I feel like you're treating cars as the reason people wear bike helmets, and as a commuter cyclist.... No?

If cars did not exist, you should still wear a helmet. If I were in perfect visibility on a straight, guaranteed clear, brand-new concrete bike path that has nobody else on it except a first aid team trailing 200 feet behind me, I would still wear a helmet because I'm not a fucking idiot.

And whereas it's obviously common to recommend wearing bright colors, I don't think I've ever seen helmets be the main PPE someone targets specifically for a car crash.

We do have administrative and engineering controls too.. licenses to drive, laws, and separated highways, sidewalks etc. We're still too far down the ladder, but you either missed this or are just trolling.

Ever since a SUV almost ran over my 4yo while the driver was looking at their smartphone instead of the red light, I insist that my family takes route 3, isolation (use the pedestrian bridge). But I have to constantly explain and reexplain myself even to my own family members.

Lemmy ahh post.

Let's replace the hazard with !micromobility@lemmy.world! Too bad there are massive industries funding an insane fight against it.

The assholes leading the oil and automotive industries seem to be amoral at best and have little to no regard for all the lives it costs having a car-centric society.

I choose all options simultaneously, so yes I wear a helmet but also Chicago is adding protected bike lanes left and right and Illinois is flirting with enshrining the Idaho stop into state law. Experiments with pedestrianizing streets have been extremely popular on the hyperlocal level, as well.

Obligatory podcast episode:

[The War on Cars] Fine, We're Doing a Helmet Episode https://pdst.fm/e/traffic.libsyn.com/secure/waroncars/TWOC_2026-09-08-E179-HELMETS_GENERAL.mp3?dest-id=807818

Nobody has ever been runover in my living room. So it works.

Where does sandy loam goes on this

There are many players involved and each has a different appetite for risk and access to different controls for the risk encountered.

Suppose for example, you're an automobile manufacturer. Then the success of campaigns to eliminate automobiles is a risk to your business. To control that risk, you may support politicians who advocate for your interest. (IE the Ford gov in Ontario CA, there is a large base of auto mfgs in Ontario)

On the other hand, you might be a person who needs to get to the other side of the street. In this scenario, if your appetite for risk is large enough you can don PPE and attempt a crossing or eliminate the risk completely and not cross at all.

Supporting local advocacy groups is most effective in areas where there aren't embedded interests like the Ontario example. In fact, most cities/regions don't have an embedded automobile manufacturing or related base and would be well-suited to grass roots advocacy.