bikerider,
Count me as one who sees your point. For the helmet advocates who do not see bikerider's point, read on.
Something that I have been noticing with all the helmet threads is that:
1) It is always the helmet advocates who are attacking people.
2) Both sides are really saying the same thing.
Point (1) may be debated, but point (2) is most important. The people on the "choice" side emphasize the importance of training cyclists to keep accidents from happening in the first place. Their complaint is that with all the emphasis on helmets in the last few years, the point of training has been lost. They obviously think that training is more important than the equipment.
The helmet advocates construe the choice argument as an attack on a very reasonable piece of cycling safety equipment. After they are done yelling about the stupidity of the "choice" people, they state in the next breath that "of course cyclists have to be trained to ride with traffic" or something to that extent.
The fact is that nobody is advocating that no one should ride ride with helmets. Likewise, nobody is advocating slapping helmets on heads and that be all. From an advocacy standpoint, a debate about the effectiveness of helmets vs. the effectiveness of training would by much more productive than a shouting contest. Then we will have a basis for distributing the limited resources of cycling advocacy. When having this debate, remember these two things:
It is true that requiring helmets will turn some people off to cycling. It is also true that helmets afford a measure of protection to the head.
And no yelling please!
