3 ms·
Mandatory helmet laws are not the thing preventing cycling from becoming a viable alternative to cars. Plenty of places without mandatory helmet laws still are
by jjk166 4y ago
Mandatory helmet laws are not the thing preventing cycling from becoming a viable alternative to cars. Plenty of places without mandatory helmet laws still are dominated by cars, and mandatory helmet laws reduce cycling participation by small percentages - most cyclists wear helmets without being required to, and it's not a particularly heavy burden. I know if given the choice between a car payment and wearing a helmet what I would prefer.
There's resistance to improved cycling infrastructure because there's resistance to improving any infrastructure, no matter how critical, and the overwhelming majority of people don't see a massive rework of the entire transportation system to shift away from cars as a realistic possibility even in the moderate to long term.
- danhor 4y agoBut of the places known to have a large share of cycling, none have mandatory helmet laws (at least as far as I know). Thus, it may not be sufficient but it seems necessary. If most cyclists wear helmets, why do you need to mandate it?
- pfdietz 4y agoIf most drivers are sober, why do we need to ban drunk driving? If most people refrain from stealing, why do we make theft illegal? If most houses never burn down, why do we require smoke detectors?
- californical 4y ago1. Because it causes disproportionate harm to other people 2. Because it causes disproportionate harm to other people 3. I’m pretty sure that law isn’t universal and probably depends on city codes.. Regardless, if studies showed that requiring smoke detectors was burdensome enough to decrease the amount of new construction, to the point that it could be detrimental to society, then we should reevaluate that law.