From their point of view, it's like if a delivery company banned drivers from installing roll-cages and racing harnesses - the initial question should be, why on earth do you think you need that?
A fall from bicycle height onto concrete can kill you if you hit your head—even if the bicycle is completely stationary. This rule is BS and I expect the company will be pressured to reverse their decision immediately.
Sincerely, a guy who's probably alive because of a bicycle helmet.
It's more like if a delivery company banned their drivers from installing seat belts and airbags. Even if you are a perfect driver, other people aren't and on a bike, your will be the one hurting after a crash.
Not at all. Seatbelts are a legal requirement, helmets are not. This is employees wearing body amour, which is seen as either encouraging risk-taking, or giving the illusion that the activity is risky.
> or giving the illusion that the activity is risky.
Urban biking is inherently risky, especially in countries/states/cities with lackluster or nonexistent safe cycling infrastructure.
Wearing a helmet is just trying to reduce the potential damage from unforeseen and unexpected accidents - things that may likely be 100% outside of control of the biker once they are on the road. It's not a matter of "I want to wear a helmet so that I can take more risks" and it's ridiculous that Pedal Me is peddling such an excuse.
I'm pretty sure a professional looking branded helmet would be better for business. This is just a classic case of putting the employee at risk of injury to scire some tiny marketing points. This is an easy decision. Endanger employees or make a tiny bit more money. Factor in one lawsuit and all the profit will be gone.
In Germany it's actually discussed quite heavily whether to make helmets a legal requirement. I also don't see how you don't think of bikes driving on roads as risky. Even with a helmet, you can get very seriously injured; a helmet will just help you to not die and (hopefully) still walk again afterwards. Feel free to look up images from serious bike accidents; I can't imagine anyone sane risking that, helmet or not.
I cycle 10,000km+ a year in London, so I think I have a better idea about this than the vast majority of HN commenters. I generally wear a helmet, but encouraging and definitely enforcing helmet use is the least effective thing we can do to protect people [0].
Well, if you think wearing a helmet increases risk, why do you wear one?
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to force anyone to wear a helmet. It's completely fine if one wants to take that risk. But forbidding them is just insane.
Also, helmets are not a get-out-of-jail-free-card. They increase your chances of survival in case of a crash, you will still get injured. Protecting people might be the least effective thing compared to eliminating the hazard, but splitting cars and bikes is simply not always an option.
But I stand by my original comment, even if they do think forbidding helmets avoids a few accidents, they should have smelled the shitstorm from a mile away (and people running a bike company should really be more empathetic towards bikers).
Nobody's even "encouraging" (let alone "enforcing") helmet use in this case. This is purely staff riders choosing on their own whether or not they should wear a helmet, and Pedal Me throwing a fit over it over some patently absurd "safety reasons".
Yours seems to be based on the assumption that if it is not mandated by law, it is not a good idea that can save lives, which is the criteria by which others are evaluating this
It's also worth noting that biking in a city around cars and bikes and other people IS objectively risky, to the point where it is completely reasonable for someone to choose to wear a single piece of safety equipment over their single most important human organ
