> There are many many thousands of Dutch who bike daily without a helmet, so this is a false dichotomy. That is not a false dichotomy. The meaning of "safety"

> There are many many thousands of Dutch who bike daily without a helmet, so this is a false dichotomy. That is not a false dichotomy. The meaning of "safety" here is referencing local standards that have been socially defined. Specifically, this is about the US. > The biggest thing that concerns me is drivers and their associated cars. In many cases a helmet will do nearly nothing when you get crushed by an overpuffed SUV or truck. Or getting knocked to the ground, where you will not have the angle or too much momentum to protect your head (even after your wrist/arm snaps). > There is a real need for society to discuss whether the value of reduced injuries outweighs the cost This is the value in helmets, which has been validated immediately in every locale where it was enacted, to my own chagrin. The article immediately tries to conflate reduced usage with reduced injuries, as if more usage would reduce injuries. I'm sure there's a small multivector "Safety In Numbers" variable that has a reduced injury rate with an increase in usages...if nothing else, from normalizing bikes in some areas, but it's small enough that the injury numbers still go up from increased usage and no helmets.