I saw a tweet yesterday saying 0.5% of Dutch people wear helmets and they have the fewest injuries / fatalities per KM traveled. 50% of Americans wear helmets and they have the highest number of injuries / fatalities for cyclists. Helmets are one of the least important when factors it comes to cycling safety. The negatives to compulsory helmets far outweigh the positives.There are countless studies that show cycling helmets help in preventing serious injuries (much like seatbelts in cars) but yet they arent compulsory, thats a start, where do you stand on that?
What are the negatives to a compulsory safety device?I saw a tweet yesterday saying 0.5% of Dutch people wear helmets and they have the fewest injuries / fatalities per KM traveled. 50% of Americans wear helmets and they have the highest number of injuries / fatalities for cyclists. Helmets are one of the least important when factors it comes to cycling safety. The negatives to compulsory helmets far outweigh the positives.
I was referring to bikes, you have done the usual thing or bringing it back to cars, why is that?A better question might be - why would you start with that?
Cycle helmets aren't much like seat belts in cars at all. If you think mandatory crash helmets will reduce head injuries, start with crash helmets for car occupants, given that's where the vast majority of head injuries happen, even with seat belts and air bags and more.
i referred to serious injury, not death.Most cycling deaths involve crush injuries, nothing that a helmet would have saved the victim from. Helmets can help prevent some head injuries but given that there are more head injuries in vehicular crashes then your logic would lead to mandatory helmet use for everyone in a car.
Australia should be a cycling nirvana with lovely weather but their insistence on mandatory helmet wearing means very few cycle there.
Probably because vastly more people are killed and injured as a result of head injuries in cars than on bikes. Are you up for compulsory crash helmets for all car occupants?I was referring to bikes, you have done the usual thing or bringing it back to cars, why is that?
I was referring to bikes, you have done the usual thing or bringing it back to cars, why is that?
In Germany the driver is not liable for errors made by their adult passengers. The car was legally parked. This arrangement is quite typical here. The responsibility lay with my friend to look over his shoulder before pushing the door wide open. We had different insurance companies. My friend's insurance coughed up despite knowing the details and the involvement of a motor vehicle.Insurance will often choose to use whichever policy is least cost to them.
I can't find any Irish examples. But its still the car that hits the cyclist. I wouldn't also assume that a driver (or their insurance) is not responsible for allowing the passenger to to exit and parking position at a cycle lane. For example in the states sometimes its the passenger and sometimes its the driver.
In Germany the driver is not liable for errors made by their adult passengers. The car was legally parked. This arrangement is quite typical here. The responsibility lay with my friend to look over his shoulder before pushing the door wide open. We had different insurance companies. My friend's insurance coughed up despite knowing the details and the involvement of a motor vehicle.
This sort of insurance covers such things as spilling red wine on your friend's new beige carpet. Unfortunately it's unlikely to become widely available in Ireland at reasonable cost.
What are the negatives to a compulsory safety device?
Perhaps you'd like to stay on topic, rather than try to make things up, in a poor attempt to drive your underlying agenda?Perhaps you'd like to explain why creating barriers to reduced pollution, reduced traffic chaos, improved public health is 'better'?
How about supporting that claim with some evidence and facts, sourced from reliable third parties, please?That it has a net negative effect.
Where helmets have been made compulsory the number of people cycling has decreased. At the same time we have a climate crisis and an obesity problem.What are the negatives to a compulsory safety device?
Where helmets have been made compulsory the number of people cycling has decreased.
Tbf - I don't think anyone is suggesting that cycling is a bad thing, or that it shouldn't be encouraged (albeit, in a safe and positive manner etc)At the same time we have a climate crisis and an obesity problem.
How about supporting that claim with some evidence and facts, sourced from reliable third parties, please?
Tbf - I don't think anyone is suggesting that cycling is a bad thing, or that it shouldn't be encouraged (albeit, in a safe and positive manner etc)
The topic being the impacts of your misguided proposal. If you create artificial barriers to cycling, less people will cycle. With less people cycling, you have more pollution, more traffic chaos and reduced public health.Perhaps you'd like to stay on topic, rather than try to make things up, in a poor attempt to drive your underlying agenda?
You will presumably be presenting your evidence and facts about what problem mandatory insurance for cyclists will solve, sourced from reliable third parties, any day now, right?How about supporting that claim with some evidence and facts, sourced from reliable third parties, please?