To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

[Tony T]

In a twist, Cities are now stating that Helmets are not necessary. The reason, of course, is to promote the bike sharing programs:

To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/sunday-review/to-encourage-biking-cities-forget-about-helmets.html?pagewanted=2&hp)
“Pushing helmets really kills cycling and bike-sharing in particular because it promotes a sense of danger that just isn’t justified — in fact, cycling has many health benefits,” says Piet de Jong, a professor in the department of applied finance and actuarial studies at Macquarie University in Sydney. He adds: “Statistically, if we wear helmets for cycling, maybe we should wear helmets when we climb ladders or get into a bath, because there are lots more injuries during those activities.”
SHAUN MURPHY, the bicycling coordinator of Minneapolis-St. Paul — which inaugurated its “Nice Ride” bike-sharing program this year — has been pilloried for riding about without a helmet. “I just want it to be seen as something that a normal person can do,” Mr. Murphy explained to the local press this past summer. “You don’t need special gear. You just get on a bike and you just go.”

In New York, where there were 21 cyclist fatalities last year, the transportation commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, is always photographed on a bike and wearing a helmet. The administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has nonetheless rejected calls by Comptroller John C. Liu for a mandatory helmet law when New York’s 10,000-cycle bike-share program rolls out next year, for fear it would keep people from riding.
But bicycling advocates say that the problem with pushing helmets isn’t practicality but that helmets make a basically safe activity seem really dangerous.
“The real benefits of bike-sharing in terms of health, transport and emissions derive from getting ordinary people to use it,” said Ceri Woolsgrove, safety officer at the European Cyclists’ Federation. “And if you say this is wonderful, but you have to wear armor, they won’t. These are normal human beings, not urban warriors.”

[Ahneida Ride]

When out for a short ride with a friend recently.

Close to home, she just fell. (hit a groove in the road)

got bruised up bad, but nothing broken.

Helmet cracked and she sustained a black eye.

The Helmet really saved her.

Accidents are not planned and happen real fast.

[fourflys]

yeah, this won't turn into a bloodbath... :rolleyes:

but I do agree with Ray having the same thing happen to me (minus the black eye)...

[67-59]

Accidents are not planned and happen real fast.

Yep. And when you consider that the rideshare programs operate mostly in the center city areas - lots of pedestrians, traffic, etc - it seems even more likely to be an issue.

[slidey]

Stupidity defined.

[fiamme red]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=bikeshare-riders-shun-helmets-12-06-15

[beeatnik]

These articles or studies never seem to take into account the type of bike or style of riding. On an upright Dutch bike that struggles to get up to 10mph it's tough to endo. On a fixed gear with a single front brake, I've gone over the bars at 5mph. In LA, a lot of the kids who are new to cycling are riding old road bikes which are 2 or 3 sizes too big. Kids who are 5'4" on 60cm, 20 plus year old bikes. One mis-shift away from a busted grill or worse, an acquired brain injury.

[Fixed]

Decrease the surplus population .
Cheers

[phcollard]

I was in Amsterdam three months ago. Stayed three days and saw thousands of people riding bikes. I counted one with a helmet. One. :)

[malcolm]

It's mitigating risk. Some risk even though small is easy to mitigate so why not? Helmets for me fall into this area. It's easy and you don't even know you have it on once used to it.

[witcombusa]

I was in Amsterdam three months ago. Stayed three days and saw thousands of people riding bikes. I counted one with a helmet. One. :)

Yep...no other country even comes close to our media driven paranoia :eek:

[akelman]

I was in Amsterdam three months ago. Stayed three days and saw thousands of people riding bikes. I counted one with a helmet. One. :)

If you can name a large American city that has a cycling infrastructure like Amsterdam's, I'll buy you the beer of your choice*. Now, I'm not interested in wading into the argument about helmets -- people should do whatever they want, in my view -- but invidious comparisons only confuse the discussion.

* If you come to NorCal, I'll do this anyway.

[phcollard]

If you can name a large American city that has a cycling infrastructure like Amsterdam's, I'll buy you the beer of your choice*. Now, I'm not interested in wading into the argument about helmets -- people should do whatever they want, in my view -- but invidious comparisons only confuse the discussion.

* If you come to NorCal, I'll do this anyway.

Hey thanks Ari. I'll bring some belgian goodies.

I wasn't stating that North America is more paranoid than Europe. Don't shoot me please :) I was just amazed to see that in Amsterdam. And people there cycle everywhere, not only in bike paths. That being said I heard the laws there are much more in favor of the cyclists so yeah... drivers take an extreme care not to hit one. And believe me it's a full time job, some many bikes, and so many cycle like crazy!

[Tony T]

It should be up to the individual if they want to take the risk. Helmets should not be mandatory (even with motorcycles, not every state has a helmet law), but these bike sharing programs don't give the rider a choice.

[akelman]

Hey thanks Ari. I'll bring some belgian goodies.

I wasn't stating that North America is more paranoid than Europe. Don't shoot me please :) I was just amazed to see that in Amsterdam. And people there cycle everywhere, not only in bike paths. That being said I heard the laws there are much more in favor of the cyclists so yeah... drivers take an extreme care not to hit one. And believe me it's a full time job, some many bikes, and so many cycle like crazy!

See, I don't know if North America is more paranoid than Europe or not. My point was that if it is more paranoid, there might (I repeat, might) be a reason for that paranoia. And that reason might be that North American cities don't have the same kind of cycling infrastructure that European cities like Amsterdam have.

Again, though, I'm not making a pro-helmet argument. If people, particularly adults, want to ride lidless, I think that's entirely their business. As for kids, I think it's up to their parents. I wear a helmet all the time. My kids do, too. But that doesn't mean my choices, or my family's choices, are right for everyone.

[nooneline]

If you can name a large American city that has a cycling infrastructure like Amsterdam's, I'll buy you the beer of your choice*. Now, I'm not interested in wading into the argument about helmets -- people should do whatever they want, in my view -- but invidious comparisons only confuse the discussion.

* If you come to NorCal, I'll do this anyway.

Interestingly, in Amsterdam, it's not the infrastructure, it's the culture. Now, Copenhagen is the paradigm of bicycle infrastructure. But in Amsterdam, sure, there's a bike lane here and there, and a bicycles-only parking garage, but for the most part, it's just that way more people use bikes than use cars.

Parking fees in central city are part of this. Parking is in high demand (because of the low supply rather than because of widespread use) - a friend of mine who lives there says that in his (very expensive) neighborhood, people will pay over 100,000 Euro to buy the parking spot in front of their house.

[akelman]

I was thinking of the bike ramp at Centraal Station (http://www.flickr.com/photos/velomobiling/338500652/). Which isn't to say that Copenhagen doesn't have more bike lanes (I don't know). Regardless, when it comes to ease and safety of cycling, North American cities just can't compare -- in terms of infrastructure or, as you say, culture -- to the best that Europe has to offer.

[rwsaunders]

It should be up to the individual if they want to take the risk. Helmets should not be mandatory (even with motorcycles, not every state has a helmet law), but these bike sharing programs don't give the rider a choice.

That's because there's a personal injury attorney, on every billboard, just waiting for it to be someone else's fault.

[fourflys]

on the N.A. vs. Amsterdam thing, I throw this in there...

when I was riding in SoCal I didn't have many problems with cars passing me, sure I had the occasional a$$ who almost brushed me a few times but was pretty good most of the time... but even the cars that were respectful still passed within 3 or 4 feet (plenty of room)... since I've moved here to the island of Kodiak, AK whenever a car passes me they give me the most room they can, often getting all the way in the other lane! Now I don't know if this is because the people here are so much nicer or they just aren't used to seeing a cyclist on the road and are afraid of what I might do... I guess my point is in someplace like Amsterdam where bikes outnumber cars people are more considerate and I bet there are fewer incidences anyway versus someplace like SoCal where people are complacent with cyclists but still buzz them or pull out in front of them all the time...

just an observation...

[CunegoFan]

The biggest problem with helmets is people's misplaced belief in their effectiveness. Aside from preventing cosmetic injuries, and that alone is a decent reason to wear one, helmets are not made to be effective at velocities that are typical during recreational and competitive cycling. They simply do not absorb enough energy to lower the effectlive impact speed to something reasonable. Thus a crashing at 50 km/hr with a helmet is roughly the same as crashing at 45 km/hr without one. People are not generally aware of that, so their behavior does not take into account the actual risk. It is a bad situation of risk compensation where the value of safety equipment is overvalued way beyond its true usefulness.

[malcolm]

The biggest problem with helmets is people's misplaced belief in their effectiveness. Aside from preventing cosmetic injuries, and that alone is a decent reason to wear one, helmets are not made to be effective at velocities that are typical during recreational and competitive cycling. They simply do not absorb enough energy to lower the effectlive impact speed to something reasonable. Thus a crashing at 50 km/hr with a helmet is roughly the same as crashing at 45 km/hr without one. People are not generally aware of that, so their behavior does not take into account the actual risk. It is a bad situation of risk compensation where the value of safety equipment is overvalued way beyond its true usefulness.

I don't disagree. I can tell you however that there are many injuries considerably beyond cosmetic from falling over at walking speed. I've practiced emergency medicine for many years and I've seen skull fractures, subdural hematomas and the occasional epidural from just falling down. I do think a bike helmet would protect somewhat from these atypical low velocity impacts. I agree at higher velocities the protection is limited, but in almost every scenario it probably provides some protection.

I hear the argument that wearing a helmet lends itself to more risk taking behavior. I'm not sure I buy it, but if you increase your risk taking based on essentially a piece of styrofoam, then maybe eliminating you from the gene pool is a good thing.

[CunegoFan]

I don't disagree. I can tell you however that there are many injuries considerably beyond cosmetic from falling over at walking speed. I've practiced emergency medicine for many years and I've seen skull fractures, subdural hematomas and the occasional epidural from just falling down. I do think a bike helmet would protect somewhat from these atypical low velocity impacts. I agree at higher velocities the protection is limited, but in almost every scenario it probably provides some protection.

True. Bike helmets are made for low velocity impacts. The classic test is a drop from two meters with a resulting deceleration upon impact of less than 300 Gs. The 300 Gs being determined somehow as being the limit above which brain damage is likely to occur.

I should modify my earlier statement to say that at typical cruising speeds or 20 mph for recreational cycling, a bike helmet will absorb a significant portion of the overall energy. As speeds get to thirty mph, which is easy with a slight downhill and a smooth road, the portion absorbed gets quite small. A 50 kph crash effectly becomes 45 kph crash.

I hear the argument that wearing a helmet lends itself to more risk taking behavior. I'm not sure I buy it, but if you increase your risk taking based on essentially a piece of styrofoam, then maybe eliminating you from the gene pool is a good thing.

I think risk compensation is very real. Because the fraction of total energy absorbed by a bike helmet at higher speed is so small, only a fairly small difference in behavior (speed) is required to largely eliminate the benefit of wearing a helmet. On a descent, a rider does not have to be a daredevil while wearing a helmet. He only needs to feel a bit safer to go a two or three mph faster.

There are other interesting questions about how helmets function in actual use. For example, the rigid weight used for testing crushes the styrofoam, causing deceleration. But the skull is elastic so the head deforms to distribute force across a broad portion of the helmet rather than a point. Thus in post crash analysis, helmets are found to break rather than crush like they are supposed to.

Then there is the disturbing issue of helmets being given a pass-fail grade for testing. No results are reported. This encourages manufacturers to design the lightest, "airiest" helmet that barely passes certification. Perversely, the most expensive helmets could offer the least impact absorbtion because they use the least amount of material. If test results were published then manufacturers would have incentive to find an equilibirum of "safety" vs. weight/ventilation and continually try to improve compared to other manufacturers.

[Aaron O]

On second thought, any post here is non-productive.

[G-Reg]

I make my high school kids wear a helmet when riding to school and I found it had an unexpected added benefit.

Now their only friends are the band kids. None of those stupid pot smoking, sex having "cool" kids will even speak to them (directly).

[oldpotatoe]

In a twist, Cities are now stating that Helmets are not necessary. The reason, of course, is to promote the bike sharing programs:

To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/sunday-review/to-encourage-biking-cities-forget-about-helmets.html?pagewanted=2&hp)
“Pushing helmets really kills cycling and bike-sharing in particular because it promotes a sense of danger that just isn’t justified — in fact, cycling has many health benefits,” says Piet de Jong, a professor in the department of applied finance and actuarial studies at Macquarie University in Sydney. He adds: “Statistically, if we wear helmets for cycling, maybe we should wear helmets when we climb ladders or get into a bath, because there are lots more injuries during those activities.”
SHAUN MURPHY, the bicycling coordinator of Minneapolis-St. Paul — which inaugurated its “Nice Ride” bike-sharing program this year — has been pilloried for riding about without a helmet. “I just want it to be seen as something that a normal person can do,” Mr. Murphy explained to the local press this past summer. “You don’t need special gear. You just get on a bike and you just go.”

In New York, where there were 21 cyclist fatalities last year, the transportation commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, is always photographed on a bike and wearing a helmet. The administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has nonetheless rejected calls by Comptroller John C. Liu for a mandatory helmet law when New York’s 10,000-cycle bike-share program rolls out next year, for fear it would keep people from riding.
But bicycling advocates say that the problem with pushing helmets isn’t practicality but that helmets make a basically safe activity seem really dangerous.
“The real benefits of bike-sharing in terms of health, transport and emissions derive from getting ordinary people to use it,” said Ceri Woolsgrove, safety officer at the European Cyclists’ Federation. “And if you say this is wonderful, but you have to wear armor, they won’t. These are normal human beings, not urban warriors.”

Here we go, must be fall, as in season, not 'fall'....

[oldpotatoe]

It should be up to the individual if they want to take the risk. Helmets should not be mandatory (even with motorcycles, not every state has a helmet law), but these bike sharing programs don't give the rider a choice.

Sure, they do, bring a helmet when you rent the bike.

[fuzzalow]

I should not post this but I'll just say my piece and leave. Helmet threads for cyclists are the equivalent of "cyclists and public roads" threads on a SUV & Duallie forum.

Be more open minded towards not using helmets as only a part of the big picture. Anything that fosters a greater visibility and presence for cycling in the general public's perception is a step in the right direction. And this cannot happen if the general public sees "us", epitomized by the average person on the Paceline forum, as the model of whom or what cycling represents.

"Us" as judgmental, virulent and holier than thou to the general public about an activity that "Us" cast in a image that reflects our own elitism - a superiority of fitness, discipline, knowledge, life style and discretionary income. Mix 'n' match any combination to your level of distaste. Obvious in this thread alone via comments hinting at Darwinism or accusations of stupidity.

The general cycling public will do anything not to be us. Allow the activity of cycling to develop so it is just an activity and not an entree to an aberrant sub culture. If the price of doing that is being less draconian about helmets, then let it be. Isolate your own convictions from corrupting the simplified goal of a first step along the bigger picture towards making bicycling mainstream.

[Tony T]

Sure, they do, bring a helmet when you rent the bike.

The point of the NYC share program is to rent a bike, take it to your destination, and then leave it at a kiosk. If you have to bring your helmet with you, it defeats the purpose. The commuter should be given an opportunity to rent a helmet with the bike (cost issuers is my guess, not the reasons given in the article).

This goes counter to a State that mandates the use of seat-belts in autos.

[oldpotatoe]

The point of the NYC share program is to rent a bike, take it to your destination, and then leave it at a kiosk. If you have to bring your helmet with you, it defeats the purpose. The commuter should be given an opportunity to rent a helmet with the bike (cost issuers is my guess, not the reasons given in the article).

This goes counter to a State that mandates the use of seat-belts in autos.

Why does bringing that heavy and obtrusive thing called a helmet, available at places like Walmart for $20, defeating the purpose. If ya feel you need a helmet, bring one. Having bike share with helmets(oooo, that guy didn't wash his hair!!), isn't going to happen.

Autos-many, big and fast...bicycles, small, slow...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078902/quotes?qt=qt0270450

[AngryScientist]

The commuter should be given an opportunity to rent a helmet with the bike (cost issuers is my guess, not the reasons given in the article).


admittedly i didnt read the article, but the other issue is that renting helmets is kind of gross. probably totally unsanitary too, lots of sweat and other potential creepy crawlies in other people's noggins. safety issues completely aside, i wouldnt want to rent a helmet used by the masses in any big city.

[oldpotatoe]

admittedly i didnt read the article, but the other issue is that renting helmets is kind of gross. probably totally unsanitary too, lots of sweat and other potential creepy crawlies in other people's noggins. safety issues completely aside, i wouldnt want to rent a helmet used by the masses in any big city.

Bike share programs are wildly successful, even w/o 'requiring' a helmet. AND injury and death stats due to bicycle accidents have NOT risen in the places that do bike share.

Ya rent a chainsaw they don't require you rent a hardhat, goggles and ear protection, gloves.

[Tony T]

admittedly i didnt read the article, but the other issue is that renting helmets is kind of gross. probably totally unsanitary too, lots of sweat and other potential creepy crawlies in other people's noggins. safety issues completely aside, i wouldnt want to rent a helmet used by the masses in any big city.

I thought of that, but wouldn't a simple solution be to use a cheap disposable liner?

[Tony T]

Bike share programs are wildly successful, even w/o 'requiring' a helmet. AND injury and death stats due to bicycle accidents have NOT risen in the places that do bike share.

Ya rent a chainsaw they don't require you rent a hardhat, goggles and ear protection, gloves.

I never said that it should be required. [edit: Sorry, I see that it wasn't my post that this was in response to.]

Anyway, The article also says that "...the problem with pushing helmets isn’t practicality but that helmets make a basically safe activity seem really dangerous." I recall that same argument made by the auto industry when they were required to install seat belts in all new auto's.

I guess that the real issue I have is not that helmets are not available, but the excuses used in the NYT article (I've read more reasoned thoughts here). IMO, the issue is cost. For the article to say that the availability of helmets makes it look dangerous is disingenuous.

....and yet, I'm required to use seat belts. ;)

[fourflys]

....and yet, I'm required to use seat belts. ;)

and they have saved hundreds of thousands of lives...

[Tony T]

and they have saved hundreds of thousands of lives...

IMO, seat-belts should be required for minors (except, it seems, in school busses), but use for adults should be optional.

[redir]

They have a bike share like that in Barcelona that looks really cool and gets a lot of usage. It's only for residents though so I couldn't use it :(

[weiwentg]

Here's another way to think of things. Recreational cyclists ride many fewer miles than we do. They ride more slowly. Therefore, they are less likely to have an accident than us.

We ride much longer distances. There are simply more opportunities to interact with a vehicle.

Right now, it really does seem like making helmets compulsory inhibits riding. And it also seems that in cities, having more bikes on the road makes for safer riding - cars will adjust their habits, infrastructure gets built, etc. This has worked in DC. Yes, DC is not every place in America, but it is an American city, and it shows what changes you can make in American cities.

So ... I have backed off on thinking that helmets should be mandatory. I still always wear one, even when commuting, though.

[charliedid]

Who cares...

Rental helmets are gross anyway. People often cringe when I hand them helmets for test rides and rental bikes. The place I work forces helmets on people and I hate it.

I see people all the time on our rental bikes with the helmet strapped to a pack or slung over the bars.

They are almost always riding about 9 miles an hour.

What have we become?

[nighthawk]

Sell cheap (but functional) helmets at the rental place. No big deal.

[nighthawk]

Montreal has a pretty decent cycling culture infrastructure from what I remember from a bunch of visits there. Lots of lanes, some physically separated from cars... A bike share program.. I even remember coming across a tool kiosk on a road somewhere. Pump and tools all tethered to a bench so you could do some quick adjustments or repairs.

[Polyglot]

When out for a short ride with a friend recently.

Close to home, she just fell. (hit a groove in the road)

got bruised up bad, but nothing broken.

Helmet cracked and she sustained a black eye.

The Helmet really saved her.

Accidents are not planned and happen real fast.

You logic is flawed. There is no proof whatsoever that the helmet made any difference. The shells of the helmets are made to crack at impacts that are imminently less severe than what is required to do damage to the human head. Plus the fact that she was able to get a black eye would tend to point to an impact for which a helmet is ill-suited to protect against.

[nighthawk]

You logic is flawed. There is no proof whatsoever that the helmet made any difference. The shells of the helmets are made to crack at impacts that are imminently less severe than what is required to do damage to the human head. Plus the fact that she was able to get a black eye would tend to point to an impact for which a helmet is ill-suited to protect against.

Um. If the impact to her helmet wearing head resulted in a cracked helmet, she wouldve been much worse off had she not been wearing it.

[Tony T]

The shells of the helmets are made to crack at impacts that are imminently less severe than what is required to do damage to the human head.

Reference please.

[rwsaunders]

Interesting stats regarding bicycle injuries and deaths from 2010....24% of the cyclists that were killed were drunk. Also, based on the statistics presented, note that Florida does not appear to be the place which is safe either in a car or on a bike.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811624.pdf

[christian]

The point of the NYC share program is to rent a bike, take it to your destination, and then leave it at a kiosk. If you have to bring your helmet with you, it defeats the purpose.I work in New York City. I commute by train and will use the bike share system liberally once it kicks off as I have an office downtown and an office in midtown. I just went downstairs to the basement and checked: It was easier to strap a helmet to my laptop bag than to strap my Merckx to the laptop bag. So I'm not sure what purpose was defeated.

(FWIW, since I am likely to ride the bikes 3-4 times per week, I'll probably keep a helmet in the office, but if I don't have a lid with me, I'm happy to ride regardless. Riding a bike on paid time? What's not to love!)

[CunegoFan]

Interesting stats regarding bicycle injuries and deaths from 2010....24% of the cyclists that were killed were drunk. Also, based on the statistics presented, note that Florida does not appear to be the place which is safe either in a car or on a bike.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811624.pdf

It is interesting that the average age of those killed has climbed steadily during the last ten years from thirty-six to forty-two. Cycling really is the new golf. I suspect that those who take up the sport at a later age do not have the ride smarts of those who have been doing this for twenty years or more.

I would really like to see stats for deaths + disabling injuries.

[oldpotatoe]

Um. If the impact to her helmet wearing head resulted in a cracked helmet, she wouldve been much worse off had she not been wearing it.

Replace 'would've' with 'might've'.

I dropped a helmet from about 2 feet, on the ground and it cracked..having one on 'may' have helped her, may not have.

Helmets, 'may' help, probably never hurt but they are not a panacea for head injuries. They should NOT be mandatory. If anybody in CO says that, I say, you had better look at motorcycle mandatory helmet laws first(no motorcycle heamet law in CO).

[Tony T]

I dropped a helmet from about 2 feet, on the ground and it cracked..having one on 'may' have helped her, may not have.

Agreed, but a fall from a bike is more than 2 feet, and we also don't know the speed the cyclist was traveling at, or if she hit her head on impact, or if she was able to break the fall with her hands.

However, if it was a direct hit to the skull at more than 5 feet, at more than 5mph, then her choice to use a helmet did help.

(FWIW, I rode w/o a helmet for over 15 years, and only started using them about 5 years ago, when the helmets became lighter and more ventilated.)

[BumbleBeeDave]

The point of the NYC share program is to rent a bike, take it to your destination, and then leave it at a kiosk. If you have to bring your helmet with you, it defeats the purpose. The commuter should be given an opportunity to rent a helmet with the bike (cost issuers is my guess, not the reasons given in the article).

This goes counter to a State that mandates the use of seat-belts in autos.

. . . but managers of the bike share program are going to see $$ signs flying out the window if they did this. I think in NYC they are going to have enough problem with attrition of the bikes. Helmets would disappear quick.

For me, always a helmet, though I'm not going to preach about it to others. After my neck-breaking crash two years ago I'm acutely aware that if I were not wearing a helmet . . .

I. Would. Be. DEAD.

BBD

[MadRocketSci]

i don't get it...if a helmet cracks, then it has taken the first ## joules of energy in a fall instead of your head...in addition, it has more give than pavement and thus reduces the remaining force that your head absorbs. So, doesn't it definitely help?

That said, I never bother with a helmet on those upright amsterdam style commuter bikes. They don't go much faster than 10-15 mph, and put me basically in an upright seated running position. Unless i'm creamed by a fast moving pickup mishaps are very unlikely to be of the one moment you're riding the next moment you find yourself on the ground crashes.

I think people would use bikes more if the state of their hair remained about the same pre and post ride.

[Tony T]

. . . but managers of the bike share program are going to see $$ signs flying out the window if they did this. I think in NYC they are going to have enough problem with attrition of the bikes. Helmets would disappear quick.

Agreed, as I said, IMO, the reason not to provide helmets (...and thereby give the rider a choice) is cost, not the reasons given in the NYT article.

[fiamme red]

Great article by John Allen: http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=4798

“It’s more like walking than riding a bicycle. You’re more like a pedestrian,” said Rosenthal of ideal urban cycling as she envisions it. “The kind of crashes in which people fall off bikes and hurt their heads are really, really, really rare because you’re riding around at 5 miles per hour. It’s more like walking,” said Rosenthal. Great. That’ll get me home in two hours. And who will point out the bicycling is several times as efficient as walking? Taking Rosenthal’s argument to its logical conclusion, I’d benefit more from walking, and then it would only take me four hours to get home. Canoeing upstream on the meandering Charles River from Boston to my home would be even better, and swimming, better yet...

[johnnymossville]

Helmet Laws: Stupid.

Educating on the value of wearing one: Smart.