> it makes no sense to force an everyday commuter to wear such a thing for a very dubious return in safety while we put up with automobile transport and retarde

> it makes no sense to force an everyday commuter to wear such a thing for a very dubious return in safety while we put up with automobile transport and retarded city designers. Bicycle helmets are the equivalent of telling homeowners they should build a nuclear bunker for their home because we have no interest in ensuring safety standards for nuclear reactors fearing that could cause prices to go up. This reads like a rant for rants sake. The article wasn't about helmet laws but rather helmet technology and safety standards. To the "dubious return" point you made - why should bike commuters not optimize for their situation? It scarcely matters whether or not their city could have been better designed. Assuming they don't intend to move to the Netherlands, it makes eminent sense to maximize their safety while on the road.