• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    451 year ago

    “Around 30% of respondents also perceived cyclists to be less than fully human.”

    What the fuck is wrong with people

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      161 year ago

      As someone who drives almost every day I can confirm that I perceive motorists to be less than fully human just based on their behaviour.

    • @Default_Defect
      link
      -8
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You must live somewhere with good cycling culture. Here in central Iowa, we have a yearly event where a bunch of cyclists ride across the state. Instead of using the very available and maintained trails, they really like to try to cross the highways without looking and get drunk at the bars so they can stumble in the middle of the roads some more.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    91 year ago

    Safety concerns are definitely the major reason I’ve never got into road cycling, despite being pretty interested in the sport. I’m happy to ride my little folding bike to the shops and stuff cause I can use the footpaths, but there is no fucking way I am riding on the road with the type of people out there. Both cyclists in my family have been hit by inattentive drivers and were lucky to avoid major injury/death. This is before we even get to the psychos mentioned in this article.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    91 year ago

    There is a sustained push to separate cyclists from motorists. It’s easier to invest in infrastructure than to educate motorists.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    51 year ago

    There’s a long term debate about the effecacy of helmets. this article from 2014 summarizes it pretty well. All the studies, both in favor and against are relatively weak compared to what we might expect, but this is epidemiology, not biology.

    The biggest indicator is simply that countries with heavy helmet use have more head injuries per 100,000 miles ridden than those with low helmet use. Even that is a correlation, but causality is unclear.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      131 year ago

      Surely that’s like what happened in WWI (I think) where they found making soldiers wear helmets created more head injuries than before. They almost stopped using them before realising that less soldiers were returning dead so they just increased medic capacity to handle it.

      Wearing a helmet is going to result in a head injury in an accident which would otherwise have caused death.

    • @hooleydoooley
      link
      English
      81 year ago

      Places without helmets tend to have a better cycling culture and infrastructure

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        That’s quite true. And they get it because enough people are cycling that there is demand for it. Mandatory helmets laws actually discourage cycling. The data on that is clear. The data on whether mandatory helmets laws increase safety is much less clear, however.

        When it’s a matter of public policy, one should consider both these factors… A clear cost for an unclear benefit, and change policy as our knowledge continues to evolve.

    • @MisterFrog
      link
      6
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        111 year ago

        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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            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

            • @MisterFrog
              link
              11 year ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                21 year 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        01 year 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      countries with heavy helmet use have more head injuries per 100,000 miles ridden than those with low helmet use.

      Now compare that to fatalities. There’s the answer to your second sentence.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        Yeah, fatalities also go down. All hospitalizations do. It’s not survivor bias, it’s a solid inverse correlation between helmet use and injury. Netherlands, Denmark, Japan all have very low helmet use and very low injuries.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          51 year ago

          The three you just mentioned also have a heavy cyclist culture, and infrastructure in place that facilitates separate biking though

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            That’s quite true. And they got that via sustained policy to encourage cycling. It’s been quite demonstrated that mandatory helmets actively discourage cycling, leading to both a disinvestment in infrastructure and drivers being less comfortable around cyclists (thus more dangerous)

            I am not making a point about individual choices. Anyone should feel free to wear a helmet. But public policy is a different beast, and the data on mandatory helmets laws are inconclusive as to benefit and clear as to cost.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              61 year ago

              Good lord, no.

              If having to wear basic safety equipment that literally dons and removes in a split second ‘discourages’ you from cycling, you are either incredibly vain or outright lying to yourself about the true causes of not riding.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    41 year ago

    Yup. When cycling on a road I only wear high-vis vest to look like a construction worker, not one of these fancy cycling ones, for this exact reason. Full Decathlon gear cyclists look like cartoon aliens.