Originally Posted by
degnaw
Here's the point. The "odds" take into consideration the "typical" person, who probably never does anything considered dangerous while riding a bike. However, I personally exceed 15mph, occupy 45mph roads, and meet other risk factors that someone pedaling around campus doesn't. What I'm saying is, my odds of injury/death are probably much higher than those odds, which reflect the average cyclist.
Of course, I also often meander around town at 15mph. When i do so, I don't find it particularly more dangerous than a walk in the park - but that's a different scenario.
This is an intelligent attitude. IF you believe that helmets offer meaningful protection (in my view, having read as much of the evidence as I can, the jury is out) then you should choose whether or not to wear one based on the level of risk you encounter. The danger of a serious head injury while just riding along is tiny. Wearing one for riding at moderate speeds in a park really does make no more sense than putting one on before you walk down the stairs.
If you're racing in a crit the risk will be higher, and if you're a downhill mtb champion it will be higher still - though in the latter circumstances a proper helmet, with full face protection, will be the choice.
So people should follow your example and make theirr choices based on an understanding of the risks involved, not just an erroneous belief that cycling is dangerous. Mostly, it isn't. And they should also understand that in all three of the scenarios I describe, the thing that will make the most difference to their safety is investing some time in becoming a more competent cyclist. Better bike handling skills, and a better appreciation of how to ride safely in heavy traffic, will make a hugely greater difference to their safety than will their choice about helmets.