Possibly the most dorky article I ever read. Equating wearing a helmet as a bad thing because it makes bicycling look scary is like saying wearing a seat belt makes it too intimidating for group X (women, minority, etc) to drive.
This is the opening paragraph, which sets the tone for the rest of the article
Last year, health officials in Seattle decided to stop requiring bicyclists to wear helmets. Independent research found that nearly half of Seattle’s helmet tickets in recent years went to unhoused people, while Black and Native American cyclists in the city were four times and two times more likely, respectively, than white cyclists to be cited.
...
Helmet mandates intimidate potential riders, they argued, by framing cycling as an activity so dangerous it necessitates body armor.
My brain is to big to risk getting damaged while riding, thank you
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's optimistic, one
will still wreck them.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You’d have to believe that without helmets you’d have like 100x more bikers for that no helmet mandate -> more safety mechanism to make any sense whatsoever.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ehhhh keep in mind that in most crashes your helmet doesn't really do shit. I mean if you land head-first it's important but most of the time that's not the case. You're more likely to get your leg fricked up (which thankfully is usually not life threatening).
Like a cyclist around here died because a truck made a right turn into them and ran them over. No helmet is gonna save you in that situation.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context