this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
54 points (95.0% liked)

Australia

3507 readers
240 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
54
Safety vests and helmets make cyclists look ‘less human’ to other road users (theconversation.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The meaningful number when comparing eg driving/walking to biking head injuries is not the absolute number but the fraction. If you’re 100 times more likely to get hurt when doing X compared with Y, it means X is inherently more dangerous/risky and warrants extra protection. Even if far fewer people overall do X.

I’m assuming here that far fewer people ride than walk/drive on your average day.

And the people who seem most discouraged by helmets are those who always want to tell you how discouraged everyone is by helmets. My experience is that most people who ride don’t really give a shit / are happy to have something to protect their noggin.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's true, to get the best data, we need a common denominator, which is just not available. The initial post of this thread was pointing out that the studies all around are weak, including the study that lead to mandatory helmets use policy. What information we do have is suggesting that more ridership results in better infrastructure which results in less injuries over all

[–] MisterFrog 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think we all agree that the most important factor here to getting people on bikes is providing the feeling of safety (+ actual safety) and convenience, which I would argue needs to be better infrastructure first, helmet law relaxations second.

Can you imagine if they do helmet law relaxations first? The media would have a field day.

If someone is more discouraged to ride because helmets are a hassle or might ruin their hair, instead of death by car due to poor infrastructure and car-centrism, then I'd look at such a person sideways.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It's not really an either/or. In order to get investment in infrastructure, there needs to be interest in cycling. This means removing barriers where present. A great example of this is in bike shares. New York City introduced a bike share in the early 2000s, and that helped to increase ridership. Increased ridership lead to the construction of miles of inner city separated bike lane.

The Melbourne bike share had consistently low ridership, and was abandoned entirely in 2019. They explicitly cited the helmet law as the reason.. In Brisbane, 85% of people said the helmet law was why they didn't use the bike share.

If we want to increase actual cyclist safety, we desperately need the infrastructure, but for the infrastructure we need cyclists. One of the best methods for getting more cyclists doesn't work in Australia. Maybe that should change.