Originally Posted by
elcruxio
I'm not getting your point. According to one accident where someone hit his head we should all use helmets? (now that was a strawman! look it up man)
No, you claiming that my point was that because of a single accident we should all wear helmets IS the strawman. You are the one who should look it up, because it doesn't seem like you
want to understand my argument, what with all the misrepresentation you do on a continuous basis.
No but on the actually good point where a city is full of hard stuff.
So what? The world is full of hard stuff but we don't use helmets for everything.
No, we don't. But if I'm walking, I'm much less like to fall hard enough to seriously injure myself when walking in the same area I cycled. It's about proper risk assesment. And although we don't wear a helmet doing just anything, most of us use the seat belt in our cars, and most of us like the fact that there are airbags in cars, and as a pedestrian and cyclists, I am grateful that most newish cars have "pedestrian" crumble zones at the top front of the bonnet.
Why should cycling be an exception?
Why should white water kayaking be an exception? Why should a car be the exception, forcing you to wear a seat belt? Why should you wear a helmet on a motorcycle? Why should you wear a helmet DH'ing? Why wear a lifevest when boating? Why wear a helmet if you're racing on your bicycle? Well, since it seems I need to repeat it: It's about risk mitigation.
And I mean you are at risk as a pedestrian for getting hit by a bicycle or a car or worse. Or you might just slip and hit your head that way. Same risks for TBA as cycling but none of the helmet fanaticism.
Because most people are able to see the real differences between walking and cycling, and the different risks they represent, that's why.
Drunk people should be mandated to use helmets. That would crash the TBA numbers.
