207
The hierarchy of controls tells us that we should physically remove the hazard (Eliminate Cars). But, we choose the least effective option, protection (Helmets and bright colors) (thelemmy.club)
submitted 1 day ago* by to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
60 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
The Hierarchy of Controls is a framework developed by organizations like CDC / NIOSH and OSHA to rank workplace safety and risk mitigation measures from most effective to least effectiv
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 1 day ago* (5 children)

Falling off a bike at speed is a lot more dangerous than doing so while walking though. Even if you believe wearing a helmet while biking is overkill, I don't think comparing it to walking really makes that point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 18 hours ago (4 children)

    If you're road cycling at speed, it would make sense to wear a helmet. But if you're biking to work at a reasonable speed, it is not much different from walking. Which is why it is normal to dress for the destination in countries where people are less worried about being hit by a car. It is never wrong to wear a helmet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

    Kinetic energy increases with the square of velocity. 3 mph is a normal walking speed while 12-15 mph is a reasonable cycling speed, and 30 mph is easy to achieve on a downhill. The energy difference is not "not much".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 hours ago (2 children)

    Not sure what the point is here. You can wear a helmet if you want. But you shouldn't be forced to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    You literally wrote "if you’re biking to work at a reasonable speed, it is not much different from walking." The point is that you're wrong about that, it is very different in terms of the energy involved, which generally determines how severe an accident is. Your argument that "you shouldn't be forced to [wear a helmet]" is a different argument entirely.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

    "It is not much different " the evaluation of that sentence relies on context. There is a lot that is different. The part that isn't different is the risk of head injuries for adult riders who know how to ride a bike.

    The type of comment i replied to originally (e.g., helmets are important even on flat bike paths with no cars) is unfortunately the exact kind of language employed by people who want to make helmet use mandatory, whether they want to also suppress bicycle use, or are simply misguided.

    Here is some context: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2025/05/16/friday-video-a-deep-dive-on-the-endless-debate-over-bike-helmets

    https://www.bikeradar.com/features/lifting-the-lid-on-the-helmet-debate

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent