Stylish Recession Cyclists Make Fashion Statements on Expensive Bikes

Thanks for your thoughtful response - I'm glad you weighed both sides and wrote in. I agree with you that many people perceive safety as a huge barrier to bicycle commuting, and it's something that advocacy and safety organizations will have to fight. The health benefits of biking are proven to outweigh the risks. Certainly, more bikers on the road will improve this further, as it will train drivers to be more cautious. But the roads are not there yet. The amount of bikers is increasing quickly, but there's a still a learning curve for drivers. I hesitate to even say this, because I don't want to scare people away either, but last summer was a particularly dangerous one for bikers, since there were so many inexperienced ones (unlike you) on the road - people were calling it the 'summer of splat.' Of those accidents, there were certainly people who were wearing helmets and who died anyway. That's not always going to be the case, though. You can't really be sure how an accident will turn out - people can suffer major head injuries from simple spills, or from getting doored, while others will get up and walk away with some bruises. I'm a bike commuter too, and I don't think it's worth the risk, even if wearing my helmet gets uncomfortably hot in the summer, or does terrible things to my hair. At the same time, I think that smart bicycling plays a big part in preventing accidents. But to cite that eye-rolling cliche: better safe than sorry.

As for the $40 barrier to entry - if we're getting people out of their cars and onto a bike, a one-time cost of $40 for a helmet is a heck of a lot of saved money compared to the price of a daily car (or even subway) commute. So I don't think cost is the issue - it's comfort, as you've demonstrated. I also think it's really interesting that bike organizations (like the DC one cited in the article I linked to) won't take a position on the issue because it's too controversial among bikers. You may see that as the future topic of a post.

Maura Judkis of DC 5:50PM April 17, 2009

hey there, i'm the guy from the article.

with my quote, i didn't mean to come off as if i'm proudly obstinate in the face of those who call me an idiot (i may be obstinate, but it's not something i take pride in). the article reads like i must think those people are the true idiots. in reality, i think both points of view are entirely legitimate, and am even genuinely appreciative of those who suggest there's some value worth protecting in my skull.

that applies to most meddlers, but not to those who shout their advice from cars, perhaps in some mistaken belief that -- simply by virtue of riding a bike helmetless -- i am a rule breaker, and do not belong in their roadway. i think those people are motivated by a desire to exert control, and i consider their commands, and the implication that bike helmets ought to be mandated by law, as oppressive to bicycling.

i derive no self satisfaction from going helmetless, i just prefer it; i don't need to demonstrate some kind of renegade streak. that said, i don't consider my failing to wear a helmet to be wholly the product of thoughtless neglect; it's not entirely unprincipled.

as you recognize in your blog post, making bikes attractive and accessible and practical to a wider audience gets more people on bikes, and an increased number of bicyclists on the road in turn yields dividends in safety, by disciplining drivers. NYC is further along than DC in this regard. one obstacle to getting new folks on bikes is the belief, mistaken in my opinion, that bike riding is an inherently dangerous activity. that belief is demonstrated by your insistence that everyone adhere to simple rule number 3.

the truth is you don't need to wear a helmet (or roll up your pant leg (there are chain guards on some bikes) or wear layers (sometimes whatever you're wearing is absolutely fine)) in order to ride to work; you can reasonably choose to accept whatever risk (minimal, in my opinion) is involved in riding without a helmet. i don't have the statistics on hand, but, on your bicycle commute today, it's probably actually highly unlikely that you'll have some kind of accident where if you went helmetless, you'd die or wind up drooling your life away in a vegetative state, and where, if you had worn a helmet, you'd live on, uninjured.

it's unfair to misrepresent this acceptably safe mode of transportation that way. you're setting up a "$40" barrier to entry. as a person who paid either nothing or $25 at most at garage sales or junk shops for most of the bikes i rode when i first started out, that's a problem. (nyc has been giving away free helmets for a while though.) the same could be said for people who, like me, don't like the way helmets look. (the free helmets look awful!)

along these lines, a factoid: "The Dutch really hate bicycle helmets. While they may help with cyclists who fall off their bikes, they don’t help much in car collisions" http://bit.ly/vsknI

James of NY 3:11PM April 17, 2009

They will find that cycling is worthwhile in any economic climate: for health, the environment, sociability, and it's just fun! The financial benefits are real, but secondary.

There are many stylish bikes which don't cost $2000. Bicycles can be so personalized I'd venture to say that there is an affordable bicycle for everyone.

I appreciate your comments on my blog more than I can convey here, and I hope to see you all in the bike lane!

Charlotte from chic cyclist of MA 11:23AM April 17, 2009