Originally Posted by
MMACH 5
Characterizing "anti-helmet" posts very negatively is not asking for justification. Similarly, characterizing "pro-helmeters" as hair-shirt nannies is rather negative, but these are also not asking for justification.
I don't think most here ask bare-headers to justify their decision to not wear a helmet. It's more common and probably understandable that they be asked to back up any claims when trying to convince others to not wear a helmet.
This goes both ways. A helmeteer is rarely asked to justify why they choose to wear a helmet. However, when they try to convince others to wear a helmet, they are understandably asked to back up any claims.
That is why I'm still here... I have no problem people deciding not to wear helmets... It's some of the "information" given out by bare headers that doesn't jive with reality, like it's safer to ride without a helmet because, A; you would ride safer, B; your head would actually heave less chance of hitting the pavement, C; A helmet actually increases the injury...
Really? while all of this may be "true" in a certain small %... Over all, wearing of a helmet is benifficial to most, when said head hits pavement. It just is... Now the "risk" of said head hitting the pavement is a different debate, as is how helpful the helmet actually is...