5 ms·

This completely misses the forest for the trees and misattributes causality. The Dutch don't wear helmets because the traffic culture and infrastructure are com

This completely misses the forest for the trees and misattributes causality. The Dutch don't wear helmets because the traffic culture and infrastructure are completely different, not because of some questionable statistic no one has heard of. In the Netherlands you feel safe as a cyclist. Drivers look out for you because they're also all cyclists at other times. Cycling is so prevalent that it's hard to explain to anyone who hasn't experienced it.

sokoloff 4y ago
There are also significant legal penalties for being at-fault and injuring/killing a cyclist in the Netherlands as compared to the US.
- ascar 4y ago
  Can you elaborate? The US has such a high incarceration rate for in European eyes often benign offenses that I find that statement hard to believe even though I don't know the Dutch laws (I'm German). E.g. I can't imagine a Dutch person being incarcerated for injuring a cyclist unless it's on alcohol/drugs. I can totally imagine that for the US though. But I might be totally wrong. Would be really curious for some details. My opinion on this might also be heavily and incorrectly influenced by popular media sprinkled with a few factual statistics that reinforce the bias.
  - Etheryte 4y ago
    When we lived in the Netherlands, my wife rode her bike infront of a car at an unmarked crossing where the car had every right of way. The car driver sued for repair fees, but in the end, the car driver had to pay her compensation instead. It doesn't matter that he had right of way, he was the "stronger" side and hurt someone weaker by not being cautious enough. There's obviously more nuance to the laws there, but this is a good example of the common mentality.
    - trgn 4y ago
      I love the distinction between stronger and weaker road users. With more power comes more responsibility, put into practice.
  - louracryft 4y ago
    The US is enormous, with almost no public transit outside of dense metro areas. As a result, cars hold a sacred place in society and jurisprudence. It is simply impossible to live without a car when your driveway is 10 miles long and the nearest "town" is 30 miles away. You can get a neverending stream of OUIs and keep your license after paying fines in most cases. We often joke that the best way to get away with murder is to run someone down and tell the judge that "they came out of nowhere". But lord help you if you get caught walking down the street with a joint in your bag.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      > You can get a neverending stream of OUIs and keep your license after paying fines in most cases. What is that based on? People I know who have had DUIs had a lot of trouble and cost, their driving was highly restricted, and a second DUI would have stopped them from driving and maybe put them in jail (IIRC).
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        This is about the presumed record holder, so it’s the worst kind of citation, but a WI man was convicted of his 18th OWI (presumably operating while impaired) https://www.grievelaw.com/WisconsinOWI/Laws/Record https://www.grievelaw.com/WisconsinOWI/Laws/Record That article contains a common trope: an official expressing shock and surprise at the offender’s record and uncertainty as to how they still had a license.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    Cases of potential death do not count as "benign", at least in my book. Shoplifting and really any property crime that doesn't result in imminent grave harm can be safely considered "benign". Ditto for victimless crimes like drug possession.
  - steve_adams_86 4y ago
    I think part of the problem in the USA and Canada is that our road laws are exceedingly motorist-centric. Things that don’t seem to make sense, like drivers getting a slap on the wrist for killing cyclists, do make sense if you consider that the laws don’t expressly promote and prioritize the safety of cyclist on all road ways.
  - porknubbins 4y ago
    As a general rule US public policy is enormously biased towards being pro automobile. Putting drivers in jail (ie for less than extreme recklessness) impedes that goal. It was very eye opening when I lived abroad and the law was actually biased against the “stronger” party in a traffic accident (ie truck > car > motorbike > bicycle > pedestrian ). It makes sense to me to essentially require more responsibility in proportion to the damage you are able to cause.
  - supertrope 4y ago
    Operators of heavier vehicles have a duty of care toward smaller vehicle rider. Compare this with New York City where if you negligently kill someone with your car, the police won't even issue a ticket unless you're drunk. Then comes the civil lawsuit in which the surviving family will probably settle for your car insurance policy limits (e.g. $100,000, far lower than German limits that are in the millions of Euros).
  - akjssdk 4y ago
    Cyclists are protected by law, such that even if an accident is the fault of the cyclist, the car driver is still 50% liable. This in combination with the infrastructure, which separates cyclists and cars as much as possible, makes the Netherlands very safe for cyclists. Note that younger children still usually wear a helmet, since they are more likely to have an accident on their own (i.e. falling over).
    - iruoy 4y ago
      I live in a small city and have cycled to school since I was 6 years old. At first with a parent, but from about 9 years old I would cycle by myself. I have never seen anyone wear a helmet in that time.
  - ornornor 4y ago
    My experience in NA was that killing a pedestrian or a cyclist with your car is actually the easiest way to get away with murder. At worst you’ll get away with a 500$ fine, at best nothing. And “wooops didn’t see them, the sun was in my eyes” is a valid defense.
    - blamazon 4y ago
      Some folks call it the SMIDSY defense - as in, " Sorry Mate I Didn't See You"
  - vegetablepotpie 4y ago
    Not OP, but I’d like to note that a woman in the US was convicted of vehicular manslaughter when she crossed a street on foot with her 4 year old son and they were struck by a drunk driver. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/06/14/raquel-nelson-finally-cleared-of-homicide-charges-pleads-to-jaywalking/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/06/14/raquel-nelson-finally...
- prepend 4y ago
  Aren’t the at fault vehicular manslaughter laws in the US the same for drivers who hit cars, cyclists, and pedestrians? If you kill a cyclist in the US and you’re at fault, that’s likely jail time (same for hitting a car or pedestrian). What’s missing in US laws vs Netherlands?
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    https://www.npr.org/transcripts/245475107?storyId=245475107 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/245475107?storyId=245475107 If you are convicted of vehicular manslaughter, you are very likely going to serve time. However, if you hit and kill and cyclist in the US, you are not likely to be charged with vehicular manslaughter, so long as you were sober and weren’t actively trying to hit them.
  - anonymousab 4y ago
    In the Netherlands and several other European countries, there is presumed/strict liability on the part of the automobile driver. Regardless of fault, a car driver has responsibility for any accident between their car and a bicycle. There is of course more nuance to this, but that's the basic overlying principle. A joke I heard a few times was "If a bike fell out of the air onto a parked car, the car owner is going to court."
    - 988747 4y ago
      Which sounds terrible, and goes against "innocent until proven guilty" rule. Also, in some situations it gives the driver perverse incentive to finish the cyclist off (and therefore get rid of the only witness), instead of, say, calling an ambulance.
      - supertrope 4y ago
        There a lot of cultural bias against bicyclists already. While leaving the scene of an injury accident is a crime, murder is an extreme escalation.
      - jules 4y ago
dan-robertson 4y ago
I roughly agree with you but this hypothesis would suggest: - more helmet wearing in less cycling-friendly cities like Rotterdam which, IIRC, is an example of such a place in the Netherlands - more helmet wearing (in the sense that the ratio between Dutch helmet wearing and helmet wearing in other Western European countries is higher) at points in the past when bicycle infrastructure was less protected. Though this is confounded by lots of things.
watwut 4y ago
The "must wear helmets" advocacy is never focused on conditions or nuanced ideas about when it is OK not to wear helmets. Instead, it is focused on make people feel as afraid of biking as possible. Literally all these debates are focused on making people afraid no matter of what conditions, speed. Whether you go mountain bike competition or whether you are 50 years old manager slowly commuting in skirt and business hairstyle.
golemiprague 4y ago

sokoloff 4y ago

There are also significant legal penalties for being at-fault and injuring/killing a cyclist in the Netherlands as compared to the US.

ascar 4y ago
Can you elaborate? The US has such a high incarceration rate for in European eyes often benign offenses that I find that statement hard to believe even though I don't know the Dutch laws (I'm German). E.g. I can't imagine a Dutch person being incarcerated for injuring a cyclist unless it's on alcohol/drugs. I can totally imagine that for the US though. But I might be totally wrong. Would be really curious for some details. My opinion on this might also be heavily and incorrectly influenced by popular media sprinkled with a few factual statistics that reinforce the bias.
- Etheryte 4y ago
  When we lived in the Netherlands, my wife rode her bike infront of a car at an unmarked crossing where the car had every right of way. The car driver sued for repair fees, but in the end, the car driver had to pay her compensation instead. It doesn't matter that he had right of way, he was the "stronger" side and hurt someone weaker by not being cautious enough. There's obviously more nuance to the laws there, but this is a good example of the common mentality.
  - trgn 4y ago
    I love the distinction between stronger and weaker road users. With more power comes more responsibility, put into practice.
- louracryft 4y ago
  The US is enormous, with almost no public transit outside of dense metro areas. As a result, cars hold a sacred place in society and jurisprudence. It is simply impossible to live without a car when your driveway is 10 miles long and the nearest "town" is 30 miles away. You can get a neverending stream of OUIs and keep your license after paying fines in most cases. We often joke that the best way to get away with murder is to run someone down and tell the judge that "they came out of nowhere". But lord help you if you get caught walking down the street with a joint in your bag.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    > You can get a neverending stream of OUIs and keep your license after paying fines in most cases. What is that based on? People I know who have had DUIs had a lot of trouble and cost, their driving was highly restricted, and a second DUI would have stopped them from driving and maybe put them in jail (IIRC).
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      This is about the presumed record holder, so it’s the worst kind of citation, but a WI man was convicted of his 18th OWI (presumably operating while impaired) https://www.grievelaw.com/WisconsinOWI/Laws/Record https://www.grievelaw.com/WisconsinOWI/Laws/Record That article contains a common trope: an official expressing shock and surprise at the offender’s record and uncertainty as to how they still had a license.
- uoaei 4y ago
  Cases of potential death do not count as "benign", at least in my book. Shoplifting and really any property crime that doesn't result in imminent grave harm can be safely considered "benign". Ditto for victimless crimes like drug possession.
- steve_adams_86 4y ago
  I think part of the problem in the USA and Canada is that our road laws are exceedingly motorist-centric. Things that don’t seem to make sense, like drivers getting a slap on the wrist for killing cyclists, do make sense if you consider that the laws don’t expressly promote and prioritize the safety of cyclist on all road ways.
- porknubbins 4y ago
  As a general rule US public policy is enormously biased towards being pro automobile. Putting drivers in jail (ie for less than extreme recklessness) impedes that goal. It was very eye opening when I lived abroad and the law was actually biased against the “stronger” party in a traffic accident (ie truck > car > motorbike > bicycle > pedestrian ). It makes sense to me to essentially require more responsibility in proportion to the damage you are able to cause.
- supertrope 4y ago
  Operators of heavier vehicles have a duty of care toward smaller vehicle rider. Compare this with New York City where if you negligently kill someone with your car, the police won't even issue a ticket unless you're drunk. Then comes the civil lawsuit in which the surviving family will probably settle for your car insurance policy limits (e.g. $100,000, far lower than German limits that are in the millions of Euros).
- akjssdk 4y ago
  Cyclists are protected by law, such that even if an accident is the fault of the cyclist, the car driver is still 50% liable. This in combination with the infrastructure, which separates cyclists and cars as much as possible, makes the Netherlands very safe for cyclists. Note that younger children still usually wear a helmet, since they are more likely to have an accident on their own (i.e. falling over).
  - iruoy 4y ago
    I live in a small city and have cycled to school since I was 6 years old. At first with a parent, but from about 9 years old I would cycle by myself. I have never seen anyone wear a helmet in that time.
- ornornor 4y ago
  My experience in NA was that killing a pedestrian or a cyclist with your car is actually the easiest way to get away with murder. At worst you’ll get away with a 500$ fine, at best nothing. And “wooops didn’t see them, the sun was in my eyes” is a valid defense.
  - blamazon 4y ago
    Some folks call it the SMIDSY defense - as in, " Sorry Mate I Didn't See You"
- vegetablepotpie 4y ago
  Not OP, but I’d like to note that a woman in the US was convicted of vehicular manslaughter when she crossed a street on foot with her 4 year old son and they were struck by a drunk driver. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/06/14/raquel-nelson-finally-cleared-of-homicide-charges-pleads-to-jaywalking/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/06/14/raquel-nelson-finally...
prepend 4y ago
Aren’t the at fault vehicular manslaughter laws in the US the same for drivers who hit cars, cyclists, and pedestrians? If you kill a cyclist in the US and you’re at fault, that’s likely jail time (same for hitting a car or pedestrian). What’s missing in US laws vs Netherlands?
- sokoloff 4y ago
  https://www.npr.org/transcripts/245475107?storyId=245475107 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/245475107?storyId=245475107 If you are convicted of vehicular manslaughter, you are very likely going to serve time. However, if you hit and kill and cyclist in the US, you are not likely to be charged with vehicular manslaughter, so long as you were sober and weren’t actively trying to hit them.
- anonymousab 4y ago
  In the Netherlands and several other European countries, there is presumed/strict liability on the part of the automobile driver. Regardless of fault, a car driver has responsibility for any accident between their car and a bicycle. There is of course more nuance to this, but that's the basic overlying principle. A joke I heard a few times was "If a bike fell out of the air onto a parked car, the car owner is going to court."
  - 988747 4y ago
    Which sounds terrible, and goes against "innocent until proven guilty" rule. Also, in some situations it gives the driver perverse incentive to finish the cyclist off (and therefore get rid of the only witness), instead of, say, calling an ambulance.
    - supertrope 4y ago
      There a lot of cultural bias against bicyclists already. While leaving the scene of an injury accident is a crime, murder is an extreme escalation.
    - jules 4y ago

dan-robertson 4y ago

I roughly agree with you but this hypothesis would suggest: - more helmet wearing in less cycling-friendly cities like Rotterdam which, IIRC, is an example of such a place in the Netherlands - more helmet wearing (in the sense that the ratio between Dutch helmet wearing and helmet wearing in other Western European countries is higher) at points in the past when bicycle infrastructure was less protected. Though this is confounded by lots of things.

watwut 4y ago

The "must wear helmets" advocacy is never focused on conditions or nuanced ideas about when it is OK not to wear helmets. Instead, it is focused on make people feel as afraid of biking as possible. Literally all these debates are focused on making people afraid no matter of what conditions, speed. Whether you go mountain bike competition or whether you are 50 years old manager slowly commuting in skirt and business hairstyle.

golemiprague 4y ago