AdamS wrote:You might have meant to have said "shall we keep on topic" but from memory your wording was rather different and struck a somewhat different tone, much more similar to the sarcastic responses you received. I'll take my share of the blame for increasing the thread drift though .
And I in turn will take my share of the blame for resorting to sarcasm:-
"It really is intolerable when close family members engage in emotional blackmail to persuade a cyclist to wear a helmet against his better judgement - there ought to be a law against it!
The OP must dismiss the trivial concerns of his wife, daughter and grandchildren as totally unfounded, and instead adopt the views of better-informed strangers who regard the wearing of helmets as not only unnecessary but also undesirable. Accordingly, he should immediately reverse his decision to buy a helmet and reprimand, nay punish his family for their unwarranted interference in his cycling affairs."
In my defence, I was reacting to the efforts of mjr and others who were plainly seeking to interpose themselves between the OP and his close family members, an intervention which in social terms goes way beyond the limits of debate on a public forum like this. Whatever the merits of the anti-helmet argument, it is not more important than family relationships and I think the OP agreed and recognized my intended humour when he wrote of my post, "Yes ! I like this one ! ".
For the record, I'm not in fact a "helmet lover" nor a "helmet promoter", but rather a family lover and a family promoter.
I regard the decision on helmet-wearing as a personal choice and would strongly oppose any attempt to make it compulsory. Equally, I strongly support the right of people to wear one if they so choose, without having to suffer the interference of mjr and his pards in their family relationships.