this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
95 points (92.8% liked)

micromobility - Bikes, scooters, boards: Whatever floats your goat, this is micromobility

3016 readers
104 users here now

Ebikes, bicycles, scooters, skateboards, longboards, eboards, motorcycles, skates, unicycles, heelies, or an office chair: Whatever floats your goat, this is all things micromobility!

"Transportation using lightweight vehicles such as bicycles or scooters, especially electric ones that may be borrowed as part of a self-service rental program in which people rent vehicles for short-term use within a town or city.

micromobility is seen as a potential solution to moving people more efficiently around cities"

Feel free to also check out

!utilitycycling@slrpnk.net

!bikewrench@lemmy.world

!bikecommuting@lemmy.world

!bikepacking@lemmy.world

!electricbikes@lemmy.world

!bicycle_touring@lemmy.world

!notjustbikes@feddit.nl

!longboard@lemmy.world

It's a little sad that we need to actually say this, but:

Don't be an asshole or you will be permanently banned.

Respectful debate is totally OK, criticizing a product is fine, but being verbally abusive will not be tolerated.

Focus on discussing the idea, not attacking the person.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

EDIT: Don't bother reporting people criticizing others for not wearing a helmet. It's not victim blaming, just like criticizing someone for not wearing a seatbelt isn't victim blaming.

Wear your helmets people: Of course nobody deserves to get hit by a car but the reality is people are getting hit by cars.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If I have to hit my head onto concrete I rather do it wearing a helmet than without.

I can't believe the amount of hatred I used to get on reddit for suggesting that cyclists should wear a helmet so I no longer do. I don't care. Not my head.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's a tricky subject on account of the levels of victim blaming stemming from car drivers.

I wear a helmet while bicycling as well, and I recommend that others do while cycling.

Simultaneously, I understand that mandatory helmet laws are a net negative, and that helmets have lower priority in the harm reduction pyramid when it comes to protecting the lives of cyclists. We must also push back against car drivers who blame cyclists who get injured or killed by car drivers if they happen to not be wearing a helmet or hi-viz.

[–] Chup@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

I've read that twist a few times on Reddit about 'victim blaming', but suggesting mandatory helmets for bicycles it nothing about blaming anyone for anything. There is a problem on hand and there are are various solutions to improve it. Some solutions are more complex, some are simpler, some are projects with decades runtime to maybe achieve something.

Suggesting mandatory helmets is simply looking for the simplest and cheapest solution of them all, which has also the potential to achieve good success.

It's just numbers, nothing to do with blame.

Pushing for higher diver education, better infrastructure, better technology on vehicles to avoid missing cyclists in the dead corner etc. is all good and important as well. But it's all a lot more effort, way more costly, way longer time frame and the success is hard to judge for some ideas.

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't think it should be mandatory. I'd probably apply that to seatbelts too though I'm pretty sure that such mandate does increase safety. I just don't think it's the government's job to decide such things. It's not illegal to hit oneself in the head with a hammer either.

Here in Finland it recently became mandatory to have lights on your bike when riding in poor visibility and I think that's actually a good thing. Not because it increases the safety of cyclists, though it does, but because I as a driver don't want to deal with the burden of killing/injuring an irresponsible cyclist/pedestrian that I didn't see untill it was too late. It's unreasonable to put the full responsibility on drivers. Especially outside of cities.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not wearing a seatbelt makes you more likely to harm others in the event of a collision. And there's a little bit of necessary nanny-state of making parents do the smart thing and protect their children.

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Not wearing a seatbelt makes you more likely to harm others in the event of a collision.

How? The way I see it is that not wearing a seatbelt only makes it more likely to harm yourself with the exception of rear-seat passengers possibly injuring front-seat passengers but I think that's on the driver's responsibility to make sure they're all buckled up. My car doesn't move if the passengers doesn't have their seatbelts on.

[–] Akuchimoya@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm a light fender-bender, there's not much danger. In a full-speed collision, an unsecured person becomes a blunt force projectile. An unsecured person can move with enough force to be thrown out of the car. Imagine that same force thrown at a passenger instead.

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

with the exception of rear-seat passengers possibly injuring front-seat passengers

As I mentioned. Other than that I don't see what the danger is. You got to be insanely unlucky to be hit by an unsecured passenger that was thrown out of a vehicle.

[–] Akuchimoya@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

Not an unsecured passenger that's thrown out of the car, an unsecured passenger being thrown into another passenger who is in the car.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

If the driver becomes dislodged in what would have been a minor collision had they been strapped in. Much more likely to lose control of the vehicle and crash into others.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you think seatbelt laws have a negative effect on mode share for cars?

Then ask yourself the same question about helmet laws.

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

I'm not advocating for neither

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

They're stupid. Wear a helmet

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not my head, sure.

But when they rack up a few million in hospital bills that they can't pay because they're in a permanent vegetative state, the hospital will pass that cost on to everyone else.

If they want to go without a helmet, I say that they should not be allowed to access EMS without first being able to demonstrate ability to pay.

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah I get what you're saying but then again; cigarettes, alchohol, fast food, sedentary lifestyle.. This same argument applies to so many more aspects of life aswell. We got to draw the line somewhere. I don't want to live in a world where hospital denies treatment because you "caused it yourself"

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then that's your argument for mandatory helmet laws right there. Which I don't actually object to. I ride a motorcycle, and most states have helmet laws. I don't wear just a helmet though; I ride with full leathers every time because I'm aware that riding a motorcycle potentially fatal. I think that you can make a reasonable distinction between, "riding without leathers could cost you a limb" versus "riding without a helmet could cost you your higher brain function", and say that a helmet law is reasonable, while requiring leathers is not. I think you could quite reasonably require that a helmet be worn by all people riding bicycles--electric or not--on public roads.

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I don't understand how that's an argument for mandatory helmet laws. Obesity causes way more healthcare costs than head injuries. Should people be mandated to stay lean aswell then or else we wont treat their heart attack before making sure they can afford the treatment?