2 ms·

4) No. If you are not engaged in risky activity, that is to say: If you are riding a) a safe commuter bicycle [1] b) at safe commuter speeds [2] c) on a saf

4) No. If you are not engaged in risky activity, that is to say: If you are riding a) a safe commuter bicycle [1] b) at safe commuter speeds [2] c) on a safe separated/protected bike lane [3] d) That is kept maintained in a safe state for the current weather You probably don't need a helmet. 5) Yes, In other situations, you might want to consider it. [4][5] -- [ note: It turns out that implementing a)-d) are actually attainable in a fairly fiscally sustainable way (see eg.: Netherlands, Denmark), but it may need something of a turnaround in many a local government's safety culture ] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadster_(bicycle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadster_(bicycle) [2] 12.4 km/h according to https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/dutch-cycling-figures/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/dutch-cycling-... [3] https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fietspad https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fietspad [4] eg. when doing more dangerous activities like mountain biking or racing [5] or -of course- cycling in many places outside the netherlands or denmark. :-( [5] https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html "Why are Dutch cyclists more likely to be injured if they wear helmets?" (edit: +references)

tmottabr 4y ago
That is total BS because you are not taking into account everyone else driving around.. you can be the safest rider in the world, ride only at the proper speed, only in the proper place, that place is always well maintained and everything else you can thing of.. All it takes is someone else doing something irresponsible and you are screwed.. i.e: a drunk driver loose control of their car, it invade the bike lane at high speed and hit you.. you are in for a bad accident that could be made a little less bad if you were wearing a helmet, even while doing everything you said.. now, if you are riding alone, in the middle of nowhere with zero change of someone else screwing it up.. then sure, you can skip the helmet, but if you are riding on road even if you do everything right you still at risk and helmet will improve your odds of surviving if something bad happen..
- Kim_Bruning 4y ago
  We are mostly in "violent agreement" as it is called. If you are on a separate / protected bike path (not on a road intended for cars), then there are no cars there, nor can they easily get on that path. In practice such protections/barriers might range from moderately difficult to surmount (raised curbs ~ 50 km/h) ; nearly impossible to penetrate (row of trees, solid concrete wall, drainage ditch full of water ~ 80km/h); to outright having the bicycle path follow a different right of way altogether( >80 km/h ). In general, the routes for cars, bikes, and pedestrians should be separated wherever there are large differences in speed that can lead to danger. Edit: See also one of the sources for the video, eg. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/11/e008052.full.pdf https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/11/e008052.full.pd... The conclusion is that wearing a helmet doesn't help as much as physically separating bicycles from other traffic. While it may be good to be protected in case of accident, it's much better to avoid having the accident altogether.

tmottabr 4y ago

That is total BS because you are not taking into account everyone else driving around.. you can be the safest rider in the world, ride only at the proper speed, only in the proper place, that place is always well maintained and everything else you can thing of.. All it takes is someone else doing something irresponsible and you are screwed.. i.e: a drunk driver loose control of their car, it invade the bike lane at high speed and hit you.. you are in for a bad accident that could be made a little less bad if you were wearing a helmet, even while doing everything you said.. now, if you are riding alone, in the middle of nowhere with zero change of someone else screwing it up.. then sure, you can skip the helmet, but if you are riding on road even if you do everything right you still at risk and helmet will improve your odds of surviving if something bad happen..

Kim_Bruning 4y ago
We are mostly in "violent agreement" as it is called. If you are on a separate / protected bike path (not on a road intended for cars), then there are no cars there, nor can they easily get on that path. In practice such protections/barriers might range from moderately difficult to surmount (raised curbs ~ 50 km/h) ; nearly impossible to penetrate (row of trees, solid concrete wall, drainage ditch full of water ~ 80km/h); to outright having the bicycle path follow a different right of way altogether( >80 km/h ). In general, the routes for cars, bikes, and pedestrians should be separated wherever there are large differences in speed that can lead to danger. Edit: See also one of the sources for the video, eg. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/11/e008052.full.pdf https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/5/11/e008052.full.pd... The conclusion is that wearing a helmet doesn't help as much as physically separating bicycles from other traffic. While it may be good to be protected in case of accident, it's much better to avoid having the accident altogether.