>>937572>Which I never said, or impliedYes, you did indeed imply. Hence the Vlad arrow. The logical conclusion of your position, that anyone who does not wear a helmet during activities where no elevated risk of head injury has been established is required to justify himself, is exactly what was greentexted. That everyone should wear helmets all the time during all everyday activity. Not just cycling, which is an ordinary, every day activity.
There is no more a justification for wearing a helmet when biking to work or fetching groceries, than there is if you were to do the same on foot. Or by car.
Your question is also booby-trapped in a number of ways, making it completely ignore-worthy. For example:
>>what is genuine reason>implying that not only does the non-use of helmet during ordinary, everyday activities have to be justified, such justification must also pass an arbitrary test of genuineness, leaving wiggle-room for moving the goal posts, making 'common sense' dismissals without factual argument or reasoning, making emotional appeals opening up a pretext for a never-ending sideshow debate, et cetera>>something caused that stance>implying the default stance is that held by you, that helmets are worn as a matter of course, painting non-wearers as suspect and deviant, signaling something presumably suspect must have "happened" ta make them "this way," et cetera>>you're not answering my question>bare faced moving the goal posts as per 'genuine' above, in that an answer has been provided by simile, but failed the arbitrary pretend test of genuineness by not having an obvious 'hook' to latch any of the previous counter-attacks toI took your bait by wasting time writing this post. Sorry everyone.
>inb4 being defensive>>inb4 being defensive of magic charmers being defensive 