I Learned to Cycle Like a Dutchman(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
I Learned to Cycle Like a Dutchman
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/how-i-learned-to-cycle-like-a-dutchman
74 comments
It's fascinating that Netherlands made a deliberate, pragmatic step to take their streets back from cars in the 60's and 70's. I had assumed that they had simply never lost their love of the bike. But no, the positive situation they have today was developed as the result of conscious political action against the scourge of cars and traffic.
There's plenty of us here in the US, especially in the large cities, that are actively trying to make this a reality here too. Join us! Here's the largest NYC group: http://transalt.org/
This year I fell off my bike twice.
One time my wheels skidded while trying to get on a sidewalk and I would have hit my head if I didn't wear a helmet.
Another time a girl jumped in front of me on the bike lane and I must've had 30 km/h. I pressed the breaks hard and unfortunately the breaks on my front wheel were stronger than those in the back, and my bike overturned with me falling violently on the ground. My left arm still hurts after one month and I had pain in my spleen area that kept me up at night. It's a good thing I also wear protective gloves as a fall like this can really injure your hands.
I'm not a Dutchman and I'd love to live in a bike friendly city like Amsterdam. But protective gear can really save you from serious injury even with no cars around.
One time my wheels skidded while trying to get on a sidewalk and I would have hit my head if I didn't wear a helmet.
Another time a girl jumped in front of me on the bike lane and I must've had 30 km/h. I pressed the breaks hard and unfortunately the breaks on my front wheel were stronger than those in the back, and my bike overturned with me falling violently on the ground. My left arm still hurts after one month and I had pain in my spleen area that kept me up at night. It's a good thing I also wear protective gloves as a fall like this can really injure your hands.
I'm not a Dutchman and I'd love to live in a bike friendly city like Amsterdam. But protective gear can really save you from serious injury even with no cars around.
In an unclear situation (i.e. any busy city), doing 30 km/h is way too fast. The sibling post talks about 25 mph = 40 km/h(!), that's racing speed, pretty dangerous if there is other traffic around.
There's a difference between the cycling the Dutch do at 18-20 km/h -- maybe 25 km/h on a dedicated cycle path with no chance of interaction with other traffic -- and race-cycling at 30+ km/h, which is in no way appropriate in a city with pedestrians and cars. I saw it in London too: very busy streets, and the cyclists are in full racing gear on racing bikes where they're hunched over instead of upright (bad for overview of traffic situations), doing 25-30 km/h, that's asking for trouble and it also gives cyclists a bad name.
It also explains why people complain about getting to work sweaty -- they're going way too fast! If you relax and do 18 km/h, it will take only a little bit longer but you won't be soaked when you arrive.
There's a difference between the cycling the Dutch do at 18-20 km/h -- maybe 25 km/h on a dedicated cycle path with no chance of interaction with other traffic -- and race-cycling at 30+ km/h, which is in no way appropriate in a city with pedestrians and cars. I saw it in London too: very busy streets, and the cyclists are in full racing gear on racing bikes where they're hunched over instead of upright (bad for overview of traffic situations), doing 25-30 km/h, that's asking for trouble and it also gives cyclists a bad name.
It also explains why people complain about getting to work sweaty -- they're going way too fast! If you relax and do 18 km/h, it will take only a little bit longer but you won't be soaked when you arrive.
As I said in another message, the Dutch are lucky to have cities that are mostly flat.
In my city we've got some hills in spite of the region being plain — and riding a bike on a slope you can easily reach 60 km/h without sweating. It's foolish to do so, but you get carried away.
I was driving way too fast on that event and I even told that girl afterwards that she may have stepped on the bike lane, but I was also going too fast.
However not to detract from my main point — when I first fell off my bike this year and hit my helmet-protected head, I wasn't doing more than 10 km/h. And so in both situations I was protected by my gear and the outcome would have been much worse without it.
In my city we've got some hills in spite of the region being plain — and riding a bike on a slope you can easily reach 60 km/h without sweating. It's foolish to do so, but you get carried away.
I was driving way too fast on that event and I even told that girl afterwards that she may have stepped on the bike lane, but I was also going too fast.
However not to detract from my main point — when I first fell off my bike this year and hit my helmet-protected head, I wasn't doing more than 10 km/h. And so in both situations I was protected by my gear and the outcome would have been much worse without it.
> In an unclear situation (i.e. any busy city), doing 30 km/h is way too fast.
Yet drivers of motor vehicles can go that speed without too many issues between intersections. If one rides a bike in the middle of the general purpose traffic lane, then going 25 mph is safe.
> It also explains why people complain about getting to work sweaty -- they're going way too fast!
Depending on the distance one must cover during the commute, going "fast" is necessary if you want to complete your trip in a reasonable period of time. If I wanted to go at walking speed, then I would just walk.
Yet drivers of motor vehicles can go that speed without too many issues between intersections. If one rides a bike in the middle of the general purpose traffic lane, then going 25 mph is safe.
> It also explains why people complain about getting to work sweaty -- they're going way too fast!
Depending on the distance one must cover during the commute, going "fast" is necessary if you want to complete your trip in a reasonable period of time. If I wanted to go at walking speed, then I would just walk.
Your definition of safe must be different than mine, because car drivers are protected by wrinkle zones, roll cages, airbags and seatbelts, whereas a cyclist is less visible, takes up less space and has ~nothing to protect their body.
Yet, motorcyclists ride in the traffic lane at similar speeds on urban streets. The definition of safety is to act in a predictable manner in terms of following the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Then you're far less likely to be involved in a collision in the first place.
Except for people trying to be fit, your speeds keeps increasing for a while. When I was in good bike shape (am not now), I would need to ride 20 MPH to get a decent workout. Riding 15mph wouldn’t even get my heart rate to 120. High heart rate is important to get the health effects of a workout. The whole reason I commuted on bike was to get a workout as I travel
Either
A) the paths need to be safe up to a reasonable workout speed (25 mph)
Or
B) people wanting a workout need to buy heavier and heavier bikes to go slower. I can get a great workout at 15 MpH if I ride a 49 pound fat bike with huge knobs.
It would seem pretty silly for me to commute to work at 15 mph, get no health benefit, then go spin on a stationary bike at 25 mph.....
Either
A) the paths need to be safe up to a reasonable workout speed (25 mph)
Or
B) people wanting a workout need to buy heavier and heavier bikes to go slower. I can get a great workout at 15 MpH if I ride a 49 pound fat bike with huge knobs.
It would seem pretty silly for me to commute to work at 15 mph, get no health benefit, then go spin on a stationary bike at 25 mph.....
There are large portions of the world where you could walk your bike to work ~1km away and still arrive quite sweaty, cycling simply isn’t a viable option in a lot of cases if that’s the concern.
Try Cycling in the Netherlands at 30 km/h near pedestrians (even when on a bike-lane) and you will get no sympathy for going over the handlebars.
Heck, cycling at 30 km/h on any kind of bike lane will be disruptive to other cyclists. The norm here is somewhere between 15 and 20. Anything over 20 is seen as putting in effort.
In the Netherlands the cities are basically flat and worldwide this is the exception rather then the norm.
Ride your bike on a slope and you can easily reach 60 km/h.
Also 20 km/h or 15 km/h is still enough to produce serious injury. On my first fall this year, when I hit my helmet-protected head, I must've had no more than 10 km/h.
Ride your bike on a slope and you can easily reach 60 km/h.
Also 20 km/h or 15 km/h is still enough to produce serious injury. On my first fall this year, when I hit my helmet-protected head, I must've had no more than 10 km/h.
So biking is only a casual way to get between locations? Where does one go if one wants to drop the hammer and get a workout in? Can you ride bikes on streets?
You can bike on the streets for sport, but not in pedestrian areas (i.e. city centers).
Outside of pedestrians, you'll come into some conflict with either other cyclists or cars. You'll get some complaints, but it is generally accepted. If course, it depends on how much consideration you give others. Complaining that other cyclists aren't getting out of your way fast enough won't earn you much sympathy.
Outside of pedestrians, you'll come into some conflict with either other cyclists or cars. You'll get some complaints, but it is generally accepted. If course, it depends on how much consideration you give others. Complaining that other cyclists aren't getting out of your way fast enough won't earn you much sympathy.
If you're braking hard enough with the front brake to send you over the handlebars, whatever is going on with the rear brake is irrelevant because your rear wheel is literally lifting off the road and thus cannot possibly contribute meaningfully to braking or traction. In severe emergency braking, it's the front brake alone that matters (and sounds like you used a little too much of it). More info here: https://www.sheldonbrown.com/brakturn.html
And yeah, I've been there done that going over the handlebars in a situation in which I braked too hard and had my weight too far forward, and it's no fun. Gloves definitely help prevent your hands from getting scratched up in a higher velocity bike collision.
And yeah, I've been there done that going over the handlebars in a situation in which I braked too hard and had my weight too far forward, and it's no fun. Gloves definitely help prevent your hands from getting scratched up in a higher velocity bike collision.
This one time a van cut me off turning right across a bike lane while I was cruising at approx. 25mph on 8th St. in SF, probably too fast, and probably poorly positioned in the van's blind spot. I caught the front right wheel of the van and flew across the hood, rolled over it, landed on my back on the street and skidded to a hault on the opposite side just short of the curb. I was not wearing a helmet, but also, I suffered zero injuries–my bike on the other hand had two completely destroyed wheels.
The van driver paid to fix the wheels. I started wearing a helmet after that always while riding (before that I only did while on long distance or competitive rides). I haven't had a crash since, probably because I avoid blind spots and other dangerous positions on the street.
In all the years that I rode and crashed my bike as a kid, I also never suffered any serious head injuries, even this time that I crashed my bike and broke my hand protecting my face when I fell (not wearing a helmet), but today I still wear my helmet and its annoyance. Yet I have zero evidence that it has ever been useful to me. If I lived in a place where I didn't have to worry about cars murdering me all the time, like Holland, I probably would ride like I did as a kid, and not wear a helmet. That being said, I do make my kids wear helmets...
The van driver paid to fix the wheels. I started wearing a helmet after that always while riding (before that I only did while on long distance or competitive rides). I haven't had a crash since, probably because I avoid blind spots and other dangerous positions on the street.
In all the years that I rode and crashed my bike as a kid, I also never suffered any serious head injuries, even this time that I crashed my bike and broke my hand protecting my face when I fell (not wearing a helmet), but today I still wear my helmet and its annoyance. Yet I have zero evidence that it has ever been useful to me. If I lived in a place where I didn't have to worry about cars murdering me all the time, like Holland, I probably would ride like I did as a kid, and not wear a helmet. That being said, I do make my kids wear helmets...
> I have zero evidence that it has ever been useful to me.
This strikes me as an odd statement. Some individuals may go their whole lives without taking antibiotics, but that tells us nothing of interest about antibiotics.
There is a real question about whether it's better to wear a helmet, though. A bike helmet can of course save your brain in case of an impact (which studies have confirmed), but studies have found that drivers leave less distance when they see a cyclist wearing a helmet [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Risk_compensati...
This strikes me as an odd statement. Some individuals may go their whole lives without taking antibiotics, but that tells us nothing of interest about antibiotics.
There is a real question about whether it's better to wear a helmet, though. A bike helmet can of course save your brain in case of an impact (which studies have confirmed), but studies have found that drivers leave less distance when they see a cyclist wearing a helmet [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Risk_compensati...
> studies have found that drivers leave less distance when they see a cyclist wearing a helmet
I don't think that's what those studies have found.
First of all the results are disputed and also this can work both ways — as specified in the link you provided, it could be that cyclists wearing a helmet could take more risks than those without a helmet.
And in England you might have motorists leaving more or less distance, depending on whether the cyclist wears a helmet, but I'm pretty sure this is a cultural thing.
In my city car drivers don't give a shit about cyclists. So for example on a narrow street drivers will pass cyclists within only a few centimeters, no matter if you wear a helmet or not. So experimented cyclists actually ride their bike in the middle of the road, to prevent overtaking by cars. Decent road speed is required, or otherwise you get horns and swear words, but it's the safest way to go.
But yes, this is an anecdote, I don't have a reference I could link to.
I don't think that's what those studies have found.
First of all the results are disputed and also this can work both ways — as specified in the link you provided, it could be that cyclists wearing a helmet could take more risks than those without a helmet.
And in England you might have motorists leaving more or less distance, depending on whether the cyclist wears a helmet, but I'm pretty sure this is a cultural thing.
In my city car drivers don't give a shit about cyclists. So for example on a narrow street drivers will pass cyclists within only a few centimeters, no matter if you wear a helmet or not. So experimented cyclists actually ride their bike in the middle of the road, to prevent overtaking by cars. Decent road speed is required, or otherwise you get horns and swear words, but it's the safest way to go.
But yes, this is an anecdote, I don't have a reference I could link to.
[deleted]
> This one time a van cut me off turning right across a bike lane while I was cruising at approx. 25mph on 8th St. in SF
When approaching an intersection, it's best to ride in the general traffic lane that corresponds to the direction you plan to go. Trying to overtake traffic that may turn right on the right will almost certainly result in what happened to you. CVC (California Vehicle Code) makes an exception to the requirement to ride in the bike lane where right turns are authorized in 21208 (4) [1].
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
When approaching an intersection, it's best to ride in the general traffic lane that corresponds to the direction you plan to go. Trying to overtake traffic that may turn right on the right will almost certainly result in what happened to you. CVC (California Vehicle Code) makes an exception to the requirement to ride in the bike lane where right turns are authorized in 21208 (4) [1].
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
Can I suggest that you learn to brake effectively? You should not be going over the handlebars when you brake hard.
Under hard braking, the front brake is the only one that matters, because the back wheel will lift off. Find a safe bit of tarmac and practice braking progressively harder and harder until you can feel the point just before you start to lose control & hold it there. Practice until it becomes second nature.
Under hard braking, the front brake is the only one that matters, because the back wheel will lift off. Find a safe bit of tarmac and practice braking progressively harder and harder until you can feel the point just before you start to lose control & hold it there. Practice until it becomes second nature.
I usually adjust my brakes so that my front brake isn't tight enough to throw me over the handlebars in panic. I used to bike a lot (and quite recklessly) in my teens, so I got kinda paranoid about overly sensitive front brakes.
Anyways, and without knowing the details of your accident, if you were biking 30km/h in an area where you can't see if someone comes from around a corner, then you were biking too fast. Still the girl's fault for jumping in front of you without looking.
Anyways, and without knowing the details of your accident, if you were biking 30km/h in an area where you can't see if someone comes from around a corner, then you were biking too fast. Still the girl's fault for jumping in front of you without looking.
Nice article. In the past years however, the number of e-bikes used by elderly people has gone up so much, that fatality for that group has gone up quite notably as well. Many elderly buy an e-bike while not having ridden a bike for many years. Meanwhile, traffic has become more difficult. And their reflexes not really what they have been.
See e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/25/older-men-usin...
See e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/25/older-men-usin...
I haven't seen that many (elderly) people in The Netherlands on e-bikes that used a helmet this year. The only people that wear helmets are the ones that have a speed padelec/mountainbiker or racing bikes.
I guess it really makes a difference if you're cycling in the Randstad, or one of the other greater cities, or outside of them. I'd say about 50% of elderly people I see on e-bikes (and I cycle about 4000km / year, almost all outside of bigger cities) are now wearing helmets.
pedelecs are in the same class as "brommers" (mopeds) and require wearing a helmet by law. See https://www.holland-cycling.com/blog/275-new-laws-for-speed-...
Meanwhile, in the US, we let elderly people continue driving long past the point where it's safe to do so, and then they kill not just themselves but also others. It's so commonplace the idea of an elderly driver fatally plowing through a farmer's market has become a trope.
The comment about slowing down even when you have the right of way in America rings particularly true to me as I was given a ticket in Seattle for being hit by a car while in a dedicated bike lane. Even in bike friendly cities in my experience you need to go beyond defensive cycling to defensive and always deferential cycling as cars (and cops) will always assume the car is in the right.
In the Netherlands, that is mostly the opposite: see https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liabili...
Funny. In the Netherlands, there is a law that makes cyclists a protected class. In particular, while cyclist may cause an accident, the one with airbags, cage construction, bumpers and crumple zones has the responsibility to avoid accidents.
This is not "its always the fault of the car driver". But: it is always the responsibility of the car driver to avoid an accident.
This is not "its always the fault of the car driver". But: it is always the responsibility of the car driver to avoid an accident.
In theory that's how it's supposed to be with pedestrians here, though in practice police often give a blank check to drivers no matter what, at least here in NYC.
> I was given a ticket in Seattle for being hit by a car while in a dedicated bike lane.
Could you be more specific about what law you violated according to the ticket? That is, what ordinance/law was listed on the ticket itself?
Could you be more specific about what law you violated according to the ticket? That is, what ordinance/law was listed on the ticket itself?
Don’t have the number handy but it was in the failure to yield category. The officer’s line of reasoning was that in a bike lane when a car is traveling in the same direction wants to cross that lane the cyclist must always slow down and yield rather than the car waiting until it is clear for their turn to take place.
Asking cyclist not to wear a helmet is like asking drivers not to wear a seatbelt. Yes, they are not needed if everyone follows all the safety rules. Yet accidents still happen.
I think this shows a difference between ways of thinking.
A helmet helps to mitigate your injuries during a serious accident, but tacitly accepts that such serious accidents still happen.
The Dutch government feels that serious accidents are not acceptable in the first place, and seeks to eliminate them (almost) entirely.
There is more to it than merely safety rules. It's making separate roads for bicycles, making different intersections, taking care of tiny little details like the exact shape of the curb (to minimize damage and injury if hit).
It's a systematic, integrated, systems thinking approach; backed by (in total) billions of Euros of infrastructure investment and research over several decades.
It's not that a helmet doesn't give more protection (it does), it's just that for normal A-to-B cycling, one should make things so the helmet is no longer needed.
A helmet helps to mitigate your injuries during a serious accident, but tacitly accepts that such serious accidents still happen.
The Dutch government feels that serious accidents are not acceptable in the first place, and seeks to eliminate them (almost) entirely.
There is more to it than merely safety rules. It's making separate roads for bicycles, making different intersections, taking care of tiny little details like the exact shape of the curb (to minimize damage and injury if hit).
It's a systematic, integrated, systems thinking approach; backed by (in total) billions of Euros of infrastructure investment and research over several decades.
It's not that a helmet doesn't give more protection (it does), it's just that for normal A-to-B cycling, one should make things so the helmet is no longer needed.
Well, unlike a seat-belt, a helmet is easily stolen and needs to be kept track of by itself. This means that if the net effect of having to keep track of it is to cost you sufficiently that you choose a car or other sedentary mode of transit over a bike you may well lose more quality-adjusted life years. We shouldn't over-weight rare catastrophic events compared to common continuous damage events.
In practice this means that I wear a helmet all the time in SF. But most of the time, I wouldn't wear one in Cambridge.
In practice this means that I wear a helmet all the time in SF. But most of the time, I wouldn't wear one in Cambridge.
Except that the evidence is not clear that cycle helmets actually improve safety for adults (it is clear that it improves it for children), and cyclists will avoid cycling altogether if helmets are mandatory.
Perhaps more importantly, cars carry safety risks for everyone. If I walk or cycle I am at risk of being run over by your car, my lungs get damaged due to the exhaust, the climate suffers.
Perhaps more importantly, cars carry safety risks for everyone. If I walk or cycle I am at risk of being run over by your car, my lungs get damaged due to the exhaust, the climate suffers.
How could helmets not improve safety for adults?
Turns out things are a bit more complex than "survival rate after being hit by a car at 40 km/h in the front":
- Both cyclists and motorists tend to take slightly more risks when wearing helmets (cars give less distance when overtaking).
- Mandatory helmets means fewer people cycle, so cars are less used to cyclists leading to more dangerous situations.
It's been discussed many times on HN, and there is no clear-cut answer. Some research (I can't be bothered to find it all again, sorry) suggests it doesn't make a difference, other that it makes things slightly safer, and others that it makes it slightly less safe. On balance, it probably doesn't make much of a difference.
- Both cyclists and motorists tend to take slightly more risks when wearing helmets (cars give less distance when overtaking).
- Mandatory helmets means fewer people cycle, so cars are less used to cyclists leading to more dangerous situations.
It's been discussed many times on HN, and there is no clear-cut answer. Some research (I can't be bothered to find it all again, sorry) suggests it doesn't make a difference, other that it makes things slightly safer, and others that it makes it slightly less safe. On balance, it probably doesn't make much of a difference.
> Mandatory helmets
Mandatory helmets is a separate thing. You're arguing against a policy none of the parent comments or the root article talks about.
> Both cyclists and motorists tend to take slightly more risks when wearing helmets
This whole article is about being an assertive bicyclist while not wearing a helmet. The author is encouraging people to not wear a helmet and bicycle less defensively than they typically do. The primary argument for this behavior is because it feels good.
Mandatory helmets is a separate thing. You're arguing against a policy none of the parent comments or the root article talks about.
> Both cyclists and motorists tend to take slightly more risks when wearing helmets
This whole article is about being an assertive bicyclist while not wearing a helmet. The author is encouraging people to not wear a helmet and bicycle less defensively than they typically do. The primary argument for this behavior is because it feels good.
The original comment is comparing it to seatbelts, which are mandatory in many countries.
[deleted]
Because less people cycle, which makes cycling overall more dangerous for everyone.
Yet, bicycle helmets aren't designed to protect one's head in anything other than a simple fall. In fact, the CPSC (Consumer Products Safety Commission) impact test standard only tests for a guided free fall from a height of about 6.5 feet. That's not sufficient to protect one in a crash with a motor vehicle.
If seatbelts were only designed to protect in a frontal collision speed of 15 mph, then they won't provide any protection in a 45 mph crash.
If seatbelts were only designed to protect in a frontal collision speed of 15 mph, then they won't provide any protection in a 45 mph crash.
> CPSC (Consumer Products Safety Commission) impact test standard only tests for a guided free fall from a height of about 6.5 feet
To be fair, not every bicyle helmet is designed to meet minimum safety standards.
To be fair, not every bicyle helmet is designed to meet minimum safety standards.
In the Netherlands, it is also not allowed to bike next to highways or auto ways. Separate bicycle lanes have been made to navigate in different routes.
Apparently cycling in a fully upright position makes a big difference in how much sweat you produce. Also not wearing a helmet means you get to make better use of one of your major heat sinks.
You have to keep in mind the weather there too.
But I will say that cycling is surprisingly sweat-free for me (someone who typically sweats a lot). The amount of wind you're generating has a significant evaporative cooling effect that helps a lot even in hot weather. I find that when I'm biking to work, even on hot summer days, I only get noticeably sweaty when I'm sitting in the sun not moving at all waiting for a light to turn, and then when I get into a stuffy elevator at work.
But I will say that cycling is surprisingly sweat-free for me (someone who typically sweats a lot). The amount of wind you're generating has a significant evaporative cooling effect that helps a lot even in hot weather. I find that when I'm biking to work, even on hot summer days, I only get noticeably sweaty when I'm sitting in the sun not moving at all waiting for a light to turn, and then when I get into a stuffy elevator at work.
This is actually pretty important. I did a 50 miles ride once and after about 30 miles the only way I could continue was by removing my helmet. My head was overheating otherwise, and every mile I continued with the helmet on, I was getting dizzier and dizzier. Only after I removed my helmet was I able to continue the ride without any negative effects.
I still advocate for bicyclists wearing a helmet, but inside that recommendation is the reality that the standard American helmet I was wearing was causing me to overheat and suffer negative side effects. The only way I made it to my destination was from removing the helmet and taking the risk of crashing and suffering a major head injury.
In that way, helmets are very different from automobile seat belts.
I still advocate for bicyclists wearing a helmet, but inside that recommendation is the reality that the standard American helmet I was wearing was causing me to overheat and suffer negative side effects. The only way I made it to my destination was from removing the helmet and taking the risk of crashing and suffering a major head injury.
In that way, helmets are very different from automobile seat belts.
To be fair, there is a wide range of helmets. I have a $20 helmet that feels like you describe. I also have a $200 helmet that I can’t tell I have on. You may just need a nicer helmet...
Agreed, which is why I said "the standard American helmet". You'd probably be hard pressed to walk into Walmart and buy a $200 helmet. Non-bikers like to make fun of cyclists wearing spandex and weird shoes and etc, without knowing that cycling can be dangerous in a way that a car or walking might not be.
It's something people should be aware of. Your $20 Walmart helmet may cause your brain to overheat while you're riding. I certainly didn't know that was possible until I experienced it.
It's something people should be aware of. Your $20 Walmart helmet may cause your brain to overheat while you're riding. I certainly didn't know that was possible until I experienced it.
> As with so many aspects of their society, it seemed to depend on subsuming the needs of the individual to the needs of the community.
It gets kind of exasperating when you see this kind of writing about your own country. Perhaps from an American perspective, it seems like some sort of socialist heaven here, but it really isn't.
Our healthcare system is teetering, our elderly care system has already fallen. We are still laying down more asphalt 'because it will solve traffic jams'. Moreover, we've been eating away at some of our social safety net. Our prisons stated goal went from rehabilitation to retribution, and the police have more issues with 'confused people' which is a polite way to say people with a mental illness.
One of the bigger issues is that of affordable housing. A recent report stated that 25% of renters forgo normal expenses to make rent. Moreover in the bigger cities we see foreign money guying real estate as investments just like in London or Seattle. Which brings me to the hypotheekrenteaftrek (tax rebate on mortgage interest). Which was pitched as helping the middle class afford housing, but turned into a massive tax credit for the rich. Now, we know this thing is pushing up a housing bubble, but we are afraid to do too much with the rebate for fear of popping that bubble.
Not to mention the recent political push to abolish the dividend tax 'because it would help all business', not to entice Unilever and Shell to fully incorporate here. Only for the plan to be rescinded when it turned out Unilever wasn't gonna move here after all.
And despite the large number of bicycles, we still have a shit-ton of cars. Whilst it is not uncommon for people to cycle to work, taking the car is still more common. And not having a car at all is a pretty rare thing. At the same time, the increase in e-bikes is causing dangerous situations, and a marked uptick in broken bones, especially among the elderly.
My point being, the Netherlands aren't some perfect place to emulate, even though we have bike-lanes and drivers and cyclists here are used to seeing other cyclists on the road. Thank you for reading my rant.
It gets kind of exasperating when you see this kind of writing about your own country. Perhaps from an American perspective, it seems like some sort of socialist heaven here, but it really isn't.
Our healthcare system is teetering, our elderly care system has already fallen. We are still laying down more asphalt 'because it will solve traffic jams'. Moreover, we've been eating away at some of our social safety net. Our prisons stated goal went from rehabilitation to retribution, and the police have more issues with 'confused people' which is a polite way to say people with a mental illness.
One of the bigger issues is that of affordable housing. A recent report stated that 25% of renters forgo normal expenses to make rent. Moreover in the bigger cities we see foreign money guying real estate as investments just like in London or Seattle. Which brings me to the hypotheekrenteaftrek (tax rebate on mortgage interest). Which was pitched as helping the middle class afford housing, but turned into a massive tax credit for the rich. Now, we know this thing is pushing up a housing bubble, but we are afraid to do too much with the rebate for fear of popping that bubble.
Not to mention the recent political push to abolish the dividend tax 'because it would help all business', not to entice Unilever and Shell to fully incorporate here. Only for the plan to be rescinded when it turned out Unilever wasn't gonna move here after all.
And despite the large number of bicycles, we still have a shit-ton of cars. Whilst it is not uncommon for people to cycle to work, taking the car is still more common. And not having a car at all is a pretty rare thing. At the same time, the increase in e-bikes is causing dangerous situations, and a marked uptick in broken bones, especially among the elderly.
My point being, the Netherlands aren't some perfect place to emulate, even though we have bike-lanes and drivers and cyclists here are used to seeing other cyclists on the road. Thank you for reading my rant.
I agree that the hypotheekrenteaftrek should be (and is being) phased out, but it seems to me that the monetary policy of the ECB is a big factor in the current housing bubble as well -- for years they've been lowering the interest rates in the name of stimulating inflation, which also drove up housing prices.
Do you wear a helmet while walking?
Do you walk at up to 20 miles per hour (32 km/h) in roadways right next to cars going much faster?
I recently saw a Dutchman explaining that they don't wear helmets because they don't cross paths with cars. Bike lanes are designed to keep cars and bicycles apart. From the article it seems that cars always give precedence to bicycles.
It varies. Roads where cars are allowed to go over 30 kph tend to have separate bicycle paths (not always, but it's the goal). Slow streets, limited to 30 kph, often don't have separate bike paths, but since cars can't go much faster than bikes anyway, it's easy for them to give bikes the space they need.
Of course in many traffic situations, bikes really do have right of way. It wasn't always like that, though. In the 1980s, cars coming from the left on an equal intersection would have right of way over a bike coming from the right. Bikes were still explicitly "lesser" traffic. This was changed in the early 1990s I think, when bikes became truly equal to cars. These days the pendulum seems to have swung in the opposite direction, and some bikes bully cars around.
Of course in many traffic situations, bikes really do have right of way. It wasn't always like that, though. In the 1980s, cars coming from the left on an equal intersection would have right of way over a bike coming from the right. Bikes were still explicitly "lesser" traffic. This was changed in the early 1990s I think, when bikes became truly equal to cars. These days the pendulum seems to have swung in the opposite direction, and some bikes bully cars around.
The worst accident I ever had was when I collided with another bike, not a car - I flew over my handlebars and hit my head directly on the edge of a concrete slab. There was a loud crack, and in half split my....helmet. I was pretty ok(apart from severe bruises all over).
My point is that whether you cross your path with cars or not is irrelevant - you're still travelling anywhere between 15-30km/h and your head is 1.5-2m above the road - it's enough of a speed and enough of a distance to kill you just from a fall, vehicles notwithstanding.
My point is that whether you cross your path with cars or not is irrelevant - you're still travelling anywhere between 15-30km/h and your head is 1.5-2m above the road - it's enough of a speed and enough of a distance to kill you just from a fall, vehicles notwithstanding.
Regular dutch (commuter) cyclists tend to ride a bit slower than 30. Sports cyclists DO wear a helmet!
Cars and bicycles are mostly equals in terms of who gets to get first. Though, in cities, it's indeed common for cars to take up a lower, more careful position and they will frequently let bikes go first even if the law may've said they were allowed to go first.
There's just so much stuff going on around you when you're driving a car in an inner city in the Netherlands, that it's wise to drive very carefully. In contrast, bikes have their own lanes, can use both sight and sound more easily and don't have to be so afraid of bumping into pedestrians, this means they have a far better grasp of the situation and possible risks. This combined with higher agility means they can move confidently and adjusted as needed.
There's just so much stuff going on around you when you're driving a car in an inner city in the Netherlands, that it's wise to drive very carefully. In contrast, bikes have their own lanes, can use both sight and sound more easily and don't have to be so afraid of bumping into pedestrians, this means they have a far better grasp of the situation and possible risks. This combined with higher agility means they can move confidently and adjusted as needed.
It really depends on the situation and the signs.
FTA: ”Studies have demonstrated that when a car hits a cyclist at speeds in excess of thirty kilometres per hour the cyclist is not likely to survive. Therefore, Bot told me, “thirty kilometres is the maximum speed in every living area in the Netherlands.””
The EU seems to concur with that. https://en.30kmh.eu/why-30kmh-20-mph/trendsetter-cities-for-...: About 50% of Dutch road network are having 30 km/h speed limits.
Also, typical cyclists speed inside city centers is more like 8 miles an hour, the speed of a reasonably fast runner (https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/dutch-cycling-... says 12.4 km/h)
The EU seems to concur with that. https://en.30kmh.eu/why-30kmh-20-mph/trendsetter-cities-for-...: About 50% of Dutch road network are having 30 km/h speed limits.
Also, typical cyclists speed inside city centers is more like 8 miles an hour, the speed of a reasonably fast runner (https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/dutch-cycling-... says 12.4 km/h)
> typical cyclists speed inside city centers is more like 8 miles an hour
Is this referring to average speed? I suspect that this doesn't take hills into account. In my rides with a loaded trailer, my usual average speed is about 11 to 13 mph and my top speed on downhill sections ranges from 20 to 25 mph. My uphill speed is about 5 to 7 mph.
Is this referring to average speed? I suspect that this doesn't take hills into account. In my rides with a loaded trailer, my usual average speed is about 11 to 13 mph and my top speed on downhill sections ranges from 20 to 25 mph. My uphill speed is about 5 to 7 mph.
Hills are fairly rare in the Netherlands, certainly in cities, where of the day-to-day cycling takes place. In cities, cyclists typically also use their brakes more when going downhill than in the countryside because there’s more traffic and the traffic coming out of side ways can be harder to spot. So, I don’t think it makes much of a difference.
Also, 20 mph downhill and 5 mph uphill gives an average speed of 8 mph, a bit lower than your claimed speed. I think that’s the generic pattern for hills: you lose more on the ascent than you gain on the descent because you spend more time on the ascent than on the descent.
Also, 20 mph downhill and 5 mph uphill gives an average speed of 8 mph, a bit lower than your claimed speed. I think that’s the generic pattern for hills: you lose more on the ascent than you gain on the descent because you spend more time on the ascent than on the descent.
I'm basing my figures for max, min and average speeds as displayed by my bicycle computer. I also mentioned a loaded trailer to demonstrate that I'm actually slower than the majority of cyclists here because they're not towing around extra weight like I am (meaning their average speeds are higher than mine and they can maintain higher speeds when going up hill compared to me).
Also if I were to maintain an average speed of 8 mph, then my commute where I pick up my kids in different locations would take me nearly 2 hours as opposed to about 1 hour and 15 minutes. So speed matters if you want to complete the ride in a reasonable period of time.
Also if I were to maintain an average speed of 8 mph, then my commute where I pick up my kids in different locations would take me nearly 2 hours as opposed to about 1 hour and 15 minutes. So speed matters if you want to complete the ride in a reasonable period of time.
A study titled "Head Injuries As a Cause of Road Travel Death in Cyclists, Pedestrians and Drivers" has the following quoted text in its conclusions section:
> Head injuries in cyclists are often considered to be an important cause of road travel death, but this depends on the metric used for assessing importance. Pedestrians and drivers account for five and four times the number of fatal head injuries as cyclists. No-one is calling for pedestrians to wear helmets although the fatal head injury rates are similar for cyclists and pedestrians. The rate is higher for cyclists than pedestrians by time travelled and is higher for pedestrians than cyclists using distance travelled.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221414051...
> Head injuries in cyclists are often considered to be an important cause of road travel death, but this depends on the metric used for assessing importance. Pedestrians and drivers account for five and four times the number of fatal head injuries as cyclists. No-one is calling for pedestrians to wear helmets although the fatal head injury rates are similar for cyclists and pedestrians. The rate is higher for cyclists than pedestrians by time travelled and is higher for pedestrians than cyclists using distance travelled.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221414051...
Bicycle helmets are not tested at 20 mph or in collisions with motor vehicles.
Doesn't matter. Here, on HN, you'll soon get in your face that study about how incident reports go up when it's made mandatory by law to wear a helmet when riding a bike.
Probably because that's the evidence
Yeah, but people conveniently forget that wearing a wig cancel that :(.
Most people don't cycle at 32km/h, especially not in cities. In fact, I'd argue that doing that in most cities is just stupid.
Of course not, and since I ride my bike at 15 km/h in a bicycle-friendly city, on safe paths, I don't wear one on my bike either.
I wouldn't wear a helmet in the U.S. since I'd rather not risk getting on a bike at all over there.
I wouldn't wear a helmet in the U.S. since I'd rather not risk getting on a bike at all over there.
That’s the Dutch reasoning... if I need one during cycling, might as well walk eat and sleep with helmet
Some friends of mine were out recently with the kids. They had been riding so had helmets on, but had stopped at a playground for the kids.
One of them started walking back and went straight over a wall, landing on his head, helmet taking the blow.
Thank god people wear helmets when walking around in a children's playground!
One of them started walking back and went straight over a wall, landing on his head, helmet taking the blow.
Thank god people wear helmets when walking around in a children's playground!