This is at least the third time that The Post has pictured a cyclist without a helmet, seemingly condoning this unsafe practice. After at least one of those occasions, a disapproving letter was printed. Yet here it has happened again.
While the article was not about bicycle safety per se, it was still disappointing to see such an image. It was especially disconcerting that the young woman pictured is the organizer, according to the article, of “a monthly city ride . . . that draws hundreds of enthusiasts.”
Let’s get the message straight and send it loud and clear: It is unsafe to ride a bike without a helmet.
Sigh. Just because the Post shows a photo of an activity doesn't mean they condone it [They've also published photos of child soldiers for example]. The letter writer was astounded to see such a photo - and is sure that other cycling enthusiasts are too - despite the fact that many cyclists choose to ride this way and the Post has published them before. Is the Post not allowed to show the world as it actually is? Are they now required to make value judgements about how it should be and only show images that meet with that view? Should they not show photos of protesters arguing because that isn't how they think people should behave? The letter writer should just accept that the Post is not going to force Ms. Serementis to put a helmet on before they photograph her anymore than they will force her to put sunscreen on.
As to whether cycling is unsafe without a helmet...I'll go with cycling is likely more safe with a helmet than without, but not sure that the helmet is the difference between safe and unsafe.