Originally Posted by
Stadjer
Exactly. It should be called a dangerous traffic helmet, an outdoor sports helmet or an anti-truck helmet or whatever. It's not the activity of riding a bicycle requires a helmet, so it shouldn't be called a bicycle helmet.
In my view, needlessly contorted terminology tends to attract suspicion rather than clarifying anything.
That's my stake in this discussion, I know I'm lucky with my cycling environment and I don't feel I have to defend my choice not to wear one, it's even not really a choice and it will never be mandatory here. It's about keeping the idea of safe and therefore helmetless cycling alive everywhere.
There are always interests, also personal and trivial ones. If you really want cycling safety you're not going to study helmets you're going to study what makes cycling safer and the helmet won't be a big part of such a study.
Indeed. One of my interests is that my brain is supporting a family, a business, and my quality of life.
Addressing the full gamut of safety issues can and should be done, but my brain can't wait for that to happen. I take all of the safety precautions that I can think of, and then I wear a helmet as well. As for personal and trivial issues, there's no evidence that non-helmet use is not a preference driven by culture, aesthetics, and peer pressure.
Again, I believe it comes down to common sense.