Countries with lots of cycling have very low rates of helmet-wearing. Helmets are only needed if you make cycling dangerous (which is the case in cities built for cars). If you make cycling safe, you don't need helmets -- you dress for the destination, not the ride. We do this already for car-driving; no one requires drivers and passengers to wear helmets, even though there are lots of head injuries. Drivers and passengers dress for the destination. See: th-cam.com/video/NpVncWxyMJw/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=Propel.
@@petiteplanete Sorry Mr. Morris but post-primery-traumatic injuries at low speed are the reason, why many riders get serious traumata in face and head. The significant lowering of traumatic brain injuries are possible ... only with a helmet. And because of the increasing bicycle-use the chance to collide with other riders is increasing too. Helmets are a good dressing for every destination. Useing a hairbrush isn´t very difficult and one afternoon with messy hair is much better than a rest of life in a bed with vegetative state. Just ask some neurologists and trauma surgeos. th-cam.com/video/XMUEnUh5MMM/w-d-xo.html ... this is one reason. The bike is still being sold and, dirving characteristics are still the same, and physical laws haven´t changed.
@@gwideaa Virtually all falls and injuries are infrastructure failures. Slips, cars running into you, potholes, curbs, dooring, you name it... Focus on the infrastructure and not victim blaming.
@@gwideaa Traffic deaths and injuries aren't something that happen in a safe environment and you shouldn't have to dress up to ride a bike as if it's some kind of dangerous extreme sport, which it isn't. You're very quick to start policing what people wear and that's not bright.
when will these be available for purchase??
Bad signal: None of them wearing a bike helmet
Countries with lots of cycling have very low rates of helmet-wearing. Helmets are only needed if you make cycling dangerous (which is the case in cities built for cars). If you make cycling safe, you don't need helmets -- you dress for the destination, not the ride. We do this already for car-driving; no one requires drivers and passengers to wear helmets, even though there are lots of head injuries. Drivers and passengers dress for the destination. See: th-cam.com/video/NpVncWxyMJw/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=Propel.
@@petiteplanete Sorry Mr. Morris but post-primery-traumatic injuries at low speed are the reason, why many riders get serious traumata in face and head. The significant lowering of traumatic brain injuries are possible ... only with a helmet. And because of the increasing bicycle-use the chance to collide with other riders is increasing too.
Helmets are a good dressing for every destination. Useing a hairbrush isn´t very difficult and one afternoon with messy hair is much better than a rest of life in a bed with vegetative state. Just ask some neurologists and trauma surgeos.
th-cam.com/video/XMUEnUh5MMM/w-d-xo.html ... this is one reason. The bike is still being sold and, dirving characteristics are still the same, and physical laws haven´t changed.
@@gwideaa Virtually all falls and injuries are infrastructure failures. Slips, cars running into you, potholes, curbs, dooring, you name it... Focus on the infrastructure and not victim blaming.
@@weetikissa It´s always the other´s fault ... I know. Blaming victims ... what a nonsense.
@@gwideaa Traffic deaths and injuries aren't something that happen in a safe environment and you shouldn't have to dress up to ride a bike as if it's some kind of dangerous extreme sport, which it isn't. You're very quick to start policing what people wear and that's not bright.