@quixoticgeek ...yes, but not a *direct* consequence. When people say "X causes Y", the implication is that the causal chain is short between X and Y.
I could say "stopping free school dinners increases crime", which is true as a weak effect due to opportunity limitation, but the consequence is years after the cause, and several chain links down the road... so I wouldn't say that without being clear that I mean indirectly and in the indefinite future.
Post
Replies:
0
@quixoticgeek@social.v.st I see your point.
In Italy we're going weird: helmets are mandatory for kids (I think the cutoff age is 12).
BUT, helmets are mandatory on electric scooters, because of a weird campaign that swept through our media a while ago and that made them sounds like dangerous traps for everyone. Similarly, a new law will require registration plates and insurance for electric scooters but not for bikes.
In Italy we're going weird: helmets are mandatory for kids (I think the cutoff age is 12).
BUT, helmets are mandatory on electric scooters, because of a weird campaign that swept through our media a while ago and that made them sounds like dangerous traps for everyone. Similarly, a new law will require registration plates and insurance for electric scooters but not for bikes.
@bovaz not requiring number plates for bikes is a good thing. The helmets for kids thing can be extra harmful, as very young children don't have the strength in their neck to cope with the extra weight of a helmet, places like Denmark require helmets for children even when they are passengers on the bike, like in a bakfiets.
@quixoticgeek
This is nonsense.
Similar idiotic nonsense when motorcycle helmets, safety belts or masking (campaigns in 1940s about coughs and sneezes).
@raymaccarthy @quixoticgeek please compare the standards, testing and observed effects of those other things with the current weak "short standing fall onto flat or straight kerb" cycle helmets before assuming the opposition is similar. If car seatbelts were allowed to be ineffective in most collisions, would they have been compelled as widely? Why are cycle helmets no longer tested for hitting even a corner kerb?
@mjr @quixoticgeek
Where are they not tested?
No doubt standards vary worldwide.
Perhaps campaigning for better helmets than none for cycles, ebikes, escooter and skateboards.
Some eBikes are more powerful than 49cc Mopeds were when motorcycle helmets became mandatory in UK. They should need a licence and insurance & real helmet, just like mopeds do in Ireland and UK.
I bought an ebike and gave it away. Too dangerous! Most people I know have worn cycle helmets for decades.
Ban escooters.
@raymaccarthy @mjr @quixoticgeek You got me curious there.
49cc mopeds seem to have a power output of 1.5-2.5 kW. That's more than any ebike that I'm aware of (and an order of magnitude more than anything that's road-legal in the EU). I'm sure there is a lesser difference in power at the road, because those CVTs on mopeds can't be efficient, but I don't imagine the gap is completely closed.
@raymaccarthy @mjr @quixoticgeek I like the approach of Washington state here: they have two categories of ebike (actually 3, but two that matter here):
One type has electric assist that cuts out at 20 mph. It is treated as a bike for all legal purposes.
The other type has electric assist up to 30 mph, but it is not allowed on pavements, cycle trails, etc - it has to be in the road with the traffic.
To me the second type seems quite dangerous without a motorbike helmet - and it scared me when I tried one out - but by removing them from protected bike areas the risk is mostly restricted to the cyclist themselves.
(as an aside, I think the 20mph limit for the first type is a better choice than the 25kph in most of Europe. At 25kph, non-electric commuter cyclists are getting annoyed at having to overtake you....)
@swaldman @raymaccarthy @mjr here we have two kinds of ebike, those with a 250w motor that cuts out at 25kph, they are bikes for all legal purposes.
Then we have speed pedelecs, they can go upto 50kph, require a license, insurance, number plate, helmet, and are banned from some bike infrastructure. Popular with people who have an interurban commute.
@quixoticgeek @raymaccarthy @mjr Is there a legal or practical distinction between them and electric motorbikes?
@swaldman @quixoticgeek @raymaccarthy @mjr Yes. Different rules, different technical requirements, etc. EDIT To be precise: speed pedelecs are classified as mopeds, and need to follow the same rules & technical requirements (modulo maybe one or two points). Electric motorbikes are treated the same as non-electric motorbikes.
(Vehicle classes L1e, L2e or L6e versus L3e, L4e, L5e or L7e)
@swaldman @quixoticgeek @raymaccarthy @mjr (Differences between speed pedelecs and mopeds that I know of: pedalling-activated power versus throttle-activated power, and the type of helmet that’s allowed (NTA 8776 or ECE R22-certified for speed pedelec, only ECE R22 for moped))
@raymaccarthy @mjr the problem with that idea is that any helmet that actually offers meaningful protection would essentially be a motorbike helmet. At which point cyclists would all over heat in the summer (motorcyclists don't exert the same level as a pedal cyclist).
Cycling helmets are tested to the equivalent of a 20kph impact. Anyone going faster isn't protected.
@quixoticgeek @mjr
Anyone going faster than 20km?
That's not safe for ordinary people.
I was suggesting eBikes that are really electric versions of Mopeds should have insurance, licence and real helmet.
Many mopeds when helmet laws cam in in UK were LESS powerful than some ebikes. Some were less than 1.3kW
@raymaccarthy @mjr I've done over 72kph on my bike without dying. How is going faster than 20kph unsafe ?
@quixoticgeek @mjr
People break speed limits in all kinds of vehicles frequently and don't die, but it's not safe. There are also roads here where a lot of the time it's not safe to go as fast as limit.
@raymaccarthy @quixoticgeek UK e-bikes are 0.25kW!
@raymaccarthy @quixoticgeek Well, yes, but we can't sensibly discuss laws as if they'll have much effect on people who already ignore existing laws. Most people ignoring the power limit law will probably also ignore a helmet law.
@mjr @raymaccarthy the difference is you can spot someone not wearing a helmet at a distance, much harder to spot someone who's bypassed the limiter on their ebike...
@quixoticgeek @raymaccarthy much harder, but still easy here due to the speeds they do without pedalling.
@quixoticgeek So, I think people were mostly reacting to the implication in your original framing that this was a *direct* consequence. What is the case is thatmandatory helmet laws reduce cycling due to inconvenience... and the second-order effect is that people do less exercise (if most of their exercise was from cycling)...
and the third order effect is that disorders from sedentary populations increase (assuming no other changes in behaviour).
(But at the third order, there are *so many* consequences that we're just picking and choosing one that fits our rhetorical position...)
@aoanla it is a consequence, on a population level.
@quixoticgeek @aoanla to make the point, I think you are going to have to compare odds of head trauma/death to obesity.
I don't have an opinion either way. Doesn't impact me (pun shoots, pun scores).
I grew up riding a bike without a helmet. I survived. 🤣
Point is, the mandatory helmet laws are about something that might happen. The same with obesity. Undermine the scary high risk head trauma issue, you're golden.
Just please be right.
@quixoticgeek ...yes, but not a *direct* consequence. When people say "X causes Y", the implication is that the causal chain is short between X and Y.
I could say "stopping free school dinners increases crime", which is true as a weak effect due to opportunity limitation, but the consequence is years after the cause, and several chain links down the road... so I wouldn't say that without being clear that I mean indirectly and in the indefinite future.
@aoanla @quixoticgeek I think both of you are correct, and to make sure we establish something more concrete here, I would model a simple #Bayesian ( #Markov) chain:
Helmet‑free → higher bike‑commute mode share → increased daily physical activity → lower incidence of rare cardiovascular disease
@aoanla there may be a delay, but the result is clear. After Australia brought in its mandatory helmet law, heart disease went up. Was it within a week? No. But it also wasn't ten years later. It was within a year or so.
More people riding bikes is an indisputable public good.
@quixoticgeek @aoanla it is really odd. I live in Australia these days and ride a push bike significantly less than I did in the UK or US because I dislike the helmet (and mostly don't ride on the road anyway), but I wouldn't dream of getting on my motorbike without a helmet. I have no idea why I find bicycle helmets such an imposition (especially as my aging and expanding waistline would benefit from pedaling on a regular basis)
@Offbeatmammal @aoanla because utility cycling is essentially just faster walking. Would you think it weird that you don't wear a helmet to walk to the shops?
Ok motorbikes you're going a lot faster. A bike typically is doing about 20kph. A motorbike can be doing upto 120kph (or whatever your local speed limit is). It's a different safety proposition.
@quixoticgeek @aoanla given the swooping of magpies round here, I always wear a hat to walk to the shops! If I could legally wear the same hat to ride my bicycle I'd probably use that for the shorter trips vs the motorbike because, as you say, the much faster 450kg motorbike requires I change into appropriate pants, boots, jacket and helmet which is sometimes a chore. And so I will often take the car and consequently health and environment suffer.
@Offbeatmammal @aoanla swooping magpies. You're in western Australia near Perth ?
@quixoticgeek @aoanla Melbourne, but yes! Took me by surprise first couple of years here, but make a point to talk to them when I am walking, and leaving food and water out, and it seems to be slowly paying off!
Anything a government does that reduces active travel will have society wide impact on health. Mandatory helmet laws where governments have been stupid enough to try them have seen a massive drop in people cycling, and the corresponding drop in society wide health.
If a government really cared about the safety of cyclists they would roll out nation wide segregated cycle infrastructure (or just ban cars, both work). The more people cycling, the better it is for society, and for the economy.
2/n
If you'd like to read more on this, I highly recommend the book "The miracle pill" by Peter Walker. It sets out clearly the arguments for promoting active travel, as well as simple changes we can make to the built environment to help us all become healthier.
3/3
