@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
@quixoticgeek I remember the public debate in Australia that preceeded the introduction of mandatory helmet laws. My mother was opposed, but it seemed like most people in the community were in favour. I was at an age where my political awareness was just developing.
@quixoticgeek the relevant question is: why do people in _cars_ wear a helmet only when racing? Shouldn't they always wear one? By law maybe?
I so much agree. Not mentioning, I know you consider it shallow, but people are such, what about a lady who doesn't want to destroy her hairdo? Does it mean that bicycling is suddenly not for a professional women? Suddenly the bicycling is *inconvenient* and it is more comfortable to drive a car.
So on that basis we should relax seat belt laws for drivers so that there is a larger pool of suitable organ donors?
Maybe motor cyclists and horse riders could be excused helmet laws also?
Your arguement isn't logical.
People don't want to cycle because the don't want to, not because of helmet requirements. It's either inconvenient, unsafe or they have other health conditions or are lazy or whatever excuses they give.
I think not. What I wrote about ladies, hairdos, and inconvenience: there are no limitations imposed on passengers of cars/drivers by wearing a seat belt (or not much).
Ditto for cyclists wearing proper PPE 🙂
@simonzerafa @mcepl do we have to show you the hazard triangle? And the place PPE has in it? PPE is the last resort, start by doing everything you can go remove the hazard. That means proper cycle infrastructure, and where ever possible, banning cars.
@simonzerafa you have made false equivalences. Cycling is an undisputed social good. Having more people cycle is better for society. Anything that reduces that, is therefore bad for society. Driving, motorcycles, they are not the same, and in the case of cars, they are an undisputed social negative. Society at large would be better off if we banned cars.
I'm not saying we stop people choosing to wear a cycle helmet. I'm saying we shouldn't make it a legal requirement. This is a key point.
@quixoticgeek "helmet legislation actually costing society more from lost health gains than saved from injury prevention"
@kennergf @quixoticgeek @vaurora Helmet laws have very little to do with safety and everything with saving money on road infrastructure, while imposing few restrictions on motorists and making cyclists somehow responsible for their own safety on the roads.
Policy that fits perfectly with the neoliberal “paradise” that we’re all currently living in.
@quixoticgeek Bike helmets are an absolutely retarded do-gooder idea. Proponents try to make a comparison with seat-belts, ignoring that the entire principle of a bicycle is it's basically a sandal - you put it on and go, you don't climb into it and travel at 100kmh.
@quixoticgeek We were lookign for an article covering the Australian 😜 on that matter, citing studies; Thank you!
@quixoticgeek Bike travel in the US is at the mercy of auto traffic, making accidents (and serious head injury) a much higher risk.
@quixoticgeek O.M.G. people en masse are just...... I mean, you could put in a helmet rule AND simultaneously increase the quality and quantity of public transport and biking infrastructure to mitigate the life-shattering inconvenience of wearing a helmet.
I don't dispute the correlation - I just think it's toddler level petty.
@GinevraCat @quixoticgeek I agree. If a helmet law is what stands in the way of someone bicycling, was there much hope to begin with?
@nantucketlit @GinevraCat @quixoticgeek A helmet law will pretty much destroy any bike-share scheme, to start with - unless you keep a bike helmet in your bag?
@quixoticgeek did you mean Type-2 Diabetes?
@quixoticgeek Nice example of unintended consequences.
@quixoticgeek
Obvs.
Also the makers of large SUV trucks and their oily and other friends love cycling to be, and be seen to be, dangerous.
Largely from that proximate cause.
@quixoticgeek I’ve been in a bike accident where I got hit by a car. Wear a helmet or don’t ride… at least in the US.
Is there less chance of a head injury while riding a bike elsewhere in the West?
@oberstenzian yes. Here in a civilised country with proper cycling infrastructure...
@quixoticgeek I had a bike accident that broke one wheel and cracked my helmet. Without the helmet, I wouldn't have gotten up off the pavement and limped home to bike another day. I will always wear a helmet, and strongly advise everyone to wear one. #biking #helmet
@jackcole advise away. Just don't mandate it.
It was hard to get folks to use seat belts too.
The sane thing to do would be to make helmets mandatory for driving cars.
