Originally Posted by
Andy_K
In before the move to A&S.
Seriously though, having been involved in multiple crashes that involved landing on my head, you won't get me to give up my helmet. I do think the article makes a good point about city biking though. When a bicycle is used for city transportation, low speeds are significantly more acceptable than for, say, a suburban commute of 10+ miles each way. I think if people are riding sensibly around the city at a slow speed it's probably OK not to have a helmet.
Of course, the premise that helmets are holding back U.S. cycling transportation share is completely contrary to the reality of U.S. transportation characteristics. Helmet use might hold back the rate at which people take 3-5 mile trips in good weather over flat terrain, but most people aren't making that sort of trip. People traveling 10+ miles to their destination aren't likely to just hop on a bike and go, making the whole trip at low speed, and arriving at their destination fresh and presentable.
Isn't it the other way around? If I had the idea that I needed a helmet for a trip, whether it's more or less than 5 miles, I wouldn't take the bike at all. Of course a helmet is unfit to make cycling safe, it reduces the chance of head injury within a certain range of impact, but it's a false sense of safety if the chance of hitting your head justifies wearing one. Soldiers wear helmets, but that doesn't make war safe for them either.
Originally Posted by
wphamilton
I don't want to become emotionally vested in it either way so I allow myself the deliberate choice. The only thing I feel strongly about in this issue is in opposing governments and other groups from taking that choice away.
Or any other pressure on that choice, like 'you should wear a helmet'. Personally I think it's quite rude to interfere in any way with a personal choice like that, if I see someone wearing helmet I'm not saying anything about either, allthough it might be more justified.