The Steady Rise of Bike Ridership in New York
citylab.com
citylab.com
It's also worth noting that the counting is done only at the river crossings, one park, and one crosstown street in Midtown. A lot of bike trips within Manhattan are missed by the count, as are any trips taken within an outer borough. I don't know that that affects the growth rate numbers but it certainly underestimates the total percentage of trips in the city that are made via bicycle.
Recent bike projects have mostly been backlogs from the Bloomberg era— today, the DOT hasn't been particularly bold in proposing new protected bike lanes. The proposed Spring Street lane is pretty meager: http://www.streetsblog.org/2015/04/07/let-down-by-bike-lane-...
As infrastructure improves, more people will consider bicycles as a reasonable transportation alternative, and hopefully increased numbers of cyclists may help driver attitudes change as well.
Anything within a 10km radius is absolutely no problem. During the day I'm faster than a car, and at night it's just fun. Rain is a still problem, even though I noticed I don't actually mind getting wet that much. Once inside, you dry within half an hour.
I commute north-south, alongside S1 train. I noticed it recently got a lot harder though. It seems like there's construction work everywhere (even on the riverbanks and channels). I need to to add extra kilometres just to cut through Mitte.
Also my route is very "hilly", both ways (northern Mitte to Schöneberg). I guess going east-west may be a lot easier.
I have to agree though, cycling is usually faster than U-Bahns and buses. Trams are not even worth discussing. I still found S-Bahns to be the fastest.
The problem that New York faces is that it is embedded in USA society, so it has to face some issues that are not about bikes, but effect bikes. An example would be the reasons people use bike helmets. No one uses bike helmets in Berlin, because Berlin is safe for bicycles, and that is partly due to the respect that cars and trucks show to bikers. In the USA, car culture is stronger, and car drivers are much more aggressive. I've gotten into the equivalent of tug-of-war situations with taxis, trying to exercise my right to turn, when they want to turn in the opposite direction: the taxi drivers are willing to use the vast bulk of their car in a threatening manner. You never see that in Berlin. In New York City, one is justified wearing a helment, and one would be justified wearing elbow and knee pads (but I never had). It's an aggressive environment.
Also, in New York, the roads are often chaotic. In Berlin, I only saw chaos around construction sites, otherwise the roads were safe and orderly.
Also, I could rent a bicycle in Berlin, very cheaply, and then keep it for days. There is nothing exactly so convenient in New York.
All the same, I am pleased that the situation is getting better in New York.
Using helmet would be very wise also in Berlin (and many do use it, if you look around).
That's not why people don't wear helmets there, and that's not a reason to not wear one.
I would have been in a world of hurt if I didn't have a helmet on when I fell. No cars, people, or other moving object were anywhere near me. My tire hit a slippery patch as I was turning, and I went over sideways. I broke my shoulder and my hand, and my head hit the ground so hard that my glasses flattened out on the pavement. I considered myself lucky that I didn't have a head injury, aside from my bell being rung - hard.
Wear a helmet. They not only save you from dangerous environmental situations, but they save you from yourself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/do-bik...
http://www.californiahealthline.org/insight/2015/bicycle-hel...
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19036/feds-will-sto...
From the first article.
"Even most opponents of mandatory helmet laws advocate helmet use, but they say that the negative consequences of helmet laws outweigh the benefits."
From the third.
"If you consider the entire body of research rather than just one study, and look at both head and neck injuries, helmets only reduce the risk of injury by about 15% to 45% ."
And driving - there's airbags and the steel cage and belts and padding. Another storey altogether.
As for motorists: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/australian-helmet-scien...
Given the CPSC test procedure for bicycle helmets, I seriously doubt it:
http://www.helmets.org/cpscstd.htm
>> 1203.15 Positional stability test
Test that the helmet doesn't roll off when a 8.8 lb weight in a guided free fall from a distance of 2 feet strikes the helmet.
>> 1203.16 Dynamic strength of retention system test
Uses the same weight and guided free fall distance.
>> 1203.17 Impact attenuation test
>> (b)(3) A guided free fall of the helmet on a weighted headform from a minimum height of 6.56 ft onto a flat anvil and a guided free fall of the helmet on a weighted headform from a minumum height of 3.94 ft onto a hemispherical and curbstone anvils
Regarding the last test procedure, that would be like testing the helmet on an adult male of average height, where, while standing, suddenly suffered a stroke and fell over. It certainly wouldn't protect you in a crash at speed or with a motor vehicle.
If you want real head protection while riding a bicycle, then you need to wear a motorcycle helmet (preferably one that meets the Snell standard).
With all due respect, do you ride a bike extensively? Because these exact sort of accidents happen all the time. I've fallen sideways from a stationary position several times over the last 5 years as an avid cyclist when I've had lapses in judgment or focus when declipping from my pedals.
Further, I was struck by a car from behind 2 years ago and lost consciousness, propelled forward several meters, broke several ribs, suffered large abrasions on my back. My helmet suffered dents and scratches, but my head and face were 100% fine. If not for the helmet, I would have 100% suffered from cuts and abrasions to my face (given that my back has permanent scars, this could have easily happened to my face), even without taking into consideration impact protection.
The fact that bicycle helmets don't protect you from every type of accident situation is a ridiculous reason to not wear one.
In the last 10 years, I've ridden about 10,000 miles give or take.
> Because these exact sort of accidents happen all the time. I've fallen sideways from a stationary position several times over the last 5 years as an avid cyclist when I've had lapses in judgment or focus when declipping from my pedals.
I've never used pedal clips. I do ride in traffic, but I doubt I average more than 15 miles per hour.
> Further, I was struck by a car from behind 2 years ago and lost consciousness, propelled forward several meters, broke several ribs, suffered large abrasions on my back. My helmet suffered dents and scratches, but my head and face were 100% fine. If not for the helmet, I would have 100% suffered from cuts and abrasions to my face
That last sentence doesn't really make sense. Bicycle helmets do not cover one's face. Also, getting hit from behind by a vehicle is the least common type of crash from what I've read.
> The fact that bicycle helmets don't protect you from every type of accident situation is a ridiculous reason to not wear one.
If they were designed in a way that would protect me in most crashes, then I certainly would wear one while riding, but given the standard I referenced, I seriously doubt it.
If FMVSS 209 stated that seat belts in cars were only tested in frontal collisions at speeds of 20 mph or less, then I wouldn't bother wearing them because I know that they wouldn't protect me while I'm driving at highway speeds. Fortunately, that's not the case and I always wear my seat belt while riding in or driving a car.
In the end, the way one rides is far more effective in mitigating the risk of getting involved in a crash (like following the rules of the road, having appropriate equipment, etc.)
>That last sentence doesn't really make sense. Bicycle helmets do not cover one's face.
When you're propelled off your bike, some part of your head is likely to make contact with the ground (particularly if you're unconscious), along with your torso. The line formed by the outermost part of the helmet and whatever part of your torso that hits the ground is often outside of your face/head and thus helps avoid cuts/abrasions when grating against the ground.
I personally support others' right to not wear a helmet. In fact, I didn't wear one either when I lived and worked in Japan and bike commuted to the train station. I also believe the evidence and studies that show the relative ineffectiveness of current helmet designs. However, I also believe that the decision of others in wearing the helmets available for a marginal improvement in safety should be respected as well [1].
[1] The counterargument to this is if by not purchasing the current helmets and protesting for better designs, we can help spur companies to develop more robust products.
If you are conscious of all other aspects of security, protecting your most important and magical organ (the brain) should be sound advice.
In fact, I personally might accept an overall sightly increased injury risk for better head protection -- I can go without practicing this or that sport, but I really wouldn't wish to become unable to enjoy intellectual activities as much due to a brain injury.
I always commute with flat pedals because it's easier and more convenient, but the safety issue has got to be huge.
In the end you go with whatever you're comfortable with. There's really no objective better or worse, just tradeoffs that each of us make (safer but slower, etc)
(There's no compromising when it comes to front and rear lights though, imo)
I never wear a helmet, but I ALWAYS have reflectors, front and rear lights, a hat to keep the sun out of my eyes, rear fenders, and mirrors to check for traffic behind me.
Visibility and awareness are infinitely more important than helmets.
In other words, you're one of those who races in traffic. I rest my case.
Personally, I've been on a bicycle almost every day since I was a kid. In busy traffic. Without a helmet.
You wear a helmet because you ride dangerously and/or in dangerous situations. The helmet isn't about cycling. It's about you, and your behaviour.
I have never raced in traffic and abhor reckless riding behavior, running redlights/stoplights, and the like. I only ride straps or flats in the city.
I use clip-ins in the hills and long straightaway rural routes with ample shoulder area (ex: Canada road by Crystal Springs).
I'm not assuming shit, you're telling me.
Apparently you're the one assuming that everyone riding a bicycle does it the way you do, and therefor should be wearing a helmet. We don't.
But according to you millions of us are "ridiculous" (your words) for not wearing one. Yeah, but I'm the one who's quick to judge. Sure.
But your aggressive tone is earning you downvotes.
Maybe you should try being a lot more careful. I've been riding 10,000km per annum for a decade, two of those years in Mexico City with the worst traffic in the hemisphere. I routinely do 40km up and down rides in the mountains at high speeds and medium length rides in city traffic. I've had one crash and that happened on wet cobblestones with a new bike whose brakes I didn't know well; I endoed over the handlebars and scraped my hands up a little and then rode home 10 more km.
It's absolutely as reasonable to exhort motorists and pedestrians to wear helmets as it is to exhort cyclists to do so.
It protects people from the normal consequences of insulting outer people's intelligence. Sometimes it's useful to know when your behaviour pisses other people off.
Just to reiterate this: if you suggest a piece of styrofoam is a useful protection in a discussion where the overwhelming risk factor is being crashed into by a 4 ton metal hunk, you're trivializing the issue and distracting away from meaningful actions.
My wife found out about the accident when I called her and left an identical voicemail 3 times in a row not realizing I had just done it.
Wear a helmet. I used to sell them at a ski shop and wear them religiously on the ski slope, but didn't bother to put one on for the 2 minute bike ride from my dorm to class. Huge mistake.
Wearing a helmet when biking is like wearing a bullet proof vest when walking. It may be necessary in some environments, but it's those environments that are the problem.
If you don't know how to ride a bike (which includes how to fall), don't project it on other people.
Please stop spreading the fud about cycling itself being dangerous. It's no more dangerous than walking.
The Netherlands says hi: https://bicycledutch.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/typically_d...
If your sneaker fails, you don't get thrown 20 feet onto concrete.
Which would mean you were racing, not just cycling. And on a bike line "in the middle of a college campus" no less.
So basically you were just being irresponsible, not just for yourself but also towards others. Oh, of course, there was "no one around", which makes it alright.
No wonder cycling has a bad name in the US.
Walking is about 6 kph, so that seems like a reasonable floor.
(I'm not trying to be antagonistic, if you are going to argue that cycling above some speed is unsafe, I think it is constructive to be specific)
My experience is from a bike path, no one in sight. A ball bounces onto the the path from a bush. That would have been the time to hit brakes immediately, but I just didn't think right. Next comes the 4-year-old kid who runs from behind a bush. Now I hit the brakes, go over the bar, head first.
No damage to the head, despite a bump. Broke a radix bone, though. I definitely recommend using a helmet, however casually you ride.
I rest my case.
In the Netherlands there is some discussion to implement a 25 km/h speed limit on cycling paths because of douchebags with electric bikes going 30 km/h and up causing accidents.
Apparently we have different values of "normal". Which would be fine if it wasn't for one side keeping up this narrative of "cycling is dangerous and you should always wear a helmet" when millions are perfectly fine without by cycling in a way that is no more dangerous than walking.
There is nothing extreme about doing 30 km/h on a free bike path. Fatal accidents may however happen at lower speeds, or even when completely stationary, and a bike helmet reduces the risk by a wide margin - even if the risk is not that huge to begin with.
I hopped down a short bump, maybe 2" where the pavement turned into cobblestone. I don't remember what happened, but based on the blood stain that was baked into the concrete a few days later, I ended up about 20 feet away. I know I went over the handle bars. I imagine you get one or two bike lengths in the air, and then when I hit the ground I skidded a bunch.
Anyway, compared to the way most people bike it was a slow speed crash. The X factor was the mechanical failure so it was so surprising I didn't have any time to expect it. Arguably the key contributing factor was riding an old shitty bike.
So you probably should aim your ire at poor people biking instead of the US. It has nothing to do with the US or how I was riding my bike, just with the fact that I didn't have enough money for a nice one at the time. But by all means, ignore the relatively uncontroversial point that wearing a helmet is a good idea and continue blaming the victim.
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin
One only needs to bike a couple minutes in New York to start encountering hazards, even in lanes specifically designated for bike use. I ride in NYC daily and usually encounter at least one of the following in bike lanes on every other block: car or delivery truck double-parked, construction, police activity, someone walking or running in bike lane, car doors opening. There's often no other option for some of these things (I particularly empathize with delivery drivers), but it all creates a very hazardous atmosphere, especially for those not accustomed to riding in the city.
1 Ride assertively not aggressively 2 Don't ride in the gutter 3 Most IMPORTANT don't undertake slow or stopped traffic - that's what causes most fatal accidents (90% in london)
A lot of tourists are buying their bikes on flea markets instead and just leave them unlocked on the street before leaving. The bikes are probably then "recycled".
When I visited Copenhagen, cars, bicycles, pedestrians seemed significantly more on the same page than in any U.S. city (NYC and Denver are examples I have direct experience with). While serious altercations are rare, most people still don't understand that bikes are considered vehicles with the same operator rights and responsibilities as with cars.
Hardly a week goes by, biking in Denver, without a car honking for no reason other than to say "get out of my way" and anytime I have a conversation with the driver they assert with absolute confidence bikes should be on sidewalks, that it's illegal for bikes to be in the street. Ignorance of the law is much more common in the U.S. So that's a huge barrier to "catching up" with any European city.
Bicycle helmets are not even rated for traffic accidents. It says so in their accompanying literature! They are for falls.
A couple of years ago, I went into a skid while making a turn on wet pavement and fell. I developed a huge black bruise on my right hip, and for the next six months had a pain in the right side of my rib cage. It was quite a fall. Now here is the thing: the back of head also hit the pavement quite hard, but I was wearing a helmet, so my head was okay.
There is no way I could have prevented my head from coming down. It happened so fast, that there was no time for "oh shit, I'm falling and I don't have a helmet, so I have to adjust my falling style to protect my head."
(Yes, I replaced the helmet. Not only are you supposed to after impact, but the date on it was March 1995.)
You may be able to get away without a helmet in a "safe" town, if you only ride in good weather, in broad daylight, on flat roads, go slowly, and avoid all obstacles, so that the chances of falling are vanishingly small.
Helmets are not just for "unusual" conditions. Wear helmet all the time when you ride, make a habit of it, and you'll not need to even think about it. Just like the seat belt in a car.
In the annual bike commuting challenge put on by Transportation Alternatives, our building is overflowing with bikes -- all of those companies achieved double-digit participation rates. Granted, these are tech and lifestyle companies that draw a young and idealistic workforce, but it's pretty cool to see.
I'm glad that more people are picking up the habit, but I do know that as more people start biking regularly for the first time, there will be a period in which those new riders aren't acclimated to the proper etiquette and law. As a result, I have noticed more and more police at stops pulling over bikers that run red lights. I'm afraid good-will from non-cyclists is declining due to overly aggressive or careless bikers. Hopefully as responsible cyclists, we can help set a positive example and help those new to the road ride responsibly.
Yes, red lights apply to you too, bicyclists.
In Denver, cars running red lights is a big problem, I see it multiple times per day, and it's terrible. Since becoming a bicyclist, I've completely reversed my position on photo red light (tickets). I still don't approve of photo radar, it's mainly a way for cities to make money. But running red lights needs to be stopped, no pun intended.
... it was 80 degrees in February.
... I live in Minneapolis and this flaggergasted me. It's a year-round bike city completely wasting that opportunity.
Minneapolis has always ranked as one of the top bike friendly cities in the country. The ironic part is most lists also include Madison, WI and Chicago IL, both midwestern cities who have year round commuters.
But I agree, I have no idea why so many southern states have so many anti-biking cities.
And conservative states are more hostile to funding transit because it requires government subsidies (vs. "investment" in parking and roads). There are plenty of small- to medium- conservative cities that don't even have any kind of bus service.
Yesterday, I attached a camera to my bicycle and had 0 incidents where I felt a driver was putting my life at risk.
The camera is very visible.
I like your comment and I'm keenly interested in seeing a picture of your camera setup (what do the driver's see). Please post it somewhere.
However, keep in mind that you don't have enough data from a practice you just put into effect yesterday. This is probably confirmation bias kicking in.
Drivers won't see whether you have a camera. Be happy if they see you.
Coming off the bloor/danforth bridge at about 5:15, clusters of cyclists often take over one of the two east bound lanes, and it makes for a wonderful ride. I wish there were some way to synchronize my ride west in the morning with the critical number of cyclists to achieve the same result.
I drive along the same route some days, and these clusters don't appear to have any negative impact on car flow. Stopped cars ignoring the no stopping signs on the other hand cause a great deal of congestion.
(This goes even if you switch from public transit)
So, kudos - and I hope they improve it dramatically, but it has a long way to go, and I'm skeptical of de Blasio's goal of getting it up to 6% in the near future.
Denver has this crazy idea also that catering to bikes is easy and cheap, the mentality is that it's mainly just a matter of paint and "share the road" signage. Meanwhile there's no driver or cyclist education program on exactly how to share the road, so it's still adversarial "hey asshole YOU aren't sharing the road!"
Transit and auto traffic are more at odds.
San Francisco: My company has a bike parking room on our floor, and some train stations have five-cent-an-hour bike lockers. (All stations have bike racks, but that's gambling with your bike.)
However, there remains a fundamental problem. As packed in as NYC is, it is still a huge city designed for automobiles. Many people lives 10, 20 miles away from their jobs.
It is obvious from the picture in the article that many cyclists gear themselves up for a long arduous ride. Unless one is into biking or exercise most people is just not up to that kind of ride. I do not think a 20 mile ride is what the average cyclist in Amesterdam or Berlin imagine their commute to be.
I think a majority of workers in New York commute using public transit. It might be a minority of people living 10 or 20 miles out, but if so, it's still pretty close.
Luckily there are major bike paths connecting parts of the city but these themselves are too disconnected (e.g. in Bellevue). The safe route from Seattle into Redmond (and Microsoft) is 29 miles north along the lake; fortuitously, the new bridge across Lake Washington will include a bike lane and cut this in half.