Jay Beattie wrote:


I am a little confused, though, why the daughter gave up riding when
she got into junior high. Did she give it up because she had to wear a
helmet? I understand the current comment made what, four years later,
that she wouldn't have to wear a helmet when she goes to college, but
did she say back in junior high that she was quitting because she had
to wear a helmet? That is always hard for me to believe, but I don't
have a daughter, and apparently they have different agendas than sons.

I'm surprised you find it unusual.

I know a family in our bike club that took the "No helmet, no bike"
stance with their daughter. She was somewhere around 14 at the time,
IIRC. Her response? "Fine. I won't ride a bike." And despite their
continued avid cycling, and the years they spent riding pre-helmet, she
never rode again. (She's probably older than 30 now.)

With our two kids, we had the same discussion, although it was my wife,
not me, doing the promoting. Now this was years ago, when I was still
a helmet promoter, before I'd read the research papers on the topic.

Anyway, when each of our kids gave us the same response, I decided
riding was more important than wearing a plastic hat. The kids
continued to ride, and in fact, our daughter completed a coast to coast
tour across America with us just a few years ago.

And it goes without saying, neither kid ever had any problems. Each
kid toppled at low speed a few times (worst injury: leg scratches or
scrapes). Neither heads nor helmets ever touched ground.

Cycling is NOT very dangerous! Helmets are an ineffective solution to
a nonexistent problem.

- Frank Krygowski