Originally Posted by
closetbiker
it places it in context.
you may do otherwise of course, but I don't think it's helps people riding bikes.
If you don't place the argument in context, you're making a prejudicial argument
The context is cycling
The questions ultimately boil down to the following, as I see it:
Can you hurt your head while cycling? What is the likelihood and possible types/severity of injury?
Can helmets help mitigate or prevent head injuries while cycling?
The rest is simply personal preference. It's not about forcing someone to be consistent across all endeavors.
If a helmet can prevent/lessen head injuries while cycling, and
if someone chooses to protect themselves with one while cycling but not elsewhere, so what? That just means they choose to lessen danger to themselves part of the time. And
if it turns out after exhaustive scientific research that helmets irrefutably provide no benefit or actively cause harm, then it's still a personal preference whether to wear one or not (barring laws to the contrary). Live and let live.
Where helmet laws are concerned, you can a) make a factual legal argument as to why one is/isn't invalid or b) voice a political opinion about how or when government should mandate citizens' behavior. With the latter, we're again in the realm of personal preference. Live and let live.