[twiss]

All else is not equal, though. The focus on individual responsibility for biking safety in fact reduces biking safety. It's important to recognize that at a societal level, it's more useful to focus on improving infrastructure than on increasing rates of helmet wearing.

Of course, individual bikers can also still wear a helmet, but they should also demand proper biking infrastructure.

[NovemberWhiskey]

>The focus on individual responsibility for biking safety in fact reduces biking safety

You mean, I think, that it fails to improve it in the way you would like. Or are you actually asserting that making people wear helmets actually reduces safety?

[twiss]

> Or are you actually asserting that making people wear helmets actually reduces safety?

Yes, if it's done instead of improving biking infrastructure, as it often is.

[NovemberWhiskey]

Well, you don't seem to be asserting it. You seem to be saying that it's a resource misallocation. Assume we have improved biking infrastructure. People would still fall off bikes and hit their heads, and the people that did that would be safer if they wore helmets, wouldn't they?

Honestly, this whole "don't ask me to exercise personal responsibility until you've changed the world for me" thing seems a little petulant.

[twiss]

> People would still fall off bikes and hit their heads, and the people that did that would be safer if they wore helmets, wouldn't they?

A bit, but I'm claiming it will help way less than improving the infrastructure, and there's a long way to go in improving the infrastructure before focusing on wearing helmets makes sense (at a societal level! individuals can still focus on that, of course).

Even in the Netherlands, which has comparatively speaking amazing biking infrastructure, the majority of biking deaths are due to a collision with a car, not people falling down [1]. That to me says that even there, focusing on further improving the infrastructure still makes more sense than focusing on helmet wearing.

However, looking at the data [1], I did find one (almost) exception: for people over 70, biking deaths without a collision approached those with a collision (though the latter were still a majority). So I'll concede that for people over 70, telling them to wear a helmet when biking might make sense.

[1]: https://www.cbs.nl/-/media/_excel/2022/37/maatwerktabel-fiet... (xlsx file)

---

Edited to address the edit:

> Honestly, this whole "don't ask me to exercise personal responsibility until you've changed the world for me" thing seems a little petulant.

I'm asking society to focus their efforts on the measures that have the best ROI for improving safety. My claim is that focusing on improving infrastructure has a better ROI than focusing on asking bikers to wear helmets.

That is not to say that individual bikers shouldn't wear helmets. I'm also not arguing about whether or not they should take individual responsibility or not. I'm only claiming that at a societal level, focusing on individual responsibility reduces biking safety. I believe that is backed up by data quoted in the article.

[zardo]

Is the idea that we should we repeal helmet laws with the intent that it will lead to more people getting hurt, then try to harness that wave of misery to get bicycle infrastructure?

[twiss]

No, of course not, we should start by focusing on improving the biking infrastructure. Waiting for more people to get hurt shouldn't be necessary to justify that; a lot of people are already getting hurt.

[rattray]

How are these pitted against each other??

It's totally possible that a helmet saves your life/head with no cars involved. Happened to me a couple months ago.

Helmets should be required and infrastructure should be great.

[apgwoz]

I don't think anyone is saying "don't wear a helmet." What's being stated is that you can't stop at "wear a helmet," and doing so does more harm than good by creating a false sense of safety. A helmet will protect you from _some things_, no doubt. It won't protect you from a car whose driver just dumped his soda in his lap, and swerves when looking down to see the damage.

The article cites the Netherlands, where bicycling is extremely popular, but helmets are not. The "safety" comes from the infrastructure which reduces hazards that make bicycling unsafe. Visibility, and isolation from 3000+ lb metal objects are the two most important things.

There's a fun catch-22 here. You need more riders to create safety (groups of cyclists are visible. large groups of cyclists can advocate for bike lanes, etc), but without safety you can't attract new riders.

[twiss]

They're pitted against each other because when biking accidents happen, the biker is often blamed, especially if they weren't wearing a helmet. This is partially done to avoid having to improve the biking infrastructure. But, as the article claims, improving biking infrastructure would improve biking safety more than chastising bikers who don't wear helmets.

[tofuahdude]

I'd be surprised if "demand" is the right demeanor to use when optimizing for public/social outcomes. In my experience, it's much easier to convince people of your position with a more calm, measured perspective than "demanding" anything.

[midoridensha]

Yes, a calm, measured perspective is how humans eliminated slavery, for instance.

/s

[ryukafalz]

Stop de Kindermoord was phenomenally successful.

[jamal-kumar]

That sounds so grim, all we had in the 90s to convince us in the americas was a watermelon getting smashed on pavement