Hacker News Reader

That's brutal. That said, you're not necessarily contradicting the OP. They were talking about cities demanding helmets via helmet laws.

Whereas you (I think) are recommending individuals use helmets, and also bicycle infrastructure.

OP isn't saying it's bad for an individual to wear a helmet. They're saying it's a bad requirement, because making helmets required will take marginal cyclists off the road. And fewer cyclists leads to more accidents like the ones you had, because drivers aren't used to cyclists.

I agree, I think they're complementary arguments. In London you need a helmet - the cycling environment demands it. In other places it sounds like that's different, and I envy people who live in those places!

Sorry to hear about your accident. May I ask how fast were you going when this happened?

I don't wear a helmet when commuting but I also rarely exceed 20km/h to avoid the exact kind of collision you just described. I have to say a helmet will help when going over the bars, but you could've just as easily been critically injured in other ways, such as breaking your neck, rupturing an artery etc.

One thing you notice about cyclists and cars in Amsterdam is that everyone goes quite slowly and with a fairly high level of awareness.

You want to wear a helmet. The risk-reward ratio is highly in favor of wearing one. What is the burden of wearing one vs. having some protection in case you fly?

Do you wear helmet while driving a car? What’s the burden of wearing one vs. having some protection in case you have an accident? Car drivers are much more likely to die of head injuries than cyclists. Do you also wear a helmet while walking, especially in winter? What’s the burden of wearing one vs. having some protection in case you slip and fall?

Why don’t we do that? Because while the burden is low - it’s mostly dragging the helmet around wherever you go and ruining your hardcut - the actual probability it might help is quite low. And with good infrastructure, the same is true for cycling. If you look at this years stats for causes of death for cyclists in Berlin for example, the leading cause is “crushed by a truck”.

Note: if you do cycling for sports at high speeds or rough terrain: wear a helmet.

Wearing a helmet in a steel cage seems kind of redundant. Wearing a helmet walking at 5 km/h pace, likewise. I am wearing a helmet commuting daily, travel speed around 30 km/h. If you don't want to destroy your haircut, fair it's your choice.

Edit: To be clear, I was riding years without a helmet until a crash made me reconsider my priorities. Also, I am not in favor of mandating helmet usage on bikes.

> Wearing a helmet in a steel cage seems kind of redundant.

All kinds of race car drivers were helmets - and their steel cages are much much more sturdy than the ones that commuters have. Statistics als indicate that many car drivers suffer head injuries. So by all available evidence, wearing a helmet in a car is not redundant. Still, people don’t do it - unless they engage in particularly dangerous activities.

The parent poster that you refer to explicitly gave his speed as about 20km/h for commuting, which is neither particularly fast nor particularly dangerous on good infrastructure. So why wear a helmet?

So now you are comparing race car drivers to the typical commuter driver, apples to apples. You can cite all the evidence you want. When shit hits the fan and you don't have protection, you can only wish for not regretting your decisions.

For me this discussion is done. I have this particular perception, you have yours. We are both happy with it. Stay safe.

Had commuter cycling without helmet was really so dangerous as you claim, there would be way more head injuries of commuter cyclists. As is, they are quite rare.

I understand fear of someone who actually was in one, but please stop forcing your fear on everybody else. Just because you are afraid does not mean not being afraid is irresponsible or any more irresponsible then not having helmet in car crash.

Do whatever the fuck you want. But please be careful with what accusations you are throwing at people.

I was in top gear, but at a steady cadence and not in head-down thrashing-it mode. The issue for me in London is that the road layout doesn't really invite people to look out for cyclists. The road I was on didn't have a separate cycle lane - in London you can cycle in bus lanes, which is where I was, but cars are looking out for buses rather than cyclists. The cycle lanes that do exist in London are also so narrow that when it's busy it can feel pretty dangerous to try and overtake someone slower. I'm sure the few idiot risk-takers who thrash down the middle of those lanes put quite a few people off.

I used to bike from Brooklyn to my job in Manhattan. The worst part of the trip was in Brooklyn where there are quite a lot of bike lanes and the Manhattan bridge, which has a dedicated bike lane over the bridge.

For one thing, double parking is a thing all over the city. So you are constantly having to swing out back into traffic from the bike lane because cars are in the lane. For the other thing, bike lanes--where they do exist--are painted right next to the street parking, so you are constantly having to watch out for people getting out of their cars and opening a door right into you. Also causing you to have to swerve into traffic when that happens.

The bike lane over the bridge is insane. Particularly on the downward side of the bridge where cyclists just let momentum take them and fly as fast as they can.

The only time I've ever felt safe on a bike is in Manhattan where the traffic is so bad, no one can ever move fast enough to hurt anyone. In the 6 months or so I did that, I ended up in 8 very close calls then ended up with me laid out on the street in traffic trying to dodge something or someone or almost hit by someone else on a bicycle, I gave it up and went back to taking the subway, where I could read and be productive on the way to work instead of constantly worrying about getting smacked.

What kind of brakes do you have? I've got the feeling that aggressive brakes on your front wheel make it more likely for you to go over the handlebars.

I've also been cut off once by a car who didn't see me while I was going very fast, but while I braked, I also made a flat turn into the street the car was turning into, and that saved my from a collision.

That is a bit of a misconception. Your front brake is much more effective at stopping the bike than the rear. People go over the handlebars because they are not gripping well enough. They are not used to the force. With a bit of practice you will never go over the handlebars with the front brake.

The rear brake is much more likely to cause a fall. When you apply the brake the bike tips forward and the rear wheel rises up. It easily looses grip and can lock up. That causes a skid and next thing you are on the ground. Or just smashed into whatever you are trying to avoid.

The front brake does not do this because the tipping forward pushes the front wheel into the ground. You get more grip and more braking potential. With a little practice you can stop the bike quickly and easily. You will never go back. But you have to grip the handlebars and tense your arms a bit to deal with the force.

Depending on how the bike's mass distribution looks like. If the rear isn't very heavy, braking hard on the front will flip over the bike and you. For me it's anon-issue most of the time, as I have panniers which increase the rear weight so that doesn't happen, but when I don't have them I sometimes forget to adjust braking force.

Might also not be an issue for e-bikes, as those are generally heavier and probably less likely to raise the rear wheel while braking.

Perhaps. But it won't make any difference if you are not gripping properly. You still have a deceleration which your body needs to deal with.

As a cyclist (I commute daily + ride recreationally offroad and race) I disagree. By keeping your weight back you can slam the front brake without flipping.

That surely a on the mass of the rider.

I'm less than 60kg, and can start to flip a bike if I try.

Using the rear brake will not cause your rear wheel to lift up, unless you are using the front brake at the same time.

Ideally, for an emergency brake you want to use 70% front brake, 30% rear brake, get off the saddle and move your bum as far back as possible.

Safe riding everyone.

It does though, regardless of which brake you use. I think this is because the forces are applied at the contact point on the road. It is like applying brakes to the left side of a car, it is going to turn left. The effect is less pronounced in a rear wheel because the braking is naturally limited by the tipping.

Shifting weight might help a bit, but you still need to grip.

It happened so quickly that I didn't really get time to think about it - the car pulled out right in front of me with very little space. In hindsight I'd say the choice was to go head-first into the car or over the handlebars. I'm not sure there's much to choose between those two.

If your braking is tipping the bike forward and lifting your rear wheel up, aren't you already in the process of going over your handlebars? In any case, I've never had this problem with my back-pedal brake, which brakes only the rear wheel.

Cantilever brakes. I have disk brakes now, but I actually feel safer with those because I feel I have more fine control somehow.