I don't necessarily agree with op, but you rarely see cyclists with helmets in amsterdam and other dutch cities where a lot of people use cycling as their default transportation method, and where as a cyclist you have a priority over car drivers, whereas in places like berlin you have much more cyclists wearing helmets, and rightly so. Though I have to say that I myself only wore the helmet while working as a bike messenger, and rarely while not. So obviously on a day where I'll be biking for 6-8 hours I'm more likely to get into an accident, helmet or not.
Ah, ok, I'm starting to see a different perspective on helmet use: comparing cities rather than individuals in a city.
Perhaps the studies should differentiate these: i.e. comparing accident rates of helmets against non-helmets within each city individually, vs comparing e.g. non-helmet-users in Amsterdam against helmet-users in Berlin.
I live in Dublin which, as mentioned in the article, has recently seen marked improvements in cycle safety. Helmet usage here is high but under 50% and seems evenly distributed. I'd be curious to see the stats on what the means for accident rates local to here.
Agree,It's a big turn off for me personally to be honest. And I imagine institues in countries which were once colonized wouldn't be excited about using such a product/project due to fair historical reasons.
Organizations still consist of people. An organization that forces it's employees to work with a tool that has a very historically charged name, one which perhaps even degrades the people working, is gonna have much more trouble than the one which threw out the tool because of the name, at least that's my opinion. Imagine a british company asking it's division, in what was a former colony, to work with a tool called colony. You could be a fully technical person who has no regard for how certain words were used historically and just understand them by definition and without the historical context, but then you shouldn't be in a position making managerial decisions which affect your international workforce.
Did you see my other post? Now you've upped the ante; even working with this tool "degrades" people.. A pretty big stretch imo, especially since "colony" is otherwise a pretty common word - you are only focusing on negative semantics.
> Imagine a british company..
I can, and still see no problem.
> but then you shouldn't be in a position
Why? By what standard does anyone weight "historical context"? It's your supposition that there would be any affect at all to international workers.
