Originally Posted by
chasm54
I think this is a fair question. But it isn't the only question.
Many of the posters in this thread who do not wear helmets are people of a certain age. I myself, for example, am in my mid-fifties. I've been riding bikes for well over forty years. When I learned to ride, and for about half my adult life, nobody wore a helmet. And - this is the crucial point - it never occurred to anyone that cycling was an activity so dangerous as to require wearing a helmet. I was brought up in a world which believed - rightly - that cycling was relatively safe. And cycling is still relatively safe, in fact it has got safer in this country over the years as the number of deaths on the roads (drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, all) has declined.
So in my case, and I suspect this goes for many other posters here, my decision not to wear a helmet has nothing to do with my image of myself, and everything to do with my image of cycling: as a fun, safe, cheap way of getting around.
Probably so on the whole (buncha' curmudgeons!
), but not so here, FWIW. I'm 23.
As to
my reasoning, I, like most folks, took it for granted that helmets just work. Like seatbelts. Duh. It was just something you did - strap on a helmet, get on a bike. Then it was pointed out to me that it isn't so black and white, and that evidence supporting them was shaky, and there was actually lots of evidence to the contrary. Upon weighing the evidence, I decided that wearing a helmet was no more necessary on a bike (in most cases and mine) than anything other activity, and that a bike helmet wouldn't help save my life anyway (which was all I was concerned about - not so much minor injuries). If I were to a wear a helmet biking, why not while walking or driving? Simple answer: It's a PITA for any of those activities, with not much payoff (and uncomfortable and sweaty).