Just in: Salsa Pistola

Pro cyclists wear helmets as it is mandated. Before it was mandated, very few wore them. Infrastructure, separation, 20 mph, traffic calming are far more important.

Bigger wheels should roll better over lumpy ground and bigger wheels will lead to more aesthetically pleasing bikes for very tall riders. The hazard in my view is that the market cannot support all sizes and even 29" wheels are already too unwieldy for the shorter riders that comprise most of the world's population, including, critically, most women. I fear the loss of sensible sizes for average users, pushed aside by marketing of equipment that gives marginal gains to superathletes in extreme terrain.

Yes but...you're not going to crash your car at 200 mph+ and are highly unlikely to roll it (and you may not have a roll cage but you do have a built-in safety cage), whereas cycling to work, given a suitable downhill, I can (fairly) easily reach the speeds for which pro cyclists wear helmets (30mph+). It's vanishingly unlikely that you will experience anything like the crash severity an F1 driver will face, whereas cycling, especially if you come into contact with a motor vehicle, it's quite possible you will experience the same crash severity as a pro cyclist, so if you agree with them that they should wear helmets when racing there is a pretty good came that you should emulate them.

I 100% agree with pro-cyclists when they say helmets are essential - just as I agree with Max Verstappen and Sebastien Ogier when they insist that helmets (and roll cages, six-point harnesses, and flame-retardant underwear) are essential. Should I wear one to cycle to work, or the shops? I don't wear a helmet when I drive to work, my car doesn't have a six point harness or a roll cage and - you might not believe this - I don't even own any flame retardant underwear.

Erm, I don't think _they've_ dropped it. I think just possibly it has more to do with het Nieuwsblad rebranding themselves as just Nieuwsblad.

RE: Built it and they will come really is a falsehood and we deserve a better thought through network. It's a partial truth. Necessary, but not sufficient. Unless you're taking it as literally as "build a cycle lane on the moon and they will come". Without good provision for cyclists so they don't have to mingle with pedestrians, buses or large volumes of traffic at > 20mph most people aren't going to cycle (even the many short trips suitable for "casual cyclists") : a few will walk but because "mass motoring" many will use the car that's right there outside and that we've prioritised to get everywhere. We're also missing a trick with the synergy between public transport and cycling, because we've prioritised driving over that public transport. I've never seen anything remotely as convenient as the following place anywhere in the UK... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HACaRm2KP6Q

Aargh edit button back please!

In 2026, wearing a helmet is a no brainer. Except for brainless cyclists. Agreed, if you don't have a brain perhaps a helmet is less useful? Although perhaps even cyclists with no brains would appreciate protection from abrasions and some mitigation to soft tissue and even bone injury?

"...Scottish Cycling will deliver a social impact programme that focuses on three core areas: tackling inactivity and improving mental wellbeing; making Britain more productive and prosperous; and supporting communities to thrive.” This statement sounds like an ambiyious political platform. All of the above for only 1 million quid. Way to go Scottish Cycling.

RE: NL. Indeed it's true that the authorities are *recommending* them (though not all cycling groups IIRC) *. That is relatively recent (apart from one health and safety org there). Thing is - this is in a context where they have *already* made cycling so safe that they have significant numbers of very young and very old riders **. Both known to be both at greater risk of crashing and of worse outcomes if they do. Certainly in the UK it can feel like "it's something we as cyclists can do" in the absence of most of the more effective means of preventing injury or mitigating consequences eg. "eliminate the major hazard" or "separate people from that hazard" - that being drivers of motor vehicles. Regardless - even in the UK on average the most significant effect on health involving cycling is positive - from cycling (as opposed to not)! If wearing a helmet makes anyone more likely to cycle then I say wear one! * I believe many groups point to the statistics and suggest that the most cost-effective intervention may still be taking any money that would be spend on promoting helmet use and spending it on getting more cycling and reducing car use, even there. ** That's "safe" but the biggest part is "subjectively safe" - as most people go by how things feel, not reading stats. Of course there are lots of reasons why far more people cycle there: convenience, it's been normalised as a mode of transport, there have been measures to discourage driving short distances, indeed a different philosophy of transport (see sustainable safety).