I still liked that wind, and I learned to like the game of traffic, but I knew the motorcycle was not for me and that I would probably never ride one again after that month. I consider that month of motorcycling along the streets of San Francisco the riskiest thing I ve ever done. It went okay because by then I had a certain amount of experience in deciding when to take the risk and when not to, and while on that bike I gave myself a big, big margin. Motorcycles are not for me, and neither are helmets, whether for the road or the ski slope. There is no question that the use of helmets in a variety of activities saves lives and lessens the extent of injuries when an accident occurs.
Helmets reduce the risk of risky behavior.
Helmets put a literal barrier between the person involved in a moving activity and the possible consequences of their mistakes, the mistakes of others, or the misfortunes of both. But there is a risk in the attempt to reduce or eliminate risk that, in my opinion, is not sufficiently addressed, appreciated or acknowledged. There is a bit of illusion, a sense of false security in devices like helmets, avalanche transceivers, big and sturdy motor vehicles, gated communities, guns in the top drawer and atomic weaponry. As there are no free lunches, there are no risk-free worlds, and there are no free barriers or safety nets. The motorcycle helmet was first used by competitors.