261–270 of 797 posts
This is a pedicab service. A cynic would assume that Pedal Me is mandating this (and thus putting their drivers at risk) because passengers are more nervous about taking a service where the driver wears a helmet and they do not.
Helmets are trying to reduce an already tiny risk. We live in a world of safety fanaticism.
Sorry, but this is a bad, dumb comment. Your point is valid generally, but not here. What is the COST of wearing a helmet? $60 purchase and 5 seconds every time you ride. Essentially nothing. Compare to, e.g. TSA, which has a cost of billions of dollars and millions of person-hours. Unlike helmets, which are known to actually prevent some injuries, TSA is also effectively useless at its intended goal.
For me the main cost is having to carry around a bulky helmet when I'm off the bike and ugly indentations on my hair and forehead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One flaw in this logic: helmets don't protect against cars ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Maybe not if a car hits you head on, but if a car cuts you off or clips one of your wheels a helmet will be useful.
Okay, true story. Years ago I struggled with this exact logic regarding skiing with helmet. After serious consideration I decided to start skiing so carefully that I do not need a helmet. As you may guess at this point, The very first day I left my helmet home, I got into an accident and got a skull fracture. I started using my helmet again after that. (But another safety related thing I have started to really doubt.…
Michael Schumacher would disagree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to be an EMT. There was one week when I went to two different calls that illustrated this perfectly. Both riders middle aged, both at low speed. One wearing a helmet hit a pothole and had minor facial injuries despite going over the handlebars. The other no helmet and out of practice fell sideways and the first thing to hit the kerb was her head. She's permanently disabled and living in a care facility.
Anecdotal fear inducing internet story. Statistically 'in real life' extremely rare for this to happen.
This is very much like: > The name "Tullock's spike" refers to a thought experiment in which Tullock suggested that if governments were serious about reducing road casualties, they should mandate that a sharp spike be installed in the center of each car's steering wheel, to increase the probability that an accident would be fatal to the driver. Tullock's idea was that the normal process of risk compensation would the…
Okay, true story. Years ago I struggled with this exact logic regarding skiing with helmet. After serious consideration I decided to start skiing so carefully that I do not need a helmet. As you may guess at this point, The very first day I left my helmet home, I got into an accident and got a skull fracture. I started using my helmet again after that. (But another safety related thing I have started to really doubt.…
I've never skied with a helmet. Ridiculous. The only thing you can do about the risk of hitting or being hit, is stay home.
Even strong and careful skiers wipe out occasionally. A helmet is the difference between shaking it off and brain injury.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You dont think its reasonable to offer passengers the option to wear a helmet?" No. Which means it's not automatically "the reasonable thing", just an opinion.
Just because one person disagrees doesn't mean it isn't reasonable. I've met people who (claim to) believe the earth is flat, but surely no one would consider that belief "reasonable". So I'm curious what the REASONING is behind your feeling that offering passengers the option to wear a helmet is unreasonable. Personally, I would AGREE that offering passengers on a pedicab the option of a pineapple would be unreasona…
Maybe relevant: the Netherlands is probably the country with the highest use of bicycles for transport, yet no one, except for cyclists on racing bikes/MTBs or foreign tourists, ever wears a bike helmet. This is because they're only marginally effective at preventing injury, and the disadvantage of reduced cycling use if helmets are mandated results in far worse public health outcomes. See also https://dutchreview.co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is the risk on the road is smaller when you don't wear a helmet because drivers take less risk with you. Even better if you are a woman in summer dress. Then the drivers give you way more space and are super careful around you. It was researched.
I think you're referring to Ian Walker's study. Yes, motorists on average passed helmeted cyclists closer than non-helmeted ones. The difference in average passing distance wasn't huge (1.3 m vs. 1.2 m) and was still a safe distance.