A guy stopped in the road on the way to the restaurant (well, we were going to -- he was driving the other way) to yell at us to put a helmet on T.
So here's my question. He's on a balance bike. He's moving _no faster_ than a small child's running pace -- there's no hill or anything to coast down so he can't get going more than 5-6 mph. He's _on the sidewalk_, and balance bikes by definition are really low to the ground. Why the *fuck* would a kid in this scenario need a helmet? Do kids need helmets to run down the sidewalk?
I thought not.
It's like there is this magical thinking going on. Wheels, ergo helmet. Let's show a _little_ sense here.
But Mr. I-Know-What-Your-Kid-Should-Be-Doing Buzzkill was not annoying enough to erase the thrill of having _walked_, with two children, to a restaurant, eaten lunch, and returned home on foot (and 2 wheeler, and stroller, but still).
ETA: And because someone out there is going to take Mr. Buzzkill's side, I'll just deposit this turd from the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute:
"First, ask your Physics prof what can happen to a head dropped from the normal height where you ride, say about 5 feet up, when it hits the concrete walkway. Your prof will tell you about g forces the head can experience from that drop height. Bike helmets are tested in a two meter drop, a little higher, but that five feet is all the impact you need to mess up your brain. You don't need forward speed at all, although it can make it worse--ask the Physics prof about vectors."
This is an argument for wearing a helmet while standing upright as an adult of average size. Is this _really_ where we want to go with this?
ETAYA: And yeah, I know a lot of accidents happen on sidewalks. But we were the only people and cyclists on the sidewalk at the time, T. was supervised throughout, he never got more than a few yards ahead of us and was going at an adult walking pace pretty much the whole time.