One of the key negative impacts of mandatory bike helmet laws is that they are essentially a death sentence for bike share programs.
-
-
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.
#helmetsAs a compromise I can get behind mandatory e-scooter helmet laws. Oh no, e-scooter share programs are impacted? Woe woe
(But no mandatory bike helmets, obviously)
-
@Arapalla @marco_m_aus_f @juliette
People don't usually die because of head injuries, people usually die of cardiovascular disease.
Decreasing "unsafe" biking use in favour of "safe" car driving kills people, this is a pretty lethal modal shift.
But, of course, there's no easily seen direct causation so it doesn't speak to our mammalian brains.
-
@s0 if you want people to be safe, you should advocate for mandatory car helmets. Do you have any idea how many traumatic brain injuries car occupants suffer? It's more than all traffic-related bicycle deaths per year, and none of them were wearing helmets.
-
@s0 if you want people to be safe, you should advocate for mandatory car helmets. Do you have any idea how many traumatic brain injuries car occupants suffer? It's more than all traffic-related bicycle deaths per year, and none of them were wearing helmets.
@enobacon @s0 yeah, logically, if cyclists HAVE to wear helmets, then so should EVERY single occupant of every single vehicle on the road, and, just to make sure that all of them are REALLY safe, a 20mph speed on ALL roads (including motorways/freeways), enforced by immediate confiscation of offender's vehicle... That's not to say that cyclists can't wear helmets, but, if you go to countries which accept cycling as a viable form of transport, many of them won't be wearing helmets.
-
@lerk @juliette "science is split on this subjet" with the inference: therefore listen to my viewpoint, don't wear a helmet.
In everything he said there the helmet isn't the problem. The problem is effectively peoples attitude towards them.
After searching around, it seems very much like he is misrepresenting his case on purpose: yeah, older research suggests legislation making helmets mandatory will lower the amount of cyclists...
1/3
-
@lerk @juliette "science is split on this subjet" with the inference: therefore listen to my viewpoint, don't wear a helmet.
In everything he said there the helmet isn't the problem. The problem is effectively peoples attitude towards them.
After searching around, it seems very much like he is misrepresenting his case on purpose: yeah, older research suggests legislation making helmets mandatory will lower the amount of cyclists...
1/3
@lerk @juliette And I think Cyklist forbundet (the Danish cykling Association) is right in their approach to promote the use of helmets, but to make it voluntary, and not illegal to cycle without one.
He is right on the point that death due to inactivity is a much bigger problem. However, do a bit of online searching and you'll quickly find that people wearing a helmet are 68% or so more likely to avoid serious head injury than those who don't.... 2/3
-
@lerk @juliette And I think Cyklist forbundet (the Danish cykling Association) is right in their approach to promote the use of helmets, but to make it voluntary, and not illegal to cycle without one.
He is right on the point that death due to inactivity is a much bigger problem. However, do a bit of online searching and you'll quickly find that people wearing a helmet are 68% or so more likely to avoid serious head injury than those who don't.... 2/3
@lerk @juliette so while the argument "the most important thing is to cycle at all" within this context is correct, saying the helmet does not help when you are in an accident is simply wrong.
Own the decision not to wear one instead: "I know i am more likely to suffer head injury, but its a risk im willing to take"
And stop misrepresenting the facts. 3/3
-
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 Is this sort of the same discussion as shielded vs. visible bike lanes? Hiding the lane between the parked cars and the sidewalk is known to be much less safe, because the lack of visibility leads to turning collisions, which is how you actually get hit on a bike. But the perception of safety might induce more people to cycle using deficient infrastructure. Is that a good thing?
-
@lerk @juliette do you know how many times I've taken a fall this past decade where i hit my head?
1 time.
Moving at 20 km/h.
Do you know how often i move at that kind of speed without any kind of seatbelt or anything? Only on my bicycle. My shower is, sadly, stationary.
Fo you know how many people i know whos had a fall that would've brained them on a bicycle, but were saved due to their helmets? Several.
How many who had the same thing occur while walking? Only one, who had borrelia.
-
@lerk @juliette do you know how many times I've taken a fall this past decade where i hit my head?
1 time.
Moving at 20 km/h.
Do you know how often i move at that kind of speed without any kind of seatbelt or anything? Only on my bicycle. My shower is, sadly, stationary.
Fo you know how many people i know whos had a fall that would've brained them on a bicycle, but were saved due to their helmets? Several.
How many who had the same thing occur while walking? Only one, who had borrelia.
@lerk @juliette I'm fully aware that, especially the elderly hurt their heads when falling when just walking. But there's still the fact that I'm Denmark alone 1600+ (2016 number) people end up in the ER every year from hitting their head, crashing their bicycle and approximately half would've escaped harm had they worn a helmet.
If you don't want to wear a helmet, don't. But when i ride my bike it's much faster than when i was, so if i take a fall, I'm strike my head with more force...
-
@lerk @juliette I'm fully aware that, especially the elderly hurt their heads when falling when just walking. But there's still the fact that I'm Denmark alone 1600+ (2016 number) people end up in the ER every year from hitting their head, crashing their bicycle and approximately half would've escaped harm had they worn a helmet.
If you don't want to wear a helmet, don't. But when i ride my bike it's much faster than when i was, so if i take a fall, I'm strike my head with more force...
@lerk @juliette much more, infact.
I'm also in a compromised position where I'm hard pressed to alleviate the fall in any way using my arms.
In most cases safety harnesses are superfluous when experienced roofers are working, but that one time it safes your life they'll be happy they wore it. And it's really not very different.
The seatbelt also only saves your life every time you crash your car.
What this argument is, is "just bet on it not being relevant". Okay. But I'm not gonna.
-
I think this is still an evasion of the point. I'm saying that what validates using a helmet is that even if your chance of hitting your head is half as high as when when the kinetic energy when you do, is likely to be much higher.
But i don't disagree that traffic ought to be optimized for cyclists and other "soft" travellers, rather than for motorists. Wearing a helmet doesn't have any bearing on the most dangerous risks of riding a bike.
-
M malte@radikal.social shared this topic
