3 ms·

There appears to be strong - IMO, conclusive - evidence that compulsory bicycle helmet laws reduce the overall quality of life (with the main mechanism being re

by D_Alex 12y ago

There appears to be strong - IMO, conclusive - evidence that compulsory bicycle helmet laws reduce the overall quality of life (with the main mechanism being reduction of physical activity, and resultant deterioration in health). But repealing such laws seems hard, politically. Any ideas on how to support such a repeal?

brianbarker 12y ago
"compulsory bicycle helmet laws reduce the overall quality of life" So...compulsory seat belt laws reduce the overall quality of life? Say what?
- jackvalentine 12y ago
  Why did you ignore the next part? "(with the main mechanism being reduction of physical activity, and resultant deterioration in health)."
  - fsloth 12y ago
    I call bullshit on helmet use reducing physical activity. I would claim any helmet related issues as excuses for lazyness.
sdrothrock 12y ago
I feel like being dead or brain damaged also reduces the overall quality of life.
- rflrob 12y ago
  Of course it does. But presumably most people who bike will never have a potentially fatal brain injuring accident, while having a healthier, more environmentally friendly, cheaper life (gas is expensive!), and on balance, it's a net positive expected benefit, for some set of plausible weights of pros and cons.
- nikisweeting 12y ago
  Ah, but this is the tricky moral question, do we enact a law that may decrease a large population's quality of life significantly, or do we enact one that doesn't, but allows for the death of a few? Arguably, the greater good is done by not enforcing helmet laws, because vastly more people will bike, and thus get more exercise, outweighing the few major accidents per year.
  - sdrothrock 12y ago
    > do we enact a law that may decrease a large population's quality of life significantly Before asking that question, I wonder how many people don't bike because of the helmet versus how many say that they don't bike because of the helmet but really would take any excuse.
fsloth 12y ago
In what way does the need to wear a helmet reduce your capability of cycling? Last time I checked helmets were sold in the same shops as bikes.
- tempestn 12y ago
  Slight inconveniences most likely. If you commute by bike, you then need to carry the helmet around with you or risk it being stolen. You have helmet hair, which sounds trivial, but might be an issue for some people riding to work and such. Things like that. Nothing huge that I can think of, but I'm sure these things discourage cycling to some extent, for some people.
- boyaka 12y ago
  The fact that they require money, maintenance, and effort to use? It may be minimal but it is there.
  - welly 12y ago
    What maintenance does a bike helmet need?
- freiheit 12y ago
  Forget the theories and look at the data. When governments (such as Australia) have passed laws making helmet use mandatory, bicycling rates have gone down.

by D_Alex 12y ago

brianbarker 12y ago

"compulsory bicycle helmet laws reduce the overall quality of life" So...compulsory seat belt laws reduce the overall quality of life? Say what?

jackvalentine 12y ago
Why did you ignore the next part? "(with the main mechanism being reduction of physical activity, and resultant deterioration in health)."
- fsloth 12y ago
  I call bullshit on helmet use reducing physical activity. I would claim any helmet related issues as excuses for lazyness.

sdrothrock 12y ago

I feel like being dead or brain damaged also reduces the overall quality of life.

rflrob 12y ago
Of course it does. But presumably most people who bike will never have a potentially fatal brain injuring accident, while having a healthier, more environmentally friendly, cheaper life (gas is expensive!), and on balance, it's a net positive expected benefit, for some set of plausible weights of pros and cons.
nikisweeting 12y ago
Ah, but this is the tricky moral question, do we enact a law that may decrease a large population's quality of life significantly, or do we enact one that doesn't, but allows for the death of a few? Arguably, the greater good is done by not enforcing helmet laws, because vastly more people will bike, and thus get more exercise, outweighing the few major accidents per year.
- sdrothrock 12y ago
  > do we enact a law that may decrease a large population's quality of life significantly Before asking that question, I wonder how many people don't bike because of the helmet versus how many say that they don't bike because of the helmet but really would take any excuse.

fsloth 12y ago

In what way does the need to wear a helmet reduce your capability of cycling? Last time I checked helmets were sold in the same shops as bikes.

tempestn 12y ago
Slight inconveniences most likely. If you commute by bike, you then need to carry the helmet around with you or risk it being stolen. You have helmet hair, which sounds trivial, but might be an issue for some people riding to work and such. Things like that. Nothing huge that I can think of, but I'm sure these things discourage cycling to some extent, for some people.
boyaka 12y ago
The fact that they require money, maintenance, and effort to use? It may be minimal but it is there.
- welly 12y ago
  What maintenance does a bike helmet need?
freiheit 12y ago
Forget the theories and look at the data. When governments (such as Australia) have passed laws making helmet use mandatory, bicycling rates have gone down.