> I mean, go ahead, wear one, they aren't going to hurt for sure
Is "they don't hurt" really the best you'll say in defense of helmets?
Correct me if I'm way off the mark, but from what I understand the argument against mandatory helmet laws goes something like this: Helmets aren't stylish/comfortable/convenient, therefore people don't like to wear them, therefore people are less inclined to bike if doing so would require a helmet, therefore people are more likely to die from being fat or in a car accident.
This argument seems rational to me. It may or may not be correct, the devil is in the numbers, but at the very least there's a rational chain of argument here. Let's suppose that argument is correct, the rational response is to simultaneously oppose mandatory helmet laws and wear a helmet anyway. Helmets break so your skull doesn't, on an individual basis you are safer if you choose to wear a helmet. Helmets aren't designed to solve "macro, systemic" problems with society, they address the problem of you getting your skull cracked open and they do that very effectively. You should be willing to admit that wearing a helmet not only doesn't hurt, it absolutely helps you. If you're not willing to concede that helmets help on an individual level even if systemic social issues remain, that's madness.
I see room for debate over the value of mandatory helmet laws, but there's no rational debate about helmets on an individual level. Biking with a helmet is safer than biking without one.
Is "they don't hurt" really the best you'll say in defense of helmets?
Correct me if I'm way off the mark, but from what I understand the argument against mandatory helmet laws goes something like this: Helmets aren't stylish/comfortable/convenient, therefore people don't like to wear them, therefore people are less inclined to bike if doing so would require a helmet, therefore people are more likely to die from being fat or in a car accident.
This argument seems rational to me. It may or may not be correct, the devil is in the numbers, but at the very least there's a rational chain of argument here. Let's suppose that argument is correct, the rational response is to simultaneously oppose mandatory helmet laws and wear a helmet anyway. Helmets break so your skull doesn't, on an individual basis you are safer if you choose to wear a helmet. Helmets aren't designed to solve "macro, systemic" problems with society, they address the problem of you getting your skull cracked open and they do that very effectively. You should be willing to admit that wearing a helmet not only doesn't hurt, it absolutely helps you. If you're not willing to concede that helmets help on an individual level even if systemic social issues remain, that's madness.
I see room for debate over the value of mandatory helmet laws, but there's no rational debate about helmets on an individual level. Biking with a helmet is safer than biking without one.