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 threadCycling on Rails

@aoanla @quixoticgeek A consequence is a consequence. Creating a hierarchy of consequences is how we end up with such proposals, as head trauma is seen as a direct consequence of an accident. But that's a fallacy at a global level.

Notwithstanding the fact that voluntary helmet-wearing correlates with higher speed and higher rate of accidents (e.g. sport cycling). And that helmets mostly matter for self crashes, not in collisions with 50km/h multi-ton projectiles.

Feb 5 at 11:19amMastodon for Android
Show threadCycling on RailsFeb 5

@aoanla @quixoticgeek I'm happily wearing a helmet in my daily life.

But I'm also very happily renting free-floating bicycles when visiting a city without having to bring a helmet in my luggage... (and I must admit that in that case I ride extra cautiously, so I'm fulfilling the fallacy)