in regards to ‘not interacting with new users’, I think that’s a bad idea. how will any community/server/instance grow if you never reply or interact with new accounts?

I mean, they are pretty easy to spot. They are new accounts that instantly drop several news posts. That is not organic human behaviour.

Have a look through this thread then. Nobody had issues with the term until someone from an NA instance brought it up.

Okay, let’s correct some things then. Let’s start with chips, crisps and fries. Or what exactly an appartment is, bangers, boilers, entrée, first floor, etc.

As far as I can see, most people having issues with the term fatbike come from north american instances. Europeans here absolutely know what kind of vehicle is meant.

Maybe you should not be such an anglosphere-centric snob, especially in an eurocentric community.

I don’t quite understand what you are arguing about. I thought the discussion was about whether wearing a helmet while cycling increases or decreases one’s safety and especially one’s risk for serious head/brain injuries.

I never made any statements about mandatory helmet rules, effects of helmet shapes etc. I encourage wearing helmets and made some speculations about how an individual’s decision to wear a helmet could be encouraged, that’s it.

Check the user name and the account age, then stop feeding the troll.

Ovoid shapes will cause rotational forces on perpendicular impacts, whilst spherical shapes do not. This is just Maths.

Notice how motorcycle helmets are actually spherical.

In my experience the traditional bicycle helmets are half ovoids.

Bruh, it’s not that deep. Statistics show that wearing a helmet reduces chances to severe head and brain injuries.

As for mandatory cycling helmets, I’m against it

I don’t care since I am not discussing helmet mandates.

As for the rest, obviously it’s better to prevent accidents in the first place and obviously we need to reduce the number of cars on our streets for multiple reasons. But that’s all policy while wearing a helmet is a cheap and easy way to protect yourself against unavoidable accidents and avoidable accidents while waiting and advocating for policy change.

Well, first, you did try to make points about brain injuries caused by wearing helmets. Now you claim you never argued about that, so what is it?
Second, it is IMHO not quite intelligent to make an argument about head protection not protectng other body parts. That’s like saying a stab protection vest is useless because you can get shot in the head.
Third, the first article I linked talks about a systematic comparative analysis of 23 studies examining risk homeostasis hypothesis, of which 18 could not confirm the hypothesis, three showing inconclusive results and only two being arguments for the hypothesis, the analysis concluding there is little to no evidence for bicycle helmets leading to riskier behavior.

I know the studies about mandatory helmet rules (something I actually never talked about), I find people’s behavior in this case utterly incomprehensible and stupid, but again, it’s not something I argued for. It just shows me we need to encourage helmet use in different ways. Mandatory for children maybe so that they get used to it, normalizing and encouraging wearing helmets by advertisements etc. IDK, but such efforts can be quite successful if funded and supportes sufficiently.

I would really like to see that study. Because I have studies showing the opposite.

Here is an article (in German, sorry) summarizing and contextualising several studies. One showed that wearing a helmet resulted in car drivers keeping five centimetres less distance when overtaking the cyclist, but that study’s method was flawed and a study conducted in Berlin with better equipment and better method (bigger sample size, different routes, women being actually test subjects and not just represented by a guy with a wig, etc) that showed helmet wearing bicyclists being overtaken with more distance.

Here (again German, sorry) is a research report comparing 543 accidents with injured bicyclists in University Hospitals of Munich and Münster and 117 accudent fatality from a database. From the 117 fatalities, 50% died of traumatic brain injury and six wore a helmet. Furthermore, from those injured (not the 117 fatalities) and with traumatic brain injury, none wore helmets.

Here (this time in english) is a meta analysis of studies about the safety of wearing helmets when cycling, concluding the discussed studies show a benefit for safety when wearing a helmet while cycling (too much for.me to summarize).

So? Nobody is arguing about this but you. Again, my point is not about speeds or certain types of helmets. I just said you should wear a helmrt on bikes FFS!

Yeah, obviously you need different helmets for different speeds. But the comment I responded to was worded like you wouldn’t need a helmet on bicycles at all.

You need a helmet on purely muscle-powered bicycles, too. A helmet saved both mine and my father’s life in accidents that would not had happened were we not riding bikes that moment.
A majority of bicycle accident fatalities could have been prevented with helmets.
Wear helmets. There are cool models, too, don’t try that excuse.