It amazes me that people wouldn't want to wear one irrespective of the protection against potentially fatal crashes. Why not look below that, where your head may scrape the road, or provide such impact protection to prevent even a hint of brain damage or skull fractures. Is it really that important to make a point of not wearing one, that you may compromise your head and/or face from scarring at best, to fractures at worst?
The impact protection is limited (flat or kerb at standing-fall speeds) and scraping the road is also mitigated by softer hats and possibly made less likely by a smaller lighter head. The most common cycle crash helmets do not cover the face, so that's a red herring.
I understand that the main reason people don't wear one is to promote safe cycling and to force motorists to pass safely and that the protection isn't as glamorous as previously thought - Apparently. But is it any hardship? Where the accident isn't anyone's fault but your own? Then what?
Is that the main reason? I'm not sure whether it promotes safe cycling or not - I feel it makes it look less dangerous, but that's not the same thing. Sadly, I know from experience that being unhelmetted doesn't "force motorists to pass safely" (although I feel it gets you a bit more room most of the time). And I've never seen anyone claiming glamourous protection as a reason for wearing a crash helmet, so being less glam than expected seems unlikely to be a reason for stopping wearing one.
Personally, I don't wear one because it seemed correlated with neck pain and I never wore one when growing up, so I thought they can't be essential. After the neck pain, I investigated helmets more and they do not seem to offer a net benefit in the real world. I also find it much more practical not to carry a helmet around when off the bike (I ride for transport at least as much as for its own sake).
Is it hardship? Well, for some, who use a bike because it's cheaper to run than a car, then another £30 or whatever for a decent crash helmet after each time it's dropped (or 3 years if it lasts that long) might actually be a hardship. EDIT: Even if not a hardship for others, carrying a special thing around is inconvenient. If you had to carry your bike around all the time while out and not riding, you'd probably use it less, wouldn't you? I certainly still hire a bike from multidock city schemes sometimes just so I don't have to carry or store the folding bike while stopped. Finally, for me, helmets are eventually painful.
If the accident is my own fault, then I'll deal with the consequences, but as well as the "risk compensation" theory, there is some suggestion that not wearing a crash helmet keeps my brain cooler in summer, so I'm less likely to F it up and cause my own crash. Touching wood as I write this - it's been a very long while since I had an injurious crash while cycling. I've injured myself walking more! Yet I keep reading stories about all these people cycling while wearing crash helmets who crash all the while and I don't know whether they're right to wear crash helmets because they're the sort of riders who need them, or if the crash helmets are somehow making them crash more frequently. The anecdotes certainly seem persuasive that there's something going on/wrong, don't they?
This is a general query. I'm not trying to stir emotions.
I have answered in that spirit. Hope that's OK.
