I find it strange that someone in the UK can argue that requiring bicycle helmets is the best way forward, or even one of the ten best things to do, when two neighbouring countries have had massively more success than the UK, and and those two don't require helmets, or even use helmets very much.
I wear helmet. It's not that. I just find it strange that it's politically possible to say things that are so weird when you look at them from the viewpoint of a neighbouring country.
A written parliamentary question sounds like a fairly serious thing? Not exactly shitposting.
I think I first saw this argument on freakanomics, but there's a real debate in economic circles about things like helmets and whether or not they have are a net benefit regulation. Requiring helmets will have a negative impact on bicycle riding, at least theoretically, since it adds friction. Bicycle riding is generally considered a healthy form of exercise, and is generally considered as having a positive effect on long term health. So then the question is, is the friction causing lower long term health greater than the general health benefits of people wearing helmets who wouldn't otherwise. And related, do helmets actually save lives in the long run. I'm not sure this is an easy question to answer. I can certainly see requiring helmets as being an obvious thing to point at for lawmakers since first order effects of saving lives is fairly easy data to come across.
> I find it strange that someone in the UK can argue that requiring bicycle helmets is the best way forward, or even one of the ten best things to do, when two neighbouring countries have had massively more success than the UK, and and those two don't require helmets, or even use helmets very much.
I think it's because these arguments generally are bad-faith attempts to distract from doing things that would be effective. Most of these people aren't interested in more or safer cycling.
That’s the sad beauty of this kind of bad faith argument - it doesn’t have to have any merit at all just “flood the zone” with alternate crap so real solutions aren’t given the time of day.
The real audience for this MP are the people out there who would prefer to blame cyclists for everything including their own demise.
I find it strange that someone in the UK can argue that requiring bicycle helmets is the best way forward, or even one of the ten best things to do, when two neighbouring countries have had massively more success than the UK, and and those two don't require helmets, or even use helmets very much.
I wear helmet. It's not that. I just find it strange that it's politically possible to say things that are so weird when you look at them from the viewpoint of a neighbouring country.
A written parliamentary question sounds like a fairly serious thing? Not exactly shitposting.