Denny's Free Grand Slam Breakfast Day Tuesday
Marina Yoga Studio Donates Old Mats for Haitian Relief
Prop 8 Trial Judge Is Gay; Should This Matter?
Muni Bus Nails a Fire Hydrant
Sarah Palin Calls Global Warming Studies 'Snake Oil' at NorCal Conference
Bay Area cyclists, it seems, are riding without helmets. Horrors! At least according to a KCBS report that claims "[m]ore and more Bay Area bicyclists are riding without bike helmets, some because they think it's actually safer." There's some sort of "movement" among cyclists to ditch the helmets for safety reasons. One reason of safety? Some "anti-helmet advocates think drivers are more likely to steer clear of bikers who they see are not wearing headgear." Sounds like a good point. Also, bike messenger Kinto Fannin argues, "people fall down in the shower a lot and they don't make people wear helmets in the shower." A statement that could only be answered by Addison DeWitt thusly, "You have a point. An idiotic one, but a point."
But in the end, riding without a helmet makes one look "tougher," sleeker, and cooler. Less of a Walnut Creek dad doing his part to keep things green, and more like a sexy somebody who drinks cheap beer next to a porta-potty. Let's face it, the SF bike community is also an aesthetic one -- yes, in addition to doing God's work of removing one less car from Mother Earth, many cyclists have a look for which they're striving, which is a good thing -- but is ditching the helmet a safe thing to do? Do you prefer to ride with a naked head? Is this ridiculous? Let us know in the comments, cyclists.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Darwin's calling, he's handing out more awards to dimwits not wearing helmets.
Some "anti-helmet advocates think drivers are more likely to steer clear of bikers who they see are not wearing headgear."
That is one of the more idiotic excuses i've heard. You are far far more likely to get hit by a driver that doesn't see you than one that does.
I got hit by a car last month while biking to work. The guy didn't signal and didn't look before turning. I had a helmet on, but the driver didn't know that until after the wreck.
Yeah, let's see if these extra-stylish bikers are wearing reflective jackets, which would be by far the safest thing to do. My guess is not.
I say let these bikers bike w/o helmets! These are probably the same pathetic and annoying bikers who don't realize that PEDESTRIANS still have the right of way and think they rule the road completely in SF!
"anti-helmet advocates think drivers are more likely to steer clear of bikers who they see are not wearing headgear."
Clearly the people who say this are not drivers! I give extra room to everyone on two wheels (including motorcycles) when I'm in my four-wheel sheetmetal cage, but whether they're wearing a helmet or not? Please. It is stupid to think so, honestly.
Why is everything around here a freaking "movement", especially with these self-absorbed biking kooks? Just ride your silly bike, stay off the sidewalk and STFU.
Word. But this is San Francisco, and we all have to be a part of a bigger thing, ya know.
I'm waiting for my acceptance into the "compulsive urinal flushers" movement. Hate piss and runners.
I think some of these people have suffered brain damage from too many bicycling accidents, and now think the stupidest things make the most sense.
And SFist encourages them.
speaking of brain damage...
I got my brain damage the old fashioned way -- I drank myself into it.
I've always counted myself as 'pro-bike' despite not being a rider myself. But recently I have paid more attention to the bikers in my area (near 30th at San Jose/Mission), the more I am seeing why so many people have problems with them. Riding in the car lane (despite a bike lane being available on SJ Ave), practically ignoring red lights, seeming to be blissfully unaware of nearly plowing walkers over...
I guess all groups (bikers, walkers, drivers) have their faults but I am stating to think less & less of the bikers in general.
Not wearing helmets is sorta dumb, but I also think that by & large adults should be able to make their own choices. Just don't try & justify if it with really lame excuses. A simple "I don't want to wear one" will do.
Hm, it's not the "car lane". It's the lane.
Bikes have full rights to those lanes. That's the law.
And bikes need to:
- be visible and in good working order
- have functioning brakes, headlights, and rear reflectors
- be driven in a defensive manner
- stop at all stop signs and traffic lights, including during special events
- not be driven on the sidewalk
It's the law!
Even when there are bike lanes? (I am talking about on San Jose Ave between like 28th & Randall)
Well law or not, its an asshole move.
Actually, yes, a cyclist can legally take a main travel lane (the "car lane") even when there is a bike lane for various reasons:
* There is debris in the bike lane or the bike lane has uneven pavement making it unsafe.
* The bike lane is substandard width (too close to parked cars) forcing the cyclist to move into the main travel lane in order to be out of the door zone
* The cyclist is planning a turn. In the case of left, the cyclist should move over to the left turn lane.
* The cyclist is approaching an intersection with right turning cars. In this case he should move over into the travel lane so as not to be right-hooked (that is, he should pass the turning cars on their left, not on the right).
Just because you see a bicycle in the "car lane" doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be there. And in any case, if they aren't impeding traffic does it really matter? If you can pass reasonably in another lane, the bicyclist isn't impeding so it hardly matters if they use the bike lane or not.
All good reasons, all often not the reason for bicyclists to be in traffic.
Last night on Divis near the Independent, which is hosting part of the bike related film festival, I spotted a number of clearly unaccustomed to biking bikers fiddling with their baskets and hiking up their skirts on what they seemed to think was the side of the road, but was actually the border between the bus stop and the lane. They had about 6 feet of space between themselves and the curb, and their rear wheels were hanging into traffic. No helmets. No lights. Stupid fucking idiots asking to get mowed down by MUNI. They also weren't even at the far end of the bus stop, so they were partially blocking traffic and completely obstructing the bus stop. That is not what I call sharing the road.
I bet they also think bikes don't need brakes.
"more like a sexy somebody who drinks cheap beer next to a porta-potty."
mmmm yah! that's exactly what I go for!
if that's who's riding without helmets, let 'em ... they probably think that spilled brains are also sexy.
There are a lot of good lookin' biker boys around, but I think the ones without helmets are morons. The "cheating death" sex appeal starts losing that appeal after age 15 or so when you realize that getting paralyzed or worse probably wouldn't be so cool after all. If you're going for a "look", helmets just add one more thing to your fashionable get-up. There are a lot of "cool" helmets out there these days.
When I wore my bicycle helmet, drivers seemed to take bigger chances with my safety. I think they assumed I was immune to injury cos of the helmet, as if that provided an invisible shield of protection for me and my bike.
I tried bicycling without a helmet, and lo and behold, drivers gave me a wider berth.
This was on my bike commute from San Mateo to South City, four miles of which was on El Camino Real.
What protects me the most is my following traffic laws and being on high alert, not necessarily in that order.
My advice: don't eat alot of Jello-cups. You don't want to get tired of them just yet.
very well done.
Most of my bike route is not in traffic anyway. Thanks for your concern, anyway.
Hey Einstein, you don't have to be riding in traffic to break your neck in a crash.
Hey Don Rickles, I'll take my chances with years of skill and experience and not taking otherwise foolhardy risks.
I'm not reckless; I stopped wearing a helmet when I realized it made me a target. I trust my experience and perceptions. Maybe some folks aren't comfortable with that. That's their problem.
Also, to paraphrase Bill Hicks: Smart people die... every day.
Can someone refresh me on how a helmet would protect against a broken neck?
one i've heard a lot is "most bicycling injuries affect the legs, elbows, knees, not your head." this one is probably true, but i think it's better to stay safe.
safety firsT!
The "moral hazard" created by people's overreaction to safety policies is never as big as the actual hazard being eliminated.
Seatbelts may have led to slightly more reckless driving, but they saved huge numbers of lives anyway.
Anyone who actually believes that "drivers...steer[ing] clear of bikers who they see are not wearing headgear" is more likely to prevent injury than wearing a helmet is an idiot, or a champion rationalizer.
The most intelligent comment thus far.
If what's in your head isn't worth protecting, don't wear a helmet.
You don't have to wear a square bicycle helmet, get a skate helmet, they don't look like a Marin dad.
Oh and also, I've seen plenty of hipster bikers--- the ones who are bringing back acid-washed jeans and the kind of pants I like to call "Jerry Blank Pants"-- rocking an ironic, geeky bicycle helmet, so you have their approval at least.
Yeah, my main objection to bike helmets (although I wear one religiously) is that they are freaking dorky looking. My kid's skate helmet looks much cooler, and I will be investing in one shortly.
I don't own a car and rarely drive. When I do, I can honestly say I don't even notice when cyclists are wearing helmets. It's not a concern. My concern is with not hitting them. It's with checking my mirror when making a right turn so one doesn't plow into my side. I've never thought, "Hey, he's wearing a helmet, no need to be cautious." That's absurd.
I have a friend who buys into the no helmets are safer thing and used the "people fall down just walking around" bullshit. Yeah, but when people slip and fall they don't land on their heads, or hit their heads on parked cars, or on the curb. They fall on their asses, and they don't do it at 15 mph. If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine, but don't pretend you're being safe. You sound as stupid as the people who don't wear seatbelts so they can be thrown clear.
I believe it works on the subconscious level.
God, you folks are so vehement!
I grew up in San Francisco so was raised with that whole Open-Minded, Tolerant, Peace, Love, and Understanding worldview. Then I moved away. Since I've been back, I've realized that one never had to tread on eggshells more than when around all these Open-Minded, Tolerant, Freedom-loving denizens of Northern California.
Hate always needs an outlet.
Helmets for some!
Organ donors for others!
Don't blame me I voted for Kodos
They'll be fine because they believe in Jebus.
Let's see, I've had 3 bike wrecks in my 9 years in SF, and in two of those wrecks I hit my head, but because I was wearing my helmet, I had no head injuries.
To wear a helmet or not?
Duh!
I actually read some study that showed that cars give more room to bicyclists without helmets (and, interestingly, women). I wish I could find it now... Though I agree that the cars who give you more room aren't the ones you need to be cautious around. I also agree that most bicycling injuries don't happen to the top of your head. If you hit your head at all, it'll most likely be to scrape your chin/face (which is why I wear a full-face on my motorcycle).
Airtight logic. Have you considered running for mayor?
Want drivers to give you a wider berth, but don't want to sacrifice protection? Wear a Hello Kitty bike helmet.
yeah wear a pink helmet and make sure there's visible drool coming from your face.
Hmm. I only recently started wearing a helmet, and only at the behest of a loved one. It's no so bad. I've biked everywhere since I was little, and I missed the cutoff for mandatory helmet laws, and it just wasn't seen a big deal at the time, biking helmetless.
There's some interesting but non-scientific evidence for the drivers-drive-closer-to-people-with-helmets theory, but I think the more compelling argument against helmets is that they sort of reinforce the idea that biking is at best purely recreational (and thus in the category of sports-that-require-helmets) and at worst freakish (a grotesque choice of transportation that demands you sacrifice your human appearance). Part of this, certainly, stems of envy of our Northern European counterparts, who are seen biking around in regular clothes, unencumbered by headgear, looking, well, like people look.
Here is a flawed analogy. You know how travel books suggest that you, the tourist, wear a money belt? It is, in its way, good advice. Safety first, right? The problem is that it's basically good advice no matter whether you're in a foreign city or if you're in your own. Now: would you wear a money belt in your own city? Of course not—it would be a worryingly defensive way to conduct yourself. I think, realistically or not, many bicyclists are just tired of operating under the presumption of defense. Perhaps this is neither the time nor the place for such feelings, but I think there is at some legitimacy to them.
The money belt thing is a good idea for tourists because locals (and thieves) can spot a tourist a mile away. You're in or near San Francisco, so you know this. So, when you're more of a target, you should worry more about protection.
I don't think it's silly at all to skip the helmet if you're taking a nice ride through the park or commuting through the Richmond on a street like Anza. But once you head downtown, or venture onto a street like Geary Blvd where there's a lot of traffic and speeds are much higher, you should probably have more protection. Just like the tourist is more in need of a money belt than a local.
Money belts are from the days when you had to bring a huge pile of cash or traveler's checks with you when you traveled. These days, unless you are going somewhere unusually remote, credit cards and ATM access eliminate the need for you to have an entire vacation's worth of money on your person at once. I suppose you are still just as screwed if someone steals your credit cards or atm card though.
Actually, a researcher in the UK conducted a study that validates the claims of these helmet rebels. Not sayin' that I agree with them, but something to think about...
As already stated, following traffic laws and being alert to one's surroundings are the real key to staying safe. However, I'd like to tack on the addendum that both cyclists and drivers need to follow these words of wisdom to keep everyone who "shares the road" safe.
Do you really think that the bicycling habits and driving habits of UK residents has any basis in the day-in-day-out reality of life in good ole, road-rage, date-raping, U.S.A..U.S.A..U.S.A.?
not flaming, just curious...
That's a good question and I don't know. Maybe something gets lost in translation after swapping the traffic direction and applying the American spirit you reference above.
Helmets don't look cool. 'Nuff said. Check out my new vintage Vuarnets--now these are cool (they're actually my mom's from the early 80's. Please don't tell anyone). My beard is coming along pretty well, don't you think?
A jaunty fedora provides excellent head protection. Trucker hats used to, but don't anymore.
There really is a lot of anger out there looking for a target these days.
The way I look at it, I will ride my bike a lot, take the lane, roll a few stop signs, run a few reds, kick a few cars for no reason. This will keep all this anger directed at cyclists and keep people from beating up their spouses and kids.
My wife's cousin spent two and a half weeks in intensive care at SF General trying to survive a traumatic brain injury after crashing without a helmet. Cars might have been giving him extra room, but he was hit by another cyclist.
While that study may have shown that drivers give riders without helmets extra room, did they actually establish that this is safer for drivers or cyclists? The driver is paying extra attention to the cyclist, but is that at the expense of other avoiding other hazards? Perhaps this is headline is dumbed down for a non-scientific audience, but the net effect of not wearing a helmet is not likely to be more safety. Perhaps a small reduction in the number of vehicle vs bike accidents is probably offset by a large increase in the likelihood of serious injury in the event of a crash regardless of whether a car was involved.
I'm skeptical of the study, but I'm willing to accept the findings. But there is a gigantic leap between "drivers give more room to people without helmets" to "not wearing a helmet is safer." Such as:
-Assumes that all cars that could hit you have seen you. In my experience of falls and close calls, the driver didn't see me at all.
-Assumes accidents are predominantly caused by drivers who don't give bicyclists enough room. This has no relevance to accidents with other causes, such as getting stuck in Muni rails, hitting unexpected bumps, etc.
Just wear a helmet. It's worth messing up your ironic mullet.
Hell, you'd think helmet mullet would be a sought after style.
I think the problem with bike helmets isn't that they don't make you safer it's that they are commonly viewed as the key issue in bike safety, that if only every cyclist would wear a helmet then the roads might become completely safe. Education (for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians) and better facilities would make for a far bigger improvement in overall safety IMO.
That and VISIBILITY. Not everyone has perfect 21 year old eyes. Wear a reflective jacket!!
Those studies sound like bullshit, I don't wear a helmet because I don't want to, most people seemed to do just fine without them until the early 90's without being called a moron. Wearing a helmet in a car is safer too, but just as annoying.
Question to all you MUST WEAR HELMET folks.
Do you wear a helmet when you ski?
last time I went skiing on concrete surrounded by huge steel monsters of death, you mean?
nah.
haven't ridden that ride.
you?
I think it is a mischaracterization to group all anti-helmet people down to a group of stupid hipsters who don't want to muss their hair (which seems to be what a lot seem to think). There are (reasonable!) people though that think the emphasis on helmets makes it appear that bicycling is more dangerous than it is. It's not really. Most studies done on fatalities and severe injuries versus hours of activity or distance traveled all show riding / driving in a car and walking to be more dangerous than bicycling. But making something seem more dangerous decreases participation (there is a well-known Australian study showing this).
And of course severe head injuries are a major risk while in a car or walking. And yet we don't require helmets (or don't think a person is "stupid") for not wearing one during those activities. You (I mean residents of the US) are far more likely to get in a severe car accident or be hit by a car while walking than you are to get into a bike accident that results in more than a scrape or two.
Worse, modern cycling helmets are only built to be effective up to a certain level of force. That force does not include a car slamming into you at 25 mph or higher. It does include falling off your bike (if going relatively slow) and happening to hit your head (rather than the far more likely scraping of your knees or twisting of your legs). Things that are probably far more effective in keeping you unharmed while cycling (because if you do all these the helmet will probably never touch anything but your hands and head):
* Being visible (lights, etc.)
* Riding predictably and legally (no shooting up and down onto sidewalks, no swerving quickly between lanes, or not signaling, yielding the right of way at stop signs / lights)
* Looking carefully before making maneuvers. Looking carefully even when you have the right of way.
* Taking the lane if cars are passing too close (to force drivers to change lanes before passing)
* Keeping your bike well-maintained (brakes work, tires correctly inflated, etc)
* Not wearing head phones
And so forth.
The emphasis on helmets seems to have a ridiculous effect on people's minds where if a person is wearing a helmet they are somehow "safer" even though that person might have not inflated their tires in weeks and turns without signaling all the time. The fellow not wearing a helmet but who actually has lights at night and follows the rules of the road is far less likely to need a helmet.
It is far, far more important that we get cyclists riding in a safe and legal manner with proper equipment (lights, well-maintained bikes) than convincing them a helmet is necessary. It is equally important that we convince drivers to pass safely and to make turns and such with care (a lot of the driver training will come just be virtue of there being more bicycles on the road -- many SF cyclists will tell you they feel safest in packs since the car drivers can't not notice you).
Wear a helmet if you like. It's not fair though to say someone who doesn't wear one is insane or taking unacceptable risks. By that argument you shouldn't walk across Golden Gate at Mason without a helmet (to give an example of an intersection with a high pedestrian accident rate.)
It's a sign of recklessness. Bikers without helmets are most often (though not always) the ones on fixies, with no brakes, with headphones, in all black, blowing lights without looking.
When I see a cyclist without a helmet I think he's likely to do something crazy, so I stay out of the way. (Perhaps that prevents accidents after all?)
That's what I'm saying. It's not a sign of recklessness. Or at least no more "reckless" than a car passenger not wearing a helmet.
I agree that a lot of helmet-less cyclists in San Francisco are of the fixie, no brake, headphones idiotic variety (I saw one going downhill on Divisadero the other day going at least 30mph. Good luck stopping at the light at Geary).
But to say it's a "sign of recklessness" is to say that anyone not wearing one is reckless. Which is absurd to say about, say, a cyclist who stops at stop signs, never runs lights and signals all the time. There is a continuum of risky and less risky behavior (using any mode of transportation) and given safer behavior in other areas, the helmet "issue" is really only a small one.
No it's not.
It is to say that non-helmet-wearers are more likely to be reckless. Which is my experience watching them run said lights and not brake said fixies. Of course some are perfect in every way, but we're talking about probabilities, not absolutes.
I personally wear a helmet every time, to reduce my own risk of injury.
You shouldn't walk across GG at Mason drunk, high, and against the light. That would prevent 90% of such accidents.
Yes obviously! I see you are understanding the idea of risky and not risky behavior. The idea I was trying to get across was that if you don't do idiotic things and pay attention, you are far, far less likely to get hit (or fall on your own). The helmet is thus relatively irrelevant.
As a firefighter in San Francisco, and having gone to many car vs. bicycle & bicycle vs pavement or tree or wall etc. accidents, I can state categorically that you are much safer wearing a helmet than not wearing a helmet. Period.
Of course helmets are "safer". I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing how much emphasis is put on them and the attitude that people who don't wear helmets are automatically unsafe morons. I can't help but chuckle (morbidly) when I see a cyclist in San Francisco, at night, with no lights, running a stop sign without even slowing ... with a helmet on. See BicycleSafe for where I'm coming from.
Rachael, sweetie, that's absurd. Not using a safety device because of a vague idea that it dissuades ppl from biking is horseshit SF bike politics. If the people making this claim are really putting their lives at risk (and that of others) in order to make a point that is dubious at best, then they are, indeed, profoundly stupid. Put the damn helmet ON, in addition to all the other important safety tips you mention, and take the bully pulpit back to the sidewalk where it belongs.
First, I have to say calling me "sweetie" is kind of insulting.
Second, labeling concerns that the strong emphasis on helmets is misguided as "SF bike politics" is dismissive and unsupported. Please have a look at bikesafe.com (the link above). There *have* been studies in other places demonstrating decreased bike usage when helmet laws (or campaigns) are put in place. Local surveys of people asking why they don't bike often include large numbers of people who don't want to wear helmets, but feel they *have* to or they are being suicidally unsafe, which is untrue if they get some bike skills and don't ride stupidly.
It's not helmets that bother me or that I think it's a bad idea to wear one -- I wear one the vast majority of my rides. I just think there is a massive over-emphasis on them. Learning to ride a bike safely should be more than "follow the law and wear a helmet". But that's what most of us are taught and the shorthand that exists in the media (and in blog comments). It's not nearly enough. You can "follow the law" and still get right-hooked. I see far too many cyclists who risk that everyday. While wearing helmets. The majority of (reported) cyclist accidents happen because the cyclist was doing something dangerous or illegal: riding at night without lights, riding the wrong way, riding on sidewalks, passing cars actively turning on the right, etc. At least two of these many of us were taught as kids as the "right" way to ride, even though it's extremely unsafe.
BTW, the official position of the SFBC is to wear helmets. And that's about the most important bit of "SF bike politics".
I didn't mean to be insulting, I meant to be condescending. Your position is childish and you missed my point. Riding without a helmet in order to send a message to the "world" that its safe to ride without a helmet is silly and dumb and adolescent. Are they going to wear big signs on their heads that say "I'm not wearing a helmet but my tires are inflated and I don't pass on the right so I'm still safe," instead of helmets? Cuz then maybe yer on to somethin. Really, public opinion is going to change, one helmetless cyclist at a time? Its so depressingly typical of how bike advocacy and activism (until very recently) has been approached in this city. It took 13 years to get a bike plan, but boy we've got critical mass and whole lot of bad ass cyclists, some of whom are even willing to martyr themselves for the sake of "busting" the helmet myth. By the way, if you think bike politics in this city begin and end with the bike coalition, you're very misguided.
Um, I think you missed *my* point. Which part of which post did I say I don't wear a helmet to send a message about the safety of cycling? All I did was note a lot of facts (well studies aren't exactly facts) that indicate we obsess over helmets too much to the detriment of things that would actually increase safety significantly. And that when we judge that some cyclist we see is unsafe because they aren't wearing their helmet, but otherwise behaving more legally and safely than many who do wear them, is completely unfair and ridiculous. It would be as if we said a driver who drove perfectly was unsafe because you could see he wasn't wearing a seat belt ... but a driver who changed lanes unexpectedly without signaling at unsafe speeds but was wearing one was safe. And that we should put an emphasis on getting everyone to wear seat belts whilst there were a lot of the latter kind of driver on the road.
I do think that if there were a real emphasis on education in the city -- perhaps cops could pull over cyclists (and car drivers) for pulling unsafe maneuvers (not just rolling through stop signs as there are quite safe versions of that and unsafe versions) and ticket them with "bicycle school". I think that would be far, far more effective for improving the image of cycling than bike lane networks, helmet advocacy (or news organizations deciding it's an interesting story), or even just standard ticketing. And yet that won't ever happen because it costs a lot of money and ticketed persons would probably be given the option of paying a relatively cheap fine instead of class.
So I'm left pointing out that safe biking is a lot more than a helmet on internet forums and, occasionally when someone shows an interest, while waiting at a light.
N.B. I only noted the bike coalition's position since they are the most visible (and politically influential) bike advocacy organization.
As a non-helmet-wearing, yet aware cyclist, I'd feel a hell of a lot safer if everyone just signaled their turns - autos and bikes. Drive/ride/amble predictably!
Good luck on that. Let us know when everyone is in compliance.
Absolute horseshit. I ran into a door on Market and Castro, the first two bodily items that hit the pavement were my shoulder and head. My helmet saved my life.
One time I fell and my helmet didn't even touch the ground therefore helmets are useless.
I give the most lee-way to naked cyclists. Just sayin'.
As someone who separates my bike from my politics, I'm amazed at how many people have an apparent death wish. More so than helmets, what really amazes me is people who ride at night without lights or reflectors! Do you WANT to die???
Don't tell me there aren't enough options. There are blinky lights and rad reflectors in all colors and intensities to make your own personalized rolling lightshow! What could be cooler than that?!?
I found this article from bostonist.com
Boston and San Francisco seem to have the same bicycling issues. It's unreal how many people are listening to their iPods while riding, or who blow through red lights during rush hour. I don't get it. However, for every reckless crazy person there seem to be as many sane, safe riders.
Have the number of cyclists in SF blown up in the past year? It seems to be at least double here in Boston.