58
Safety vests and helmets make cyclists look ‘less human’ to other road users (theconversation.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/australia@aussie.zone
74 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

I think the debate around helmets is beside the point. Why? Because it's not really up for debate that helmets prevent brain injuries.

If danger from road users increase because of wearing a helmet, that's an issue with the drivers and the non-separated infrastructure.

As a daily commuter riding a bike, I say we keep the helmets. It's like wearing a seat belt and should be mandatory as long as we have a semblance of socialised healthcare.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Except that mandatory helmets discourages bicycling which causes disinvestment in safe infrastructure, and keeps drivers unfamiliar with cyclists. This makes cycling much more dangerous. Note again that the mass cycling cultures do not have mandatory helmets laws and are also much safer than Australia.

    Also, it's weird that cycling is singles out for mandatory helmets. Fully half of all head injuries from individual transport happen on automobiles, yet nobody is suggesting mandatory helmets for car occupants. Even walking creates a larger number of head injury hospital visits. The arguments for mandatory bicycle helmets apply there too.

    Ultimately, at a time that we need greater investment in mass cycling than ever, for individual safety and for the environment, mandatory helmets laws are counterproductive

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    The meaningful number when comparing eg driving/walking to biking head injuries is not the absolute number but the fraction. If you’re 100 times more likely to get hurt when doing X compared with Y, it means X is inherently more dangerous/risky and warrants extra protection. Even if far fewer people overall do X.

    I’m assuming here that far fewer people ride than walk/drive on your average day.

    And the people who seem most discouraged by helmets are those who always want to tell you how discouraged everyone is by helmets. My experience is that most people who ride don’t really give a shit / are happy to have something to protect their noggin.

    1000% agree we need better infrastructure. Separating bikes from cars should be priority number one and will have the biggest safety impact by far.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    It's true, to get the best data, we need a common denominator, which is just not available. The initial post of this thread was pointing out that the studies all around are weak, including the study that lead to mandatory helmets use policy. What information we do have is suggesting that more ridership results in better infrastructure which results in less injuries over all

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    I think we all agree that the most important factor here to getting people on bikes is providing the feeling of safety (+ actual safety) and convenience, which I would argue needs to be better infrastructure first, helmet law relaxations second.

    Can you imagine if they do helmet law relaxations first? The media would have a field day.

    If someone is more discouraged to ride because helmets are a hassle or might ruin their hair, instead of death by car due to poor infrastructure and car-centrism, then I'd look at such a person sideways.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    It's not really an either/or. In order to get investment in infrastructure, there needs to be interest in cycling. This means removing barriers where present. A great example of this is in bike shares. New York City introduced a bike share in the early 2000s, and that helped to increase ridership. Increased ridership lead to the construction of miles of inner city separated bike lane.

    The Melbourne bike share had consistently low ridership, and was abandoned entirely in 2019. They explicitly cited the helmet law as the reason.. In Brisbane, 85% of people said the helmet law was why they didn't use the bike share.

    If we want to increase actual cyclist safety, we desperately need the infrastructure, but for the infrastructure we need cyclists. One of the best methods for getting more cyclists doesn't work in Australia. Maybe that should change.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago

    is not really up for debate that helmets prevent brain injuries

    Not if you don't read the research, as you apparently haven't. As the poster above pointed out there really is a lot of debate and the research supporting helmets is of very poor quality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent