The Dutch basically don't wear them ever. The Dutch also cycle a fucking shitload. The Dutch have the lowest cycling injury/death rate in the whole wide world ever.
Of course the Dutch also have created a safe environment for cyclists and attitudes of
drivers are different.
https://www.treehugger.com/bikes/why-dutch-dont-wear-helmets.html
(interesting article, although one commentator did come out with this absolute gem: "Clear-weather daylight biking is almost certainly safer than driving in the rain at night" - heh, no, fuck off, that's absolutely ridiculous: huge glowing citation required.)
In America, you should probably wear a helmet, because your drivers are (a) shit and (b) hate cyclists.
ETA: There's an interesting (uncited) comment that caught my eye (I am a student of the law of unintended consequences) - observing that there's no solid evidence either way that helmets improve matters overall (individual cases may vary, obv). One possible reason for this is that they may simply move the problem down the spinal column a bit. Save the head, crack a few vertebrae, break a neck.
Also this: www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/people-take-more-risks-when-wearing-helmets-potentially-negating-safety-benefits
So, taking together that mandating helmets reduces ridership (and the positive health outcomes thereof), and that helmet use increases risk-taking... well.
I'm going to leave it at "it's complicated".
Of course the Dutch also have created a safe environment for cyclists and attitudes of
drivers are different.
https://www.treehugger.com/bikes/why-dutch-dont-wear-helmets.html
(interesting article, although one commentator did come out with this absolute gem: "Clear-weather daylight biking is almost certainly safer than driving in the rain at night" - heh, no, fuck off, that's absolutely ridiculous: huge glowing citation required.)
In America, you should probably wear a helmet, because your drivers are (a) shit and (b) hate cyclists.
ETA: There's an interesting (uncited) comment that caught my eye (I am a student of the law of unintended consequences) - observing that there's no solid evidence either way that helmets improve matters overall (individual cases may vary, obv). One possible reason for this is that they may simply move the problem down the spinal column a bit. Save the head, crack a few vertebrae, break a neck.
Also this: www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/people-take-more-risks-when-wearing-helmets-potentially-negating-safety-benefits
So, taking together that mandating helmets reduces ridership (and the positive health outcomes thereof), and that helmet use increases risk-taking... well.
I'm going to leave it at "it's complicated".