Bicycling In Your City

[Slartibartfas]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

I'm all for having SEPARETED infrastructure for each of these modes of transportation. I always wrote that on the infrastructure sub-forum.

We had this already once. You can't have all of it separated. You can't have a walkable city that is all separated because that would make the city a terrible place to walk as a direct consequence. And if a city is not walkable, public transport becomes a lot less feasible and attractive. Usually bike infrastructure is then scrapped as well, leaving car infrastructure only and with absolute priority. If not, you still end up in a city were only car and bike are well suited.

The problem is that most cyclist advocates see themselves as "do-gooders, better than 'thou" who think they are being heroes by using bikes, and wanting to slow/reduce efficiency of everybody else (from cars which should have to slow down and share road space to pedestrians who should be actively on the lookout for bikes on plazas including train passengers who should lose seats to allow bike space in trains).

Cyclists aren't heroes but they are using the most efficient mode of transportation with the smallest waste of space and space is very valuable in a city. Cars fare the absolute worst in this regard. They are also in big quantities creating an exhaust hell hole.

[flotsam]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

Good for them. In Third World, using motorized vehicles is part of social mobility of escaping poverty and antiquated lifestyles.

Pray tell me, what are the First and Second worlds? A Mexican friend referred to it as the Fourth World he was so fed up with prejudiced people

[Ancient Ninja]

Biking is pretty big in Seattle. I'm pretty sure that we're continually adding more bike paths so that they won't have to share the roads

[the glimpser]

World naked bike ride

Cyclists from several parts of the world stripped off their clothes to gain attention. The 'naked' ride aims to "promote a body-positive culture and encourage cycling as a greener mode of transportation."

http://ph.news.yahoo.com/photos/worl...210316979.html

[the glimpser]

My photos of Pulau Ubin, an island in Singapore popular for hiking and biking

Originally Posted by the glimpser

Singapore





















All photos taken by me at Pulau Ubin

http://asiasingapore.blogspot.sg/201...ulau-ubin.html


http://otterman.wordpress.com/2011/0...r-the-old-map/

[erka]

Just another day in a Dutch city.



The only city in Europe that actually comes a bit close is Copenhagen.

O, and helmets are only for tourists.

[Suburbanist]

Helmets are for safety.

I'm quite horrified by this culture of "helmets are useless" in the Netherlands. It is like what I read about how people in the 1960s and 1970s disregarded using vehicular seat belts (on cars) as something "for pussies" or "for dorks" or "for stupid people who don't have confidence in their ability to drive" - despite evidence seat belts saved and still save lives.

Helmets make cycling safer, it reduces head injuries on head impacts (reason by which many people working in the open or with moving objects/devices (miners, linesmen, anyone in a construction site) use helmets for protection, reason by which protecting the head is of paramount concern in sports like (american) football or sports racing etc).

Helmet laws should be passed in Netherlands to prevent injuries, considered everyone pays for the extra health costs of irresponsible cyclists.

[Marcanadian]

Toronto is debating about whether or not helmets should be mandatory. I think they should, but perhaps only on streets as opposed to trails and paths. In the city, 3/4 of cyclists who died hadn't been wearing helmets. Some of those deaths and other injuries could have been preventable.

[BringMe]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

Helmets are for safety.

I'm quite horrified by this culture of "helmets are useless" in the Netherlands. It is like what I read about how people in the 1960s and 1970s disregarded using vehicular seat belts (on cars) as something "for pussies" or "for dorks" or "for stupid people who don't have confidence in their ability to drive" - despite evidence seat belts saved and still save lives.

Maybe is because the Netherlands have the infrastructure and is more safe than any other country

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by BringMe

Maybe is because the Netherlands have the infrastructure and is more safe than any other country

I live here indeed.

The problem is that head impact is dangerous even when a bike accident involves no motor vehicle... Even in an hypothetical completely car-free environment of cycle paths, people would still fall from their bikes for a variety of reasons.

Trails are even more dangerous because they have natural hazards.

[erka]

It is extensively researched whether helmets could make cycling safer in the Netherlands. General opinion by scientists, government and users is that helmets are not increasing safety. This is also the official viewpoint of the Dutch Cycling Federation, probably one of the most experienced cycling federations in the world.

Reasons (source: Dutch Cycling Federation):
- A helmet doesn't help with accidents with cars because speeds of cars are too high. In a flat country like the Netherlands an one-sided accident without cars always occur at speeds of only 10-15 kmh. There are almost no one-sided accidents like that because of the excellent cycling infrastructure.
- If you use a helmet you take more risks. Using a helmet is fake-security.
- It is expected that bicycle usage will drop by 60% if a helmet is compulsory.
- Health effects: less cycling means less healthy people, that's considered a bigger loss than the gain of safety with a helmet.
- Dutch people have a very negative view about helmets. No problem if you have only a few recreational cyclists every day, but we have 12 million of 16 million people who cycle regularly for school/business/commuting.

So, unthinkable.

By the way: Dutch traffic is one of the safest of the world, according to accident registrations. And car drivers are used to cyclists and most cyclists are quite experienced.

[Jonesy55]

So I guess seatbelts and being sober make car drivers take more risks too?

Why would cycling drop by 60% if helmets were mandatory? Seems crazy, what is the problem and why are they so unpopular?

You can get a serious head injury just from a crash at 10kmh and smashing your head on the path, why not try to mitigate that?

[Brummyboy92]

When I went to Amsterdam we did not get given helmets when we rented out a bicycle, and I must say I was shocked with the cycle culture in 'The Netherlands'. It was fantastic, I really wish my city took on this same style of transport, although I guess the hills are a problem over here.

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by Brummyboy92

When I went to Amsterdam we did not get given helmets when we rented out a bicycle, and I must say I was shocked with the cycle culture in 'The Netherlands'. It was fantastic, I really wish my city took on this same style of transport, although I guess the hills are a problem over here.

Netherlands have a couple major cities (well, 2) where there are some minor hills and bike usage there is much lower than in the rest of the country. Despite the infrastructure being the same.

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by erka

It is extensively researched whether helmets could make cycling safer in the Netherlands. General opinion by scientists, government and users is that helmets are not increasing safety. This is also the official viewpoint of the Dutch Cycling Federation, probably one of the most experienced cycling federations in the world.

So, unthinkable.

By the way: Dutch traffic is one of the safest of the world, according to accident registrations. And car drivers are used to cyclists and most cyclists are quite experienced.

A lot of ballooning and not much rebuff to the central, basic point: helmets DO REDUCE the severity injuries on head impact. That is why helmets are a basic industrial safety equipment first place...

I classify these "social justifications" of "helmet laws are bad because people will cycle less if they are required to wear helmets because helmets are perceived as a 'something for losers and dorks'" completely unwarranted.

It is a bogus line of argumentation, a fallacy, and quite outrageous. Wearing a helmet doesn't pose either financial or physical undue burdens on cycling. This "we don't need helmets" is merely pandering to social prejudices.

I compare the whole reasoning that you referred (and that I was familiar with) with that of conservative activists who think condoms should not be sold easily to teenagers because they incentive teenagers to have more sex before marriage.

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

A lot of ballooning and not much rebuff to the central, basic point: helmets DO REDUCE the severity injuries on head impact. That is why helmets are a basic industrial safety equipment first place...

I classify these "social justifications" of "helmet laws are bad because people will cycle less if they are required to wear helmets because helmets are perceived as a 'something for losers and dorks'" completely unwarranted.

It is a bogus line of argumentation, a fallacy, and quite outrageous. Wearing a helmet doesn't pose either financial or physical undue burdens on cycling. This "we don't need helmets" is merely pandering to social prejudices.

I compare the whole reasoning that you referred (and that I was familiar with) with that of conservative activists who think condoms should not be sold easily to teenagers because they incentive teenagers to have more sex before marriage.

No, it's got nothing to do with social perceptions. Helmets are inconvenient and discourage cycling - this has been proven in meta-analysis looking at the effect of mandatory helmet laws in Australia (in particular in Melbourne where they have existed for longest). Where do you draw the line when it comes to risk reduction? Should pedestrians equally have to wear helmets as they will have less likelihood of head injury upon being hit by a car? The odds ratio for brain damage for a cyclist upon impact are actually quite small in an urban setting, though risks increase as traffic speed increases of course.

In reality, the most precipitous drop in fatalities with cyclists in Australia came because of the better education of drivers and lower speeds on the roads as well as better infrastructure - and there are plenty of academic papers on this subject as Australia is an often used and cited case study.

On a personal note, I frequently use the bike share system in Stockholm rather than taking public transport in good weather. If I were made to carry a helmet, using the bikes would become inconvenient and I wouldn't use them any more, thus contributing to overcrowding on public transport during peak.

[agus_southMVD]

Originally Posted by erka

Just another day in a Dutch city.



The only city in Europe that actually comes a bit close is Copenhagen.

O, and helmets are only for tourists.

That combination of bicycles and trams is definitely the most perfect transport network a city can have, I hope more cities will take the model of Dutch cities in the near future.

[castermaild55]

Originally Posted by castermaild55

Mama-chari race

biking in Tokyo

[castermaild55]

[ParadiseLost]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

Helmet laws should be passed in Netherlands to prevent injuries, considered everyone pays for the extra health costs of irresponsible cyclists.

No they shouldn't, this will lead to more people driving causing more accidents. Studies have also shown that cars tend to be more careless around cyclists using helmets, and cyclists with helmets themselves drive more careless as well.

If cyclists are required to wear helmets then car drivers should as well. Hey it's an extra safety feature right?

The current situation is good, there are not many accidents with cyclists due to good driving standards for car drivers and good separate infrastructure. I don't know why you would want to change that.

And helmets are far more inconvenient for cyclists and pedestrians than they are for drivers and scooters/motorbikes due to storage issues.

Suburbanist why don't you join us in the REAL world rather than the wonderful theoretic construct you have imagined in your mind?