When have i ever mentioned walking? This is a cycling forum and i am discussing cycling. ive said everyone can choose what they do .i never called people who dont wear one stupid either, i think you need to re read my post. ive backed up the op on his decision to wear a helmet with the simple advice that he is better off wearing one if he is in an accident. You have your views i have mine.
Actually you did not mention cycling or walking...
As there are more hospital admissions from head injuries from climbing stairs than cycling, and some 5 - 8 times as many pedestrian head injuries, I had assumed that you were talking generally
Wearing a helmet reduces the chance of head injury in certain situations, if you hit your head off the road in certain instances a helmet will prevent a gash to the head ect, when not wearing one wouldnt this isnt going into high speed colisions btw. Think about it would you rather your bare head hit the ground or a helmet... So if a helmet reduces the risk of a more serious injury when you fall i know what id rather have.
anyone that says a helmet dosent reduce the risk of injury is one of two things
A.stupid
B.stupid
Of course I realise now that the vast majority of head injuries do not hurt, do not incapacitate or cause any problems whatsoever, and that whilst walking:
Anyone that says a helmet dosen't reduce the risk of injury is one of two things
A.
stupid Very intelligent
B.
stupid Very intelligent
However once you get on a bike the same injury suddenly becomes worth preventing and the same person making the same rational decision on the same evidence becomes:
A Stupid
B. Stupid
Please explain why in an identical incident causing an identical injury preventing it by wearing a helmet is a good thing for one person but unnecessary for the other?
I never said anyone who Dosent wear a helmet is an idiot... Read it properly.
