QuixoticgeekFeb 5

So my toot about helmet laws increasing heart disease has got a few replies by people wondering wtf. The way it works is that mandatory helmet laws reduce cycling, fewer people cycling results in an increase in obesity related illnesses like heart disease and diabetes.

One of, if not rhe best, things that a government can do to improve health at a population level is increasing active travel (walking and cycling).

1/n

https://theconversation.com/ditching-bike-helmets-laws-better-for-health-42

Ditching bike helmets laws better for health

With epidemics of diabetes and obesity threatening to bankrupt state health budgets, governments need to broaden their strategies to encourage physical activity. Allowing cyclists to ride without a helmet…

The Conversation
Show threadaoanlaFeb 5

@quixoticgeek So, I think people were mostly reacting to the implication in your original framing that this was a *direct* consequence. What is the case is thatmandatory helmet laws reduce cycling due to inconvenience... and the second-order effect is that people do less exercise (if most of their exercise was from cycling)...
and the third order effect is that disorders from sedentary populations increase (assuming no other changes in behaviour).
(But at the third order, there are *so many* consequences that we're just picking and choosing one that fits our rhetorical position...)

[That said, I am in favour of the banning cars option you suggest...]

Show threadQuixoticgeekFeb 5
@aoanla it is a consequence, on a population level.
Show threadaoanlaFeb 5
@quixoticgeek ...yes, but not a *direct* consequence. When people say "X causes Y", the implication is that the causal chain is short between X and Y.
I could say "stopping free school dinners increases crime", which is true as a weak effect due to opportunity limitation, but the consequence is years after the cause, and several chain links down the road... so I wouldn't say that without being clear that I mean indirectly and in the indefinite future.
Show threadQuixoticgeekFeb 5

@aoanla there may be a delay, but the result is clear. After Australia brought in its mandatory helmet law, heart disease went up. Was it within a week? No. But it also wasn't ten years later. It was within a year or so.

More people riding bikes is an indisputable public good.

Show threadOffbeatmammalFeb 5
@quixoticgeek @aoanla it is really odd. I live in Australia these days and ride a push bike significantly less than I did in the UK or US because I dislike the helmet (and mostly don't ride on the road anyway), but I wouldn't dream of getting on my motorbike without a helmet. I have no idea why I find bicycle helmets such an imposition (especially as my aging and expanding waistline would benefit from pedaling on a regular basis)
Show threadQuixoticgeekFeb 5

@Offbeatmammal @aoanla because utility cycling is essentially just faster walking. Would you think it weird that you don't wear a helmet to walk to the shops?

Ok motorbikes you're going a lot faster. A bike typically is doing about 20kph. A motorbike can be doing upto 120kph (or whatever your local speed limit is). It's a different safety proposition.

Show threadOffbeatmammalFeb 5
@quixoticgeek @aoanla given the swooping of magpies round here, I always wear a hat to walk to the shops! If I could legally wear the same hat to ride my bicycle I'd probably use that for the shorter trips vs the motorbike because, as you say, the much faster 450kg motorbike requires I change into appropriate pants, boots, jacket and helmet which is sometimes a chore. And so I will often take the car and consequently health and environment suffer.
Show threadQuixoticgeekFeb 5
@Offbeatmammal @aoanla swooping magpies. You're in western Australia near Perth ?
Show threadOffbeatmammal
@quixoticgeek @aoanla Melbourne, but yes! Took me by surprise first couple of years here, but make a point to talk to them when I am walking, and leaving food and water out, and it seems to be slowly paying off!
Feb 5 at 11:09amMastodon for Android