@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 the article is quite clickbaitey and would lead a cursory glance to conclude that no helmet laws = better public health, which ignores the elephant in the room that is safe biking infrastructure. The topic is weirdly heated in Australia especially, pitting vocal cycling enthusiasts against public health experts. Without safe biking infrastructure (read: safe from cars), repealing helmet laws is not something supported by good studies. Helmets aren’t the problem, it’s cars.
@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).
@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 ...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 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.
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
