Bürokraten, editor, Administratoren
15.322
Bearbeitungen
Fahrradhelme: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
→Helmdiskussion: übersetzung anfang
(→Helmtypisierung: übersetzt) |
(→Helmdiskussion: übersetzung anfang) |
||
| Zeile 99: | Zeile 99: | ||
==Helmdiskussion== | ==Helmdiskussion== | ||
Es gibt eine überhitzte Kontroverse (Helmdiskussion) zwischen Fahrradfahrern und Fahrradanwälten über Helmgesetze und -benutzung. Helmskeptiker sind hauptsächlich Freidenker, die sich gegen Helmgesetze stemmen, und Fahrradfahrer, die Helmgesetzgebungen für gedankenlosen Protektionismus halten. Obwohl Ihre Zahl recht klein ist, fluten sie unerbittlich Blogs und Foren mit Anti-Helm-Botschaften. Daraus ist der Begriff "Helmdiskussion" entstanden. | |||
Bicycling advocates who dismiss helmet use generally assume that the greater good is achieved by convincing more people to ride bicycles, even at the expense of avoidable injuries. Helmet advocates, on the other hand, have included not only many safety-conscious cyclists but also generalist safety advocates -- in particular in the USA, Safe Kids USA. Both sides have more in common than they might think: both like to make decisions for other people. Both often fail to consider unintended consequences. Helmet opponents consistently deny the robust scientific data supporting helmet use. Non-cyclist helmet advocates have had to learn that there is more to safe bicycling than helmets; that promotional campaigns and helmet giveaways to low-income people are more effective than laws; and that fairness requires a helmet law to include a liability exclusion. | Bicycling advocates who dismiss helmet use generally assume that the greater good is achieved by convincing more people to ride bicycles, even at the expense of avoidable injuries. Helmet advocates, on the other hand, have included not only many safety-conscious cyclists but also generalist safety advocates -- in particular in the USA, Safe Kids USA. Both sides have more in common than they might think: both like to make decisions for other people. Both often fail to consider unintended consequences. Helmet opponents consistently deny the robust scientific data supporting helmet use. Non-cyclist helmet advocates have had to learn that there is more to safe bicycling than helmets; that promotional campaigns and helmet giveaways to low-income people are more effective than laws; and that fairness requires a helmet law to include a liability exclusion. | ||