> The problem is that as another commenter points out, passengers wouldn't feel safe next to a helmet-wearing driver while not wearing one themselves.

Too bad? If your business model depends on this then you just have to suck it up and deal with it, not compromise worker safety.

> The proper solution here is to provide helmets for passengers as well, but that raises more problems - they needs to be a way to sanitize them, multiple sizes might need to be available (I assume they need to be sized properly for adequate protection?), etc.

Too bad? Cost of doing business.

Just FYI, I'm not defending them by any means. I take a very dim view of this company.

If customer safety conflicts with worker safety, and the company cares about neither, even by contemporary standard it's a particularly callous corporation with a particularly unsound business plan.

"We're sorry your husband got a concussion, but at least his passenger felt safe!"

This isn't the 70s. Just give everyone helmets. Passengers included. And yes you should clean them. If you're running a business I'm sure you can afford some little bottles of alcohol spray.

But if it's about safety, why don't actual car taxi cab companies provide helmets for their passengers? It's easier to get a serious head injury in a car than on a bicycle.

And if a taxi company banned their drivers from wearing seatbelts, that would also be absurd.

Cars have padded headrests, safety belts and airbags... I don't think helmets would help much inside cars?

IIRC they do (more than on bicycles) but it was a while since I read the studies so I'm open to being wrong.

>The problem is that as another commenter points out, passengers wouldn't feel safe next to a helmet-wearing driver while not wearing one themselves.

By this logic, no one would feel safe riding a bus when the driver has a seatbelt and you don't.

I happen to subscribe to this logic. I will often specifically choose bus seats that I think will fare better in a crash, as I feel at risk without belts. I'm surprised others don't feel the same. I'm also worried those vertical grab poles for standing passengers will become effective skull crushers in a crash.

In all seriousness, this does actually bother me every time I ride the bus. Particularly if I end up in the open row of seats right along the back.

Even in Vietnam the scooter-taxi services provide helmets for passengers.

A first world country has zero excuse.

>> The problem is that as another commenter points out, passengers wouldn't feel safe next to a helmet-wearing driver while not wearing one themselves.

I actually laughed out loud reading this.

So what? It’s the company’s job to ensure safety for the riders and the staff. There are many places in the world where it’s actually illegal not to wear a helmet.

If you get into a business like this; and you didn’t factor this in, you’re a plain and simple idiot and your business deserves to fail if you make it the staff’s problem.

Shame on these idiots. I’d never heard of these guys before, and my first impression is one of the worst I could have. How is this even worth it for them from a PR side?

> the objective here is to make money whatever-it-takes..

This. Definitely. However if it came to court, as indeed it might, and they tried to argue helmets cause risky behavior, it wouldn't take Johnny Cochrane to get them slapped with a massive fine and laughed out of court.

They're gambling that the cost of safely resolving the issue will be more than any legal costs. Talk about preventing risky behavior!

I very much doubt this service is sustainable so most likely this is just a stop-gap/desperate hack until they reach their "exit", whether yet another round of VC money, a buy-out by a bigger idiot or quietly shutting down.

I bet they all know this isn't viable and just hope this problem disappears before an accident actually happens and brings this in front of a court.

This is what my lawyer would tell me is willful. And high risk.

>passengers wouldn't feel safe next to a helmet-wearing driver while not wearing one themselves.

Wouldn't the same apply to mask wearing? Yet we consistently see service employees wearing them and customers not.

> Wouldn't the same apply to mask wearing?

No, for a ton of reasons. Off the top of my head:

(1) Masks are more effective at preventing transmission than reception.

(2) Different individuals have different levels of concern, which might lead one to choose a mask and another to choose not to wear one.

(3) Different individuals face different levels of risk. The person who is immunocompromised may wear a mask even when it would make no sense for other people.

(4) The customer may encounter 2-3 service employees in a day; the service employee may encounter hundreds of customers in the same time.

And that's without even getting into political issues (in the US, where mask-wearing has become politicized).

An acquaintance of mine worked in a casino that banned mask wearing by employees early on during the pandemic out of concern for worrying customers. Unfortunately several of his coworkers died of COVID before the lockdowns shut everything down.

Passengers could always bring their own helmets if they feel they're safer wearing one.

EDIT: also, this doesn't explain prohibiting helmets for cargo bikes, too.

> EDIT: also, this doesn't explain prohibiting helmets for cargo bikes, too.

I think it's a PR thing. They don't want prospective passengers seeing their branded bikes as dangerous enough to justify wearing a helmet, regardless of whether that particular bike is currently transporting passengers.

I forget the name of them, but there's those expensive air bag helmets, I think those are a one size fits all.

Hövding?

I thought they had two sizes, but maybe not the new ones.