1. Because they're very serious about making it easy and convenient.
2. Because the Netherlands are very, very flat and densely populated.
3. Because cycling is completely normal
2. Because the Netherlands are very, very flat and densely populated.
3. Because cycling is completely normal
In the city I used to live (Eindhoven), I often had the situation that trips were shorter by bicycle than by car. This happened especially when I had to move around the city center, where they have many one-way streets (one-way for cars only) and many red lights (you don't always have to respect those when on the bicycle).
It sucks though when it's around between 1 and 5 degrees Celsius and it's raining...
Every city I have lived in this has been true, cities in the UK, Europe, US and Australia, lots of distance are a lot faster, when you don't have to worry about finding your car, getting through traffic, and then finding a park.
I don't think there's a simple way to get to that point anywhere in America. His hunch, one I agree with, is that people in this country have to make things The Biggest and The Fastest and The Best, which is why we are at the forefront of bike technology & craftsmanship but are so pisspoor when it comes to cycling as a safe, simple means of transportation.
[1] http://www.chroniclebooks.com/titles/a-bike-snob-abroad.html
Perhaps my perception is skewed because I've had two friends be saved from a serious head injury only thanks to their helmets. One rode into a parked car (she doesn't remember how it happened due to amnesia), riding at relaxed speed, and was unconscious for a couple days.
It seems really weird to take that risk just to avoid a slight discomfort.
I've been riding bikes in traffic for almost 30 years and never had a serious accident one-sided or not. For about 6 years I also did cycling racing and wearing a helmet was obligatory to participate in training and official KNWU races. And that's a good thing for I did have a number of accidents while racing: falling in the bunch, not holding a bend, jumping from small sand cliffs, breaking equipment, and so on. However, these accidents only happen because while racing one takes risks one does not while riding a bike to work: the speed is significantly lower, they way one sits on a bike is different, the stakes (i.e., winning) are lower, the bikes themselves are a lot sturdier than those racing bikes, and so on.
I think many foreigners don't really understand this difference between riding for transportation and riding for sport or challenge.
To add: I've had many more accidents, serious and not, while walking. Tripping isn't uncommon for me, I've tripped at least once or twice a year. The same for injuring my ankle, walking against a door or window, falling from stairs, and so on.
There is also evidence that wearing a helmet in a car can reduce head injuries in some kinds of accidents, especially at highway speeds. Therefore one might wonder if a mandatory-helmet law should actually include all forms of transportation, including cars, bicycles, and walking. Or perhaps a subset, such as required for bicycles only when on major streets, and for cars only when on highways.
Helmets only protect from certain types of injuries and they are often misworn. The larger analysis also need to consider that some people won't ride a bike if required to wear a helmet; eg, to prevent helmet hair while on the way to an opera. There are also health benefits to biking, vs. driving or taking mass transit.
My personal view is that biking slower than 10 mph (which is the same as running a 6 minute mile) doesn't need a helmet for the cases you are talking about any more than street runners need a helmet.
10mph is considered a slow biking speed, but it's what you'll find with city bikes in an urban environment like the Netherlands.
In Denmark a more common reason isn't hair so much as where to put the helmet. People bike everywhere, and usually you just leave your bike in some random location on a sidewalk, with the rear wheel immobilized with a built-in device that most bikes have (minor theft deterrent). Then you're left either having to carry the helmet with you everywhere, or to try to lock it to the bike somehow (presumably with an extra lock you carry just for that). Also, it drizzles a lot, so your helmet will be very wet if you leave it outside, unless you carry an extra bag or cover for it that works together with a lock.
For commuting between home and office it's not an issue, and more people wear helmets in that case. Of my coworkers, I would say about 1/3 wear a helmet when commuting, skewed towards those who live further (~10km), and those who are somewhat older (>40 y/o). Parents with young kids also tend to wear helmets, rather than trying to explain to the kids that they have to but mom and dad don't.
Also really, do you care it's wet? It has holes in it, your going the get your head wet anyway.
Personally, I haven't seen anyone saved thanks to a bike helmet, but I have seen people get into minor accidents because they were ignoring traffic rules and not paying attention to the road. Lots of people in the US seem to treat bikes as more of a kid's toy, to be cruised around the local neighborhood without a care in the world. They don't have the damage potential or expense of cars, but they are still vehicles that are many times faster and less maneuverable then you are on your feet, and so deserve your respect and attention.
Secondly on the safety: there are studies where they compared the average distance between people on bikes with helmets and without. Cars gave bikes less distance to people wearing helmets. The likely explanation is that because they seem more safe, you need to pay less attention to their safety (decreasing distance is a result).
Lastly: There is a TED talk about making bikes more stable using electronics. Apparently the most common bike accident is a one-sided accident by "old people", IIRC.