Well, there's that.
Obviously in the individual case, having a lid on is better at mitigating against you actually falling off.
But the Dutch experience, in an environment that's basically free from Americans, is that you don't need it because you basically don't fall off.
The comments from the cloggies are interesting, and hardly even safety-related; they're all "but my hair!" and "where do I put the helmet when I'm done riding?" and "do you wear a helmet for walking?"
If you're race-biking (an activity that is by definition more likely to result in you coming off the bike) then obvs a hat is required, as are shorts that are alarmingly revealing, and those crazy shoes that clip into your pedals and make you walk as though you've shat yourself.
But for regular, not-riding-like-your-hair's-on-fire, normal-going-to-the-shops cycling? The overall benefits are far less clear.
Helmet = reduces risk of head injury, increases risk-taking, maybe moves injuries around (and a severe neck injury is just as entertaining as a severe head injury), reduces ridership (and thus increases the incidence of fat knackers and the concomitant burden on the public (or otherwise) health system), screws up your hair (if you've got it), and let's face it, they all look redonkulous
No helmet = increased risk of head injury if you fall off, reduces risk-taking, preserves your coiffe, increases ridership (thus reducing the incidence of fat knackers, etc.), you look way cooler
Imma look to the Dutch on this one. Ignoring their food, comedy language (it's that rarest of things; something that both the British and Germans can laugh at), and dress-sense, they know a thing or two about mass public cycling.
Caveat: given American driving, y'all should probably ignore all that and go for the full-face helmet and Kevlar body-armor option.
(Driver attitudes to cyclists here are softening, but are still not what you'd call "good"; I basically treat a cyclist like a small car. If that annoys my fellow drivers, well. What's got two thumbs and doesn't give a fuck? >puts two thumbs up
But the Dutch experience, in an environment that's basically free from Americans, is that you don't need it because you basically don't fall off.
The comments from the cloggies are interesting, and hardly even safety-related; they're all "but my hair!" and "where do I put the helmet when I'm done riding?" and "do you wear a helmet for walking?"
If you're race-biking (an activity that is by definition more likely to result in you coming off the bike) then obvs a hat is required, as are shorts that are alarmingly revealing, and those crazy shoes that clip into your pedals and make you walk as though you've shat yourself.
But for regular, not-riding-like-your-hair's-on-fire, normal-going-to-the-shops cycling? The overall benefits are far less clear.
Helmet = reduces risk of head injury, increases risk-taking, maybe moves injuries around (and a severe neck injury is just as entertaining as a severe head injury), reduces ridership (and thus increases the incidence of fat knackers and the concomitant burden on the public (or otherwise) health system), screws up your hair (if you've got it), and let's face it, they all look redonkulous
No helmet = increased risk of head injury if you fall off, reduces risk-taking, preserves your coiffe, increases ridership (thus reducing the incidence of fat knackers, etc.), you look way cooler
Imma look to the Dutch on this one. Ignoring their food, comedy language (it's that rarest of things; something that both the British and Germans can laugh at), and dress-sense, they know a thing or two about mass public cycling.
Caveat: given American driving, y'all should probably ignore all that and go for the full-face helmet and Kevlar body-armor option.
(Driver attitudes to cyclists here are softening, but are still not what you'd call "good"; I basically treat a cyclist like a small car. If that annoys my fellow drivers, well. What's got two thumbs and doesn't give a fuck? >puts two thumbs up
