We want healthy, liveable cities and to cut emissions to net zero. Getting more people to use bicycles instead of cars will go a long way towards achieving these goals.
Reforming mandatory helmet laws, by either abolishing them altogether or making them applicable only on busy roads, would help. The laws deter mass uptake of cycling by framing getting on a bike as a dangerous extreme sport rather than a form of active mobility. The fact that they are applied to advertising as well, with tourism ads for Amsterdam having helmets photoshopped onto all the cyclists, further reinforces this framing and deters casual cyclists.
But cycling is dangerous - do we really want to put our ideology ahead of peoples’ safety? I’m not saying cars are safe, but they are required to have seat belts (which you are required to use) and I assume airbags are also mandatory. We shouldn’t downplay the risks associated with an activity to get the “ignorant masses” to do it - that is misleading. We need more people out of cars and on bikes or public transport but we shouldn’t get there by lying, good infrastructure will be a major factor.
Statistically, it’s been fairly well understood for a while now that the benefits of a larger number of people cycling outweigh the safety risk of some of those people not wearing a helmet.
Infrastructure and keeping people separate from cars is more important, but mandatory helmet laws are a net detriment to public health.
There’s entire swathes of people who just can’t really have their hair messed up or it would affect them professionally. In Europe people tend to not wear helmets and it’s not like it’s a daily massacre in the streets.
I don’t like the whole Darwin-Awards/Eugenics dichotomy but I can’t comprehend anyone stupid enough to think that having a fancy haircut is more important than their brains being on the inside of their heads.
There are different types of cycling. I would always wear a helmet to work because I live 6km away and it’s a decent ride. There are hills and I often get to a reasonable speed.
Compare that to someone living in South Brisbane commuting to the CBD, or someone going for a leisurely bike stroll on the riverwalk - they may not go fast at all. We don’t wear helmets whilst walking or jogging, but why is it mandatory for a slow ride?
The big reason helmets can be offputting is because they can mess up your hair. If the city wants to encourage people who live relatively close to their jobs to ride in, more flexibility on helmets could be a good thing.
FWIW I do think helmet safety should always be encouraged. Riding down a hill? Going more than a leisurely stroll? Wear a helmet. Makes sense. But it’s really not that necessary for people who are riding slow.
Reforming mandatory helmet laws, by either abolishing them altogether or making them applicable only on busy roads, would help. The laws deter mass uptake of cycling by framing getting on a bike as a dangerous extreme sport rather than a form of active mobility. The fact that they are applied to advertising as well, with tourism ads for Amsterdam having helmets photoshopped onto all the cyclists, further reinforces this framing and deters casual cyclists.
But cycling is dangerous - do we really want to put our ideology ahead of peoples’ safety? I’m not saying cars are safe, but they are required to have seat belts (which you are required to use) and I assume airbags are also mandatory. We shouldn’t downplay the risks associated with an activity to get the “ignorant masses” to do it - that is misleading. We need more people out of cars and on bikes or public transport but we shouldn’t get there by lying, good infrastructure will be a major factor.
Statistically, it’s been fairly well understood for a while now that the benefits of a larger number of people cycling outweigh the safety risk of some of those people not wearing a helmet.
Infrastructure and keeping people separate from cars is more important, but mandatory helmet laws are a net detriment to public health.
There’s entire swathes of people who just can’t really have their hair messed up or it would affect them professionally. In Europe people tend to not wear helmets and it’s not like it’s a daily massacre in the streets.
I don’t like the whole Darwin-Awards/Eugenics dichotomy but I can’t comprehend anyone stupid enough to think that having a fancy haircut is more important than their brains being on the inside of their heads.
There are different types of cycling. I would always wear a helmet to work because I live 6km away and it’s a decent ride. There are hills and I often get to a reasonable speed.
Compare that to someone living in South Brisbane commuting to the CBD, or someone going for a leisurely bike stroll on the riverwalk - they may not go fast at all. We don’t wear helmets whilst walking or jogging, but why is it mandatory for a slow ride?
The big reason helmets can be offputting is because they can mess up your hair. If the city wants to encourage people who live relatively close to their jobs to ride in, more flexibility on helmets could be a good thing.
FWIW I do think helmet safety should always be encouraged. Riding down a hill? Going more than a leisurely stroll? Wear a helmet. Makes sense. But it’s really not that necessary for people who are riding slow.
I agree that the helmet laws are unnecessary, but I think they’re far from the most important thing compared to having good infrastructure to ride on.