😀🚲Jun 19, 2023

Never let your government get away with claiming that #bikeHelmets are "the first rule of bike safety".

Rule number one is infrastructure, and the 2nd is air+brakes+chain mechanical soundness of the bike, upright geometry of the bike, traffic awareness, ride with fingers on your brake levers and having practiced emergency stops, twenty is plenty... Helmets are for stunts or a footnote to "don't fall on your head" rule that applies to walking moreso than biking.

Show threadKrikyJun 19, 2023
@enobacon being an emergency doctor I saw and treated too many people riding a bicycle without helmet suffering cranial hemorrhages to approve your statement.
I enjoy riding my bike and it has to be in a good shape- no question about that. I ride more than 400 miles a month and I never, never ride without a helmet and I am not a stuntman. I'm a commuter. I like my brain and I want it to be safe.
Just wear a helmet, it really makes sense.
Show thread😀🚲Jun 19, 2023
@kriky not in cars though? What doesn't make sense, is governments using anecdotes and biased samples like yours to absolve themselves of the responsibility for infrastructure. That kind of helmet encouragement and/or mandate also fails to protect people from sedentary diseases or the respiratory impacts of traffic emissions.
Show threadKrikyJun 19, 2023

@enobacon where I live, there is no helmet mandate for cyclists. But there is a seatbelt mandate for car drivers. The kinetics in case of an accident is very different.

You're free to ride your bicycle without a helmet. It's just a stupid decision, that's my point. You're right, that there is plenty to do for the safety of cyclists but denying the fact, that helmets safe lives won't make your point more credible.

Show thread😀🚲Jun 19, 2023
@kriky it's not a well-proven fact that helmets prevent more harm than they cause, even in terms of my personal decision to wear one, and ER studies or anecdotes don't change that. They do severely muddy the debate about public health policy though.
Show threadKrikyJun 19, 2023
@enobacon science denial?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457518301301
Show thread😀🚲Jun 19, 2023
@kriky first sentence of the abstract ends "among crash involved cyclists." 🙃
Show threadKrikyJun 19, 2023
@enobacon yeah, it's a meta-analysis, so let's just read the first sentence.
Show thread😀🚲Jun 19, 2023
@kriky I've already been through enough of that article years ago, and it's not "science denial" for me to point out that it is very much not a scientific study of the health effects of helmet-oriented messaging vs placing stuff in the street to discourage speeding cars.
Show threadKriky

@enobacon your point was "it's not a well-proven fact that helmets prevent more harm than they cause" and that's wrong (or science denial).

Why do you insist on doing just one thing? Vision zero does include a lot of small or large interventions to enhance the safety of cyclists. So, let's decelerate cars AND wear a helmet.

Jun 19, 2023 at 9:10pmWeb
Show thread😀🚲Jun 20, 2023
@kriky you're basically proving my original point that too many people focus too much on helmets to the exclusion of actually effective policy.
Show threadKrikyJun 20, 2023
@enobacon you prefer to compare apples and oranges. In my eyes a fruitless discussion.
Show thread😀🚲Jun 20, 2023
@kriky the tests with watermelons are fun and fruity, but maybe the practical use is safely carrying produce home from the grocery store