One of the key negative impacts of mandatory bike helmet laws is that they are essentially a death sentence for bike share programs.
-
@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/
-
@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.
@geeeero @Arapalla @marco_m_aus_f @juliette I’ve heard, for years, the arguments against helmets. There has always seemed to be a lot of motivated reasoning in the debate. It consumes a lot of space that could address the, in my view, far more important issues of acceptable car driver behaviour and transport infrastructure planning. It’s a distraction that’s been very successful.
-
@daycoder @juliette this is evidence, perhaps relevant in the Danish/Euro context. https://ugeskriftet.dk/dmj/potential-impact-mandatory-helmet-when-biking
@billschulz @juliette it’s very difficult to draw any conclusions from “Following the introduction of mandatory helmet legislation in Victoria, Australia, insurance claims for cyclists killed or hospitalised with head injuries decreased by 48% in the first year and 70% in the second year”, simply because it doesn’t tell us enough. It could be that kilometres cycled decreased by 48% and then 70%.
-
@billschulz @juliette it’s very difficult to draw any conclusions from “Following the introduction of mandatory helmet legislation in Victoria, Australia, insurance claims for cyclists killed or hospitalised with head injuries decreased by 48% in the first year and 70% in the second year”, simply because it doesn’t tell us enough. It could be that kilometres cycled decreased by 48% and then 70%.
@daycoder @billschulz or that people injured while not wearing a helmet didn’t file a claim because they thought the insurance would consider them at fault anyway
-
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'm not saying you're wrong. But your statement does not mean people shouldn't wear a helmet when they ride a bike, and i hope no one thinks it means that.
I wish everyone who thinks wearing one is superfluous would listen to this guy
-
@juliette Agreed, I see what you bring up as a strong point. On the other side, there is a lot of comments here suggesting "helmets don’t really do much". Here is a study which reports that "Head injuries were found to be reduced significantly with helmet usage by 60 percent, brain injuries by 58 percent and facial injuries were reduced by 4 percent. [...] Fatal injuries were shown to decrease significantly by a prominent 73 percent" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x Saying helmets don't work is harmful
@CrowOnAKettle @juliette the trouble with this is that mandatory helmets are also found to reduce cycling injuries of all kinds - eg wrist injuries, broken arms etc. areas where helmets clearly offer no protection. So, the mechanism is actually reduction of cycling - and consequently increased mortality from inactivity etc. cyclists live longer.
-
Mandatory helmet laws reduce the number of people cycling. This has huge health impacts, as the benefit of cycling is lost, increasing deaths from lots of lack of fitness related causes
-
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.
#helmetsWhere are you talking about in particular?
The only helmet laws I've seen are for children or for ebike riders, usually on higher power bikes.
