Originally Posted by rufvelo
Your argument goes hand in hand with cyclintom's cut & paste nonsense in every helmet related thread.
Were you born on a bicycle, or motorcycle permanently attached to your crotch? We're using appropriate tools to provide reasonable safeguards to a lifestyle that we've drastically modified in just a hundred years. Given ten thousand years of a similar lifestyle, I have no doubt that our bodies would evolve suitably for these relatively new tasks.
You are asserting that helmets are "appropriate tools to provide reasonable safeguards..." Now back that up (preferably without using Bell advertisements). My basic argument is that many pro-helmet arguments are fallacious at best while most of the others are simply assertions posing as arguments. Your argument (quoted above) would have us all walk around in helmets all the time because we have not adapted to the paved environment in which most of us now live (concrete being harder than the dirt with which we evolved).
Originally Posted by rufvelo
There's no real reason for you to get on a bicycle in the first place is there, better to stay home and watch others ride!
Huh? Where is this coming from? How does this respond at all to: "I often feel that the helmet zealots need to justify their hefty expenditures and their wholehearted acceptance of helmet industry propaganda (all writing is propaganda for something) while refusing to seriously question the source of their convictions. It would be a scary world indeed, if we all just readily accepted advertising as 'truth.'"
There is no real reason for me to get on a bicycle in the first place—other than the fact that I want to. Isn't that reason enough?