The idea behind the helmet law is to preserve a brain whose judgement is so poor it does not even try to stop the cracking of the head it’s in
My father had a story of him cycling around Sheffield in England in the 1960s. Encountering a hill where the road ended, he shouldered his bike and started climbing. Halfway up the slope, he came across a group climbing the same hill. They were using ropes and helmets and didn’t carry bikes.
It’s the kind of story he loved. I understand why, because I take pride in the same thing. Or, to phrase it negatively and more accurately, it’s the same kind of thing I sneer at. People wearing lifejackets when they’re paddling on a perfectly calm lake with other people just a minute away, or with emergency satellite messengers strapped to their backpacks when they’re taking a walk on an overcrowded trail less than half an hour from San Francisco. By the way, don’t buy a satellite messenger even when you’re going to a remote wilderness. Check your cell phone, it will likely have emergency satellite communication capability. I wonder what exactly caused the sneering, and I think it may be that those things are examples of preferring to “be safe” instead of thinking.
I still remember my lecturer in Evolutionary Theory. He took the class to look at sandstone cliffs which had fossils embedded in them. Before we left, he told us: “I could give each of you a helmet. That would give you the illusion of safety as we walk below the cliffs, without actually making it safe. Instead, I ask you to be sensible and to not try to climb the cliffs. Thank you.”
Nehaveigur 