Citation needed. If they are now traveling via automobile, I doubt there is a net reduction when taking into account: vehicle injuries and fatalities, air pollution, and of course, in the long term, anthropogenic climate change.
This is a classic example of a system with perverse incentives. Everyone feels safer in their big SUV. In reality it's just an arms race, and we're all losing.
> Everyone feels safer in their big SUV. In reality it's just an arms race, and we're all losing.
I'm not sure, absent secondary effects, wearing a helmet makes cycling more dangerous for other cyclists the way that driving a big SUV, absent secondary effects makes it more dangerous for other drivers. It's not like the extra mass from helmets means you'll do more damage when you smash in to other cyclists.
Sure, but that's not the argument. It's that if you require people to carry a helmet with them to use your for-hire bike system, less people will use it, but they'll still need to get places, so they're more likely to hire a car or drive themselves.
The hypothesis is that requiring helmets may make individual bikers safer in isolation, but if it causes less people to bike and to drive instead, the increase in people driving cars may make it less safe to ride a bike, even adjusted for the fact that they're safer via the helmet.
I'd imagine this is especially true given that the helmet mostly only helps prevent the more dramatic injuries to the head. Getting hit by a car is still likely to seriously injure you in plenty of places the helmet doesn't help with.
Agreed. I just thought the metaphor was not helpful.
> The hypothesis is that requiring helmets may make individual bikers safer in isolation
...though there's a (somewhat) credible argument that even this isn't true. There are arguments against this too. Some argue automobiles see someone without a helmet as more "at risk" and therefore are more mindful of them, thereby net increasing their safety. Others argue that mandates tend to discourage innovation in safety equipment design, effectively encouraging the deployment of limited safety equipment at the expense of more effective alternatives.
> I'd imagine this is especially true given that the helmet mostly only helps prevent the more dramatic injuries to the head. Getting hit by a car is still likely to seriously injure you in plenty of places the helmet doesn't help with.
Which also brings up the ol' "is it better to be more likely to live, but also more likely to have broken arms and legs?" question.
> If they are now traveling via automobile, I doubt there is a net reduction when taking into account: vehicle injuries and fatalities, air pollution, and of course, in the long term, anthropogenic climate change.
You're not thinking like a Zero-sum American.
If you accidentally hit & injure a pedestrian, cyclist, or another driver in your Hummer - better them than you.
Secondly: if they are now traveling via automobile, the risk of injuries is less than going by bike without an helmet.
If you believe that by driving cars the risk of brain trauma goes up 63 to 80%, you should provide some evidence,
You're also blindly assuming that no bike means car, in my opinion it would mirror the usage pattern of someone not keen to use a car: public transportation, walking, other means of transportation such as skateboard, scooters etc.
Citation needed. If they are now traveling via automobile, I doubt there is a net reduction when taking into account: vehicle injuries and fatalities, air pollution, and of course, in the long term, anthropogenic climate change.
This is a classic example of a system with perverse incentives. Everyone feels safer in their big SUV. In reality it's just an arms race, and we're all losing.