This sounds ridiculous until you go to Amsterdam see that few wear helmets there. And everyone is cycling.
They might be more inclined to cycle because they don’t need to wear a helmet.
After years of cycling with helmet you get so used to it and it doesn’t bother you. But how many skip the bike because they never got used to wearing a helmet?
I biked through Amsterdam as a commuter along with everyone else for a week, and it just blew me away. Everyone was absolutely predictable and part of the “school of fish”. No hesitation or ill-conceived politeness.
It was only a week but it was so refreshing. I think about this experience daily when driving because I think of how much time would be saved if people just knew absolutely when to take their turn and took it; instead of processing each decision and deciding based on their current mood. People knew the damn rules and norms.
So, I think it’s a function of having a critical mass, being necessary, and being embedded already as a norm. I don’t believe a city could make riding without a helmet legal and expect any sort of increase in safety …
1. Almost everyone cycles. So all drivers are themselves cyclists. So they treat other cyclists with consideration.
2. The road/cycle infrastructure is set up to separate cars and bikes wherever possible. And where they share routes, cars are often explicitly second class users ("auto te gast" - cars, you're guests).
3. In any collision between a car and a bike, the driver will almost always be the one found at fault.
Biking in Amsterdam is leagues safer then biking in most places in the US, though. The risks are different. Helmets aren't as important if most of your crashes are going to be with another low-speed, mostly-soft bodied cyclist. Traffic and pedestrians are pretty separated and you have your own lanes to cycle in. I'm also pretty sure that a lot of biking is convenient: The local grocery store is just a short bike ride but it'd take 15 minutes by car.
Most biking in the US is biking shared with cars. You probably won't have a bike lane. Most likely, you aren't commuting or going to the grocery store - the grocery store might take 15 minutes of driving but 30 minutes of biking - if you can even go the most direct route legally. Longer biking sessions generally means more risk. I'll take the helmet in places that I must defend myself against automobiles on an unsafe path.
Just remember not to get lulled into a false sense of security just because you're wearing a helmet. PPE is by far the least effective safety precaution.
If you have to ride alongside cars, make sure you practice defensive riding.
Yes this is annoying in all these same debates which point to Netherland / Denmark - the infrastructure elsewhere is just not there. Lanes shared with cars (or just taking away from car lane so no normal cars fits in anymore) isn't a solution, just adding friction danger zone. Or dedicated bicycle lanes wide enough for a single row of cyclists, if even that.
Also look at those 'old' basic bikes they use there, you don't need more on those flatlands and everybody is fine with 20-25kmh. Add tech bros or generally young folks with fast ebikes and escooters going 50kmh and things change.
Yes but there was room for it, you noticed the wide streets? Most European city centers don't have that extra room for 1 dedicated bike path on each side, at least not cities I've lived in. That's cca 4m each side requirement, you would have to tear down whole rows of 150-500 year old buildings which are often protected.
Even Amsterdam has streets which have 0 room, but generally city center is blocked/too expensive to most car traffic to even enter so they manage.
If it would be a easy problem to solve, it would be done or at least almost done at this point. And something tells me it requires certain type of population where respect to others is way above average, that's not granted.
> Yes but there was room for it, you noticed the wide streets? Most European city centers don't have that extra room for 1 dedicated bike path on each side
Many Dutch cities don't either, that's why they disallow cars entirely. Really only Rotterdam has spacious roads thanks to the bombings. Ann I understanding you correctly?
> And something tells me it requires certain type of population where respect to others is way above average, that's not granted.
I'm not sure where you are the casuality here. In my experience it's the more human centred infrastructure design that encourages a higher level of social engagement and respect for others.
But regardless I would find it tragic to condem certain cultures as being inherently incapable of these things.
> If it would be a easy problem to solve, it would be done or at least almost done at this point.
It wasn't begun that long ago in the Netherlands. The vast majority of infrastructure has been built since the turn of the century. It takes a while for other places to really realise that their current models aren't working, and even longer for them to really learn the lessons of the Dutch.
But if you look at cities like London, Leipzig, Barcelona, Paris or further afield to Montreal for example then many cities are actually beginning to successfully integrate Dutch design practices.
Dutch bicycle infrastructure didn’t just happen, our postwar governments were all set on building car infrastructure. They were even planning to demolish huge parts of old Amsterdam to build a highway right through the city. It took two decades of protest and a lot of traffic deaths before the government started the development of dedicated bicycle infrastructure in the 1980’s. You can read more here: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bic...
Amsterdam’s answer to faster vehicles is to move them to the main road with other faster traffic. Although it is now moving to slow down nearly all traffic inside the city to a 30km/h limit, which will improve cyclist safety a lot.
Counter point: in the last 40 years I have come off my bike only about 10 times and on 2 of those my helmet was so badly damaged that I think without it my head would have been seriously hurt. Those were both low-speed accidents, one was being hit from behind by a car and the other was hitting a nasty pothole.
I've also seen a friend have a high-speed impact: he was airlifted to hospital, survived and has mostly recovered. Looking at the state of his helmet I have no doubt that he would have died at the scene without it.
In Amsterdam they are commuting, and in a fantastic infrastructure where cars get red lights when bicycles approach on an intersecting cycleway. That's probably the main reason for safety and why they ride so much.
There's very few places where the light changes automatically for bikes in Amsterdam - all that I can remember now, don't. The large majority of lights do respond to input from pressing the cross button (also pressable by bycicles), but it's not automated.
They do use "change on approach" lights outside of the cities way more, but in cities it's usually only for trams and buses.
Since Amsterdam is a "peak biking" city, I wouldn't trust the cited study to even apply there and would think that an independent study would be needed since it would be likely an outlier.
Is it that ridiculous? Big tech tracking shows that basically any inconvenience at all causes people to drop off. The page taking half a second longer to load and now you’ve lost a few sales.
There isn’t going to be anyone consciously thinking “I’m not gonna ride because I have to wear a helmet” but instead “eh I can’t be bothered riding” without digging too much in to why.
Bicycle helmets are big. You can't just put them away in your bag when you're done with them. So you will have to carry the helmet alongside your bags etc.
In Denmark, I don't even lock up my helmet. My bike, sure. But the helmet just casually hangs on the handlebars. I've never experienced, nor heard of, anyone losing their helmet when doing this.
Helmets aren’t uncomfortable if you try them before buying them. There are different shapes, materials, sizes and settings.
About finding my helmet, I always attach it together with the bike with the U lock. Unless I’m parked in a secure place where I let it hang on the handlebars.
I’m not especially advocating for mandatory helmets and I’m the first to say absence of helmet shouldn’t prevent you to ride, but if you are a regular cyclist, having one at hand is not a ridiculous idea.
> Helmets aren’t uncomfortable if you try them before buying them. There are different shapes, materials, sizes and settings.
Come on man, I have never rode a bicycle more expensive than $100 despite riding at least 5000km annually. I bet that your helmet costs more than all of my 3 bicycles.
The down-voted comment of mine tells that gloves are far more useful than helmet for a bicycle rider. But I know I have messed with the holy cow so c'est la vie.
I'm a pretty proficient cyclist (lifetime mileage in the tens of thousands) but there have still been a handful of incidents where I've been very grateful to have had a helmet.
It might be the case that helmets are a net negative for casual riders. But whenever I've done a spontaneous unplanned dismount at 20mph I didn't find that knowing how to fall helped me much.
> But whenever I've done a spontaneous unplanned dismount at 20mph I didn't find that knowing how to fall helped me much.
What was the circumstances (type of road and type of bike)? Have you touched the ground with any other parts of body except of palms, elbows and knees? If yes then consider to keep learning how to fall because your falling skill is not that proficient. If not then the helmet was not that useful.
They might be more inclined to cycle because they don’t need to wear a helmet.
After years of cycling with helmet you get so used to it and it doesn’t bother you. But how many skip the bike because they never got used to wearing a helmet?