Originally Posted by
Six jours
This is an utterly nonsensical line of reasoning. It could be used to argue for helmet use in any conceivable situation: "You don't wear a helmet while dancing. Does that mean you shouldn't wear one while tying your shoes? Are you so foolishly consistent that you can't wear a helmet while tying your shoes just because you also don't wear it while dancing?"
It's perfectly sensible, and it's not designed to argue for helmet use, but rather to argue against the idea that you
shouldn't wear a helmet while bicycling just because you don't do so in all other potentially dangerous activities.
Is it consistent or logical to protect yourself--or at least attempt to do so--part of the time but not all of the time? Probably not. Is it foolish or undesirable to do so? Probably not. Is it wiser or more preferable to take some safety precautions or none?