I say unusual in the sense of Japan seems to be the only one to have solved the issue of how do you transport 2 kids on a bike not with "big box" like the dutch and subsequently the entire western world but via 2 seats, they're apparently very popular over there as a means of transportation.

    • EmmaGoldman [she/her, comrade/them]M
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Actually kind of a common Dutch standpoint. The helmet is seen as basically being a justification for blaming accidents on cyclists, rather than drivers and poor infrastructure. If you're on a smooth and well-designed bike path separated from the street, it's pretty unlikely you're going to get punted by a car: the thing bike helmets are generally used for. When's the last time you just did an oopsie and flew over your handlebars when your tire hit... Nothing. Probably never, right?

      Unfortunately, this sort of standpoint falls apart the second you start doing things like riding offroad or in even a modicum of crappy conditions, when you can just slip and eat shit on a droplet of morning dew when you try to go around some goofballs walking in a group and taking up an entire sidewalk or something.

      The anti-helmet crowd's response to this is usually, "Simply do not do this, because it is not the way that it is done."

      E: 7bicycles has also clarified that he is not anti-helmet and does wear one so... We're out here wearing seatbelts and telling people to blame drunk drivers and not the victim who hadn't buckled the seatbelt in their parked car yet.

        • EmmaGoldman [she/her, comrade/them]M
          ·
          1 year ago

          in an ideal world infrastructure would be well maintained, drivers would be cordoned off, the paths would be salted in time, tourists would be banished to the sidewalk, but that’s not the world we’re in.

          You mean that that's not the world you're in. There are plenty of countries where literally all of these things are the norm, and your experiences are a rare exception.

          I don't think that helmets are bad or unnecessary, but I do agree that they are entirely ineffective against the things Americans will trot out the "should have worn a helmet smh" victim blaming for, i.e. getting punted by a speeding F150.

      • SuperZutsuki [they/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I think this is a very carbrained argument. Cycle infrastructure is very well segregated from car infrastructure in the Netherlands and Dutch drivers aren't psychos trying to mow down cyclists at every opportunity. People in places with shitty cycle infrastructure have been heavily propagandized into thinking it's all "personal responsibility" and the default attitude of drivers (in America at least) is that cyclists have a death wish and they are more than happy to grant it.

        This is the kind of trauma that living in an individualist society does to a person. People in the Netherlands and Japan actually look out for each other.

        • EmmaGoldman [she/her, comrade/them]M
          ·
          1 year ago

          100%. Helmets are not useful for getting hit by a car. They're useful for when you inexplicably eat shit on a pebble or a single leaf somehow, both of which I've done.

            • EmmaGoldman [she/her, comrade/them]M
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I mean, yeah. I agree with you. Everyone should wear a helmet. I've been clipped by car doors and dipshits plenty of times in Toronto and the place I live now, and I am absolutely an advocate for making slip plane helmets (like MIPS, WG11, or WaveCel) mandatory for everyone on a bike, everywhere.

              I'm trying to explain to Americans why some different people who are not me twist themselves into weird arguments against helmets, so that it isn't just seen as a completely inexplicable mystery outlier crank thing, rather than an irritatingly common belief in some places. I've heard people say dumb shit here like "cars don't go fast enough in PEI to need helmets." And they are mandatory here. (Also highway speeds are like 80 kmh so no idea what these freaks are on about)

          • doublepepperoni [none/use name]
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah, I guess it's an American thing but there's a million ways to hurt yourself and or crack your melon on a bicycle that do not involve collisions with a motor vehicle

            • EmmaGoldman [she/her, comrade/them]M
              ·
              1 year ago

              Exactly. I think the argument that some people have against helmets comes from an argument against victim blaming cyclists murdered by drivers, but then ultimately gets twisted into wild shit where people just come to Bizarro conclusions.

              • doublepepperoni [none/use name]
                ·
                1 year ago

                Even in a world without cars I could still hurt my noggin if I fell off my bike, so I don't get this line of reasoning at all

    • 7bicycles [he/him]
      hexagon
      ·
      1 year ago

      how do you end up on a leftist forum and are entirely unable to interrogate that whatever conventional wisdom around cycling safety you have been taught by society at large might just be bullshit?

      Like what, they're wrong about mostly everything, but they fucking nailed it when it was decided a bit of styrofoam around your head is gonna help you against a car running you over?

        • 7bicycles [he/him]
          hexagon
          ·
          1 year ago

          It seems I could ask you the same?

          You can't both be dragging me for being an anti helmet weirdo and espousing conventional cycling wisdoms, they can't both be true.

          They didn’t nail it, the design is continually being improved. There’ some really cool neck-mounted airbags you can get now Here you go. But wearing a helmet does massive wonders for mitigating risk and damage, a damage that is significant risk, as I’ve described.

          Yeah but the significant risk only seems to pop up for cycling. I find it odd that car accidents rank among number one reasons for head injuries, but the idea of wearing a helmet there is preposterous, because you already wear a seatbelt. That evidently doesn't really stop people from getting head injuries a lot - a problem apparently solveable via a helmet or hövding - but hey at least they do some risk mitigation I guess? The endpoint here seems to be about that you gotta do some risk mitigation and then that's all well and good, regardless of outcome?

          Cause you keep flip flopping here. You gotta wear a helmet, cause you might get hit by a car. That rings true for both pedestrians and car drivers, who get hit loads by cars, but the exact probability and risk of this starts just after a pedestrian and ends just before the car on the sliding scale of pedestrian - cycle - car. Also wearing a helmet both sucks a lot and is a teeny tiny thing, somehow.

          The point I'm making isn't that you shouldn't wear a helmet, as noted I wear one, hell I wrote a guide on how to find one that you actually wear cause it's useless otherwise, my point is the very weird hyperfocus on helmets or PPE for cyclists and cyclists only and no one even on this here leftist forum seems to want to question that much. There's a reason the bulletproof backpacks for school children get shouted down here, but following that logic, hell, why not? As long as society doesn't change, there isn't anything wrong with recommending those, eh? Better be safe!

      • hypercube [she/her]
        ·
        1 year ago

        used to cycle to uni years ago, almost entirely along a protected, 2 lane cycle path. Still managed to take a corner at the bottom of a hill that I'd do every day wrong and fully Looney Toons myself head-first into a tree, would've been concussed at best if it wasn't for my helmet. Accidents happen, inconvenience of carrying a helmet around is worth keeping your precious brainmeat safe