I'm quite sure that the primary factor for safety in the Netherlands is the excellent infrastructure. Separate bike lanes, crossings that take into account viewing angles, etc. - cyclist safety is so ingrained in road design here, and it directly affects how safe it is to cycle, even when you're a lone cyclist.

The law is probably a second large factor, and only then do I think the number of cyclists comes into play. And even then, that sheer number has only been achieved thanks to the former two factors - I'm confident that that has played a far greater role than helmets being optional.

From personal experience I agree. Let me tell you HN folks a small story. There are a few parts in Amsterdam that I feel that are inherently unsafe. I avoid those places and cycle 100 meters extra. Let me see if I can find a Google Maps image as an example.

Yes! Found it! [1]

Why this place is dangerous: tram rails to get your bike wheel stuck in on the left. Cars on the right. Especially on a rainy day with lots of traffic this place is scary. It's quite easy to get stuck in a tram rail with cars behind you. The lane that cyclists seem to cycle in is mostly between the first tram rail and the cars on the right (see [2] for a better perspective of it). Whenever I cycle this small part, I always hope that every parked driver knows the Dutch reach. Amsterdam is a multicultural city with expats, so I'm always a bit weary whenever I forgot to choose the safer option. Up until now, they fortunately all did [3].

[1] https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.3516556,4.8493917,3a,75y,288....

[2] https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.3516258,4.8488613,3a,75y,285....

[3] It took me a long time to switch from this unsafe small part of Amsterdam to a safer alternative.

I've been there, and during wet weather, I've once felt my rear wheel start to slip on a tram rail (fortunately I managed to compensate). I learned to take tram rails at a steeper angle, which has served me well. Never had any other trouble here, but yes, I watch the car doors. Or I ride between the tram rails, because there's no way cars will be going very fast here.

Still, it's clearly a place that lacks the separate bike lanes that are so common elsewhere.

As somebody who cycled in nearly 15 different nations inside and outside of Europe, cycling in the Netherlands is a joy. For me it was mainly three factors:

1. Infrastructure: wide enough seperated lanes without potholes in a bright color, making it clear also to pedestrians. Most of the time very clear visibility on crossroads.

2. Motorized traffic is most of the time far less stressed than in other parts of europe

3. Other cyclists seem to be more educated about traffic rules than in other places where you often only have two types: the suicidal and the overly cautionous, barly going faster than a pedestrian

  > Other cyclists seem to be more educated about traffic rules than in other places where you often only have two types: the suicidal and the overly cautionous, barly going faster than a pedestrian

We also have those types (the overly cautious ones are generally tourists, often in large groups), but we have a couple of other types to balance things out.

Worst examples of suicidal: a cyclist running a red light on the most dangerous intersection of the city while on the phone and not remotely paying attention to traffic. Or parents teaching their young kids to lane-split against motorised traffic.

I think you forgot a very important point: no uphill climbs :P

This and the law: cars are always to blame.

Even in The Netherlands this law was needed to keep bikers safe.

And when introduced even the Dutch made fun of it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ivY06w83fKU

Edit: if you want to look this up, the law is called: "Artikel 185 Wegenverkeerswet".

It's very broad and is not only to protect cyclists. I think this law is more about making drivers of motor vehicles more responsible.

Cars aren't always to blame. It's just that it starts from the presumption that the car is at fault - which is the case in approx 90% of cases in the UK (although the UK doesn't have this strict-liability unfortunately)

Strict also doesn't mean 'always' in the Netherlands. There are exceptions.

See: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liabili...

No, cars aren't too blame, the car owner is only liable for damage, and why does that law exist? Because cars have mandatory liability insurance, bicycles and pedestrians do not. It's not about making drivers more responsible, although it helps most Dutch don't understand what liability means, it's too make sure there is always money to pay for damage, especially if the damage is severe.

Most people have a liability insurance so I don't believe this is why the law exists.

This is a very old law from the age of drivers without license and cars made of concrete.

That's also why more and more people think the law is unfair and doesn't fit the current climate.

Great video from “Koot en Bie”! Thanks for bringing up old memories.

Just spending enough time on a bike or motorbike will change the way you drive. Not only do you become aware of blind spots but you become a little paranoid about them. You might also learn that hitting a large metal box hurts.

That transfers when the many bikers are driving a car into doing more, and better checks than a typical driver without two wheel experience.

This also works the other way around. Once I got my driver's license, I understood the perspective of motorists better, and adjusted my cycling accordingly.

Anecdotal at best

Actually there are insurance companies offering discounts on car insurance to cyclists as their data shows them to be safer drivers.

Actually not: https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/why-bikers-...

I think there's some direction of causation issues here. The Netherlands has invested in road design that makes cycling safer;

Therefore ->

A) more people ride bikes.

B) Less people wear helmets.

A and B are correlated, but this is due to a 3rd external cause. They do not cause each other.

There's definitely a causative relationship between A and B, although it's not the only factor (of course, safer road design is probably a more significant factor)

When mandatory helmet laws were introduced across Australia we saw a sharp drop off in casual cycling rates which we're only recovering from now. If we never suffered that drop, perhaps we'd have a stronger cycling culture today.

Mandatory helmets are one of the worst things that a county can do for cycling.

Mandatory helmet usage reduces ridership. The inverse is not necessarily true.

Cultural importance too. When so many people you may know are bikers, including you, you might empathize a lot more with them rather than see them as anonymous frail annoyances to pass.

People in The Netherlands also don't identify as "bikers". They use bicycles yes, but that doesn't make them a biker. Would people in the US who drive a car identify themselves as "car drivers"? Or people who walk to work as "walkers"? I don't think that's a thing.

This is a good point.

When I turn right I always check my right mirror. This is not something I was specifically taught, this is something I do because I also bike a lot and am often on the bike lane on the right.

(yes, the design of the lens is such that this should not be an issue but a lot of cyclists will still stupidly cross the crosding instead of following the U shaped path)

You where NOT taught to check that you are not turning into/across some one? WTH?

When doing a maneuver you check your mirror AND turn your head. If you are not taught this I shudder to think what else where left out of your so-called drivers education.

Of course we were told (30 years ago) to check all kind of things but bike lanes on your right did not exist at that time.

I am glad that you can comment on my so called driver education (which includes a L1 rally license) and it is a good thing that today the new driving context (with bike lanes all over the place are correctly taught).

All which of course has nothing to do with my comment about the extra awareness someone gains when being another user of the road (on another device, it goes both ways).

I remember reading a study that concluded that wearing a helmet actually increases a bikers chance of being in an accident because drivers pass closer to then.

* found it* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17064655

Same in Munich. When you drive a car you know you have to look for bikes when you turn because there are so many. Now that I am in California there are so few pedestrians and bikers that I barely look anymore.

> I think the key to safety for bikers in the Netherlands is simply the sheer number of them. When you visit the Netherlands. Within 15 minutes you have gotten used to scanning for bikers everywhere. There are so many of them and they come so frequently that you cannot not get into the habit of looking for them.

I am a Dutchie who has been mostly living in a village for most of his life. I visited most big cities in The Netherlands quite frequently, once every month, (especially Amsterdam) with people (parents when I was young, friends when I got older). So when I moved to Amsterdam I thought that I was used to it.

I was wrong. I got attacked by bikes left, right and center at the moments where I was unsuspecting. Those moments were few and far in between, but that is what made it so dangerous. I had enough exposure to Dutch cyclists / cycling myself to do it 98% of the time. And in the remaining 2% I got attacked.

I've learned and fortunately didn't have to pay the price.

One of the reasons is the separation of biking lanes and motor vehicles. There are also directives (not laws) for implementation of crossings, roundabouts and soft requirements for traffic/h vs lane width etc. This makes sure the implementation is mostly universal and thus easier to work with but leaves some space for special cases (e.g. in dense cities and on older roads).

> So the number of bikers in the Netherlands seem to create a better protection for bikers than the usage of helmets. And here is the kicker: If you don't demand that people use helmets when biking, the number of bikers will rise to a level, where the number of injuries will be lower than if everybody used helmet.

I think infrastructure and distances of travel are more of a incentive than helmets, though with mopeds (low speed mopeds don't require helmets) speak in your favor.

> I will probably still use a helmet in Norway due to the terrain, but it is still food for thought I think.

I wonder if there are accident statistics taking terrain into account. It's a lot more difficult to harm yourself on flat ground than coming down a steep hill.

But Norway is a very extreme case. By law the bikers do not carry any responsibilities, which in term is carried over completely on the drivers. That gives bikers a false sense of security while it ruins drivers lives. Norway is inherintley a terrible country for biking. There are 8 months of terrible weather, 3 of those months are pitch black night with virtually no sunlight.

The infrastructure for biking is terrible, and the rules make it even worse.

Norway is a very special case.

Edit: Helmet, hi visibility vest and reflex lights are the only requirement there is for a biker in Norway.

Also some places there are pedestrian and bike lanes, but most bikers still choose to bike on the road because it is faster ..

I wonder if it is just because of the fact that Norway has mountains. The risk of going to fast downhill, plus gravel is an issue without any risks of cars.

When living in Norway I remember that this was an issue even on a place where there was a separated cycle path. Which why going down hill to the train station it was with helmet and back up it was without.

When living in the Netherlands, I never felt that the road itself was dangerous like it was in Norway.

Indeed; 99.9% of drivers are also bicyclists.

It's awareness born of experience.

This reminds me of Spain where a colleague said it was safer driving motorycle there, than in the UK. I asked why, and he said Spanish car drivers usually anticipate motorcycles passing on the inside when turning, overtaking etc.

Not only Spain, quite common on other Southern Europe countries as well.

We learn to properly use all three mirrors.

@200 [fatalities/year] I'm not sure it's factual to deem the Netherlands safe for bikers (yes we need to adjust for population and mileage, but it's surely not obviously safer than other places).

If the Netherlands had driving fatalities at the same rate as the U.K. there would be about 470 per year, although I think the U.K. figure includes cyclists being hit by cars

Dane here: the accidents I have been involved in have all been solo accidents where I hit a rock or bike in winter and nearly slip on ice.

If I get hit by a car I doubt it will matter if there is a helmet on my head.