5 ms·
This article is mostly nonsense. The way I look at it, mandatory helmet laws are protecting not only cyclists but also drivers by reducing the likelihood of a s
by keyanp 11y ago
This article is mostly nonsense. The way I look at it, mandatory helmet laws are protecting not only cyclists but also drivers by reducing the likelihood of a serious injury resulting from an accident.
In regards to improving bike-ability, adding more bike lanes is certainly the best way forward. Meanwhile we can encourage responsible bike use for those who share the roadways with motor vehicles. I'm frankly appalled at the general disregard to bike safety and traffic laws by NYC cyclists. A policy of early education and strict traffic law enforcement would likely alleviate a significant portion of the problem.
As a side note, the CitiBike program has done nothing but encourage terrible bike usage behavior and dangerous habits.
- riffic 11y agoSome people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll pass a mandatory adult helmet law." Now they have two problems.
- bytecycle 11y agoTo justify the cost of these additional bike lanes and infrastructure you'll first need people actually riding their bikes. A change of mentality is required here. As a cyclist you shouldn't feel so unsafe that you have to put on a helmet and war paint. The money spent on ridiculous bike laws and expensive special infrastructure should first be allocated to educating all drivers. There needs to be a shift in attitude towards cyclists so they can feel safe again. All these passive-aggressive comments against cyclist are very sad to read. I guess you have to be a little insane and have a certain negligence about rules to comfortably ride your bike and be able to ignore all the maniacs behind the wheel.
- ptaipale 11y ago> To justify the cost of these additional bike lanes and infrastructure you'll first need people actually riding their bikes Chicken-and-egg. On the other hand, to get people riding their bikes, you need to offer them an infrastructure that feels safe enough to get started.
- stephendedalus 11y agoYeah. That was basically the entire point of the article. That the roads didn't always belong to motorists. That the idea of the roads being car-centric is a fairly recent development in human history. One of my favorite examples is Las Vegas and Moscow, Russia. In the case of Las Vegas they've built entire elevated sidewalks with escalators and elevators. Cars rule in a city where people could, in theory, walk between casinos, restaurants, etc. In Moscow there are many many large sections of the city where the only way to cross the street is to go through the subway. On the upside that city has a pretty great subway system, so it makes some sense. Either way the point of the article (which a shocking number of people in the comments here and on the article missed) is that it's this chicken and the egg problem that needs to be addressed.
- Sharlin 11y agoThere's some fascinating data hinting that drivers behave more recklessly towards cyclists who wear a helmet, presumably thinking that a collision won't be so big a deal if the cyclist is "protected".
- ptaipale 11y agoI think the presumption is wrong; if the phenomenon is true (somewhat doubtful yet) it may be more related to the driver thinking: 1) "that guy wears helmet; he seems to be a law-abiding cyclist who knows what he's doing and behaves in a predictable way" 2) "that cyclist doesn't seem to control his vehicle; I need to pass by a wider margin".