251–260 of 797 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you get side-swept by a car you're going to fall. Getting rammed from the side or behind is not the only collision scenario, and getting side-swept seems like an extremely more likely scenario in London out of all places, where traffic in general is slow.
Getting side swept will not happen if you don't undertake motor vehicles and don't allow motor vehicles to overtake you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem is that as another commenter points out, passengers wouldn't feel safe next to a helmet-wearing driver while not wearing one themselves. Too bad? If your business model depends on this then you just have to suck it up and deal with it, not compromise worker safety. > The proper solution here is to provide helmets for passengers as well, but that raises more problems - they needs to be a way to sanitize…
Just FYI, I'm not defending them by any means. I take a very dim view of this company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm sorry, and pardonner mou Français, but what in the actual fuck? Do you wear a helmet when you drive inside your car? If not, why not? It might make you much safer in case of a crash, according to your reasoning. Wearing a helmet can itself become a leading factor to cause an incident, and it's clearly what they are hinting at in the linked article: that data seems to indicate that riders wearing helmets may be…
> Do you wear a helmet when you drive inside your car? If not, why not? It might make you much safer in case of a crash, according to your reasoning. Would it? I've never heard anyone recommend this, but if this did actually reduce the likelihood of a serious head injury in the event of a car crash, then I would seriously consider wearing a helmet while I drive a car. I have no problem wearing one while I ride a bicy…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm sorry, and pardonner mou Français, but what in the actual fuck? Do you wear a helmet when you drive inside your car? If not, why not? It might make you much safer in case of a crash, according to your reasoning. Wearing a helmet can itself become a leading factor to cause an incident, and it's clearly what they are hinting at in the linked article: that data seems to indicate that riders wearing helmets may be…
No, it rightfully illicits that response. Wearing a safety device shouldn't make an activity less safe. Your "simple equation" relies on your variables being solid. And they aren't. It's important to stress that the behavioural studies from Bath (that show helmeted riders take more risks in simulations, that cars give them less space) are not data about whether helmeted users are at greater risk. Or that comparisons…
American Football vs Rugby and the difference in CTE is often cited as the prime example of where this is true. Helmets and shoulder pads encourage riskier hits.
I'm sorry, and pardonner mou Français, but what in the actual fuck? Should delivery drivers not wear seatbelts because they might not be as afriad that they'll fly through the windshield? Should linemen not wear harnesses because they might be more confident working on power lines? Should warehouse workers not wear hi-vis jackets because they might be more confident working around forklifts? Should construction worke…
The problem is that as another commenter points out, passengers wouldn't feel safe next to a helmet-wearing driver while not wearing one themselves. The proper solution here is to provide helmets for passengers as well, but that raises more problems - they needs to be a way to sanitize them, multiple sizes might need to be available (I assume they need to be sized properly for adequate protection?), etc. The aforemen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless the bike is made of rubber, you can totally hit your head somewhere on the bike. Also look at the amount of car vs. bike accidents where the cyclists head smashes against the windshield. A helmet protects in that case too.
Probably should wear a hocky mask then.
Must be a cultural thing. If someone tried this here in Denmark, they would get such a shitstorm. Helmets are generally understood to increase cyclist safety.
Interesting! AFAIK, in the Netherlands helmets are considered to slightly reduce safety in the general case (but this is not a strong effect). The general objective is to make infrastructure sufficiently safe so that helmets become redundant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, that seems like a clear difference in infrastructure. If a biker shares a stretch of asphalt with a car, that's a risk for the biker and they need a helmet. In the Netherlands, this is widely understood and bikes get their own infrastructure everywhere. Only then you don't need helmets anymore at all.
One flaw in this logic: helmets don't protect against cars ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, that seems like a clear difference in infrastructure. If a biker shares a stretch of asphalt with a car, that's a risk for the biker and they need a helmet. In the Netherlands, this is widely understood and bikes get their own infrastructure everywhere. Only then you don't need helmets anymore at all.
One flaw in this logic: helmets don't protect against cars ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You T-bone a car.
It helps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have the exact same causal issue to untangle. Do safer riders wear helmets or does wear a helmet make you safer as a rider? In reality there are confounds both directions. The effects of helmet wearing are higly contingent based on the geography and demographics.
Yes, but it IS possible to do research that untangles these effects. Here is a review (from just 3 years ago) of such studies: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136984781...
> Risk compensation, as it is typically defined and understood, is only one of six possible scenarios, namely a usual non-helmet wearer puts on a helmet and increases their risk taking. Importantly, evidence in the opposite direction, i.e., taking a helmet off leads to less risky behaviour, is not evidence in support of risk compensation as it is a type of logical fallacy
After reviewing that article none of the studies are convincing either way. The only studies that actually look for causality are the ones which only measure speed to asses risk. Those are also the one that I would qualify as positive results but were listed as negative results because of that above mentioned logical fallacy.
So while is is possible to untangle these effects, it has yet to be done properly to show a clear result either way.