I don’t know. I’m not sure if anyone has those stats specifically. I know that head injuries are the leading cause of cyclist deaths and un-helmeted riders are three times more likely to die from head injuries

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15389588.2024.2363476#abstract

This is data from Denmark, so a bike-centric country with good infrastructure. It still reports a significant decrease in traumatic brain injury for helmet use in a given crash.

I like the idea, but if it doesn’t work than it’s not great. Plus sharing helmets can be I’ll advised for health reasons.

I know there was a company in Europe that was working on a portable airbag style helmet. Hopefully something like that would make bike share more viable.

Even with dedicated lanes, bike accidents without helmets are more dangerous.

The problem with bike share is the helmet issue. I love my bike but I’m not going to carry a helmet everywhere I go on the off chance I might bike.

Maybe banks could use a way to authenticate the user a second way, that doesn’t involve a password. If only. (Sidenote: why do banks still insist on sms 2FA?)

Feels like a Calvin’s Dad explanation.

I wouldn’t call the argument a bad faith argument. Perhaps there is a line somewhere, but ultimately, his argument is that “two people who have an increased chance of passing on genetic disorders can’t have children/have a relationship”.

For most people, when asked this question outside of the incest framing, would argue that the state has no role to dictate that line. The slope is too slippery and screams too much like eugenics. It’s only within the social taboo of incest do people think that argument is acceptable.