Hacker News Reader

Comment by random4369 | Hacker News Reader

Yes it is. In fact a pretty thorough study was carried out in Denmark which showed that forcing bicycle helmets has such a big impact on the number of people cycling, that it overall increases the healthcare spending in the country. They did the math, and overall the nation is healthier with lots of people cycling and some getting injured, than forced helmets and no one cycling.

http://road.cc/content/news/5046-danish-call-helmet-law-thro...

Forced helmets are a great example of lawmaking being driven by ignorance and opinion rather than facts and stats.

View on HN

Reminds me of the safety laws for lumber here in germany. The kevlar clothing that you are supossed to wear is super heavy and hot, making you so fatigued that it actually increases the total risk at work.

Its like system designers who are afraid to get theire hands "dirty" and base there whole product on interview-questions and available documentation. Also- remember its most important that he/she who designed the rules has no trace of responsibility left.

The problem is, these kind of failure-designers have on paper tryied to make the world better and can shift all blame towards the victims of theire bad solutions.

He/She did not wear the trousers of doom and had a chainsaw accident- insurence claim denied. No wonder policy designers are among the most hated people in the world- but that sort of rightous widespread anger leads to them having even less reality contact and even more reality diverging safety-dance-rules.

So always try to be friendly, no matter how insane, out of this world and damaging the rules coming from bureaucratic centralia are.

I think that's unfair (talking about the helmets). The policy makes a lot of untuitive sense and it's only with the benefit of hindsight we can say that disadvantages were too big. And this law may not even be universal, it's a product of the society we are in. In a different place or time the result may be different.

Such laws are not a product of any discussion or knowledge or research. They are a product of responsibilty avoidance metrics in large processes in goverments and companys. The pros and cons are not even evaluated.

It gets worser still- alot of these laws are used as hooks for a state-driven mafia- aka selling unneeded goods to people who would have never bought them in the first place without the laws.

Take the splitting up of the germans driver licenses for various small scale vehicle classes or various other safety laws, which are basically buisness generation for safety measures and consultant services. There is something particular perverse if police is forced to enact and enforce mafia created laws.

I would never, ever use a chainsaw without a full-face shield and kevlar chaps or trousers. No matter how skilled the operator, there is always a risk of kickback. With just a slight error in bar placement, the saw will violently launch itself towards the operator. A kickback can cause life-changing injuries in a fraction of a second. Chainsaw protective clothing is hot and heavy, but it's the only good option for protecting yourself against kickback.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHdgztQGmmQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBEUYs6I6vU?t=1m29s

I do not deny the danger of kickbacks- i claim that they are more often happening, if you are fatigued and exausted stumbling around a fallen tree with a runing chainsaw.

There is alternative protection gear by now with better properties (knee/shin guards made from plastic, and plastic guards with passive cooling mechanisms).

TL,DR; Im not generically claiming that protection is the root of all evil. Im claiming that the most used safety gear at the moment is lousy- and that domagtic safety procedures are creating the accidents they prevent. Because people will wear them to exaustion, and then strip them off with no replacement.

Analogy to several existing computer safety solutions intended.

Well you’re dumb to not wear a helmet.

The evidence is very mixed. Wearing a helmet does significantly reduce the risk of head injury in a crash, but riders who wear helmets appear to be at significantly higher risk of crashing. This may simply be selection bias (frequent cyclists engaged in risky types of riding are more likely to wear helmets) or it may represent risk-compensation by cyclists or other road users.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html

The evidence is clear: https://helmets.org/stats.htm

Perhaps people who wear helmets are generally more careful so there are less severe accidents - still : impressive numbers

This is for the US, the country that appears to be almost fanatically opposed to making safe cycling paths. Of course you're going to have more terrible accidents then (with or without a helmet).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com