(I posted this to the Helmet Thread but maybe it's bigger than that.)

Outdoor sport in general is in decline.

Many aspects of outdoor sport seem to suffer from "bro -ism." A macho attitude and expectation of extremeness. Common among young white rich men. This reduces the potential attractiveness to other demographics. Which causes a downward feedback spiral. For instance, if women don't do something then some men are less likely to since socializing is often a component. Male-bonding is a powerful factor but it might not always be enough.

Then there's the Type A style that much modern outdoor sports marketing seems to have. This only appeals to that one demographic.

Then there's the Gear Fetish syndrome that marketers encourage in outdoor activity -- again, only appeals to a limited demographic.

Next, there might even be a sort of socially-inept embarrassment of a nerd-ish character verging on conspiracy-theory where there are demographic appeals to HUGELY changing the appearance of an activity (via helmet, lycra, terribly garish graphic design, aero-sunglasses, clicky shoes) to achieve a tiny theoretical benefit for most who adopt the protocol. What kind of person does this appeal to? ("I wear a tinfoil hat because someone MIGHT be trying to steal my brainwaves. I don't want to take that small risk over such an important thing to me.")

In many places the decline in outdoor activity is not just marginal but it is TOTAL. I've seen quite a few big bike, ski and paddling scenes where there is near ZERO replacement of the demographic. The group members are now often in their 60's and their events appeal to very few new users. So that in ten years the activity and organization will disappear. So we're not talking just fine-tuning here. But a total age-out.

It seems useful to encourage outdoor sport to be popular among ALL possible demographics.

Where is outdoor sport showing potential? What kind of people can it reach out to that it is not right now?

Yes, I see some types of big, extreme events becoming popular. But I also see casual urban Bike Parties catching on everywhere.

Offhand, I'd suggest that we shouldn't overlook: youth, women, minorities, lower income, casual dabblers.

What does a culture of ARMORING do to an activity?

Armoring usually relates to safety but it has components of power, mastery, gear-fetish, aggressiveness, plus an appeal to geekish theoretical risk avoidance. These relate to the resulting appeal to various demographics.

For instance, one area that many cyclists automatically give over to helmets is mt-biking. They might say "I don't always wear a helmet when I ride around the block to the grocery store, but I *always* wear one when mt-biking." The implication is "because when mt-biking I'm then going fast around rocks and trees and could more easily fall and hit my head." ...What if a kind of mt-biking that was slow and lollygagging was encouraged? On mellow trails, just to spend some time in the woods, to go for a picnic. Would that kind appeal to anyone? What kind of gear would be needed for it? ...Probably a very simple bike and no other special gear except a rack and picnic basket.

I also note that mt-biking is suffering from a decline, at least in some places. Why? Is it perhaps due to too much emphasis on the limited demographics of "macho performance"? What could be done to increase its appeal? Could other demographics become interested?

It might be that all types of biking, and maybe especially mt-biking, could become more popular if they were more open and accessible. What if GOING SLOW AND CASUAL AND SIMPLE were encouraged? What if all kinds of biking included marketing tied in with PICNICKING rather than just "performance."

It might be that to save our sports that we should give up on gaining tiny fractions of life-saving in trade for large gains in appeal and re-connection with the bulk of REALITY.

If someone is a bumbler or knows they tend to be awkward, let them buy all the armor they like. Don't stare at them, though. And don't try to push it on most folks.