• biddy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Discouraging people from driving is a good thing, although with the amount that’s wasted on pointless expressways some governments haven’t noticed yet.

    Anyway, there’s clear evidence from countries with mandatory helmet laws that it discourages people from cycling.

    • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      But back when seatbelts became mandatory (which was in the 1980s in the UK, IIRC), cars weren’t seen as a bad thing. They were seen as a good thing, as bikes are now, yet no doubt there were still people complaining that mandatory seatbelts would discourage people from utilising the Good Thing.

      Have there been any long-term studies into mandatory helmet laws? Or did they just look at the 3-6 months after the introduction of the laws, when people were still getting used to the change? What was the effect after helmet-wearing became normalised in that country’s society?

      I suppose the other solution is to not have mandatory helmets, and natural selection will do its thing. I tend to prefer not having a load of unnecessary deaths, however.

      • biddy
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure. Australia has had mandatory helmets since 1990, and there’s been endless studies and debates since then, it’s still ongoing. I could find no clear evidence that helmet mandates decreased overall harm over any timeframe.

        To quote a review I read from 2007

        The following general principles should have widespread support: (1) Any legislation (including helmet laws) should not be enacted unless the benefits can be shown to exceed the costs. Ideally, the benefits should be greater than from equivalent ways of spending similar amounts of money on other road safety initiatives.

        And their conclusion did not find a consensus other than

        A majority of brain injuries >AIS2 are caused by bike/motor vehicle collisions. Traffic calming, enforcement of drink-driving laws, cyclist and driver education, or other measures to reduce the frequency and severity of bike/motor vehicle collisions, may therefore represent more cost-effective ways of reducing serious head injuries to cyclists than helmet laws. Indeed, countries with the lowest fatality rates per cycle-km also have the lowest helmet wearing rates

        Given that, helmet mandates are a bad law that takes away our liberties for no proven benefit.

        • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fair enough. I do like evidence-based conclusions. :)

          I’m definitely in favour of good road safety initiatives like traffic calming, enforcement of driving laws, and education for both drivers and cyclists. One of the things I’ve observed with cyclists is on average they’re more unpredictable than other vehicles on the road, and I think education of both types of road user would help alleviate that. Cyclists need consistent signals for what they’re going to do, and drivers need to be able to recognise what those signals are. So much of road safety is reliant on everyone being as predictable as possible, and people taking up cycling as adults often skip the cycling proficiency lessons that teach them how to behave predictably, while drivers are never taught to recognise what signals cyclists are taught to use in those lessons. (My “work-around” solution for this is “slow down and keep more distance”, which works as well for cyclists as is does anyone else who is behaving unpredictably on the road. Indeed “slow down and back off” is an approach that’s hard to go wrong with!)