>>932412Ok, I would wear a helmet doing all those activities (except the cycle path) as well?
I don't understand what the problem is, it's only logical that some bicycling activities are more dangerous than others, some are so dangerous that you need to wear much more than just a helmet, and some are so safe that wearing a helmet is pointless.
Its basic risk analysis: (chance of risk)*(consequence of risk) = risk level, obviously if the risk is low enough then its stupid to wear a helmet. If you're gonna say "you should ALWAYS wear a helmet no matter what" then by the same logic you should ALWAYS wear a faraday cage and cover yourself in bubble wrap and also never expose yourself to sunlight because even though the risks are extremely tiny, its still there?
So really what we are arguing about is "are ALL bike related activities dangerous enough that a helmet is appropriate" to which you say yes, because all the bike activities you do personally are that dangerous, whereas I say no, because SOME of the activities I do aren't anywhere near as dangerous, but some are and I wear a helmet for those?
So what's the big deal?? why cant I say "wear a helmet when appropriate and don't when its not"??
