[bikinginmpls]

This is the OP. I'm a woman. I guess if you're an avid cyclist everyone assumes you're a man?

The article is the reason why I'm done wearing a helmet. I write my blog as a way to expose different viewpoints around cycling. I feel comfortable with this decision and will no longer be wearing a helmet. If they're not completely scientifically sound in your judgement, fine, keep wearing a helmet. I tried to use the data to the best of my ability, as I have a master's degree in public health. But then again, this blog is not for an academic audience, so I try not to make it too heavy.

The arguments I posted are those that have swayed me. What it comes down to is this: I believe biking is an inherently safe activity, on par with driving a car and walking. When I'm biking 12-14mph on bike paths and trails, as part of my daily regular activities, I feel there is no need to wear a helmet.

[brookside]

'Expose different viewpoints' seems along the lines of the 'I'm hoping to encourage a debate' line that people taking on 'hot-take' positions like to hide behind.

'I have a masters degree' is, of course, ad-hominem fallacy.

It's great that you yourself 'feel' safe but the position you are advocating is not well reasoned and reckless to promote to others.

[joopxiv]

> 'I have a masters degree' is, of course, ad-hominem fallacy.

No it's not. You might argue that it's an argument from authority, which is a different thing, but in this case, I think a master's degree in public health is quite relevant.

You on the other hand provide not a single argument to why you feel her position is not well reasoned and reckless.