If ever there was a deliberately-deceptive clickbait headline, this is it. Let's look at their overall conclusions:
1. A reduction in the number of cyclists on streets;
2. Financial struggle for popular bike sharing systems; and
3. More exposure among vulnerable populations to unnecessary interactions with police.
NONE of these support the clickbait headline. #1 and #2 say that MHLs reduce the number of cyclists. And #3 fails to control for "percent of populations who ride without helmets."
None of them say that a cyclist wearing a helmet is just as likely, or more likely, to get injured.
> The unfortunate truth is mandatory helmet laws simply don’t lead to their purported goal, which is to make streets safer.
No, that's never been the "purported goal." The goal is to protect people who already ARE cycling.
This is a poor summary. The reduction in the number of cyclists is very easy to see as making things less safe for the remaining cyclists. The data is rather clear on that, oddly. The article even linked to the study they are basing that on at https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/02/27/safety-in-numbers-bik....
Do we know the full causal factors? I'd wager not. But it is a testable hypothesis as much as "mandating helmets will save lives is." Per the evidence of this article, that hypothesis is on much shakier ground than your post would allow.
You seem to be interested in this question: "If I bike without a helmet, how much more likely am I to be injured than if I bike with a helmet?". And of course, the answer is that you are safer with a helmet.
But the article is interested in a different question: "If I bike, how likely am I to be injured?".
This question is very heavily influenced by the ratio of bikes to cars on the road. More bikes leads to lower chance of injury for bicyclists.
I agree, they don't do a fantastic job of justifying the title. However, #1 and #2 are related, and the article does try to explain why they cause less safety. More people biking means both fewer cars, and people driving cars are more aware of bikers.
> Safety in Numbers is a straightforward concept: More people on bikes creates safer conditions on our streets. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), which represents professional planners from 81 cities from around the United States, pointed this out in their own pushback on NTSB’s recommendations.
The article goes on to explain why these conclusions make cyclists less safe.
Basically, the only reason that bicycling is unsafe is cars. Cars are only a threat to cyclists when they share the same roads, which is only a problem because not enough people bike. The best way to ensure safety for cyclists is for there to be dedicated bike infrastructure that is completely separated from car infrastructure, and that's only going to happen once enough people switch to biking.
>None of them say that a cyclist wearing a helmet is just as likely, or more likely, to get injured.
That is not said or implied by the headline.
> The goal is to protect people who already ARE cycling.
If that's true, it's an idiotic and shortsighted goal. We have to do better than that- the goal should be to promote bicycling as a safe and accessible alternative to driving for everyone. 8-year-old children should be free to bike to school unsupervised without the risk of getting hit by a car. Mandatory helmet laws don't solve the problem, they make it worse.
The article directly addresses your first point. More cyclists on the streets means individual cyclists are safer. There are a couple of factors at work there:
* More bikes means less cars, and cars are dangerous. Less cars means less danger.
* More bikes means car drivers are more used to seeing bikes, more likely to expect and consider bikes, and will take bike traffic more seriously.
* More bikes also makes bike-specific infrastructure more attractive to invest in. The city isn't going to build a separate bike path for a single biker, but for a thousand, they might.
Countries with the highest bike safety don't have mandatory helmet laws. Of course that's partially because those mandatory helmet laws are simply less necessary there, but also because they've found more effective ways to make bikes safer, while stimulating instead of discouraging bike use.
> No, that's never been the "purported goal." The goal is to protect people who already ARE cycling.
The real goal is often to reduce the number of people biking. This is why there is strong correlation between supporting mandatory helmet laws (and bicycle taxes, license plates and mandatory training) and opposing safe infrastructure such as segregated bike lanes.
> The goal is to protect people who already ARE cycling.
if you have 4x as many people on bikes, the cyclists with helmets are safer due to the "safety in numbers" effect. If you've done any urban bike riding you'd see this is obviously true.
When there are more cyclists on the streets, car drivers are used to taking care of them, so its safer for the individual cyclist.
Also, for many people, being safe includes not getting stopped by police. It's a different kind of safety, yes.
This isn't really hard to see, so i think your hate of clickbait is clouding your vision. There is no deception, mandatory helmet laws make cyclists less safe. At least that is the authors opinion.
Number of cyclists on the streets is incredibly important to safety. If drivers aren't expecting cyclists they pay less attention to them and aren't as practiced in how to drive safely around cyclists.
#1 supports their argument that a cyclist is more likely to be involved in a vehicular accident and therefore more likely to suffer an injury with mandatory helmet laws.
Less overall cyclists means less visibility and less awareness by motorists (ie. if you encounter less bikes, you're less likely to watch out for them)
the argument is that mandatory helmet laws make cyclists less safe, not that simply wearing a helmet makes one unsafe. i don't see what is misleading. yes it is an attention-grabbing headline but it is supported by the article.
Ah, another car vs bike culture war filled commentary section. Sadly a place where HN is not even immune.
To sum up the article, the effect of lots of bicyclists leading to careful driving is greater than the protective effect of wearing a helmet while biking. Because helmet laws do cause a drop in ridership, it's counterintuitively a net negative for cyclist safety. That is the claim of the article.
To refute this, one must show that the "critical mass theory" is not significant and that driver attentiveness to cyclists is not a function of the number of cyclists.
The claim is not refuted by giving studies showing that when cyclists crash and hit their head, then helmets are (incredibly) significant for reducing head injuries. Nor is the claim refuted by saying cyclists should not be in the road, or saying (without evidence) that there is no reduction in ridership from helmet laws (the article cites examples demonstrating that reduction).
So again, the car centric here need to focus on whether the critical mass effect is actually a real thing, or need to find the evidence that ridership is not a function of helmet laws (the data, generally and from this article, indicate that both are the case).
The most frustrating thing about people focussing on cycle helmets is that they have very little effect on cyclist safety. PPE should be the last thing that people consider when looking at road danger.
> Talking about helmets had become a time-consuming distraction, he said. “We’ve got to tackle the helmet debate head on because it’s so annoying,” he said. “It gets a disproportionate amount of coverage. When you have three minutes and someone asks ‘Do you wear a helmet’ you know the vast majority of your time when you could be talking about stuff that will make a difference, is gone.”
> He said the focus on helmets had made cycling seem more dangerous than it really is.
> “We’ve gone away from the facts,” he said. “We’ve gone to anecdotes. It’s like shark attacks - more people are killed building sandcastles than are killed by sharks. It’s just ludicrous that the facts aren’t matching up with the actions because the press focus, naturally, on the news stories, and [the notion that cycling is dangerous] becomes the norm, and it isn’t the norm.
> When the Australian cities of Melbourne and Brisbane mandated helmet use, it actually made streets less safe for cyclists. The number of people riding bikes dropped precipitously, which reduced the “Safety in Numbers” effect.
This links to [1], but this paper doesn't seem to support the assertion at all.
> These results help explain why two of the four companies operating in Sydney decided to leave the city in July 2018: the low rate of trips-per-day per bike, a high level of vandalism, and the threat of heavy fines from councils made the system one without potential for financial profit. While dockless bikesharing appears to be successful in many cities globally, the factors leading to its success have not been replicated in Sydney to date.
There's no mention of helmets, and the paper is specifically about bike sharing programs, not biking in general.
The Netherlands did a study on bike helmets and found that cars tend to be more dangerous with cyclists if the cyclists are wearing a helmet, which is why there are no mandatory bicycle helmet laws in the Netherlands. However, it's worth noting that the cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands also for the most part separates bikes and cars with more than just a line of paint, so their experience may not translate well to other countries with poor cycling infrastructure.
A better way to make cyclists and pedestrians safer would be more stringent laws against dangerous car designs, and some enforcement of the existing laws. We are starting to see US-style monster pickups and SUVs here in Belgium and they are a fucking abomination - far too large for city streets - and their extra weight and height plus reduced visibility make them dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.
I'm in favour of requiring a much stricter driver's license to drive those big pickups and SUVs. And maybe some other measures to discourage their unnecessary use.
I find this article riddled with circular and poor logic.
Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent people from riding bikes. Just like mandatory seat belt laws did not prevent anyone from driving cars!
"Lastly, we know these “quality of life” laws are disproportionately enforced in communities of color and in lower income communities." - what the hell?! Yes, helmet and safety laws are the reason why police officers disproportionately enforce various laws against communities of color. /s Let's blame this and not deal with the real problem: reform of police enforcement.
To deal with bike safety, we need to make everyone wear bike helmets until we reach critical mass in cycling adoption. /Some/ protection is better than nothing at all.
In the meantime, we need to implement better traffic calming and separation of automobile and cycling/pedestrian traffic. Kids die every year because in many areas, they have no choice but to bike on the side of a road that has cars whizzing past 60+ mph with less than 12 inches of separation in between.
I think the article and the arguments presented don't really make much sense, but I do find interesting that it says the article was published on Oct 5, 2022, yet there are comments going back as far as November 2019.
The article seems clearly from 2020. It leads with a concern over something from "last year" that is dated 2019.
On its topic, I was expecting to mostly disagree. That said, the case is compelling. To condense, it is basically saying don't turn it into a partisan conflict between riders and police. That plays out in predictably bad ways for communities.
Mandatory helmet laws make the number of injuries associated with biking go down. That is their purpose, and they are effective. Yes, some of that is people who would rather not bike at all than bike safely, and there are some non-linear effects from that, but it's still a net reduction in injuries.
There is a real need for society to discuss whether the value of reduced injuries outweighs the cost in terms of less cycling - for example more car emmisions, more traffic congestion, less easy cardio, etc. But to say people are less safe is just not true for the common definition of safe.
The effects of Safety In Numbers cannot be overstated. I’d go as far and say it’s even more important than cycling infrastructure like physically separate bike lanes. You do not want to be the only cyclist at a busy intersection between cars making a turn crossing your lane.
Might be counterintuitive, but if a helmet mandate reduces the number of riders even slightly it is a bad idea.
And of course: Wear a helmet. Especially if your city is still designed for cars.
Mandatory Helmet Laws may make cyclists less safe by macroscopic effects but for the love of God wear a helmet. I would not have a father right now if he had not been wearing a helmet when he hit a pothole.
It's not just cars / other road users that are potentially dangerous to cyclists, poor road surface or debris can just as likely cause a life-changing injury, even if you're not travelling at high speed. Wear a helmet.
This is kind of what the article says. It’s not anti-helmet.
For cities, bikeshare can be amazing—I live in DC and our CaBi system is very popular. It is a cheap and easy way for everyone to have access to a bike, and it complements the District’s investment in a bike lane network. A helmet law would kneecap the system.
Wearing a helmet is good, but getting people out of cars and onto bikes with good bike lanes will lead to overall health benefits for a community.
The article doesn't seem to make any claims about reduced safety. It claims there is a reduction in cycling, worse business for bike-sharing and more harassment of minorities.
But what are the concrete numbers on injuries (either absolute or per distance traveled) that would back up the safety claim? Or is the "less safe" not actually refering to physical safety while riding?
More people have head injuries in showers than on bicycles. Furthermore, the focus on helmets makes it sound as though head injuries were the only — or even primary — threat that cyclists face.
Seems one of the big issues here is that almost nobody will use bikesharing when needing to wear a helmet as people would rarely have a helmet available when wanting to rent a bike. I wonder how it would look if all rental bikes had a helmet included.
According to the CDC, 30% of injury related deaths are TBI-related, and 14% of those TBIs are from car accidents. Why not have mandatory helmets for auto drivers too?
Zero people in Holland use bike helmets, and we are the biggest bikers.
I usually say: 'if you need to wear a helmet to be safe, you shouldnt be biking'.
Make the streets safer, dont focus on the helmet.
Somewhat related, rugby players get injured less than American football players[1].
Also I can't help but imagine how much safer car drivers would be if they wore helmets while driving.
I wonder how many of the commenter here have actually ridden a bike?
Anyhow, one conveniently unasked question is "what do bike helmets protect the rider from"
Well, it isn't collisions with cars. It is unlikely to be brain injury. It isn't jaw fractures.
We know this because the lack of research in all these areas is almost non-existent.
The best we can say is that a loss of control incident (not a vehicle collision) may be mitigated in some dimension by wearing a helmet.
Pretty much all other assertions are just that, assertions with no basis in science. A single study doesn't count as basis.
There is however a lot of evidence for risk taking behaviours on the behalf of drivers. That's why 39,000 people were killed in road collions in the USA in 2020. 45% of them caused by speeding, alcohol impairment, or not wearing a seat belt.
Not wearing a seat belt is different to not wearing a bike helmet due to the extreme difference in speeds, collision dynamics and kinetic energy. Remember mv^2.
Are you implying to always wear a helmet? When you are in a car, in public transportation, walking down the street, going down the stairs or just always? The last time, I hit my head was in a house.
The closest I came to a concussion was when I slipped while walking on ice.
It is quite likely, I spend at least 10,000 of biking so far without a helmet. I had some small accident, but non where I got any brain damage. In most cases the accidents was the result of my own stupidity: being too hurried, not watching the traffic, or doing putting on a rain coat while biking.
That's a fallacious argument. There is no activity that could not be made more safe by wearing a helmet. Yet we don't because the arguments like yours are simple and wrong.
[+] [-] AlbertCory|3 years ago|reply
1. A reduction in the number of cyclists on streets;
2. Financial struggle for popular bike sharing systems; and
3. More exposure among vulnerable populations to unnecessary interactions with police.
NONE of these support the clickbait headline. #1 and #2 say that MHLs reduce the number of cyclists. And #3 fails to control for "percent of populations who ride without helmets."
None of them say that a cyclist wearing a helmet is just as likely, or more likely, to get injured.
> The unfortunate truth is mandatory helmet laws simply don’t lead to their purported goal, which is to make streets safer.
No, that's never been the "purported goal." The goal is to protect people who already ARE cycling.
[+] [-] taeric|3 years ago|reply
Do we know the full causal factors? I'd wager not. But it is a testable hypothesis as much as "mandating helmets will save lives is." Per the evidence of this article, that hypothesis is on much shakier ground than your post would allow.
[+] [-] shwestrick|3 years ago|reply
But the article is interested in a different question: "If I bike, how likely am I to be injured?".
This question is very heavily influenced by the ratio of bikes to cars on the road. More bikes leads to lower chance of injury for bicyclists.
[+] [-] 3bone|3 years ago|reply
> Safety in Numbers is a straightforward concept: More people on bikes creates safer conditions on our streets. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), which represents professional planners from 81 cities from around the United States, pointed this out in their own pushback on NTSB’s recommendations.
If you follow the links in the article you'll come to some actual research about the topic https://www.bmj.com/content/332/7543/722.2.
[+] [-] welshwelsh|3 years ago|reply
Basically, the only reason that bicycling is unsafe is cars. Cars are only a threat to cyclists when they share the same roads, which is only a problem because not enough people bike. The best way to ensure safety for cyclists is for there to be dedicated bike infrastructure that is completely separated from car infrastructure, and that's only going to happen once enough people switch to biking.
>None of them say that a cyclist wearing a helmet is just as likely, or more likely, to get injured.
That is not said or implied by the headline.
> The goal is to protect people who already ARE cycling.
If that's true, it's an idiotic and shortsighted goal. We have to do better than that- the goal should be to promote bicycling as a safe and accessible alternative to driving for everyone. 8-year-old children should be free to bike to school unsupervised without the risk of getting hit by a car. Mandatory helmet laws don't solve the problem, they make it worse.
[+] [-] mcv|3 years ago|reply
* More bikes means less cars, and cars are dangerous. Less cars means less danger.
* More bikes means car drivers are more used to seeing bikes, more likely to expect and consider bikes, and will take bike traffic more seriously.
* More bikes also makes bike-specific infrastructure more attractive to invest in. The city isn't going to build a separate bike path for a single biker, but for a thousand, they might.
Countries with the highest bike safety don't have mandatory helmet laws. Of course that's partially because those mandatory helmet laws are simply less necessary there, but also because they've found more effective ways to make bikes safer, while stimulating instead of discouraging bike use.
[+] [-] substation13|3 years ago|reply
The real goal is often to reduce the number of people biking. This is why there is strong correlation between supporting mandatory helmet laws (and bicycle taxes, license plates and mandatory training) and opposing safe infrastructure such as segregated bike lanes.
[+] [-] zzzeek|3 years ago|reply
if you have 4x as many people on bikes, the cyclists with helmets are safer due to the "safety in numbers" effect. If you've done any urban bike riding you'd see this is obviously true.
[+] [-] jona-f|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitL|3 years ago|reply
EDIT: Evidence: https://road.cc/content/news/268605-wearing-cycle-helmet-may...
[+] [-] Arainach|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codexb|3 years ago|reply
Less overall cyclists means less visibility and less awareness by motorists (ie. if you encounter less bikes, you're less likely to watch out for them)
[+] [-] xdennis|3 years ago|reply
By forcing them to either abandon cycling or become criminals?
We increasingly see dangerous substances being made legal while still pushing for the criminalization of getting from A to B.
I hope they make you wear a helmet on the sidewalk too. I only want you to be protected.
[+] [-] mike_hock|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ever1337|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeffbee|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seadan83|3 years ago|reply
To sum up the article, the effect of lots of bicyclists leading to careful driving is greater than the protective effect of wearing a helmet while biking. Because helmet laws do cause a drop in ridership, it's counterintuitively a net negative for cyclist safety. That is the claim of the article.
To refute this, one must show that the "critical mass theory" is not significant and that driver attentiveness to cyclists is not a function of the number of cyclists.
The claim is not refuted by giving studies showing that when cyclists crash and hit their head, then helmets are (incredibly) significant for reducing head injuries. Nor is the claim refuted by saying cyclists should not be in the road, or saying (without evidence) that there is no reduction in ridership from helmet laws (the article cites examples demonstrating that reduction).
So again, the car centric here need to focus on whether the critical mass effect is actually a real thing, or need to find the evidence that ridership is not a function of helmet laws (the data, generally and from this article, indicate that both are the case).
[+] [-] ndsipa_pomu|3 years ago|reply
From https://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-n...
> Talking about helmets had become a time-consuming distraction, he said. “We’ve got to tackle the helmet debate head on because it’s so annoying,” he said. “It gets a disproportionate amount of coverage. When you have three minutes and someone asks ‘Do you wear a helmet’ you know the vast majority of your time when you could be talking about stuff that will make a difference, is gone.”
> He said the focus on helmets had made cycling seem more dangerous than it really is.
> “We’ve gone away from the facts,” he said. “We’ve gone to anecdotes. It’s like shark attacks - more people are killed building sandcastles than are killed by sharks. It’s just ludicrous that the facts aren’t matching up with the actions because the press focus, naturally, on the news stories, and [the notion that cycling is dangerous] becomes the norm, and it isn’t the norm.
[+] [-] anorwell|3 years ago|reply
> When the Australian cities of Melbourne and Brisbane mandated helmet use, it actually made streets less safe for cyclists. The number of people riding bikes dropped precipitously, which reduced the “Safety in Numbers” effect.
This links to [1], but this paper doesn't seem to support the assertion at all.
> These results help explain why two of the four companies operating in Sydney decided to leave the city in July 2018: the low rate of trips-per-day per bike, a high level of vandalism, and the threat of heavy fines from councils made the system one without potential for financial profit. While dockless bikesharing appears to be successful in many cities globally, the factors leading to its success have not been replicated in Sydney to date.
There's no mention of helmets, and the paper is specifically about bike sharing programs, not biking in general.
[1] https://findingspress.org/article/7615-stationless-in-sydney...
[+] [-] JohnGB|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trmsw|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcv|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deafpolygon|3 years ago|reply
Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent people from riding bikes. Just like mandatory seat belt laws did not prevent anyone from driving cars!
"Lastly, we know these “quality of life” laws are disproportionately enforced in communities of color and in lower income communities." - what the hell?! Yes, helmet and safety laws are the reason why police officers disproportionately enforce various laws against communities of color. /s Let's blame this and not deal with the real problem: reform of police enforcement.
To deal with bike safety, we need to make everyone wear bike helmets until we reach critical mass in cycling adoption. /Some/ protection is better than nothing at all.
In the meantime, we need to implement better traffic calming and separation of automobile and cycling/pedestrian traffic. Kids die every year because in many areas, they have no choice but to bike on the side of a road that has cars whizzing past 60+ mph with less than 12 inches of separation in between.
[+] [-] frankjr|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] laborcontract|3 years ago|reply
Edit: Yep. https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/https://www.bicy...
[+] [-] taeric|3 years ago|reply
On its topic, I was expecting to mostly disagree. That said, the case is compelling. To condense, it is basically saying don't turn it into a partisan conflict between riders and police. That plays out in predictably bad ways for communities.
[+] [-] jjk166|3 years ago|reply
There is a real need for society to discuss whether the value of reduced injuries outweighs the cost in terms of less cycling - for example more car emmisions, more traffic congestion, less easy cardio, etc. But to say people are less safe is just not true for the common definition of safe.
[+] [-] konha|3 years ago|reply
Might be counterintuitive, but if a helmet mandate reduces the number of riders even slightly it is a bad idea.
And of course: Wear a helmet. Especially if your city is still designed for cars.
[+] [-] fredley|3 years ago|reply
It's not just cars / other road users that are potentially dangerous to cyclists, poor road surface or debris can just as likely cause a life-changing injury, even if you're not travelling at high speed. Wear a helmet.
[+] [-] jonstewart|3 years ago|reply
For cities, bikeshare can be amazing—I live in DC and our CaBi system is very popular. It is a cheap and easy way for everyone to have access to a bike, and it complements the District’s investment in a bike lane network. A helmet law would kneecap the system.
Wearing a helmet is good, but getting people out of cars and onto bikes with good bike lanes will lead to overall health benefits for a community.
[+] [-] alkonaut|3 years ago|reply
But what are the concrete numbers on injuries (either absolute or per distance traveled) that would back up the safety claim? Or is the "less safe" not actually refering to physical safety while riding?
[+] [-] scelerat|3 years ago|reply
Bicycle riders (in the US) are a small minority.
[+] [-] Eric_WVGG|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vorpalhex|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] macrolime|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fluoridation|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] conor_f|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] billyt555|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timzaman|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elenaferrantes|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hoosieree|3 years ago|reply
[1] http://michelicenter.com/publications/media/2008-bjsm-colleg...
[+] [-] time4tea|3 years ago|reply
Anyhow, one conveniently unasked question is "what do bike helmets protect the rider from"
Well, it isn't collisions with cars. It is unlikely to be brain injury. It isn't jaw fractures.
We know this because the lack of research in all these areas is almost non-existent.
The best we can say is that a loss of control incident (not a vehicle collision) may be mitigated in some dimension by wearing a helmet.
Pretty much all other assertions are just that, assertions with no basis in science. A single study doesn't count as basis.
There is however a lot of evidence for risk taking behaviours on the behalf of drivers. That's why 39,000 people were killed in road collions in the USA in 2020. 45% of them caused by speeding, alcohol impairment, or not wearing a seat belt. Not wearing a seat belt is different to not wearing a bike helmet due to the extreme difference in speeds, collision dynamics and kinetic energy. Remember mv^2.
[+] [-] andrewstuart|3 years ago|reply
It protects you from brain damage.
[+] [-] fjfaase|3 years ago|reply
The closest I came to a concussion was when I slipped while walking on ice.
It is quite likely, I spend at least 10,000 of biking so far without a helmet. I had some small accident, but non where I got any brain damage. In most cases the accidents was the result of my own stupidity: being too hurried, not watching the traffic, or doing putting on a rain coat while biking.
[+] [-] diarmuidc|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Dobbs|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] usrusr|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmvt|3 years ago|reply
this is not news. wearing helmets has been associated with a range of negative issues for years now. (https://road.cc/content/news/268605-wearing-cycle-helmet-may..., https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a29802208/helmet-laws-safe..., https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911102200.h...)
[+] [-] cies|3 years ago|reply
Helmets should be optional. Taking risks should be legal.
> Just wear a helmet.
You do you. Next up we gonna enforce pedestrians to wear air-bag suits "for their own safety", forbid roller skating, etc.
Disclaimer: living in the Netherlands.
[+] [-] barry-cotter|3 years ago|reply