One of the key negative impacts of mandatory bike helmet laws is that they are essentially a death sentence for bike share programs.
-
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.
-
@leeloo @juliette wait, person from Denmark, if it’s only free when you make a purchase, then parking isn't a right; it’s a customer perk. In other countries, most supermarket surface parking lots are public; you can park for free without being a customer, at any time, and this IS law. Copenhagen is a prime example of a nightmare to free parking to rest world.
-
@leeloo @juliette wait, person from Denmark, if it’s only free when you make a purchase, then parking isn't a right; it’s a customer perk. In other countries, most supermarket surface parking lots are public; you can park for free without being a customer, at any time, and this IS law. Copenhagen is a prime example of a nightmare to free parking to rest world.
@Luu @juliette
I never claimed parking was a right.I don't go to the supermarket to park there, I go there to do my shopping. Biking is the most convenient, so I'll use my bicycle. If you take that convenience away, my car starts looking attractive.
Same anywhere else I go by bicycle. Parking is there, but my bicycle wins on convenience.
As for Copenhagen, that's a four hour train ride away, and my car doesn't fit on the train. But everything is within walking distance of a train station, and bringing my bicycle would be a huge hassle.
-
@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.
check your reading comprehension @JaxxAI, "why helmet LAWS are bad" ne "why helmets are bad". Did you want a law to tell YOU to wear a helmet? Why would you need that? Just wear one if you want. Or do you want to force everyone else to do so? Even then, I have to ask: WHY NOT FOR DRIVERS FIRST?
(but actually such laws just enable biased policing/harassment. And also the actual net outcome is fewer people riding bikes, more driving.)
You've missed OP @juliette 's point entirely.
-
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 I have two bike helmets. If I’m going someplace by foot or public transit and think I will tent a bike I’ll just bring one with me.
Collapsible bike helmets exist.
Maybe rentable bikes should include helmets?
I’ve been hit by a car before. And I’ve fallen off my bike simply by accident. Just wear the damn helmet. If you’re not responsible enough to protect yourself from an injury on a bike then please don’t ride a bike.
-
@geeeero @Arapalla @marco_m_aus_f @juliette citations?
@__d @Arapalla @marco_m_aus_f @juliette This piece in The Guardian gives a good overview on the issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/21/bike-helmet-cyclists-safe-urban-warfare-wheels
-
@__d @Arapalla @marco_m_aus_f @juliette This piece in The Guardian gives a good overview on the issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/21/bike-helmet-cyclists-safe-urban-warfare-wheels
@__d @Arapalla @marco_m_aus_f @juliette This one cited in the above piece is also making the most salient point: the effect of helmets on cyclist safety is, at best, marginal. Discussing helmets distracts from the measure that provably and drastically improves cycling uptake and safety: a dense grid of cycling infrastructure separated from fast motor traffic.
-
@__d @Arapalla @marco_m_aus_f @juliette This one cited in the above piece is also making the most salient point: the effect of helmets on cyclist safety is, at best, marginal. Discussing helmets distracts from the measure that provably and drastically improves cycling uptake and safety: a dense grid of cycling infrastructure separated from fast motor traffic.
@__d @Arapalla @marco_m_aus_f @juliette To cite from the Conclusion:
"Laws requiring cyclists to wear helmets are controversial. [...] Not only have such laws failed to bring about reductions in rates
of head injuries (Robinson 2006), but they also reduce the level of cycling
(Robinson 1996) and the health benefits of physical activity." -
@__d @Arapalla @marco_m_aus_f @juliette To cite from the Conclusion:
"Laws requiring cyclists to wear helmets are controversial. [...] Not only have such laws failed to bring about reductions in rates
of head injuries (Robinson 2006), but they also reduce the level of cycling
(Robinson 1996) and the health benefits of physical activity."@__d @Arapalla @marco_m_aus_f @juliette "Because the
risk that an individual cyclist will be struck by a motorist increases as
the level of cycling decreases, compulsory helmet laws could have the
perverse effect of increasing deaths—not just risk of death—among those
who continue to cycle (Komanoff 2001)." -
@__d @Arapalla @marco_m_aus_f @juliette "Because the
risk that an individual cyclist will be struck by a motorist increases as
the level of cycling decreases, compulsory helmet laws could have the
perverse effect of increasing deaths—not just risk of death—among those
who continue to cycle (Komanoff 2001)."@geeeero @Arapalla @marco_m_aus_f @juliette I live in Australia, and cycling helmets have been mandatory for many decades. Much like car seat belts, it became an unquestioned reflex for me to wear one long ago. The OP‘s statement that such laws kill bike “sharing“ schemes is contradicted by their ongoing operation here.
-
@james I can’t remember where I read it, but there has been a study on this! They compared the attitude of car drivers depending on a few factors: wearing a helmet, reflective gear, type of bike, perceived gender.
I remember the striking result was that the best way to protect against road rage was having a ponytail (and being perceived as female).@juliette I think this study by Ian Walker is what you are having in mind: https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements/cyclists-cannot-stop-drivers-overtaking-dangerously-research-study-suggests/
