6 ms·

If ever there was a deliberately-deceptive clickbait headline, this is it. Let's look at their overall conclusions: 1. A reduction in the number of cyclists on

If ever there was a deliberately-deceptive clickbait headline, this is it. Let's look at their overall conclusions: 1. A reduction in the number of cyclists on streets; 2. Financial struggle for popular bike sharing systems; and 3. More exposure among vulnerable populations to unnecessary interactions with police. NONE of these support the clickbait headline. #1 and #2 say that MHLs reduce the number of cyclists. And #3 fails to control for "percent of populations who ride without helmets." None of them say that a cyclist wearing a helmet is just as likely, or more likely, to get injured. > The unfortunate truth is mandatory helmet laws simply don’t lead to their purported goal, which is to make streets safer. No, that's never been the "purported goal." The goal is to protect people who already ARE cycling.

jeffbee 4y ago
https://www.bicycling.com/news/a25358099/drivers-give-helmet-cyclists-less-room/ https://www.bicycling.com/news/a25358099/drivers-give-helmet...
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Missing from this is any proof of a connection between "close passes" and injuries: "The new paper from Walker also re-affirms that wearing a helmet was indeed associated with more “close” passes when you take into consideration that in some places, the law dictates more than one meter of room." and any increase in accidents, let alone injury accidents.
  - ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
    It seems obvious to me that if drivers are passing closer, then there's less room for error, either by the driver not judging distance or the cyclist needing to avoid a pothole etc. There's also the intimidation factor - a lot of people are put off from cycling due to not feeling safe, and having vehicles pass at speed within a metre is extremely scary.
3bone 4y ago
I agree, they don't do a fantastic job of justifying the title. However, #1 and #2 are related, and the article does try to explain why they cause less safety. More people biking means both fewer cars, and people driving cars are more aware of bikers. > Safety in Numbers is a straightforward concept: More people on bikes creates safer conditions on our streets. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), which represents professional planners from 81 cities from around the United States, pointed this out in their own pushback on NTSB’s recommendations. If you follow the links in the article you'll come to some actual research about the topic https://www.bmj.com/content/332/7543/722.2 https://www.bmj.com/content/332/7543/722.2.
- backtoyoujim 4y ago
  As someone that has commuted through urban and industrial environments for years on bicycle I don't care what statistics say about assertions and possible changing circumstances for cyclists safety. Wear a helmet. Your skull doesn't care about this study. And titles like could lead to people to thinking that they won't need one. Which is unsafe for cyclists.
  - taeric 4y ago
    I want you to read that a bit more slowly. And then explain to me how this isn't a paraphrase of "I don't believe in science and studying things." It would help if you ack that the article encourages helmets. They are not trying to say to not wear them. They are arguing that the practicalities of how "mandates" work out cause more issues than they solve. I, for one, fully accept that "more studies" would be good. I also always wear a helmet. I don't think either of those are good rebuttals. And any blanket statement of "I don't care what evidence there is," is almost certainly the wrong foot to be on.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      People are surprisingly bad about reading words and instead reading something entirely different. It's clear from even the short HN title that we're talking about making helmets mandatory by law, not whether you should wear them.
Arainach 4y ago
Number of cyclists on the streets is incredibly important to safety. If drivers aren't expecting cyclists they pay less attention to them and aren't as practiced in how to drive safely around cyclists.
- mitthrowaway2 4y ago
  Perhaps, but cars aren't the only hazards bikes face. Bikes wipe out on ice, on potholes, on stopping suddenly and flipping over the handlebars when a pedestrian steps out in front of you (biker's fault, yes, but I've seen this happen). Without a helmet, an otherwise minor accident can result in serious brain damage, car or no car. It's also possible to have mandatory helmet laws and still have lots of cyclists. Vancouver Canada is a good example. Lots of cyclists. Good cycling infrastructure. Mandatory helmets. They do get black ice. Maybe we should just make helmets mandatory for drivers. Then perhaps they'll hop on a bicycle instead.
  - adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
    There's a really big difference between cars and other hazards. All the other hazards for a cyclist are them hitting something which is a lot safer than them being hit by a vehicle that weighs a ton or two.
    - mitthrowaway2 4y ago
      The ground weighs a lot more than two tons. It really depends on speed, and hitting the ground hard can be very deadly -- especially without a helmet.
      - acdha 4y ago
        I'm solidly on team helmet but F=ma is dominated by several tons of SUV. It's really hard for almost any other situation to reach the same energy levels and on average that's what determines how severe an impact is.
bitL 4y ago
There is a trend of increased incidence of severe injuries when wearing a cycling helmet in countries that introduced mandatory helmets. EDIT: Evidence: https://road.cc/content/news/268605-wearing-cycle-helmet-may-increase-risk-injury-says-new-research https://road.cc/content/news/268605-wearing-cycle-helmet-may...
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  This is without any supporting evidence, where one would expect some. What do you mean "a trend" ? Do you mean "more injuries overall" or "more injuries per cyclist"? Or something else entirely?
shwestrick 4y ago
You seem to be interested in this question: "If I bike without a helmet, how much more likely am I to be injured than if I bike with a helmet?". And of course, the answer is that you are safer with a helmet. But the article is interested in a different question: "If I bike, how likely am I to be injured?". This question is very heavily influenced by the ratio of bikes to cars on the road. More bikes leads to lower chance of injury for bicyclists.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  "overall traffic safety" is not a goal for MHLs for bikes, or motorcyclists; or seatbelt laws for car riders. Your first paragraph's question is the only relevant part of that.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    But, that's not correct either. MHLs could increase my overall risk of cycling accident enough to offset any gain from wearing the helmet. There are studies that show drivers go faster and closer to cyclists wearing helmets (vs those without helmets). That alone could increase the risk of deadly car-bike interaction enough to offset the gains from wearing the helmet. https://www.bicycling.com/news/a25358099/drivers-give-helmet-cyclists-less-room/ https://www.bicycling.com/news/a25358099/drivers-give-helmet... Edit - either way, I'm all for separate, protecetetd bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. That's the "real" solution here - get bikes and cars onto different roads and what drivers do or don't do ceases to be a problem (almost, we still get drunken idiots driving down our protected bike paths outside DC).
  - shwestrick 4y ago
    That's not a useful perspective. It doesn't matter what the goal of the law is; it matters what effect the law has.
- pdonis 4y ago
  I would put it this way: the article's information might be useful if you are trying to decide whether or not to bike. But if you have decided to bike, the article's information in no way means you should not wear a helmet. Unfortunately, the clickbait headline mixes up these two very different things.
taeric 4y ago
This is a poor summary. The reduction in the number of cyclists is very easy to see as making things less safe for the remaining cyclists. The data is rather clear on that, oddly. The article even linked to the study they are basing that on at https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/02/27/safety-in-numbers-biking-is-safest-in-nations-with-the-most-people-on-bikes/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/02/27/safety-in-numbers-bik.... Do we know the full causal factors? I'd wager not. But it is a testable hypothesis as much as "mandating helmets will save lives is." Per the evidence of this article, that hypothesis is on much shakier ground than your post would allow.
- bombcar 4y ago
  The "reduction makes it less safe" is quite common. When something is "common and normal" everyone works around it, when something is rare nobody expects it. This is why you can have less pedestrian fatalities in cities where everyone wanders into the roads seemingly haphazardly than in cities where there are fewer pedestrians and they usually cross with the lights.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Your article is statistically naive and doesn't prove anything like what you think it does. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/02/27/safety-in-numbers-biking-is-safest-in-nations-with-the-most-people-on-bikes/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/02/27/safety-in-numbers-bik... There are so many confounding factors in there that it would be laughed out of the room at any statistician conference. No, it's not a "testable hypothesis." Maybe you can find a "natural experiment" where two localities are exactly alike, except one has a MHL and the other doesn't: like a city where two school districts with identical demographics are divided by an artificial barrier. Even in your article, they admit the uncertainties: > Do more people on bikes cause cycling to become safer, or does safer infrastructure attract more people to bike? There’s no conclusive evidence either way, but the answer is probably a mix of both.
  - adql 4y ago
    I'd wager most of what they observed there is just "how well are cities build for cyclist" (prime example: Netherlands) and how competent average driver is (Germany) not some nebulous "safety in numbers"
welshwelsh 4y ago
The article goes on to explain why these conclusions make cyclists less safe. Basically, the only reason that bicycling is unsafe is cars. Cars are only a threat to cyclists when they share the same roads, which is only a problem because not enough people bike. The best way to ensure safety for cyclists is for there to be dedicated bike infrastructure that is completely separated from car infrastructure, and that's only going to happen once enough people switch to biking. >None of them say that a cyclist wearing a helmet is just as likely, or more likely, to get injured. That is not said or implied by the headline. > The goal is to protect people who already ARE cycling. If that's true, it's an idiotic and shortsighted goal. We have to do better than that- the goal should be to promote bicycling as a safe and accessible alternative to driving for everyone. 8-year-old children should be free to bike to school unsupervised without the risk of getting hit by a car. Mandatory helmet laws don't solve the problem, they make it worse.
- com2kid 4y ago
  > Basically, the only reason that bicycling is unsafe is cars. How is that true? I fall off my bike and hit my helmet on pavement once every couple of years or so. I am quite thankful I wear a helmet regularly. Bicycling is of course much safer with less cars.
  - matkoniecz 4y ago
    > I fall off my bike and hit my helmet on pavement once every couple of years or so. That seems extremely unusual. Are you MTBing / using skateparks / etc?
    - com2kid 4y ago
      > That seems extremely unusual. Are you MTBing / using skateparks / etc? No, just riding around streets. Typically from a large stone or something in the walkway, or I try to jump a curb and miss it by a bit. I don't have the best balance in the world. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - steelframe 4y ago
substation13 4y ago
> No, that's never been the "purported goal." The goal is to protect people who already ARE cycling. The real goal is often to reduce the number of people biking. This is why there is strong correlation between supporting mandatory helmet laws (and bicycle taxes, license plates and mandatory training) and opposing safe infrastructure such as segregated bike lanes.
- halostatue 4y ago
  MHLs also put the burden back on the vulnerable road users, allowing spineless politicians to blame the victims.
- jacobr1 4y ago
  > The real goal is often to reduce the number of people biking Where is the evidence of that intention? This seems more like the case of unintended side-effects to me.
  - matkoniecz 4y ago
    No strong evidence but this things* come from people really disliking cyclists, at least in my experience. *supporting mandatory helmet laws, mandatory insurance on bicycles, other bicycle taxes, license plates on bicycles and applying car-related legal requirements in general, requiring driving license to use bicycle, ban on cycling by children, opposing safe infrastructure such as segregated bike lanes, opposing any bicycle infrastructure, wanting to ban cycling on roads, wanting to remove cycleways.
codexb 4y ago
#1 supports their argument that a cyclist is more likely to be involved in a vehicular accident and therefore more likely to suffer an injury with mandatory helmet laws. Less overall cyclists means less visibility and less awareness by motorists (ie. if you encounter less bikes, you're less likely to watch out for them)
mike_hock 4y ago
And why shouldn't I be allowed to risk my life the way I see fit? Who am I endangering by cycling without a helmet?
- iso1631 4y ago
  Who am I endangering by driving without a seatbelt?
  - philwelch 4y ago
    You should also be allowed to do that.
  - hoosieree 4y ago
    Wearing a seatbelt might free up a hospital bed for someone else.
  - spr93 4y ago
    You are: 1. Consuming medical and emergency resources by creating easily preventable severe injuries 2. Raising raising insurance premiums or burdening public hospitals with the same 3. Potentially burdening the legal system (with a higher likelihood of insurance disputes and because more severe injuries are correlated with a higher probability of a lawsuit against other driver) 4. Endangering your passengers (possibly your children) by making it likely you will be unconscious or less able to get them to safety after a collision and teaching them habits that will make them more likely to die in an accident over the course of their lifetime So, yes, it's completely reasonable for society to impose almost zero cost on you to fasten a seatbelt in exchange for avoiding potentially huge externalities.
jona-f 4y ago
When there are more cyclists on the streets, car drivers are used to taking care of them, so its safer for the individual cyclist. Also, for many people, being safe includes not getting stopped by police. It's a different kind of safety, yes. This isn't really hard to see, so i think your hate of clickbait is clouding your vision. There is no deception, mandatory helmet laws make cyclists less safe. At least that is the authors opinion.
zzzeek 4y ago
> The goal is to protect people who already ARE cycling. if you have 4x as many people on bikes, the cyclists with helmets are safer due to the "safety in numbers" effect. If you've done any urban bike riding you'd see this is obviously true.
mcv 4y ago
The article directly addresses your first point. More cyclists on the streets means individual cyclists are safer. There are a couple of factors at work there: * More bikes means less cars, and cars are dangerous. Less cars means less danger. * More bikes means car drivers are more used to seeing bikes, more likely to expect and consider bikes, and will take bike traffic more seriously. * More bikes also makes bike-specific infrastructure more attractive to invest in. The city isn't going to build a separate bike path for a single biker, but for a thousand, they might. Countries with the highest bike safety don't have mandatory helmet laws. Of course that's partially because those mandatory helmet laws are simply less necessary there, but also because they've found more effective ways to make bikes safer, while stimulating instead of discouraging bike use.
xdennis 4y ago
> The goal is to protect people who already ARE cycling. By forcing them to either abandon cycling or become criminals? We increasingly see dangerous substances being made legal while still pushing for the criminalization of getting from A to B. I hope they make you wear a helmet on the sidewalk too. I only want you to be protected.
- kmoser 4y ago
  > By forcing them to either abandon cycling or become criminals? They have a third option: suck it up and comply with the law.
ever1337 4y ago
the argument is that mandatory helmet laws make cyclists less safe, not that simply wearing a helmet makes one unsafe. i don't see what is misleading. yes it is an attention-grabbing headline but it is supported by the article.

jeffbee 4y ago

https://www.bicycling.com/news/a25358099/drivers-give-helmet-cyclists-less-room/ https://www.bicycling.com/news/a25358099/drivers-give-helmet...

AlbertCory 4y ago
Missing from this is any proof of a connection between "close passes" and injuries: "The new paper from Walker also re-affirms that wearing a helmet was indeed associated with more “close” passes when you take into consideration that in some places, the law dictates more than one meter of room." and any increase in accidents, let alone injury accidents.
- ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
  It seems obvious to me that if drivers are passing closer, then there's less room for error, either by the driver not judging distance or the cyclist needing to avoid a pothole etc. There's also the intimidation factor - a lot of people are put off from cycling due to not feeling safe, and having vehicles pass at speed within a metre is extremely scary.

3bone 4y ago

I agree, they don't do a fantastic job of justifying the title. However, #1 and #2 are related, and the article does try to explain why they cause less safety. More people biking means both fewer cars, and people driving cars are more aware of bikers. > Safety in Numbers is a straightforward concept: More people on bikes creates safer conditions on our streets. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), which represents professional planners from 81 cities from around the United States, pointed this out in their own pushback on NTSB’s recommendations. If you follow the links in the article you'll come to some actual research about the topic https://www.bmj.com/content/332/7543/722.2 https://www.bmj.com/content/332/7543/722.2.

backtoyoujim 4y ago
As someone that has commuted through urban and industrial environments for years on bicycle I don't care what statistics say about assertions and possible changing circumstances for cyclists safety. Wear a helmet. Your skull doesn't care about this study. And titles like could lead to people to thinking that they won't need one. Which is unsafe for cyclists.
- taeric 4y ago
  I want you to read that a bit more slowly. And then explain to me how this isn't a paraphrase of "I don't believe in science and studying things." It would help if you ack that the article encourages helmets. They are not trying to say to not wear them. They are arguing that the practicalities of how "mandates" work out cause more issues than they solve. I, for one, fully accept that "more studies" would be good. I also always wear a helmet. I don't think either of those are good rebuttals. And any blanket statement of "I don't care what evidence there is," is almost certainly the wrong foot to be on.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    People are surprisingly bad about reading words and instead reading something entirely different. It's clear from even the short HN title that we're talking about making helmets mandatory by law, not whether you should wear them.

Arainach 4y ago

Number of cyclists on the streets is incredibly important to safety. If drivers aren't expecting cyclists they pay less attention to them and aren't as practiced in how to drive safely around cyclists.

mitthrowaway2 4y ago
Perhaps, but cars aren't the only hazards bikes face. Bikes wipe out on ice, on potholes, on stopping suddenly and flipping over the handlebars when a pedestrian steps out in front of you (biker's fault, yes, but I've seen this happen). Without a helmet, an otherwise minor accident can result in serious brain damage, car or no car. It's also possible to have mandatory helmet laws and still have lots of cyclists. Vancouver Canada is a good example. Lots of cyclists. Good cycling infrastructure. Mandatory helmets. They do get black ice. Maybe we should just make helmets mandatory for drivers. Then perhaps they'll hop on a bicycle instead.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  There's a really big difference between cars and other hazards. All the other hazards for a cyclist are them hitting something which is a lot safer than them being hit by a vehicle that weighs a ton or two.
  - mitthrowaway2 4y ago
    The ground weighs a lot more than two tons. It really depends on speed, and hitting the ground hard can be very deadly -- especially without a helmet.
    - acdha 4y ago
      I'm solidly on team helmet but F=ma is dominated by several tons of SUV. It's really hard for almost any other situation to reach the same energy levels and on average that's what determines how severe an impact is.

bitL 4y ago

There is a trend of increased incidence of severe injuries when wearing a cycling helmet in countries that introduced mandatory helmets. EDIT: Evidence: https://road.cc/content/news/268605-wearing-cycle-helmet-may-increase-risk-injury-says-new-research https://road.cc/content/news/268605-wearing-cycle-helmet-may...

AlbertCory 4y ago
This is without any supporting evidence, where one would expect some. What do you mean "a trend" ? Do you mean "more injuries overall" or "more injuries per cyclist"? Or something else entirely?

shwestrick 4y ago

You seem to be interested in this question: "If I bike without a helmet, how much more likely am I to be injured than if I bike with a helmet?". And of course, the answer is that you are safer with a helmet. But the article is interested in a different question: "If I bike, how likely am I to be injured?". This question is very heavily influenced by the ratio of bikes to cars on the road. More bikes leads to lower chance of injury for bicyclists.

AlbertCory 4y ago
"overall traffic safety" is not a goal for MHLs for bikes, or motorcyclists; or seatbelt laws for car riders. Your first paragraph's question is the only relevant part of that.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  But, that's not correct either. MHLs could increase my overall risk of cycling accident enough to offset any gain from wearing the helmet. There are studies that show drivers go faster and closer to cyclists wearing helmets (vs those without helmets). That alone could increase the risk of deadly car-bike interaction enough to offset the gains from wearing the helmet. https://www.bicycling.com/news/a25358099/drivers-give-helmet-cyclists-less-room/ https://www.bicycling.com/news/a25358099/drivers-give-helmet... Edit - either way, I'm all for separate, protecetetd bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. That's the "real" solution here - get bikes and cars onto different roads and what drivers do or don't do ceases to be a problem (almost, we still get drunken idiots driving down our protected bike paths outside DC).
- shwestrick 4y ago
  That's not a useful perspective. It doesn't matter what the goal of the law is; it matters what effect the law has.
pdonis 4y ago
I would put it this way: the article's information might be useful if you are trying to decide whether or not to bike. But if you have decided to bike, the article's information in no way means you should not wear a helmet. Unfortunately, the clickbait headline mixes up these two very different things.

taeric 4y ago

This is a poor summary. The reduction in the number of cyclists is very easy to see as making things less safe for the remaining cyclists. The data is rather clear on that, oddly. The article even linked to the study they are basing that on at https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/02/27/safety-in-numbers-biking-is-safest-in-nations-with-the-most-people-on-bikes/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/02/27/safety-in-numbers-bik.... Do we know the full causal factors? I'd wager not. But it is a testable hypothesis as much as "mandating helmets will save lives is." Per the evidence of this article, that hypothesis is on much shakier ground than your post would allow.

bombcar 4y ago
The "reduction makes it less safe" is quite common. When something is "common and normal" everyone works around it, when something is rare nobody expects it. This is why you can have less pedestrian fatalities in cities where everyone wanders into the roads seemingly haphazardly than in cities where there are fewer pedestrians and they usually cross with the lights.
AlbertCory 4y ago
Your article is statistically naive and doesn't prove anything like what you think it does. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/02/27/safety-in-numbers-biking-is-safest-in-nations-with-the-most-people-on-bikes/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/02/27/safety-in-numbers-bik... There are so many confounding factors in there that it would be laughed out of the room at any statistician conference. No, it's not a "testable hypothesis." Maybe you can find a "natural experiment" where two localities are exactly alike, except one has a MHL and the other doesn't: like a city where two school districts with identical demographics are divided by an artificial barrier. Even in your article, they admit the uncertainties: > Do more people on bikes cause cycling to become safer, or does safer infrastructure attract more people to bike? There’s no conclusive evidence either way, but the answer is probably a mix of both.
- adql 4y ago
  I'd wager most of what they observed there is just "how well are cities build for cyclist" (prime example: Netherlands) and how competent average driver is (Germany) not some nebulous "safety in numbers"

welshwelsh 4y ago

The article goes on to explain why these conclusions make cyclists less safe. Basically, the only reason that bicycling is unsafe is cars. Cars are only a threat to cyclists when they share the same roads, which is only a problem because not enough people bike. The best way to ensure safety for cyclists is for there to be dedicated bike infrastructure that is completely separated from car infrastructure, and that's only going to happen once enough people switch to biking. >None of them say that a cyclist wearing a helmet is just as likely, or more likely, to get injured. That is not said or implied by the headline. > The goal is to protect people who already ARE cycling. If that's true, it's an idiotic and shortsighted goal. We have to do better than that- the goal should be to promote bicycling as a safe and accessible alternative to driving for everyone. 8-year-old children should be free to bike to school unsupervised without the risk of getting hit by a car. Mandatory helmet laws don't solve the problem, they make it worse.

com2kid 4y ago
> Basically, the only reason that bicycling is unsafe is cars. How is that true? I fall off my bike and hit my helmet on pavement once every couple of years or so. I am quite thankful I wear a helmet regularly. Bicycling is of course much safer with less cars.
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  > I fall off my bike and hit my helmet on pavement once every couple of years or so. That seems extremely unusual. Are you MTBing / using skateparks / etc?
  - com2kid 4y ago
    > That seems extremely unusual. Are you MTBing / using skateparks / etc? No, just riding around streets. Typically from a large stone or something in the walkway, or I try to jump a curb and miss it by a bit. I don't have the best balance in the world. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - steelframe 4y ago

substation13 4y ago

> No, that's never been the "purported goal." The goal is to protect people who already ARE cycling. The real goal is often to reduce the number of people biking. This is why there is strong correlation between supporting mandatory helmet laws (and bicycle taxes, license plates and mandatory training) and opposing safe infrastructure such as segregated bike lanes.

halostatue 4y ago
MHLs also put the burden back on the vulnerable road users, allowing spineless politicians to blame the victims.
jacobr1 4y ago
> The real goal is often to reduce the number of people biking Where is the evidence of that intention? This seems more like the case of unintended side-effects to me.
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  No strong evidence but this things* come from people really disliking cyclists, at least in my experience. *supporting mandatory helmet laws, mandatory insurance on bicycles, other bicycle taxes, license plates on bicycles and applying car-related legal requirements in general, requiring driving license to use bicycle, ban on cycling by children, opposing safe infrastructure such as segregated bike lanes, opposing any bicycle infrastructure, wanting to ban cycling on roads, wanting to remove cycleways.

codexb 4y ago

#1 supports their argument that a cyclist is more likely to be involved in a vehicular accident and therefore more likely to suffer an injury with mandatory helmet laws. Less overall cyclists means less visibility and less awareness by motorists (ie. if you encounter less bikes, you're less likely to watch out for them)

mike_hock 4y ago

And why shouldn't I be allowed to risk my life the way I see fit? Who am I endangering by cycling without a helmet?

iso1631 4y ago
Who am I endangering by driving without a seatbelt?
- philwelch 4y ago
  You should also be allowed to do that.
- hoosieree 4y ago
  Wearing a seatbelt might free up a hospital bed for someone else.
- spr93 4y ago
  You are: 1. Consuming medical and emergency resources by creating easily preventable severe injuries 2. Raising raising insurance premiums or burdening public hospitals with the same 3. Potentially burdening the legal system (with a higher likelihood of insurance disputes and because more severe injuries are correlated with a higher probability of a lawsuit against other driver) 4. Endangering your passengers (possibly your children) by making it likely you will be unconscious or less able to get them to safety after a collision and teaching them habits that will make them more likely to die in an accident over the course of their lifetime So, yes, it's completely reasonable for society to impose almost zero cost on you to fasten a seatbelt in exchange for avoiding potentially huge externalities.

jona-f 4y ago

When there are more cyclists on the streets, car drivers are used to taking care of them, so its safer for the individual cyclist. Also, for many people, being safe includes not getting stopped by police. It's a different kind of safety, yes. This isn't really hard to see, so i think your hate of clickbait is clouding your vision. There is no deception, mandatory helmet laws make cyclists less safe. At least that is the authors opinion.

zzzeek 4y ago

> The goal is to protect people who already ARE cycling. if you have 4x as many people on bikes, the cyclists with helmets are safer due to the "safety in numbers" effect. If you've done any urban bike riding you'd see this is obviously true.

mcv 4y ago

The article directly addresses your first point. More cyclists on the streets means individual cyclists are safer. There are a couple of factors at work there: * More bikes means less cars, and cars are dangerous. Less cars means less danger. * More bikes means car drivers are more used to seeing bikes, more likely to expect and consider bikes, and will take bike traffic more seriously. * More bikes also makes bike-specific infrastructure more attractive to invest in. The city isn't going to build a separate bike path for a single biker, but for a thousand, they might. Countries with the highest bike safety don't have mandatory helmet laws. Of course that's partially because those mandatory helmet laws are simply less necessary there, but also because they've found more effective ways to make bikes safer, while stimulating instead of discouraging bike use.

xdennis 4y ago

> The goal is to protect people who already ARE cycling. By forcing them to either abandon cycling or become criminals? We increasingly see dangerous substances being made legal while still pushing for the criminalization of getting from A to B. I hope they make you wear a helmet on the sidewalk too. I only want you to be protected.

kmoser 4y ago
> By forcing them to either abandon cycling or become criminals? They have a third option: suck it up and comply with the law.

ever1337 4y ago

the argument is that mandatory helmet laws make cyclists less safe, not that simply wearing a helmet makes one unsafe. i don't see what is misleading. yes it is an attention-grabbing headline but it is supported by the article.