I still don’t get it, we know helmets protect, so the less cranial trauma you come across in your life the longer your life will be. It’s rather simple.
What you are addressing here is just anti bike politics. If tomorrow everyone would agree to wear helmets, they would come up with speed restrictions for cycling. The goal is to be anti cycling. The idea they hide behind is replaceable.
I still don’t get it, we know helmets protect, so the less cranial trauma you come across in your life the longer your life will be. It’s rather simple.
For most people a helmet’s inconvenience, discomfort, or cost is overkill for the danger presented by typical transportation cycling on good cycling infrastructure. This fact is not incompatible with your fact. Your fact is also correct.
What you are addressing here is just anti bike politics. If tomorrow everyone would agree to wear helmets, they would come up with speed restrictions for cycling. The goal is to be anti cycling. The idea they hide behind is replaceable.
That is a very strong argument for not promoting universal helmet use as a primary cycling safety concern.
I mean you could have the best car free cycling infrastructure in the world and it would still be better to wear helmets since the energy you build up with a bike is just too much for your crane to take.
This is the same reason airbags exist and we stopped putting metal spikes on steering wheels.
All of this is strangely reminiscent of the seatbelt discussion for me.
Kinda feels like we’re talking in circles now, I keep putting context on your point that a helmet is always safer and you keep talking past the context and repeating that a helmet is always safer. It’s kinda silly. But one more try.
Statistically speaking it’s always better to wear a helmet no matter what you’re doing. Walking down the sidewalk with a helmet is safer than walking down the sidewalk without one. What I’ve been saying though, is that if only we build an environment that actually accommodates cyclist safety we find ourselves at a point where the benefits of wearing a helmet arguably outweigh the costs. And this isn’t just theory, the entirety of The Netherlands has been at this point for decades. They have both the highest rate of cycling and the lowest helmet use in the entire western world, both as a result of their dedication to infrastructure and culture that accommodates safe cycling. There is a Dutch person right here laughing at the “everyone should wear a helmet” truism that started this thread because they’re living my point. Of course this only applies once you actually have meaningful cycling infrastructure. I’m not saying that American cyclists shouldn’t wear a helmet most of the time. But I’m pushing back on the blanket cliché that “Everybody should wear a helmet all the time” because it’s not only untrue, when it is presented as the primary recommendation for improving cyclist safety it effectively functions to derail or minimize discussions of the things that actually make baseline everyday cycling safer: Good infrastructure. Good culture. Protection from the 40-ton trucks who’s tires will pop your skull like a watermelon regardless of if you have a helmet over it or not.
I still don’t get it, we know helmets protect, so the less cranial trauma you come across in your life the longer your life will be. It’s rather simple.
What you are addressing here is just anti bike politics. If tomorrow everyone would agree to wear helmets, they would come up with speed restrictions for cycling. The goal is to be anti cycling. The idea they hide behind is replaceable.
For most people a helmet’s inconvenience, discomfort, or cost is overkill for the danger presented by typical transportation cycling on good cycling infrastructure. This fact is not incompatible with your fact. Your fact is also correct.
That is a very strong argument for not promoting universal helmet use as a primary cycling safety concern.
I mean you could have the best car free cycling infrastructure in the world and it would still be better to wear helmets since the energy you build up with a bike is just too much for your crane to take.
This is the same reason airbags exist and we stopped putting metal spikes on steering wheels.
All of this is strangely reminiscent of the seatbelt discussion for me.
Kinda feels like we’re talking in circles now, I keep putting context on your point that a helmet is always safer and you keep talking past the context and repeating that a helmet is always safer. It’s kinda silly. But one more try.
Statistically speaking it’s always better to wear a helmet no matter what you’re doing. Walking down the sidewalk with a helmet is safer than walking down the sidewalk without one. What I’ve been saying though, is that if only we build an environment that actually accommodates cyclist safety we find ourselves at a point where the benefits of wearing a helmet arguably outweigh the costs. And this isn’t just theory, the entirety of The Netherlands has been at this point for decades. They have both the highest rate of cycling and the lowest helmet use in the entire western world, both as a result of their dedication to infrastructure and culture that accommodates safe cycling. There is a Dutch person right here laughing at the “everyone should wear a helmet” truism that started this thread because they’re living my point. Of course this only applies once you actually have meaningful cycling infrastructure. I’m not saying that American cyclists shouldn’t wear a helmet most of the time. But I’m pushing back on the blanket cliché that “Everybody should wear a helmet all the time” because it’s not only untrue, when it is presented as the primary recommendation for improving cyclist safety it effectively functions to derail or minimize discussions of the things that actually make baseline everyday cycling safer: Good infrastructure. Good culture. Protection from the 40-ton trucks who’s tires will pop your skull like a watermelon regardless of if you have a helmet over it or not.
Does that make sense?