this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
112 points (98.3% liked)
Bicycles
3125 readers
48 users here now
Welcome to !bicycles@lemmy.ca
A place to share our love of all things with two wheels and pedals. This is an inclusive, non-judgemental community. All types of cyclists are accepted here; whether you're a commuter, a roadie, a MTB enthusiast, a fixie freak, a crusty xbiking hoarder, in the middle of an epic across-the-world bicycle tour, or any other type of cyclist!
Community Rules
-
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
-
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
-
No porn.
-
No ads / spamming.
-
Ride bikes
Other cycling-related communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think there are some really good points made here against it. I also am leaning toward that opinion. I would like to see something done though. Perhaps if you do not have a license, you can apply for a special license specifically for the e-bike. With the class/written test focused very heavily on saftey.
I see so many kids on these, no helmets, not even pausing at stop signs, zooming behind all the parked cars that could start reversing before they even see or hear them (because electric). I know when I was younger and did not have a license I had a much less innate understanding of the different dangers of cars as a pedestrian. Simple things that seem obvious now, like always pay attention in parking lots, hesitate if you see a car with break lights on, make eye contact with a right-turn driver before crossing the street .. etc. I'd support this type of thing was a big focus of the test. A little basic road rules so that they aren't behaving "unpredictability " to cars.
Most importantly I want helmets actually being enforced. Normalized.
The moment you start adding these rules for "safety", the quicker car drivers will find themselves exempt of guilt if they get involved in an accident that could be avoided if the driver was paying more attention.
Take a look at the Netherlands, see how many people use helmets.
The more barriers you require from people to use a particular mode of transportation, the less people will use it. We need to increase the amount of requirements to drive cars, less from cyclists. "Enforcing helmets" is counterproductive.
I mean, we do in Australia - though to be fair, I've seen more of a drop off in use after the rental scooters came to town; but almost everyone I see on their own bike is wearing a helmet.
Guess we have to protect ourselves in the face of such little bike infrastructure
That's because of the model. Bike sharing is spontaneous, unplanned. People who are planning on riding a bike will bring their own bike and helmet.
But to require a helmet to use a bike rental service means planning ahead and bringing a helmet. If a person was planning ahead they would use their own bike.
Helmets, bells, hand signals are BS attempts at making cycling safe. It blames the victims in the event of an accident. If you get badly injured by an SUV it's because you didn't have a helmet and didn't tell the driver you were stopping. It's not their fault
I hear you, but it's different here so that isn't inevitable - our scooters have helmets clipped in so unless it's been nicked or something there's usually one there to use and (admittedly because our cycling infrastructure is, on par, outright dangerous) we have laws here that put the onus on drivers. For us, it is their fault - they're legally meant to stay 1.5 metres away from us on roads.
I mean, the safety stuff is pretty essential here tbh, aforementioned infrastructure being what it is - I wouldn't trust Australian drivers (or even the road itself in some cases) with my safety, so I think we might be in different contexts.
I guess enforcing helmets and a saftey course is counter productive if you value the increase of people using bikes. I understand, this is something you're passionate about and it's better for the environment and overall health of the community.
What I value more is not having children with lifelong brain damage. Adults can go ahead and make their own bad decisions. I don't agree that accessibility should be prioritized over saftey of children that have no road experience and underdeveloped risk assessment.
First, you were talking about enforcing helmets as something that should apply to everyone, now you are talking about kids. Meaning, you just moved the goal posts.
Second, and to go back to the point, if you are concerned about children's safety we need to have (a) proper bicycling infrastructure and (b) less and smaller cars. In the US, I'd venture there are more kids dying because they are being run over by those ridiculous trucks than because of bike accidents.
Third, at least here in Germany the law is quite simple: kids until age 12 must ride on the sidewalk. That basically (a) forces them to go slow due to pedestrians and (b) avoids the whole issue of having to deal with traffic. Helmets are not mandatory, but absolutely normal.
First, my entire original comment was focused on kids. I'm sorry that I wasn't explicitly clear on that but no I'm not moving goalposts.
I agree! But that's a long term goal that would require a lot of politics, money, planning, construction, and most of all time to happen. It's not all or nothing.
If a bike blows a stop sign going 20 and I have stopped, scanned, and advanced, and they go over my hood, I sure fucking want to be exempt of guilt.
For the rider's benefit they should be coached on traffic safety.