They must be so smart that they are dumb. Or helmets are not provided for free by Google.

They think they're still on a college campus...until they get killed or severely brain damaged. It'll happen, the odds cannot be denied. Nobody is immune. My condolences in advance.

Bicycle helmet usage is far higher in the USA than in Europe, yet fatality rates are far higher in the USA. Are helmets really your best solution?

The reasons that Europe is far safer are simple: slower car speeds in residential and business areas, more attentive drivers, and wider bike lanes.

@European

You'll need to define Europe before making such a Euro-centric claim.

Right European, and if they didn't have all that great infrastructure (Like we don't) we would see people in Europe wearing more helmets and getting hit more. Therefore, until we do have the safer infrastructure in place, helmets are a smart thing and not wearing them, quite dumb.

If you claim to be an advocate for bicycle safety, you should be advocating for all the things I mentioned, not just the most one-sided and least-useful idea. Pushing for helmets without any of the rest is the equivalent of blaming the victim, just like the people who blame pedestrians for getting hit by cars in crosswalks. Always make eye contact with every driver in every direction ... as if that is even physically possible on our 4 lane 35mph streets.

I am not opposed to bicycle helmets, but I am opposed to people pushing that as the city's primary bicycle safety plan.

Most cyclists in Britain and other European cities do not wear helmets.

However, most cyclists in Britain and other European cities pay attention to traffic rules and stop at stop signs and traffic lights, wear high visibility vests and use lights even during daylight, and realise that they are vehicles not pedestrians. If a cyclist rides a bike defensively, paying attention to traffic and understands their vulnerability, they are more unlikely to have an accident whereby they are unlikely to hurt their head.

Prevention of accidents is a primary head protection.

Helmets aren't practical for bike share programs. It takes too long to properly adjust them, and people worry about lice. You know what's more dangerous than not wearing a helmet? Not biking at all. Web Link

Yeah, look at all those bicyclists who die in MV every year because they don't wear helmets... Um....

Let's not manufacture problems that do not exist. Scott Lamb is right--sitting in your car getting fatter and fatter and then complaining about the dangers of bicycling... LOL!

Oh, I get it. European was just changing the subject. Luckily the city is NOT pushing them as a primary safety plan. What is going on in this thread is that people are discussing why Googlers are not wearing something that will help prevent harm in case there is an accident.

It would be similar to discussing people who do not use their seat belts while driving. Yes, prevention of an accident is always preferable, but sticking to the topic at hand, IF someone is involved in an accident(actual definition of the word), then a helmet on top is beneficial.

Helmet-less Googlers. That's the topic if people are still keeping score.
The thread on alternative and more comprehensive safety measures is expected to be started by European shortly.