Hacker News Reader

Comment by m463 | Hacker News Reader

> One could probably derive a similar statistic for how much harm nuclear over-regulation has caused.

That reminds me of bicycle helmet regulation, which can deter exercising.

the paper that tries to figure out if helmet laws might deter people from exercising, which could inadvertently increase mortality:

https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2012_de-Jong_He...

View on HN

I read the abstract and first part of the introduction. It seems that it is accepted as a foregone conclusion that helmet laws reduce cycling. Is that true? If so, is it because cyclists are less excited about cycling or over worry of the dangers because someone said it's dangerous enough that they need a helmet?

I can't imagine making policy (such as removing helmet laws) due to such flighty sentiments.

As a motorcyclist, bicyclists remain a mystery to me in their approach to safety.

Biking with a helmet can be less convenient.

It’s usually not easy to lock up the helmet along with the bike so you’re left holding the helmet wherever you’re going. Bikeshares usually don’t have helmets and you have to bring your own.

These problems have fixes, but helmet laws generally don’t address them and can just make it easier to drive instead.

I feel like brain injury or death is also pretty inconvenient.

Many motorcyclists employ helmet locks. I used to use one quite regularly. Why not do the same on a bicycle? In both cases, a thief could easily steal the helmet but only by cutting the straps, but that renders the helmets useless.

In Germany I have very, very rarely seen a helmet lock. Most of the times motorcyclists put their helmet over their right side mirror and don't walk away too far.

Most people in southern California just hang the helmet on their bike and walk away. There's not a huge black market for stolen bike helmets.

Someone can probably make a similar argument for motorcycle helmets and motorcycle safety. If we didn't pay attention to the motorcycle safety, perhaps many more people would ride motorcycles instead of cars and produce less carbon. You could count the expected death from climate change and make an argument that they are higher than the motorcycle deaths.

I actually don't know how this would turn out, but the common factor is both rely on sketchy models of human behavior and future harm.

It is relatively easy to cherry pick some numbers that it will in your equations to make the result you want. Maybe they're right, maybe they are wrong, but it would take a lot of work with little reward for someone to prove your analysis is bad

It hurts saying this, but motorcycles are actually far worse than cars when it comes to emissions. Despite having MPG (miles per gallon) ranging from 30-100 MPG compared to the more typical car ranges of 20-40 MPG, motorcycles emit far more emissions. This is mainly because adding emission control equipment on motorcycles is expensive, heavy, and takes a lot of room. In fact, there are several motorcycles in recent times that are no longer sold in the U.S. and E.U. because of the E.U.'s stringent motorcycle emissions regulations. When manufacturers stop selling in the E.U., they normally stop selling in the U.S. as well.

Seems strictly impossible on the basis of carbon dioxide. I assume you mean other emissions like particulate?

That's curious, seeing how motorcyclists are much more frequently seriously injured, and more often as the result of their own actions. I'm not sure there is much to emulate here.

I'm thinking in a city environment. Motorcyclists ride in much more varied environments at much higher speeds with the other vehicles at higher speeds. Motorcycling is very dangerous, period.

But in city riding, motorcycles, cars, and bicycles are effectively bound to the same speed limits, such as between 0-45mph. Obviously, bicycles will be slower at the top end, but for the most part in congested city riding, all three vehicles will be within some range of each other.

In my experience and observations, the common motorcyclist will still be far better equipped in safety equipment, including helmets, gloves, jackets, boots, etc. despite having superior protection from the motorcycle itself compared to a bicycle, breaks, and acceleration. And also in my experience, bicyclists are much more willing to break traffic laws in city environments.

Maybe the comparison isn't appropriate or too heavily biased with my own safety approaches and experience, but in my experience with serious motorcyclists, anything less than a full-face helmet is viewed as complete folly. The highest percentage of hit in a motorcycle crash is in the front. (There is a famous safety graphic that shows the percentages of where on the helmet a crash occurs.)

If I decided to start riding bicycles again, on the street or elsewhere, a helmet will absolutely be used, and I would even consider going further than the typical bicycle helmet. My real point is that I find it extremely strange that some bicyclists would choose simply not to ride at all just because a helmet is required.

> and more often as the result of their own actions

That is not a blanket truth.

> My real point is that I find it extremely strange that some bicyclists would choose simply not to ride at all just because a helmet is required.

I certainly wouldn't ride a bike if a helmet would be mandatory. Or I would just ignore the law.

I can't see something like this flying in the Netherlands where I'm from. Most people will feel the same as me. It's not just the inconvenience, it's also a matter of pride.

But in the Netherlands biking is very safe. Bike lanes are everywhere and have separate crossings. Motorists are always blamed even if they didn't cause an accident with a bike (because a cyclist won't have insurance) so I think it's safe enough.

I've fallen many times in single-vehicle accidents due to slippery ice or wet leaves and my arm was always under my head due to my reflexes.

I understand that cycling is not as safe in the US but perhaps making it so would be a better priority.

The majority of head injuries cycling are to the side, from falling at low speed. Certainly if someone is going at 30mph or above they should be wearing a helmet. But only a minority of cyclists will ever get anywhere near that speed.

> I find it extremely strange that some bicyclists would choose simply not to ride at all just because a helmet is required.

It comes down to convenience. Driving has to contend with congestion and parking, public transport with schedules and stops, cycling with bad drivers and maybe weather. Adding one more inconvenience can swing the balance towards another transport mode.

I thought it was just logistics: carrying a helmet around is inconvenient, and there is no way to secure it to your bike at lock up (and if not secured, someone will probably snatch it even if just for fun). Don’t motorcycles have a compartment for the helmet? Something like that wouldn’t work for a bike, and even just a thin lockable wire to secure it isn’t really workable.

Although there's a helmet similarity, I think motorcyclists probably have little health upside to riding more often, where bicyclists exercise and stave off diseases of a sedentary lifestyle.

(that said, depending on your throttle hand riding a motocross motorcycle seems like it could be just as cardio-intensive as a bicycle)

It's just as well that you aren't making policy, then. People's perceptions make a huge difference to behavior, whether they're well founded or not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com