One of the key negative impacts of mandatory bike helmet laws is that they are essentially a death sentence for bike share programs.
-
@leeloo @juliette 1/2 If a supermarket or any business is required to provide parking, whether for customers or employees, are effectively subsidizing that parking.
When a country or city stops doing this, the reduction of cars is dramatic. I personal experience with a company where, for every eight employees who didn't use a parking space (transport paid for by the firm), the savings funded a bonus equivalent to a full salary.
-
@Luu @juliette
Mandatory helmet laws are probably not getting anyone to buy a car, but most people need a car for some things. Convenience is a huge determining factor for using the bicycle or the car for the rest.Also, to end parking subsidies, you first need to have parking subsidies. At home I park on private property. The grocery store owns their parking lot, and they are not going to charge for using it, because then people are going to shop at their competitor across the road. And work usually either has their own parking lot of pays for parking spaces. The last place I worked, I had a "parking card", even though I only used it once or twice per year when my bicycle needed repairs. They didn't ask if I needed one, I worked there, so I had one.
But anyway, you're attempting a misdirection - mandatory bicycle helmet laws do not change anything about parking, and parking is irrelevant to the well known results of such laws.
@leeloo @juliette 2/2 this was possible because the site had been reconfigured to replace a parking lot with an additional building. That setup also led to staggered schedules rather than rush-hour commuting.
The helmet issue isn't going to stop you from using a bicycle or moped when you go somewhere else, if especially considering that parking can end up costing almost as much as renting a car, don't rent a car.
The first step is not to subsidize parking, Tokyo, the Netherlands, Switzerland... -
@leeloo @juliette 2/2 this was possible because the site had been reconfigured to replace a parking lot with an additional building. That setup also led to staggered schedules rather than rush-hour commuting.
The helmet issue isn't going to stop you from using a bicycle or moped when you go somewhere else, if especially considering that parking can end up costing almost as much as renting a car, don't rent a car.
The first step is not to subsidize parking, Tokyo, the Netherlands, Switzerland... -
@daycoder @juliette Low speed impacts, translated to the skull, will kill you quite effectively. (and a bicycle, on any ordinary day, can quite easily enable a high speed impact). Yes, pedestrians are not required to wear helmets. The human race has been standing on two legs a lot longer than we've been riding two wheeled devices. We can stand quite comfortably on two feet. Less reliably on two wheels. I don't have a problem with opposing mandatory helmet laws, just with poorly supported arguments against them.
@daycoder @juliette this is evidence, perhaps relevant in the Danish/Euro context. https://ugeskriftet.dk/dmj/potential-impact-mandatory-helmet-when-biking
-
@daycoder @juliette this is evidence, perhaps relevant in the Danish/Euro context. https://ugeskriftet.dk/dmj/potential-impact-mandatory-helmet-when-biking
@billschulz @daycoder this analyzes impact of wearing helmet on accidents, but ignores impact of helmet laws on overall cycling.
-
@daycoder @juliette this is evidence, perhaps relevant in the Danish/Euro context. https://ugeskriftet.dk/dmj/potential-impact-mandatory-helmet-when-biking
@billschulz @daycoder one of the primary drivers of bike safety is the amount of other cyclists around you. If you introduce mandatory helmets, you reduce the amount of cyclists. there is a direct correlation. Looking only at injury data is an incomplete picture.
-
One of the key negative impacts of mandatory bike helmet laws is that they are essentially a death sentence for bike share programs.
Those programs win because they are convenient and encourage spontaneous cycling. That just doesn’t work if a person has to carry a helmet everywhere just in case they decide to cycle. Tourists are not going to pack a bulky helmet. Shared helmets are a hygiene nightmare.
Protect cyclists with bike infrastructure. That’s what works.
#helmets@juliette
There is a genuine piece of research to be done around what cyclists who used the (imho) dubious Hövding inflatable helmets did, when the firm collapsed and they all suddenly became useless.Edit: it seems the Hövding airbag for cyclists is coming back. Now with, wait for it, AI!
https://www.hovding.com/ -
@JaxxAI @enobacon @juliette
Bigger, heavier cars.
More SUVs
More pickup trucks as domestic vehicles, & larger too.
Bring in much higher taxes (sale & road) and extra tests for heavier vehicles. Two extra licences between car & lorry/truck.
Proof of business/farm need for 4x4, SUV, pickups etc.
Abolish road tax for small cars & motor bikes as the fuel is taxed. Increase fuel tax. Needs to be much higher in USA.
Allow ebikes to have a throttle, but rate faster/more power as per a moped Honda 50.@raymaccarthy + many many many drivers look at their phones instead of the road!
Probably depends on location, but it was uncompareably safer to cycle on side of the road in 2000 than it is now, mainly because of this.
-
One of the key negative impacts of mandatory bike helmet laws is that they are essentially a death sentence for bike share programs.
Those programs win because they are convenient and encourage spontaneous cycling. That just doesn’t work if a person has to carry a helmet everywhere just in case they decide to cycle. Tourists are not going to pack a bulky helmet. Shared helmets are a hygiene nightmare.
Protect cyclists with bike infrastructure. That’s what works.
#helmetsSigh. I am ambivalent about helmet laws. But I always wear a helmet, just 'cause I want to continue to Walk Right.
I've had one bad bike accident which broke my collarbone. It also cracked my bike helmet. But not my skull.
-
@juliette
There is a genuine piece of research to be done around what cyclists who used the (imho) dubious Hövding inflatable helmets did, when the firm collapsed and they all suddenly became useless.Edit: it seems the Hövding airbag for cyclists is coming back. Now with, wait for it, AI!
https://www.hovding.com/@bestdeadends I’d be very curious to see that
-
Sigh. I am ambivalent about helmet laws. But I always wear a helmet, just 'cause I want to continue to Walk Right.
I've had one bad bike accident which broke my collarbone. It also cracked my bike helmet. But not my skull.
@lemgandi and maybe this is a good spot in the thread to say I always wear a helmet too - mostly because if I didn’t it’d be a lot harder to convince my child to wear theirs…
-
One of the key negative impacts of mandatory bike helmet laws is that they are essentially a death sentence for bike share programs.
Those programs win because they are convenient and encourage spontaneous cycling. That just doesn’t work if a person has to carry a helmet everywhere just in case they decide to cycle. Tourists are not going to pack a bulky helmet. Shared helmets are a hygiene nightmare.
Protect cyclists with bike infrastructure. That’s what works.
#helmets@juliette Even better than bike infrastructure, just ban most personal cars from cities. That also makes the cities more friendly to anybody not in a car and drastically lowers the noise pollution, thus making cities a better place to live.
-
@CrowOnAKettle Helmets can work. I only see one commenter here suggesting they don't?
Simple saying "helmets always work" and discussing this as if helmets are a stand-alone thing distracts from real safety though: preventing crashes instead of limiting consequences.
Context matters, and for many modes of cycling in f.e. the Netherlands, infrastructure, training (of all road users), age/experience, and type of bicycle influence risk significantly more than helmets.
@Pepijn @CrowOnAKettle @juliette
That is why, since 2023, riders of mobility devices with blue license plates (which are permitted to use bike lanes) have been required to wear helmets, with the exception of quadricycles for people with reduced mobility, while standard e-scooters are prohibited.
Making helmet use mandatory does not deter cyclists, or motorcyclists. Someone might choose to walk or use public transport any day instead, but they do not switch to driving a car. -
@raymaccarthy + many many many drivers look at their phones instead of the road!
Probably depends on location, but it was uncompareably safer to cycle on side of the road in 2000 than it is now, mainly because of this.
@krahabors @JaxxAI @enobacon @juliette
Also vehicles with super big touch screen instead of physical controls you can operate without taking eyes of road.
Also distracting SatNav that isn't needed and the user has no idea it has an off. -
@JaxxAI @juliette you didn't read any of the above. Wear a helmet if YOU want to. DON'T tell other people that they must, or even should, only because they're riding a bike.
If you're going to hit some sick jumps, it might be worth it (if it's a full face helmet.) But there's no more evidence to support a LEGAL POLICY than there is for mandatory car helmets. And given the popularity of driving, you should start there for maximum public health benefits. Unless you just hate people biking.
-
@raymaccarthy @JaxxAI @enobacon @juliette A bike share scheme needs to be designed right to be a success. Edinburgh’s last bike share scheme flopped, but the current one is a runaway success, to the point that there seem subjectively to be way more people cycling now, and the majority of them seem to be on these hire bikes.
@baz @raymaccarthy @juliette people switching from cars to bikes would save cities so much money that they should heavily subsidize bikeshare. The failure to do so likely explains the failures. Same for transit. Heavily promoting helmet use can also have most of the negative effects of laws requiring helmets (which do more to enable arbitrary, probably racist / classist, enforcement than they do to yield any net public health benefit.)
-
@baz @raymaccarthy @juliette people switching from cars to bikes would save cities so much money that they should heavily subsidize bikeshare. The failure to do so likely explains the failures. Same for transit. Heavily promoting helmet use can also have most of the negative effects of laws requiring helmets (which do more to enable arbitrary, probably racist / classist, enforcement than they do to yield any net public health benefit.)
@enobacon @baz @juliette
Subsidise bike share, or a parasite rental company?
Or should the city council buy and rent bikes?
Bike subsidies to purchase are a failure,
Or offer free public transport with free parking outside the city? That's applicable to far more people.I think the term "bike share" is misleading. There is a bigger picture to see of bike infrastructure, changing facilities in shops & offices for staff. Weather. Regular free public transport serving all areas 24x7.
-
@enobacon @baz @juliette
Subsidise bike share, or a parasite rental company?
Or should the city council buy and rent bikes?
Bike subsidies to purchase are a failure,
Or offer free public transport with free parking outside the city? That's applicable to far more people.I think the term "bike share" is misleading. There is a bigger picture to see of bike infrastructure, changing facilities in shops & offices for staff. Weather. Regular free public transport serving all areas 24x7.
@raymaccarthy @enobacon @juliette As a user of free public transport (a good bus service) I’m all for it! It’s made a huge difference to how much we use the buses. When we had to pay, it’d be maybe once a month; now it’s free, we use buses pretty much every day.
-
@enobacon @baz @juliette
Subsidise bike share, or a parasite rental company?
Or should the city council buy and rent bikes?
Bike subsidies to purchase are a failure,
Or offer free public transport with free parking outside the city? That's applicable to far more people.I think the term "bike share" is misleading. There is a bigger picture to see of bike infrastructure, changing facilities in shops & offices for staff. Weather. Regular free public transport serving all areas 24x7.
@raymaccarthy yes there's a bigger picture, but city-owned shared bikes (and secure personal bike storage at transit nodes) are needed to make transit viable in sprawling US cities. Park and ride lots can work in some cases but car garages and land are expensive, especially if people are only driving a few miles, which is half of car trips in the US.
-
@JaxxAI @juliette you didn't read any of the above. Wear a helmet if YOU want to. DON'T tell other people that they must, or even should, only because they're riding a bike.
If you're going to hit some sick jumps, it might be worth it (if it's a full face helmet.) But there's no more evidence to support a LEGAL POLICY than there is for mandatory car helmets. And given the popularity of driving, you should start there for maximum public health benefits. Unless you just hate people biking.
@enobacon @juliette the original poster said bike infrastructure protects cyclists after discussing why helmets are bad. I disagreed with the tone and said helmets should be worn, I’ve experienced an accident 10yr ago and know what it’s like to bounce my head off the concrete at about 15mph. People should wear helmets and it has nothing whatsoever to do with infrastructure, you can have an accident ANYWHERE. My accident was on a dedicated cycle path while commuting to work, not a car in sight.
