities, but there's excellent evidence that they decrease ridership and increase injuries by making biking more dangerous in a city.
Meanwhile, Barcelona's bike share program (no helmets required) saves an average of 12 lives per year, and reduced vehicle carbon emissions by a full 1%.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gree…
29
Helmets are a good idea, but Scandinavian countries, where bicycle riding is part of their national identity, have staved off helmet laws for exactly those reasons. Of course we're a long way from their bicycle infrastructure (and biking/driving culture) that afford them helmet free countries such low bicycle mortality rates.
Access to a bicycle, however, is not one of the major deterrents to bicycling.
Access to a bicycle, however, is not one of the major deterrents to bicycling.
30
All reasons not wear a helmet make you sound like an ass.
BUT MY HAIR!!! EWW SWEAT!!! I HAVE TO CARRY THIS BULKY PIECE OF STYROFOAM AND PLASTIC AROUND WITH ME??! BUT IT CLASHES WITH MY OUTFIT!!
Shut the fuck up and wear your helmet, stupids.
All reasons not wear a helmet make you sound like an ass.
BUT MY HAIR!!! EWW SWEAT!!! I HAVE TO CARRY THIS BULKY PIECE OF STYROFOAM AND PLASTIC AROUND WITH ME??! BUT IT CLASHES WITH MY OUTFIT!!
Shut the fuck up and wear your helmet, stupids.
31
Do people here who support laws forcing adults to wear bike helmets because people who ride bikes without helmets are often hurt or killed also support laws prohibiting behavior that is more dangerous than riding a bike without a bike helmet?
If it's wrong to allow adults to choose to ride a bike without a helmet, certainly it must also be wrong to allow adults to ride motorcycles or drive recreationally or go skiing or mountain climbing or smoke cigarettes?
If it's wrong to allow adults to choose to ride a bike without a helmet, certainly it must also be wrong to allow adults to ride motorcycles or drive recreationally or go skiing or mountain climbing or smoke cigarettes?
33
If it'll be anything like the bike share in Paris, expect most to be stolen and found in Skyway and Renton by anti-socials.
34
I love how everyone is sure helmets are safer.
according to government regulations on helmets cited here:
http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr…
bike helmets are tested by dropping a anvil on them....
"specified relation to the headform.
Under the standard, the helmet is
tested with three types of anvils (flat,
hemispherical, and curbstone,"
from a couple of feet.
That means bike styrofoam helmets are awesome if you tip over and land on your head, or trip and fall.
but if you get hit by a car, especially one traveling at a speed greater than say... 25mph, they do nothing.
should people wear helmets? sure. should it be a law that saves from all these accidents the commenters know all about? absolutely not, there is no data that shows helmets make less fatality's or accidents.
according to government regulations on helmets cited here:
http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr…
bike helmets are tested by dropping a anvil on them....
"specified relation to the headform.
Under the standard, the helmet is
tested with three types of anvils (flat,
hemispherical, and curbstone,"
from a couple of feet.
That means bike styrofoam helmets are awesome if you tip over and land on your head, or trip and fall.
but if you get hit by a car, especially one traveling at a speed greater than say... 25mph, they do nothing.
should people wear helmets? sure. should it be a law that saves from all these accidents the commenters know all about? absolutely not, there is no data that shows helmets make less fatality's or accidents.
36
Helmet posts are as good as trolling, but I'll bite:
Head injuries per mile traveled are greater for pedestrians than for cyclists. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1136/bmj.321.72…
Despite long-term real-life tests of wide variety of helmet laws and non-laws with a similarly wide variety of enforcement styles, there is no clear evidence that helmet laws make cycling safer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article…
Whether or not it turns out that helmets make cyclists safer, the impact* of helmets on safety is not nearly as significant as other factors; the presence of cyclists, infrastructure, etc... The appeal of helmet laws is that they give us as a society a rubber stamp solution to a perceived** problem. It's not protecting anyone.
If you're riding for sport, you should educate yourself and get equipment--appropriate for your activity--to make yourself safe. If you are riding down to the shop or the park, there's no reason not to just get on your bike and go.
* see what I did there?
** again, you get more head injuries if you walk.
Head injuries per mile traveled are greater for pedestrians than for cyclists. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1136/bmj.321.72…
Despite long-term real-life tests of wide variety of helmet laws and non-laws with a similarly wide variety of enforcement styles, there is no clear evidence that helmet laws make cycling safer: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article…
Whether or not it turns out that helmets make cyclists safer, the impact* of helmets on safety is not nearly as significant as other factors; the presence of cyclists, infrastructure, etc... The appeal of helmet laws is that they give us as a society a rubber stamp solution to a perceived** problem. It's not protecting anyone.
If you're riding for sport, you should educate yourself and get equipment--appropriate for your activity--to make yourself safe. If you are riding down to the shop or the park, there's no reason not to just get on your bike and go.
* see what I did there?
** again, you get more head injuries if you walk.
37
People like to think they can make cycling in traffic, an inherently dangerous activity, safer by doing something simple like wearing a helmet. It's hard to disabuse someone of an idea they've built a lifestyle around.
38
Do bike share programs even work? Spokane tried that several years ago (lilac-colored bikes cuz we're the Lilac City) and within weeks they had all been stolen --- presumably spray-painted other colors, or destroyed for fun.
41
Sounds like the authors have suffered some brain damage of their own. Perhaps due to failing to wear helmets.
How about you put a governor on the bike that lets them only go 15 MPH if the rider is not wearing a helmet.
How about you put a governor on the bike that lets them only go 15 MPH if the rider is not wearing a helmet.
43
As long as you have thugs in saggy ass pants in Seattle, you won't be able to have free bikes out there.
44
@39 like the hills?
Helmet use should be enforced if the roads stay as crappy as they are. Hit a bump wrong and you're temple to the pavement, even at <10 mph. That's what helmets are for. High-visibility vests and better driver education are the preventative measures for car-vs-bike injuries/fatalities.
Helmet use should be enforced if the roads stay as crappy as they are. Hit a bump wrong and you're temple to the pavement, even at <10 mph. That's what helmets are for. High-visibility vests and better driver education are the preventative measures for car-vs-bike injuries/fatalities.
45
Anyone care to take a stab the questions I posed @31?
Anyone care to respond to the data implying that helmets don't make riding that much safer at all, despite so many here being so sure that they do?
Anyone care to respond to the data implying that helmets don't make riding that much safer at all, despite so many here being so sure that they do?
46
You guys make me laff, you think its helmets that would doom free bikes in Seattle? You're gonna spend half the money tracking down stolen bikes in the CD, Rainier Vally and Skyway.
48
#45 yeah, the hills, the lack of bike infrastructure, and (to be blunt) a largely out-of-shape/overweight population = no thanks, I'll drive.
49
The wonders of socialist bicycles!
"But this latest French utopia has met a prosaic reality: Many of the specially designed bikes, which, when the systems startup and maintenance expenses are included, cost $3,500 each, are showing up on black markets in Eastern Europe and northern Africa. Many others are being spirited away for urban joy rides, then ditched by roadsides, their wheels bent and tires stripped.
With 80 percent of the initial 20,600 bicycles stolen or damaged, the programs organizers have had to hire several hundred people just to fix them. And along with the dent in the city-subsidized budget has been a blow to the Parisian psyche."
Just replace 'Paris' with Seattle, 'Eastern Europe' with 'Mexico and 'Africa' with 'you know where'. It'll be right up there with the million dollar free toilet disaster.
But you're right, if only people could use them without helmets, it's be an outstanding success!
"But this latest French utopia has met a prosaic reality: Many of the specially designed bikes, which, when the systems startup and maintenance expenses are included, cost $3,500 each, are showing up on black markets in Eastern Europe and northern Africa. Many others are being spirited away for urban joy rides, then ditched by roadsides, their wheels bent and tires stripped.
With 80 percent of the initial 20,600 bicycles stolen or damaged, the programs organizers have had to hire several hundred people just to fix them. And along with the dent in the city-subsidized budget has been a blow to the Parisian psyche."
Just replace 'Paris' with Seattle, 'Eastern Europe' with 'Mexico and 'Africa' with 'you know where'. It'll be right up there with the million dollar free toilet disaster.
But you're right, if only people could use them without helmets, it's be an outstanding success!
50
Bike helmet laws are bullshit. Nanny state!!!
I love how in the US you don't try to help sick people, you just criminalize stuff that makes you sick. Hehe. Taking off your bubble wrap voids your health insurance policy!!! Watch out!
I love how in the US you don't try to help sick people, you just criminalize stuff that makes you sick. Hehe. Taking off your bubble wrap voids your health insurance policy!!! Watch out!
51
@49: Pretty much. Bike-sharing programs will never work because they rely on the assumption that people don't suck. And people do suck. A lot.
52
#51 No, you can just hold people accountable. Car sharing works just fine, but if they didn't know who you are and what car you've got, obviously it would be a disaster.
53
@46, and several others- No one is going to spend any time or money tracking down bikes. the whole point is that anyone can take them any time, and if enough are put out for use they have no value. Several cities have had successful programs with non-profits collecting up old bikes and parts, teaching folks to fix them up, painting them some obnoxious color, and putting them out for anyone to use. the only time these projects fail is when they are over-thought and under supplied. So Seattle is doomed.
looking through the data, it is pretty clear that helmets aren't super helpful. surprising, but pretty clear.
looking through the data, it is pretty clear that helmets aren't super helpful. surprising, but pretty clear.
54
@51: Since the article referenced was written two years ago, the company has successfully curbed theft and vandalism and expanded the system considerably as ridership skyrocketed. Look at other early program successes in DC, Montreal, Denver, New York.
I don't know whether bike-sharing is a good fit for Seattle, but it has worked repeatedly in other markets where there's demand.
I don't know whether bike-sharing is a good fit for Seattle, but it has worked repeatedly in other markets where there's demand.
55
"Car sharing works just fine"
That's because you need a credit card to access one.
"you can just hold people accountable."
Hmmm, but what about social justice?
"if enough are put out for use they have no value"
And you want taxpayers to pay for your bottomless pit of free bikes? If so, I have an high tech toilet from Pike Place market I can sell you. Cost? $1 million but yours for $10,000.
That's because you need a credit card to access one.
"you can just hold people accountable."
Hmmm, but what about social justice?
"if enough are put out for use they have no value"
And you want taxpayers to pay for your bottomless pit of free bikes? If so, I have an high tech toilet from Pike Place market I can sell you. Cost? $1 million but yours for $10,000.
57
@52: How would that work? People don't steal cars as often because the penalty for stealing a car is pretty high, and because, as a titled, licensed object, it's challenging to sell a car anonymously.
Bicycles are not titled or licensed and bicycle theft is rarely punished in any meaningful way.
Bicycles are not titled or licensed and bicycle theft is rarely punished in any meaningful way.
58
"Bike helmet laws are bullshit. Nanny state!!!"
No problem, but if you ride, and have no health insurance, no freebies at Harborview for you. You can walk there and pay cash to get your skull fixed.
No problem, but if you ride, and have no health insurance, no freebies at Harborview for you. You can walk there and pay cash to get your skull fixed.
59
#57, I should think every bike would have to be rigged with something like a keycard to unlock it, and have GPS to track it.
61
"I should think every bike would have to be rigged with something like a keycard to unlock it, and have GPS to track it."
Oooo, and who's gonna pay for that?
Oooo, and who's gonna pay for that?
62
So we're gonna have bikes with GPS tracking, swipe card access and enough that they will flood the city and have no value to thieves.
And who's paying for all of this?
And who's paying for all of this?
63
I do not think that it should be mandatory to wear a helmet. I do think it should be mandatory to pass a written test on the rules of the road before operating a vehicle on the road. They could let kids take the test in school. It would be a fine primer taken the year before somebody is old enough to drive, giving them the knowledge and confidense to try cycling before the opportunity to drive comes along.
As it is, anybody, any ago, can ride a bike in traffic. That just doesn't sound very smart.
As it is, anybody, any ago, can ride a bike in traffic. That just doesn't sound very smart.
64
And Darwin smiles a smile of self congratulation while thinking, "Its working! It's actually WORKING!"
65
What's Getting in the Way of More People Riding Bicycles?
Um, maybe all those 2000 pound vehicles on the same streets we're supposed to ride our bikes on?
Vehicular cycling is dead. Drive a stake through its heart. We need better infrastructure. Period.
66
So, lemme get this straight ... you wanna get more people on bikes and let them not wear helmets and let them ride on the streets with the way your typical Seattlite drives?
Nah, I don't see how that could possibly go wrong.
Nah, I don't see how that could possibly go wrong.
67
Why aren't lights built into every bike sold the way they're built into every car sold?
As a driver, I'm always on the look out for cyclists but I'm still terrified that I'm going to accidentally hit some hipster dressed in dark colors without lights, without a helmet who's biking the wrong way up Roosevelt. And yes, I've seen this happen more than once. It's the one time my ever watchful eyes don't see them that terrifies me.
As a driver, I'm always on the look out for cyclists but I'm still terrified that I'm going to accidentally hit some hipster dressed in dark colors without lights, without a helmet who's biking the wrong way up Roosevelt. And yes, I've seen this happen more than once. It's the one time my ever watchful eyes don't see them that terrifies me.
68
all i have is anecdotal evidence: i t-boned a jeep cherokee that was going 20 mph, & i was going 10+ mph. if i hadn't hit the brakes hard he would have t-boned me. i broke my collar bone and my helmet's foam, but i didn't get a concussion. so i ride with a helmet.
but in amsterdam i rented a bike and rode without a helmet because it was way slower (3 speeds, flat) and the roads are dominated by bikes, not cars. it was fun but i felt nekkid.
but in amsterdam i rented a bike and rode without a helmet because it was way slower (3 speeds, flat) and the roads are dominated by bikes, not cars. it was fun but i felt nekkid.
69
People don't ride bikes, in large part, because they're fat and lazy, or because they fear being ridden down by monstrous SUVs piloted by oblivious cell-phone yappers. The helmet-head effect is way, way down the list.
I have maintained for years, though, that there should be no helmet laws for adults, provided that hospital emergency rooms are not required to treat head injuries suffered by those who chose not to wear a brain-bucket.
I have maintained for years, though, that there should be no helmet laws for adults, provided that hospital emergency rooms are not required to treat head injuries suffered by those who chose not to wear a brain-bucket.
71
Modern bike shares work great. The ones from ~10 years ago on the honor system were dumb.
http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/11/29/th…
Portland just approved funding for a modern bike share yesterday. Of course, they don't have bike helmet laws, and therefore biking there is safer and more common.
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blog…
http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/11/29/th…
Portland just approved funding for a modern bike share yesterday. Of course, they don't have bike helmet laws, and therefore biking there is safer and more common.
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blog…
73
#71 Yeah, and I'm sure the fact that it's much much flatter there has nothing to do with it. It's the helmet laws. Right.
76
Mind you, when I was a teen, I used to cruise down the 7 percent grade from Rossland BC to Trail BC at approx 50 mph on my touring Raleigh without a helmet.
Freedom ...
Young people don't care about dying, they're stupid that way.
Freedom ...
Young people don't care about dying, they're stupid that way.
77
#73- Portland may be "much flatter" than Seattle, but Seattle is "much flatter" than San Francisco, which also has more bicyclists than Seattle.
Portland is also still one of the hilliest cities in the country. 3 of the top 4 bicycling cities in the country are also the hilliest (Portland, SF, Seattle).
Helmet laws and hills affect biking, but the biggest one is bike infrastructure. Might as well get rid of helmet laws to make biking a little safer, though.
Portland is also still one of the hilliest cities in the country. 3 of the top 4 bicycling cities in the country are also the hilliest (Portland, SF, Seattle).
Helmet laws and hills affect biking, but the biggest one is bike infrastructure. Might as well get rid of helmet laws to make biking a little safer, though.
78
@22: Crap, and here I thought I knew why I wasn't interested in bike sharing. Thanks for straightening me out about my own thinking. Your relly smeart.
79
Yeah, I don't think that this would work very well in Seattle. Bike share programs are tits in cities like copenhagen. But then again, do a google maps street view of copenhagen. What do you see? Bikes everywhere. There are so many bikes and there's so little crime and the bikes have so little worth that people just leave them unlocked everywhere just leaning up against walls. Nobody fears their rig will get stolen and if it does they just go buy another $10 bike to replace it.
That probably won't ever be the state of cycling in Seattle. Portland is probably the closest. So many bikes chained up to so many things that they almost don't seem like objects of value, but even they would need 5 times as many bikes before leaving them unlocked would start to seem reasonable.
That probably won't ever be the state of cycling in Seattle. Portland is probably the closest. So many bikes chained up to so many things that they almost don't seem like objects of value, but even they would need 5 times as many bikes before leaving them unlocked would start to seem reasonable.
80
Also, I ride about 14 miles every day and I do not feel that my helmet makes me any safer.
If anything, it reduces my field of vision by making my head harder to quickly swivel. Bike theft used to be my deterrent. Now it's just cold weather.
If anything, it reduces my field of vision by making my head harder to quickly swivel. Bike theft used to be my deterrent. Now it's just cold weather.
82
Thank you @28 and @36, and others. Please look more carefully at the population studies concerning bike helmets. They are NOT safety devices. There are several (admittedly counter-intuitive) reasons why wearing a helmet does not make your commute safer. Some people have touched on them, but I would add that it's been shown that cars treat you better if you're not wearing a helmet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_hel… (see the population or time-share studies).
(This is coming from a Capital Bikeshare participant (about 4 bikes per day) who has used a helmet all of her life until recently).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_hel… (see the population or time-share studies).
(This is coming from a Capital Bikeshare participant (about 4 bikes per day) who has used a helmet all of her life until recently).
83
The ones who choose not to wear protective helmets should be required to wear ones made of tinfoil. They won't protect them in case of injury, but they will block those annoying Orgones.
84
#77 Do people bike up and down the hills in SF? In my recollection, downtown and many other neighborhoods like the Mission, Sunset, Richmond, etc., are flat or nearly flat, and that's where people biked - not Nob Hill. Portland may have some hills, but again, not where most people would ever bike. In Seattle, nearly everywhere is hilly, including downtown.
85
@anti-helmet idiots: Sign a waiver that says when that car (which came out of nowhere!) rams into you at 30 mph, we as a people don't have to foot your fucking multi-million dollar hospital bills so you can sit and drool on yourselves for the next twenty years. People as dumb as you barely deserve to live anyway.
Yes, cars give you a wider berth when you don't where a helmet. The driver's thinking is, 'christ, look at this asshole. If he even veers a foot off the bike lane, I'm liable for fucking vehicular homicide. Fuck, bike riders are total assholes.'
Oh, and the car that didn't see you, or the car that didn't look both ways twice before turning? He can't be 'more courteous' out of fear of braining your dumbass - he's going to hit you, your brain is going to crack on the sidewalk like a fucking egg, and we're gonna have to foot the bill. Thanks for nothing, shit for brains.
Be prepared for the unexpected. Wear a fucking helmet.
Yes, cars give you a wider berth when you don't where a helmet. The driver's thinking is, 'christ, look at this asshole. If he even veers a foot off the bike lane, I'm liable for fucking vehicular homicide. Fuck, bike riders are total assholes.'
Oh, and the car that didn't see you, or the car that didn't look both ways twice before turning? He can't be 'more courteous' out of fear of braining your dumbass - he's going to hit you, your brain is going to crack on the sidewalk like a fucking egg, and we're gonna have to foot the bill. Thanks for nothing, shit for brains.
Be prepared for the unexpected. Wear a fucking helmet.
86
The main reason a bike sharing program will fail? Fat, lazy out of shape Americans. (I'm in shape, but I can't ride a bike to work. I'd be a sweaty mess in the 90-100+ degree Baltimore summer heat.) Not to mention the bikes would end up stolen, and/or damaged. People don't care about things they don't own, and borrowed for free. I think a better program would be to strike a deal with a bicycle manufacturer for a mass buying program for low cost, no frills, low maintenance bike, then selling the them to the public at a break even price. You let your bike become lost, broken, stolen, etc., you have to pay a higher price to get another one.
As for the helmet thing. Don't wear a helmet, I don't care. I personally had a close call will the broken pedal, and a guard rail. Luckily, I missed it by an inch or so. I'll never ride without head protection. No, it's probably not going to help much if I'm ever struck by a vehicle, but that's not what it's meant to do. (Damage to your internal organs will probably kill you anyway.) When falling on a bicycle, the bike structure creates a sort of lever action, catapulting your head onto the pavement. That's when a helmet will save you.
As for the helmet thing. Don't wear a helmet, I don't care. I personally had a close call will the broken pedal, and a guard rail. Luckily, I missed it by an inch or so. I'll never ride without head protection. No, it's probably not going to help much if I'm ever struck by a vehicle, but that's not what it's meant to do. (Damage to your internal organs will probably kill you anyway.) When falling on a bicycle, the bike structure creates a sort of lever action, catapulting your head onto the pavement. That's when a helmet will save you.
87
I agree with taco time. The nanny state is a fascist state. Use of a helmet is, or was, like wearing a seat belt. Should you always be required to wear a helmet? No, and as for costing the rest of us. That's complete crap. They stuff you in wheel chair and give you a push to the sidewalk.
I've seen this myself while working as a contractor at the Social Security Office in the International District. Safety Net? Get real.
I've seen this myself while working as a contractor at the Social Security Office in the International District. Safety Net? Get real.
88
If I'm driving and you're on your bike an I hit you and you become a veggie because you opted not to wear a helmet, will I (or really my insurance company) be less culpable?
Wear a helmet or don't, I dont really give a shit, but at least give me recourse if you opt to not protect your brain.
Wear a helmet or don't, I dont really give a shit, but at least give me recourse if you opt to not protect your brain.
90
@88 Yes, it would be a horrible inconvenience if you (or your insurance company) were blamed when you hit someone with your car.
Dumb people and their soft skulls.
Dumb people and their soft skulls.
91
I live in the midwest and I can tell you the number one reason you can't ride bikes to the places you want to go in two words: urban sprawl. Who rides a bike eight or ten miles one way to see a movie or buy groceries?
92
Actually, according to numerous studies, the main factor is not having safe, useable and low trafficked bike routes. That means completely separated bike trails like the Interurban or using low car traffic corridors. One study in Portland found that of the total population of those who want to ride, 60 percent would not because of fear of too much car traffic!
Sadly, it is the current crop of "Cyclists" who prefer the Vehicular rather than Utilitarian model of cycling that make it worse for the majority. By insisting on dangerous bike lanes, right next to rows of parked cars and running along side heavy 30 mph traffic and higher, they make bicycling less a universal activity and more a daredevil stunt, inviting death and disaster.
Twelve Reasons Why Vehicular Cycling Isn't Enough
http://psystenance.com/2010/07/25/twelve…
Sadly, it is the current crop of "Cyclists" who prefer the Vehicular rather than Utilitarian model of cycling that make it worse for the majority. By insisting on dangerous bike lanes, right next to rows of parked cars and running along side heavy 30 mph traffic and higher, they make bicycling less a universal activity and more a daredevil stunt, inviting death and disaster.
Twelve Reasons Why Vehicular Cycling Isn't Enough
http://psystenance.com/2010/07/25/twelve…
93
There is NO WAY a bike-sharing program could EVER work. Bikes are cheap, and everyone who wants to ride one already does. Helmets are the least of their problems! All the bikes will get stolen in a day! Blah, blah, blah.
http://cabidashboard.ddot.dc.gov/CaBiDas…
But I'm sure there's something extra super-special about Seattle that means that this would NEVER work there...
http://cabidashboard.ddot.dc.gov/CaBiDas…
But I'm sure there's something extra super-special about Seattle that means that this would NEVER work there...
94
91 comments full of crap and then the clouds part and the real reason is exposed.
@92 thank you.
NB: I tried cycling to my job downtown from the U District. It's a death wish. The drivers in this town are mouth-breathing, slack-jawed morons with 3,500 lb. hammers. All swinging wildly with a sense of automotive handling superiority borne of nothing.
@92 thank you.
NB: I tried cycling to my job downtown from the U District. It's a death wish. The drivers in this town are mouth-breathing, slack-jawed morons with 3,500 lb. hammers. All swinging wildly with a sense of automotive handling superiority borne of nothing.
95
Yeah, Rob, none of those concerns apply to your next-door neighbor to the south (where it is often hotter and sweatier). Yet, our bikeshare program is flourishing. I don't use it to go to work (where I would have access to shower facilities for a low $35 a month fee), but I do use it to go to Dr.'s appointments 1-2 times a week where walking would take a lot longer. I would be just as sweaty if I walked, and if I take it at a leisurely pace, I'm actually less flustered when I get there. For $75/year, it beats the hell out of taking 3 buses and an extra 30 minutes of my time...and when I want to ride to the farmers market on Saturday (via the MBT - google that)...free bonus!
96
@79 Hate to call posts out specifically, but your assumptions on the bike sharing program in Copenhagen venture deep into the territory of misleading speculation. The most common type of bike lock in Denmark is on top of the back wheel, so I guess it could seem as though the countless bikes are left unlocked if you only look at a streetmaps view of the city. What exists is not some utopic free-for-all of bicycles, just a saturation level that makes theft less common and less dramatic. Bikes are far from $10, and it sucks having your bike snatched from among the sea of nearly identical bikes around it.
As for the bike sharing program there, it is almost exclusively used by tourists and visitors, as the bikes are laughably clumsy due to their weight and design, mostly to increase the strength of bikes that are abused by non-owners, subject to constant use, but also to deter theft. Most Copenhageners either have access to a bike, or no inclination to use one.
Bike sharing programs are in their infancy (in terms of practical application), and there are surely many improvements and mistakes to come, but if there is something to be gleaned from the existence of a situation like that in Copenhagen, it quite clearly comes by looking at the infrastructure.
There are constantly improvements being made to the major cycle thoroughfares, from timed lights for bike traffic (not to mention dedicated lights) to expanded bike lanes for key stretches (google nørrebrogade and bicycling). It is downright convenient to bike in a city where it is safe due to fully separated lanes and blanket coverage that doesn't force you to cobble together schizophrenic route of acting like a bike and car. Yes, hills are no problem there and surely a psychological factor preventing cycling, but I can assure you that no matter how much you sweat and no matter how much we like to complain about our wet winters (and falls, and springs) Copenhagen has us beat in temperature, and is comparable in rainfall.
Attitudes are certainly capable of changing about hills and biking in foul weather (showers and a small alternative transport incentive at my workplace did that in one fell swoop), but without infrastructure improvements that offer cyclists safety and convenience that unquestioningly is implemented for car traffic, I believe we'll be stuck with a marginal "hardcore" group that takes the risks of cycling in a city.
Well fuck, it's a novel. For those who make it this far, my gratitude and apologies.
More...
As for the bike sharing program there, it is almost exclusively used by tourists and visitors, as the bikes are laughably clumsy due to their weight and design, mostly to increase the strength of bikes that are abused by non-owners, subject to constant use, but also to deter theft. Most Copenhageners either have access to a bike, or no inclination to use one.
Bike sharing programs are in their infancy (in terms of practical application), and there are surely many improvements and mistakes to come, but if there is something to be gleaned from the existence of a situation like that in Copenhagen, it quite clearly comes by looking at the infrastructure.
There are constantly improvements being made to the major cycle thoroughfares, from timed lights for bike traffic (not to mention dedicated lights) to expanded bike lanes for key stretches (google nørrebrogade and bicycling). It is downright convenient to bike in a city where it is safe due to fully separated lanes and blanket coverage that doesn't force you to cobble together schizophrenic route of acting like a bike and car. Yes, hills are no problem there and surely a psychological factor preventing cycling, but I can assure you that no matter how much you sweat and no matter how much we like to complain about our wet winters (and falls, and springs) Copenhagen has us beat in temperature, and is comparable in rainfall.
Attitudes are certainly capable of changing about hills and biking in foul weather (showers and a small alternative transport incentive at my workplace did that in one fell swoop), but without infrastructure improvements that offer cyclists safety and convenience that unquestioningly is implemented for car traffic, I believe we'll be stuck with a marginal "hardcore" group that takes the risks of cycling in a city.
Well fuck, it's a novel. For those who make it this far, my gratitude and apologies.
97
Two weeks ago, I had the not so wonderful chance of going by the scene of a fatal bike-auto accident in Renton. The pool of wine colored blood on the pavement turned my stomach. The sad part was the helmet. White. Tied to the handlebars (and not on the guys head).
Head injuries are forever and often fatal. Not wearing a helmet does a disservice to Seattle's bicycle community and only a serious douche-bag hipster would advocate otherwise.
Head injuries are forever and often fatal. Not wearing a helmet does a disservice to Seattle's bicycle community and only a serious douche-bag hipster would advocate otherwise.
98
I have to agree with everyone who says that the lack of bike lanes is what makes me hesitant to bike (although I do it anyway). I can't ride at 30mph. So when I'm in the road with a bunch of cars that want to go 30mph, I'm in danger. I try to stay far enough to the right that they can easily get around me, but if there are cars parked on the side of the road, that's not possible. And whenever I have to stop (red light, stop sign), I can't get started again as quickly as a car, which tends to irritate people. It's just a lose-lose situation.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) Says Members of His Party Have Rocks for Brains by Charles Mudede
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
Barack Obama Smoked a Lot of Pot as a Young Man by Paul Constant
-
The Limits of Keynesianism by Charles Mudede
-
Rural America by Charles Mudede
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (98) RSS