[dionidium]

There is ZERO reason not to wear a helmet every time you leave the house. You could trip and fall at any moment!

Presumably, you're willing to accept that risk. Biking without a helmet is no doubt riskier than walking without one, but both activities are well within reasonable risk-taking range.

You don't need me to tell you why I don't like wearing a helmet when I bike; you already use all those same reasons to avoid wearing one when you walk.

[s73v3r_]

"There is ZERO reason not to wear a helmet every time you leave the house. You could trip and fall at any moment!"

Not even close to the same thing. By being that absurd, you clearly are not wanting to engage in good faith.

[dionidium]

I'm sorry that you think my position is absurd, but I assure you it's offered in good faith. There are only trade-offs. This isn't just a comment on the wisdom of helmets; this is, as far as I can tell, an actual feature of the universe we inhabit. There aren't "problems" and "solutions to problems"; there are only trade-offs.

I (honestly and in good faith) place walking and biking in the same "helmet not required" risk category. The point isn't whether or not you adjust the risk slider further in one direction than me. The point is to respond to the assertion that there is zero reason to avoid wearing a helmet. We all know that isn't true, or we'd all wear helmets all the way down the risk scale.

Where you place "time to put on a helmet" on the scale isn't really the point. The point is that the scale obviously exists and it's obviously the case that there are places on the scale where not wearing a helmet makes sense, because if it were literally the case that there were no tradeoffs, then there'd literally be no reason not to wear one at all times.

That's the reductio proof I'm trying to illustrate.