Playing the victim card right after the expert card? That’s a losing hand.

In the months since I started riding daily, I’ve been told countless times that I’m not wearing the right things. So don’t accuse me of insulting individuals for how they dress themselves to ride a bicycle; individual choice is what I am for. But American cycling made itself a monoculture, identified by exotic dress among other things, and yes I will readily ‘insult’ that self-imposed cultural ghetto. It marginalized bicycle riding with such spirit (“cycling advocacy is for cyclists”, and so on) that one has to assume being marginal (elite) was the point. Please do wear what you want on or off a bicycle; if I saw you in athletic apparel the extent of my jugement is that you are out for exercise or have a great distance to cover. But I won’t hold back in calling group dynamics as I see them, historical-religious analogies and all.

“I was in a European city this year, which had relatively few bike lanes, yet I found the cyclists more skilled…”

First time I’ve heard that from an expert New York cyclist! Are you sure you haven’t let those pivotal fatality rate disparities color your definition and observation of ‘skilled’ riding?

“Having more bike lanes doesn’t make cyclists more law abiding,”

Must be something in the water? You should reveal this mystery Euro city, so we can look for the X factor.

“And what cyclists choose to do or not do (especially involving traffic law) can make a big difference between being in a crash or not. This seems pretty obvious, except on Streetsblog, where discussing cyclist behavior seems strangely heretical.”

No, just pointless like it is anywhere else. You can rant all day long about whatever stupid thing a cyclist wearing whatever apparel did last week, e.g.

“Last week I was walking in Chinatown, and was almost struck by two helmetless, casually clad fixed riders”

and nothing will change. It is a proud tradition in this city. Or you can look for what is structurally different in the cites that have been successful in extending the bicycle’s benefits to the full spectrum of society, from elderly to young, rich to poor, athletic to slovenly. Something tangible is behind the statistical safety they enjoy, the legality they practice, and the kilometers they pedal on their bicycles—and it is evidently not the skills and apparel beloved to the soon-to-be-old school of American cycling.

“That said BO” as in BicyclesOnly!

That’s the most eloquent statement for the need for bicycle facilities I’ve ever heard.

I see it like this: Since so many people feel safe riding their bikes in these truly bike friendly cities, there is obviously LOTS of bicycle traffic. Try riding down the wrong way of a Copenhagen cycletrack when there are 200 cyclists coming the other (proper) way! You just won’t be able to do it and you’ll also have 200 people cursing you for even trying.

BikesOnly,

I’m NOT saying that there is NEVER a reason to put a lane on the left. There are plenty of good reasons for doing so on a case by case basis. San Francisco placed a lane on the left side of Fell St as part of their famous “Wiggle” bike route. As far as I’m aware this is the only left side lane in San Fran but I’m probably wrong.

My concern is that the DEFAULT location for bike lanes in NYC is on the left. The avenues are one thing but what about the cross streets with long blocks and lower traffic volumes? Where there is no bike lane I naturally default to the right side (its what I and all cyclists do everyplace else on earth where people drive on the right). Traffic tends to go slower on the right (I know but not always, especially in NYC). Also here on the cross streets there are little if no conflicts with buses to deal with as well. So why violate a basic tenant of vehicular cycling by placing the lane on the left here?

That said BC, I do hear you on the left not really being a passing lane on the avenues. That’s not what I saw on Eighth the other week but then again I’m only occasionally in the city on my bike.

Peace.

The thing is, in NYC the left lane is not the passing lane–every other block it is a turning lane, just like the right lane. It is the middle of certain NYC roadways that functions as a “passing” lane. So, consistent with vehicular cycling principles, I would not install a bike lane in the middle lane of Second Avenue. But I would consider installing one on the left side of Second Avenue. The Q’bo Br. Plaza would present a challenge to this design, but that can best be managed with a bicyclists-only signal phase. Even if you had the bike lane on the right of Second Ave., you still would have a major motorist-bicyclist conflict in that location (which is the site of so many bicyclists fatalities and serious injuries).

Those people are scofflaws according to the old guard’s lexicon, where law abiding literally means “skilled.” (See word substitution in #27.) Yet Europe’s amateur, carefree, unskilled riders somehow manage to travel a lot further per fatality than traditional American cyclists with their cult of equipment, headdress, and competition. Our spartans can no more see the benefits of bicycle infrastructure (physical and legal) as logical than 17th century Catholics could accept heliocentrism.

Through many years of negligence cities have been able to shirk this responsibility when it comes to automobiles.

The West Side bike path is a terrible example, of course. It’s a good try, but a tiny sliver compared with the available street space and needs of NYC commuters.

So let me get this straight:
-cyclists violate traffic laws because the streets don’t accomodate them (so the thinking here goes). So “the streets made me do it.”

-So . . . if we get more bike lanes, and bike paths, then suddenly all this scofflaw behavior will change, and cyclists will become more law abiding.
Riiiight. I’m going to go riding on the city’s premiere bike facility, the West Side Bike Path, because according to the what I’ve heard on streetsblog, the cyclists must be much more skilled and angelic than cyclists riding in traffic. Gotta go . . .

While NYCDoT continues to be at the cutting edge of bicycle and pedestrian facility design here in the US (at least within the past 3 years) this is the one, AND ONLY, issue that I have a real problem with. I love what’s going on at NYCDoT but their design standard that defaults the bike lane position to the left side of oneway streets is flawed in my personal (and soon to be professional) opinion.

I was at a professional development seminar the other day where a widely respected bicycle and pedestrian planner from the west coast spoke about how bicycle facilities should be design. He reviewed a number of design points. He believes wholeheartedly in the “safety in numbers” principle and that the only way to get the numbers is to build facilities but only the streets that really truly need them. He agrees however that vehicualr cycling alone has obviously failed to bring out the massive numbers of cyclists that to bring about that “safety in numbers” effect.

But what stuck out was his insistance that bike lane (and other bike facility) design should not break the basic principles of vehicular cycling. Facilities should emulate and reinforce proper bicycle placement on the road like what a highly experience rider would do if the bike lane wasn’t there*. This is where the idea of placing the lane on the left (and only on the left BTW since Sacramento has begun experimenting placing lanes on both sides of oneway avenues) is critically flawed.

*(Note – As a cyclist with 20 years of real world cycling experience, this is a sentiment I had when I entered my graduate studies specializing in bicycle and pedestrian planning. It was very refreshing to FINALLY hear such a respected professional echoing gut feelings I’ve had for many years prior to my professional studies.)

Also, I understand that a helmet can protect you from the “little” potential injuries, such as scrapes and nicks, however, when you are trying to evaluate risk you have to multiply the probability of an event with its payoff. Let’s assume that falling off your bike, hitting your head while not wearing a helmet, but no suffering a fatality, can result in an head injury ranging from a mild scratch to a fractured skull with either no brain damage, or brain damage. Let’s say the payoff of a scratched head, when falling off your bike is -100, and the probability of that happening are 10 percent. That would make the risk factor of that event -10. Now, the way I see things, death has a payoff of zero, because if you are dead, well… you are dead. Nothing matters to you if you are dead, you experience nothing. But if you are paralyzed, with a perfectly functioning brain, you fully experience agony and suffering, and so do your loved ones. Having experience with spinal cord injuries I would rather risk my own death than increase the chances of a spinal cord injury. Something that you need to be aware of is that the type of event that causes a severe spinal cord injury, while wearing a helmet usually involves very little force, and often involves no collision, or only a minor one. You could simply fall off you bike and, if the head/helmet hits the ground at the wrong angle, even from three feet off the ground, you could be paralyzed for life.

If you want to argue that riding a bike is so dangerous that people should be
required to wear a helmet, then why not just forbid people from riding bikes at all? Or, why not prevent a pedestrian from crossing the street unless he is wearing a giant bubble suit? Why not require all shoes to have velcro so no one trips over their shoes laces? Why stop at helmets when you can dictate risk preferences for everything to everyone? I know this sounds extreme, but I think it is extreme to require helmets when there is a very large chance of spinal cord injury as a direct result of wearing one. You say that wearing a helmet is common sense. But common sense is only what is most evident with the least amount of thought or knowledge. My experiences with these injuries are not just anecdotal and coincidental. I’ve been doing research, speaking with lots of people, and doctors. This is much more common that you realize or than the helmet companies want you to believe (and no, I’m not positing a conspiracy.) I plan to publish this research when it’s complete. And one of the reasons you don’t hear about the spinal cord injuries is because 1) the initial incident is not reported in the news because there is no fatality. There is no follow up with the victim to find out what happened, or whether he can walk a year later. 2) These injuries often have nothing to do with a collision with another vehicle. They can happen by yourself if you hit a pothole, slip, flip over, or fall to the side. Hence, they won’t be reported in traffic stats.

So, all I’m saying is that a helmet make you safe in some very unpredictable ways, and that I, and all of you, should be free to decide how much risk you are willing to when riding a bike. You should be allowed to decide for yourself whether you’d rather suffer a brain injury or a spinal cord injury.

If helmets either cause accidents or cause spinal cord injuries — in other words, that they actively harm more often than they help — surely we should be working day and night to repeal the laws requiring that kids wear them and, come to think of it, making it illegal for *anyone* to wear them. Good luck with that.

For years I rode counterflow a half block to my home to avoid having to “box it” and ride an additional 1/2 mile. Then I decided counterflow was never OK, after an experience in which a counterflow bicyclist cleaved to the inside of the lane, inducing my son out into traffic where he was nearly sideswiped. Most of the counterflow bike lane bicycling I see is by delivery guys (esp. Chirping Chicken deliverers eastbound on W.77th) and southbound commuters on CPW, who likely are trying to avoid the hills on the nearby southbound route on Park Drive West. I don’t have any sympathy for these people.

For a while after that I used the sidewalk for that half block. Then I got scolded by a neighbor. Now I usually just dismount at the accessible corner and walk it half a block. It’s just not a big deal compared to the time I save by using a bike for the other 99% of my trip.

Even so, I still have my lapses. When there is no one on the sidewalk, I’ll ride up and then lift my right leg over the top tube and coast to my final destination standing with both feet on the left pedal. If a pedestrian appears, I can brake and hop off instantly.

I’m surprised by Mlndy’s comment that she never sees bicyclists stop and yield to intersecting traffic before proceeding through a red. It may unfortunately be that some pedestrians only notice those who don’t follow the law. In my experience I get explicit expressions and gestures of thanks from pedestrians, several times a week, for my yielding to them. I’m grateful for those thanks and they are part of what keeps me “on the up and up.”

I hate to have to keep on bringing up my dislike for NYC’s left-side-of-the-road bike lanes but new reasons keep popping up in my head.

Besides exposing cyclists to faster left lane motor traffic and running counter to general vehicular cycling rules, the design MAY also encourage retrograde riding. Everyplace else that I’ve seen left side bike lanes they were for contraflow bicycle traffic. Engineers who designed these contraflow lanes elsewhere must have felt that this location was the most logical place for them. I’m not saying that it is right but it wouldn’t surprise me if people who illegally ride contraflow in NYC’s left-side-of-the-road bike lanes reached the same “logical” conclusion.

Now this is good question to answer with an academic study.

I’ve read a study that seems to indicate helmet wearing increases risk taking in cycling and many other sports and/or activities. I think it was from the same British study that showed cyclists that wear helmets are more likely to be passed at a closer distance then those who don’t.

Personally I wear a helmet because automobiles and our autocentric roadway engineering have made US roads dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians. I believe the simple act of riding a bicycle at a relaxed Copenhagen / Amsterdam like speed is NOT dangerous. Cars make it so. I wish I could enjoy this simple pleasure without living in fear and fealing that I must wear a helmet.

Now riding for speed whether that be on or off road is differet because a rider is more likely to push limits and take risks. I know I do when I ride my nice road and mountain bikes. In these circumstance I wear a helmet and would always wear a helmet regardless of potential traffic or road conditions.

It is correct to say that many of the fatalities in New York could not have been prevented by helmet use. In the war of styrofoam hats versus steel trucks, steel trucks will always win. But there are probably thousands of smaller injuries and trips to the ER that were avoided by helmet use.

If anything, the efficacy of helmet use is probably under reported. If a helmet protects you from getting injured in the first place, you would be less likely to report yourself as getting injured, correct? I fell off my bike after hitting some debris in the road and landed on my side, hitting my head against the pavement and cracking my helmet. Other than a little road rash, I was fine. I’m sure I would have cracked my skull if I hadn’t had a helmet on; whether or not that would have resulted in a brain injury, I don’t know. I didn’t report that accident because I didn’t need to. But that means that my experience and the similar experience of others do not get factored into any statistics. If you don’t get a head injury in the first place, you won’t die from a head injury and you won’t become a statistic.

I think about this every time I ride. If I slipped and fell on an empty road, a helmet would probably be a big help. But if I slipped while riding with a line of cars next to me and behind me, I might get crushed by the wheel of a truck and no helmet would withstand that kind of pressure. I wear the helmet for the little moments, not the big ones.

I don’t want to minimize the experience of Be’s family or anyone else for whom a helmet was not effective, but if hospitals were seeing waves of cyclist with helmets still sustaining injuries, there’d probably be a massive consumer recall and an overall of helmet design.

That being said, there are simply tons of flaws with a lot of the helmet stats and studies on both sides. Not wearing a helmet is considered risky; are people who don’t wear helmets more likely to take bigger risks than people who do? If so, they’d be more likely to get into accidents. Or is it the other way around? Does wearing a helmet give you a false sense of security? (The study Be cites with drivers driving closer to those wearing helmets has many flaws, documented in books such as “Traffic” and on many websites.)

Look, we’d all like for NYC to be more like Amsterdam or any other European country where the sheer number of bikes and the infrastructure dedicated to cycling leads to less of a need for a helmet. But NYC is not Amsterdam. It’s dangerous. Common sense says to wear a helmet, not for the random Mack Truck that could run you over but for the millions of other variables that could trip you up.

Think of it like a batting helmet. It’s hardly going to protect a batter from getting beaned in the elbow or face, which could in some ways be a more career-ending injury than some hits to the head. Still, what batter would step in front of a 90-mile-an-hour fastball without a helmet?

It is correct to say that many of the fatalities in New York could not have been prevented by

Wearing a helmet is very dangerous. Helmets lead to spinal cord injuries and paralysis. Two people in my life have suffered due to helmets. My father and baseball coach both suffered spinal cord injuries to due the kinetic energy of the impact being absorbed by the helmet, and traveling down the spine. I have learned that this is an unpublicized bt very common problem. Doctors explained that if they were not wearing helmets they would like have suffered a fractured skull, however, skull fractures do not necessarily lead to fatality or brain injury. In fact, they often heal within a few months. The skull is designed to diffuse the energy of an impact. Helmets do almost nothing to prevent fatalities in the majority of new york city bike fatalities. The numbers cited in the CityRoom post are misleading. If you actually look at all of the bike fatalities and accidents in new york over the past year or decade you will see that the injuries sustained or that lead to death did not involve the head, and could not have been prevented by wearing a helmet. Saying that “nearly all cyclists who died in New York City were not wearing a helmet and that only 13 percent of those seriously injured while cycling were wearing a helmet.” is incredibly misleading because it ignores that fact that New Yorker’s over 14 are not required to wear helmets. Of course nearly all cyclist fatalities were not wearing helmets – nearly all cyclists do not wear helmets. This also ignores studies that show that you are less likely to be hit if you are not wearing a helmet because drivers overcompensate by driving further away from you. There should never be a requirement for adults to wear helmets. We need to create more, and separated bike lanes, enforce traffic laws, crack down on drivers who go through red lights, punish drivers who hit bikes and pedestrians, and educate drivers.

Look, I ride my bike every day in this city. I was hit by a car from behind a few months ago (yes, I was going the right way and light was green.) I was damn lucky. I was knocked off my bike to the front/right. My wheel was bent and I had a very slight tweak of my ankle. But I fell into the path of oncoming traffic. I looked up and immediately jumped out of the way. I could have been killed if I were a little slower or the cars a little closer. If you look at the record of fatalities documented on this blog and in the great New York Mag article, you will see that many fatalities were not due to any sort of head injury that could have been prevented by a helmet, Many were due to riders being hit by one car, falling into traffic and being run over by a second or third car/truck. Most of the other fatalities were from riders being crushed by trucks/vans and dying from injuries of their internal organs – not head. My father is a cripple, and my coach is totally paralyzed and needs to breath through a tube. I will never wear a helmet. I would rather be dead than paralyzed/suffer from a spinal cord injury. And that should be my choice, and so should wearing a helmet. Helmets should be kept legal for adults.

I’d love for there to be a larger discussion on this.

To support or agree with any part of this ‘study’—on helmet use, one’s favorite law, whatever—is to fall into its trap, to signal that its findings are unwanted but trustworthy (you can’t believe half of a liar’s story) or that it at least frames the question of safety on public streets fairly and productively. Both implications are significantly wrong. The report is illegitimate from start to finish, structured with an evident agenda and surprising ignorance of (or indifference to) the laws it purports to measure compliance with. It indulges in the warped automotive-age convention of holding those that are the most at risk (and the most harmless) as primarily responsible for fatal outcomes, rather than the ones producing the deadly threat in the first place. There can be no points to agree with, no important lessons to be learned, no calls to action to be made from that mound of crud.