@HaTetsu @quixoticgeek I think this is about if a mandatory cycling helmet policy is in place, it might deter X people from cycling who then lose the health benefits of it. https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/2020/01/helmets-evidence_cuk_brf_0.pdf
Discussion
Loading...
@quixoticgeek @stib @ccferrie i have landed head first coming off my bike several times and the only reason i'm still alive and don't have brain damage or skin grafts on my face is because i was wearing a helmet
@quixoticgeek @ccferrie I had a serious accident in my 20’s where something went through my front wheel stopping it dead and throwing me into the tarmac head first at speed.
Doctors treating me told me had I been wearing a helmet it would have reduced the severity of my injury and it may have prevented it altogether.
Losing the sight in one eye was thankfully temporary but gave me enough of a scare I have always worn a cycling helmet every ride since.
I don’t think they should be mandatory.
@quixoticgeek
I've been cycling for about 55 years.
I've cycled all over Europe.
I have worn a bicycle helmet twice - in the only two races I've completed in.
The number of crashes I've had in all those years is less than 5 (depending on the definition).
During those crashes I've hit my head once - and on that occasion the paramedics were of the opinion that a helmet would have increased my injuries because they thought there was a likelihood of the straps getting caught up in the bushes I crashed into.
The worst injury was gravel rash to my hip.
Eye protection & gloves might be top of my list.
@quixoticgeek
High Vis is already being used as a get-out-of-jail-free card in incidents -- even through it's not mandatatory. Sorry Mate I didn't See You just means that there's no consequences when a cyclist gets creamed by a driver.
This is not for safety. This is for reduction of liability for car drivers.
If they're worried about safety, there are long list of things that have actual research and current laws behind them:
* Default 30kph in built up areas -- Abandoned
* Working lights/safety equipment for cars. 50% of cars fail the NCT the first time through (2024 data), and observationally, 5-10% of cars in my area have obviously broken lighting.
* Close pass laws for cyclists exist. They are unenforced.
* Parking in cycle lanes is prohibited. Unenforced
@quixoticgeek It does kinda ruin the whole point of bicycles
Head injury bad. Stop and frisk excuses EVIL.
@quixoticgeek even more true in the age of ad-hoc bike rentals in cities!
@quixoticgeek @cstross @ccferrie
When I see that stupid logic I always think of #Freakonomics and the dangers of safety.
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-dangers-of-safety-rebroadcast/
@quixoticgeek I assure you that it isn't the mandatory helmet laws that are keeping me off my bike.
@ariaflame what's stopping you cycling?
@quixoticgeek Apart from lack of time, orders from my orthodontist.
@ariaflame I'm kinda curious how cycling effects teeth...
@quixoticgeek @ariaflame Maybe vibrations? In a lot of places, the bad condition of bike lanes due to long neglected maintenance leads to lanes full of bumps and holes and obstacles that shouldn't be there.
@quixoticgeek Wait, heart disease? That's a new one to me, got a link?
@HaTetsu @quixoticgeek I think this is about if a mandatory cycling helmet policy is in place, it might deter X people from cycling who then lose the health benefits of it. https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/2020/01/helmets-evidence_cuk_brf_0.pdf
Heart disease ???
How so ?
@lienrag when you bring in a helmet law, people cycle less. Less exercise results in more heart disease, diabetes, and other obesity related illnesses. Governments should be doing everything they possibly can to encourage active travel like walking and cycling. The healthcare savings are considerable.
"I want to cycle and save myself from heart disease, but you're insisting I wear a helmet so now I won't do it" is a... very weird attitude.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I just don't understand people.
@quixoticgeek @lienrag @gareth People cycle for myriad reasons, but no matter why, it increases activity levels and improves disorders related to low activity levels populationn wide as a result.
Helmets are a hassle and that might put some people off. But mandatory helmet laws also promote the concept that cycling is unsafe and therefore discourages cycling as well.
It's a perverse outcome, but you literally end up at "if you add a helmet mandate to cycling you kill people with heart disease".
@gareth @quixoticgeek @lienrag People don't cycle to save themselves from heart disease. It's the otherway around. Populations experience better healt because they embed exercise in their daily life at no cost to themselves.
Anything done to put a spanner in that work reduces the health benefit to that population.
That old column in the Grauniad explains it better than I ever will
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/21/bike-helmet-cyclists-safe-urban-warfare-wheels
@gareth @quixoticgeek @lienrag I've got to go into town, and I could cycle, drive, or get the bus. Cycling would be better for me but, ugh, now I have to find my helmet, and they're not that comfortable, and I'll need to put it somewhere but not forget it when I get where I'm going. OK, car or bus requires less thinking, so maybe I just won't cycle *this time*. I'll cycle next time though. Probably.
@aspragg @gareth @quixoticgeek @lienrag seriously, that would stop you?
@Tho99 @aspragg @gareth @lienrag I often don't cycle into town because where I'm going I can't take my little folding bike inside with me. If I had to also take a helmet in with me, it would be a faff. Also consider in the Netherlands were almost everyone cycles, the practicalities of everyone coming into a cafe with a bike helmet...
1 more replies (not shown)
@quixoticgeek @lienrag @aspragg if you can find your underpants, you can find your helmet ...
@twobiscuits @lienrag @aspragg i don't have to worry about where I'm putting my underpants while I'm shopping...
1+ more replies (not shown)
@gareth @quixoticgeek @lienrag I don't do it _to_ save myself from heart disease. I do it because it's convenient and faster than walking. If it becomes less convenient, it's less appealing.
@denisbloodnok
Maybe it’s just because I’ve always worn a helmet back to the cycling proficiency test in primary school, but what’s the difference between putting on a bike helmet and putting on a seatbelt in a car? 2 seconds of effort, might save your life.
@quixoticgeek @lienrag
@gareth @quixoticgeek @lienrag This is based on the assumption that they work, which data from jurisdictions with helmet laws strongly suggests they don't.
It's also based on the assumption that cycling is unusually dangerous; while it's more dangerous than it should be, KSI rates are comparable to car and foot (so why don't you wear a plastic hat to do those?).
Last of all is our old friend risk compensation. It's not that clear that _driver_ seatbelts save lives - they almost certainly increase KSI rates amongst everyone else.
1+ more replies (not shown)
@quixoticgeek @lienrag also when you bring in a helmet law, people are less likely to rent a bike from a bike-sharing kiosk. Imho, the opposition to this law is not from people who own their own bike so much as it is from companies that lease bikes. Bike lease companies do not bear the cost of head injuries.
@CadeJohnson @lienrag statistically you're more likely to sustain a head injury in a car than on a bike. If the government wanted to reduce head injuries they would mandate mandatory driving helmets. Including all passengers
@quixoticgeek @lienrag actually, there are all sorts of new-car standards focused on reducing head injuries - like various air-bag configurations, rollover protections, and even traffic engineering solutions. I think the effort spent on reducing head injuries in cars dwarfs what is spent on all forms of bicycle infrastructure, which only makes sense due to the immensely greater passenger-miles in cars than bicycles.
I am interested in this because I am about to go car-less and bike full-time. Everything I read suggests helmets reduce head-injuries, and that comes as no surprise. I imagine even pedestrians would have some marginal head-injury reductions from helmet-wearing! Anyway, I plan to wear a helmet - because I plan to commit to biking. But if I were planning to use a rental bike, I'd think twice: having to carry around a helmet when bike-renting is uncertain.
I'd have guessed people using rental bikes would probably be generally less committed to biking - they are trying it out, or they are tourists on a lark, etc. Not only are they less likely to have their own helmet, they are probably also less experienced bicyclists. But despite these factors, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022437515001024 showed, that bike-sharing REDUCED injury rates (not because my suppositions are untrue, but because safety improves overall when there are more bikes on the road). I guess, TLDR, just like the bike-renters, I also do not bear the cost of others' head injuries. Let them ride helmetless. And let's hope the large number of added riders will compensate with lower overall injury rate; for the likelihood that the injured will be the helmetless ones.
@CadeJohnson @quixoticgeek @lienrag helmets reduce injuries when you are already coming off your bike and are about to hit the pavement. They are much more helpful for children, who have different falls to adults.
I cycle like a maniac when I have a helmet on. I'm less safe. Cars also pass me closer, according to a couple of papers I have read. I don't know if that's true because the helmet changes my behaviour.
1 more replies (not shown)
@CadeJohnson @quixoticgeek @lienrag "Everything I read suggests helmets reduce head-injuries, and that comes as no surprise."
Many jurisdictions have passed helmet laws. Only one has shown a statistically significant reduction in KSI per cyclist kilometre... and they passed a drink-driving law at the same time and had a similar reduction in pedestrian KSI.