Originally Posted by
davei1980
Am I missing the link between not wearing a helmet and becoming a competent cyclist?
What I mean is that a competent adult cyclist can decide when to wear a helmet and when not. Judgement, about you own competence and other things, is a matter of maturity.
So what's wrong about telling your kids: "You're not there yet, you have to learn more before you can choose to ride without a helmet like me"? I see them sometimes with a helmet here in the Netherlands, appearantly Ducht people on Dutch bikes and they stand out because hardly anyone wears a helmet. But then it's a family with young kids, all with helmets. And I know this is the result of negotiating parenting, those kids didn't want to wear helmets, but the parents could only make them by saying 'we wear helmets too'. I'm not opposed to that kind of parenting in general, but why not bring skill, competence and maturity into the negotiation? The kids are not allowed to drive the family car either, a parent doesn't have to be a role model by not driving the car himself.
Originally Posted by
Eds0123
No, that's not the point, I ride 12 miles on all very nice trails with nobody else on them to work and back most days, 99% of my ride, I don't see it necessary to wear a helmet, I think I am very safe, I don't want to deal with stinky helmet with sweat everyday. Then I get accused of not being smart and being careless. That's the point. Dutch people don't wear helmet and they are not dying everyday in droves,
Yes, but it is upright relatively slow cycling in a bike friendly environment. Most sports cyclists, as in drop bars and spandex to go fast, wear helmets these days. If your commute is like that, in a hostile environment, I can imagine you'd want to wear one. But a helmet can't make cycling safe, and cycling in general can and should be safe without, that's what the accusing people don't get.