• shirro@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    As an Australian who has lived with compulsory helmets for decades I think wearing a helmet and high vis is probably bare minimum if you have to share with cars and not nearly enough if you have to use door lanes and deal with Ford Rangers and garbage trucks.

    Unfortunately once you go down this route cycling partipation drops and its a net fail for public health.

    Sedate cycling on seperated pathways and through parks gets lumped in with high risk road cycling. It ends up being completely inappropriate for the type of cycling most people would like to do (not high risk vehicular cycling).

    Why bother building expensive dedicated safe infrastructure when people have a magical inch of styrofoam on their noggins and a yellow shirt to protect them from 2 tonnes of murder machine.

    • GreatWhite_Shark_EarthAndBeingsRightsPerson@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yes, pedestrians only roadways & other important infrastructure is must, but it best to use good enough helmets over none. You my brother bought me a skydiving adventure with a expert on my back as fall through the sky, because I loved the glider experience (by the). When the corporation said, I could wear a helmet, because it endangers the expert on my back. My mind & my head’s senses are the most part of my body, so I said, no thank you, to my brother. I told my brother, it is transferable, so why do not you use the experience, he said he would never do skydiving.

      • Railcar8095@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        Highest risk cycling is motor vehicles not following the rules. If cyclists safety is the priority, educate other drivers, and enforce penalties.