Sponsorship ?

It ain't the excellent safety rating of the lid thats for sure. I t is not because of the years of testing and refinement to the design based on research.

I think it's because no-one has ever questioned it, it's all a bit emperors new clothes. Someone made some poly helmets years ago, some others bought them and it caught on. Now it is accepted and even frowned on to not have a silly little puff of air on your head.

Indeed. It is mandatory in the competitive arena.

Same reason why competive drivers have 'em and non-comp. don't, even though normal car drivers do suffer head injuries.

I don't wear a helmet.
I live in a small town (pop. 15-20,000) and don't have to contend with London bus drivers and am not in the habit of deliberately putting myself in danger just so I can put the resultant film on youtube.
I also can't be arsed.

Seriously thinking about getting one after reading this thread though, as anything I can do to disassociate myself from all the people making such ridiculous straw clutching statements as I have read here the better.

any number of reasons the UCI could have made a wrong decision regarding mandatory helmets - and indeed, and this is a pretty tired point, there is a big difference between a sports body making what is effectively a contract decision over the nature of racing, on a closed road, in close proximity to other professionals who enter a mutual agreement to take on at least some risk because it is the nature of the sport, and cycling as transport. It's something that no one seemed to pick up on - that the first thing Wiggins said was 'cycling is a dangerous sport. Was the unfortunate bloke cycling for sport?

If Stephen Hawking said 2+2=5, then he'd still be wrong - being an expert doesn't make you automatically right. If you are right, you should, expert or no, be able to explain to others why you are right.

Talk to non cyclists. The image of cycling as something only hyper-fit freaks in funny clothing puts a lot of people off.

Then talk to assisted suicide campaigners. If people think that doing something that guarantees death should be legal, what do you think they'll say about something with a very slim chance of killing you, that many people prefer?

Then talk to telegraph readers (this one is optional). They seem to go on about 'the nanny state' and 'elfen safety' a fair amount.

I seriously hope you don't support a helmet law when you openly admit you don't understand the objections. If you understand and disagree with them, fair enough, but lawmaking from a position of ignorance is no better than rolling a dice.

HTH

Are you lot still going on about this?

You're both absolutely right, of course.

And seat belts were made mandatory to help struggling buckle manufacturers.

Cuckoo!

Nope, and every car has one, sat there waiting to be used.

If (as has happened) I am asked by a work colleague to move his bike from A to B, I have the choice of using his helmet or non.

Being as hygiene and the like may come into it, I may decide to take the latter option.

Nope, it is almost certainly first and foremost that the rules the ride under say they must.

It is not about having a brain and realising it, its about having the choice. I tend to wear a helmet most times, but on occasion may decide to go without, but its a conscious decision, taken knowing the risks and usually taken for a specific reason (like I need to move this bike from a to b and I don't have the helmet with me)