In reply to UKC News:
Amazing read, hope Mina recovers quickly.
I introduced my daughter to climbing when she was about 4 years old - a good fitting harness and helmet were her standard kit. She's always climbed with a helmet on, even indoors (except for auto belays), for the six years she's been climbing.
She insists on wearing one, even when other kids aren't. In fact at the recent BMC YCS competitions, she was one of the few kids who did (that didn't make her feel unusual or put her off).
She's an adventurous kid, practically an adrenalin junkie, she's not risk averse or scared of falling, it's just something she understands will protect her better if she does fall. I've always encouraged her to wear a helmet indoors, but left the choice to her; only ever insisted outdoors. Maybe in adulthood she'll take a different view.
Myself, I always wear one outdoors, whether climbing with her or not. Indoors I tend not to (don't know why).
For sponsored climbers, or just climbers participating in adventure photography, etc. I would argue that both sides (ie. the sponsor/photographer and the climber) have some responsibility to show the route/activity or whatever in the light it deserves, ie. we're happy to accept the climber in a harness and rope, so why not a helmet, where if a fall from the same posed stance might result in a head injury? I accept that free soloing goes without any protection, so I'd not expect Honnold to don a lid just to satisfy this point!
I just don't accept that either gear manufacturers, sponsors or climbers can mitigate their responsibility to show that the activity carries risk and requires appropriate protection - not saying a helmet should always be worn, but where appropriate that it is, it shouldn't be omitted just for aesthetic reasons. Especially so given that these are the role models for our young climbers.
Cheers