5 ms·

The largest danger in cycling comes from automobiles; Denmark's infrastructure, which keeps cyclists away from automobiles and automobiles at low speeds in shar

• johnchristopher 14y ago
  "Why should a bicyclist be required to wear a yellow helmet & jacket to be called "good"? Certainly reasonable road conduct should be demanded from all road users, but first from automobile drivers, who cause the vast majority of injuries & deaths on the streets." 1. First of all, it is mandatory in my country. 2. Wether the accident is the biker's fault or the car driver's fault or anything else you are way better wearing a protective helmet if you fall off your bike. Head trauma is not something to be dismissed on the basis that wearing an helmet isn't mandatory or - gasp - fashionnable. 3. Regarding the yellow jacket: without it most bicylists are simply invisible in night traffic. In broad daylight there are easier to see and thus one can be more cautious around them. Remember that cyclists are "weak" road users. 4. > Why should a bicyclist be required to wear a yellow helmet & jacket to be called "good"? Certainly reasonable road conduct should be demanded from all road users, but first from automobile drivers, who cause the vast majority of injuries & deaths on the streets. Wearing a helmet and yellow jacket are really good signs that the biker knows what he is doing. Especially in a country (mine) where it is mandatory. Especially in a country (mine) where car culture is overtly agressive towards cyclists. There is absolutely no reason not to wear protective gear when riding a bike (especially in a city). Even if there were no cars on the road. edit: removed personnal rant
  • barrkel 14y ago
    Making it mandatory will have likely killed more people than leaving it optional - just be aware of that.
    • johnchristopher 14y ago
      How ? From the wikipedia page regarding the "australian bicycle helmet law" I read this: For example, one recent French study analyzing over 13,000 cyclist casualties during a ten-year period "confirms the protective effect [of helmets] for head and facial injuries," and finds that "the reduction of risk is greater for serious head injuries. The study is inconclusive about the risk for neck injuries."[45] The most widely quoted case-control study, by Thompson, Rivara, and Thompson, reported an 85% reduction in the risk of head injury by using a helmet.[46] It has been suggested that these studies may be fundamentally flawed.[47][48][49][50] [51] [52] Thompson and Thompson have rejected these criticisms.[53] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Case-control_studies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Case-control_stu... Are you suggesting something along: 1. Cyclists wearing helmets are prone to take risks because they are wearing helmets ? ; 2. people don't want to ride bikes because they don't want to wear a helmet because they don't like the look of it and as a result of that they might do less exercise activities than if they could have ride helmet free ? edit: I found this: http://www.cycle-helmets.com/ http://www.cycle-helmets.com/ There are some frightening points being made (and contradictory to my position) but I have some tingling doubts about some. Have to read it with more attention later.
      • excuse-me 14y ago
        Make helmets mandatory and people choose to take their cars instead of cycle. More cars on the road = more cyclist (and driver and pedestrian) deaths. Suppose for example that train passengers were required to wear motorbike helmets - would it save lives? Well there has probably been a very rare train accident where somebody died of a head injury. But if all those train passengers decided to drive instead there would be a huge rise in deaths.
        • 14y ago