4 ms·

The problem with helmet laws is that it then means if you kill a cyclist who's not wearing a helmet, people (even erroneously) apportion some blame to the cycli

The problem with helmet laws is that it then means if you kill a cyclist who's not wearing a helmet, people (even erroneously) apportion some blame to the cyclist. After all, why don't drivers wear helmets? Head trauma kills plenty of people in car crashes. Give it time, and eventually you start seeing people picked on while they're walking, too. Our minister for transport wants to make it illegal to walk at night without wearing a high vis vest. https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2017-10-03a.1396&s=term%2C+I+am+exploring+whether+the+wearing+of+high+visibility+clothing+is+better+achieved+by+way+of+educational+and+publicity+campaigns+run+by+the+Road+Safety+Authority#g1398.r https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2017-10-03a.1396&s=t... Maybe instead of forcing everyone to dress like clowns, just don't hit people with your car. Also, note that the safest places in the world for cycling (Netherlands, Denmark) have very low helmet usage. They DO, however, have presumed liability laws, meaning that the operator of the more dangerous vehicle is presumed liable in a crash.

waste_monk 8y ago
Having presumed liability laws sounds dreadful - you can really follow all the road rules and still be found guilty, because a "less dangerous" vehicle crosses your path and causes an accident? Australian road rules are quite reasonable - all parties have a duty to try and avoid accidents, but for example if a bicycle exits a footpath onto a lane where you have an existing right of way and hit them, they would be at fault for failing to give way, and also because any action that causes a vehicle with right of way to change their behaviour can be considered dangerous driving
- CalRobert 8y ago
  Presumed liability doesn't mean drivers are _always_ at fault, but it does mean that the person operating the more dangerous vehicle has a higher burden of proof. If you operate a car on a city street where you _know_ there might be kids running in to the street, then _you_ are the one introducing an element of danger, not the kid. Similarly, if you drive by a child walking down the sidewalk (pavement, walkway, depending on where you are), you should slow down to aid in stopping on the off chance that child runs in to the street. Even if it's your right of way. Similarly, a cyclist might hit a pothole and fall, etc. and the reality is that a slight scratch on your bumper will be death to them, so you have to be more careful. 100, 110ish years ago, streets were full of people walking, horses, etc. It would be ridiculous to say "well I had the right of way so I killed that street vendor in my way". But enough drivers killed enough people using the street and we decided to say it was the fault of the person using the street as people had for millenia. That, of course, makes driving less convenient - but then, cars make walking and cycling massively inconvenient and we seem OK with that. Also, for situations where you need long, uninterrupted stretches of high speed motoring, limited access roads (aka motorways) exist, and there it's reasonable not to expect pedestrians, cyclists, jaunting cars, etc.
  - close04 8y ago
    > the person operating the more dangerous vehicle has a higher burden of proof. Which many times means you are basically guilty by design. Witnesses may be hard to come by and they are unreliable in all regards (memory, understanding of what happened, honesty), and unless the country accepts dash cam videos and you have one installed it means you're pretty much screwed as a driver.
close04 8y ago
> Also, note that the safest places in the world for cycling (Netherlands, Denmark) have very low helmet usage They are are safest for cycling because the law went to such an extent to protect cyclists to the disadvantage of pedestrians and drivers. Most times there's basically 0 legal recourse when the cyclist is actually to blame. All the burden is put on the other traffic participants. As an eye witness (an victim) of multiple accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians I can tell you that many times the best you get after being hit by a bike that was doing something illegal is some swear words while they pedal away. I've been hit by a guy who was texting with both hands while riding his bike over a pedestrian crossing and he just pedaled away. They have no incentive to behave better, the law is on their side and there are almost no repercussions (fines, suspended license, etc.). Even when the law has provisions for this the application will be extremely lenient. And if you live in a country where privacy laws prevent you from using any dash-cam recording in court you're royally screwed as a driver in almost every case. And pedestrians are royally screwed from all sides because they lose to both drivers and cyclists. And why enforce different safety and education rules than for drivers? Why enforce a safety belt for people in a car but not a helmet for people on the bike? Even the lightest accident can turn into death if you're not wearing a helmet, even when nobody else is involved. If you don't care about your life how can you expect others to?

waste_monk 8y ago

Having presumed liability laws sounds dreadful - you can really follow all the road rules and still be found guilty, because a "less dangerous" vehicle crosses your path and causes an accident? Australian road rules are quite reasonable - all parties have a duty to try and avoid accidents, but for example if a bicycle exits a footpath onto a lane where you have an existing right of way and hit them, they would be at fault for failing to give way, and also because any action that causes a vehicle with right of way to change their behaviour can be considered dangerous driving

CalRobert 8y ago
Presumed liability doesn't mean drivers are _always_ at fault, but it does mean that the person operating the more dangerous vehicle has a higher burden of proof. If you operate a car on a city street where you _know_ there might be kids running in to the street, then _you_ are the one introducing an element of danger, not the kid. Similarly, if you drive by a child walking down the sidewalk (pavement, walkway, depending on where you are), you should slow down to aid in stopping on the off chance that child runs in to the street. Even if it's your right of way. Similarly, a cyclist might hit a pothole and fall, etc. and the reality is that a slight scratch on your bumper will be death to them, so you have to be more careful. 100, 110ish years ago, streets were full of people walking, horses, etc. It would be ridiculous to say "well I had the right of way so I killed that street vendor in my way". But enough drivers killed enough people using the street and we decided to say it was the fault of the person using the street as people had for millenia. That, of course, makes driving less convenient - but then, cars make walking and cycling massively inconvenient and we seem OK with that. Also, for situations where you need long, uninterrupted stretches of high speed motoring, limited access roads (aka motorways) exist, and there it's reasonable not to expect pedestrians, cyclists, jaunting cars, etc.
- close04 8y ago
  > the person operating the more dangerous vehicle has a higher burden of proof. Which many times means you are basically guilty by design. Witnesses may be hard to come by and they are unreliable in all regards (memory, understanding of what happened, honesty), and unless the country accepts dash cam videos and you have one installed it means you're pretty much screwed as a driver.

close04 8y ago

> Also, note that the safest places in the world for cycling (Netherlands, Denmark) have very low helmet usage They are are safest for cycling because the law went to such an extent to protect cyclists to the disadvantage of pedestrians and drivers. Most times there's basically 0 legal recourse when the cyclist is actually to blame. All the burden is put on the other traffic participants. As an eye witness (an victim) of multiple accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians I can tell you that many times the best you get after being hit by a bike that was doing something illegal is some swear words while they pedal away. I've been hit by a guy who was texting with both hands while riding his bike over a pedestrian crossing and he just pedaled away. They have no incentive to behave better, the law is on their side and there are almost no repercussions (fines, suspended license, etc.). Even when the law has provisions for this the application will be extremely lenient. And if you live in a country where privacy laws prevent you from using any dash-cam recording in court you're royally screwed as a driver in almost every case. And pedestrians are royally screwed from all sides because they lose to both drivers and cyclists. And why enforce different safety and education rules than for drivers? Why enforce a safety belt for people in a car but not a helmet for people on the bike? Even the lightest accident can turn into death if you're not wearing a helmet, even when nobody else is involved. If you don't care about your life how can you expect others to?