More helmet debate - but this time sensible!

[mikee boy]

heebeegeetee said:

Mostly drivel

Just 1 question, do you think that wearing a helmet will reduce the chance of a head injury while cycling? Ignore compulsion, Australia, chickens, peanuts or anything else you're likely to dream up. Just answer my question please.

[Hugo a Gogo]

my answer:

for a normal cyclist, yes, by a miniscule amount

my 1 question: do you think that wearing a helmet will reduce the chance of a head injury while walking?

[mikee boy]

Hugo a Gogo said:

my answer:

for a normal cyclist, yes, by a miniscule amount

my 1 question: do you think that wearing a helmet will reduce the chance of a head injury while walking?

The study I linked to before shows for a 'normal cyclist' this 'miniscule amount' is 330%.

In answer to your question, yes. Obviously. I don't think anybody would claim otherwise.

To which your next question will be: "so, should walkers be made to wear helmets?"

Me: "No, I don't agree with compulsion"

Anyway, I wasn't asking you, I was asking heebeethingee.

[Hugo a Gogo]

mikee boy said:

The study I linked to before shows for a 'normal cyclist' this 'miniscule amount' is 330%.

I'm afraid you can't read your own links

mikee boy said:

"Our study has shown that wearing a helmet significantly decreases the risks of sustaining a head injury in all types of cycling accidents."

330% sounds like an enormous amount, until you realise it's from 0.035 of a chance to 0.1 and even then, that's not out of all cyclists

in the study they used that tiny sample of cyclists who had gone to hospital with injuries and found that those without helmets had more head injuries, of some kind (cuts, scrapes?)

in one year, that was just over 1000 people, the study then tries to claim that 1 in 40 cyclists will go to hospital with a cycling related injury in a year

estimates are that 5 million people regularly cycle in the UK, Rospa says 19,000 injuries a year (16,000 of those being 'slight') so that's 1 in 263 cyclists, or 1 in 1600 for serious injuries, 1 in 47,000 for fatalities


I originally said

Hugo a Gogo said:

around .035 of a chance of your 1 in 40 chance of injury being a head injury vs around .1 of a chance?

but that's actually 1 in 263 chance of getting any injury

so, a miniscule amount




and for all the cycling I've done over the past 30 years, it would have made NO difference, because I've never hit my head on anything whilst cycling

and no, my next question is 'would you ever consider wearing a helmet for a walk through town, and would you recommend it to anyone else?'

[mikee boy]

I stand by my claim. If the chance of sustaining a head injury is X without a helmet and 3.3X with a helmet, then that's 330%.

My question was regarding the scale of the difference, not the absolute amount.

Hugo a Gogo said:

and for all the cycling I've done over the past 30 years, it would have made NO difference, because I've never hit my head on anything whilst cycling

You still had the same risk of injury. Wearing a helmet is about mitigating risk.

Hugo a Gogo said:

and no, my next question is 'would you ever consider wearing a helmet for a walk through town, and would you recommend it to anyone else?'

I would consider it if I considered there to be a risk sufficient to warrant it and I'd wear one knowing that it would reduce my risk of a head injury. I can't think of a high enough risk to wear one, but if there was a risk high enough I'd wear a helmet (and any other protection that was relevant).

Would I recommend it to anybody else? As above, if I considered there to be a risk sufficient to warrant it and I thought they weren't aware of that risk.

But let me clarify. My points in this debate have been based around the role of a helmet in reducing the risk of head injury while cycling. Not about compulsion. Not about whether somebody is riding to the shops or not. Just the obvious fact that wearing a cycling helmet reduces the risk of a head injury while cycling. I know this from first hand experience, not from studies or anecdotal evidence. What I can't stand is the anti-compulsion hysterics that deny the benefits of helmets and that's the only reason I posted in the first place.

[Hugo a Gogo]

mikee boy said:

I stand by my claim. If the chance of sustaining a head injury is X without a helmet and 3.3X with a helmet, then that's 330%.

My question was regarding the scale of the difference, not the absolute amount.

no, chance of your injury being a head injury, not the chance of getting a head injury

the vast majority of cyclists don't get head injuries, it's a miniscule risk

mikee boy said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

and for all the cycling I've done over the past 30 years, it would have made NO difference, because I've never hit my head on anything whilst cycling

You still had the same risk of injury. Wearing a helmet is about mitigating risk.

yes, the same miniscule risk, which could have been reduced very slightly further

Hugo a Gogo said:

and no, my next question is 'would you ever consider wearing a helmet for a walk through town, and would you recommend it to anyone else?'

mikee boy said:

I would consider it if I considered there to be a risk sufficient to warrant it and I'd wear one knowing that it would reduce my risk of a head injury. I can't think of a high enough risk to wear one, but if there was a risk high enough I'd wear a helmet (and any other protection that was relevant).

the 'high enough risk' is the exact same as for cyclists

pedestrians have similar levels of head injuries as 'normal' cyclists

so why don't you wear a helmet?

mikee boy said:

Would I recommend it to anybody else? As above, if I considered there to be a risk sufficient to warrant it and I thought they weren't aware of that risk.

same point again, why don't you then?

mikee boy said:

But let me clarify. My points in this debate have been based around the role of a helmet in reducing the risk of head injury while cycling. Not about compulsion. Not about whether somebody is riding to the shops or not. Just the obvious fact that wearing a cycling helmet reduces the risk of a head injury while cycling. I know this from first hand experience, not from studies or anecdotal evidence. What I can't stand is the anti-compulsion hysterics that deny the benefits of helmets and that's the only reason I posted in the first place.

hysterics?

the benefits of helmets are massively over-stated and every time people go on about 'I'd never ride without a helmet' they are putting other people off riding altogether - and less cyclists makes it more dangerous for the remaining cyclists

[heebeegeetee]

mikee boy said:

The study I linked to before shows for a 'normal cyclist' this 'miniscule amount' is 330%.

In answer to your question, yes. Obviously. I don't think anybody would claim otherwise.

To which your next question will be: "so, should walkers be made to wear helmets?"

Me: "No, I don't agree with compulsion"

Anyway, I wasn't asking you, I was asking heebeethingee.

The irony here of course is that we have mikee boy insisting I answer a question, having himself spent the entire thread not answering questions or ducking out of them with answers such as "the thread is about cycling" instead of just answering the bloody question.

Before answering I'll remind you that your study is 19 years old, it was done at a time when helmet use was only just being taken up widely, there has been 19 years of earnest study done since, taking in jurisdictions that have either introduced helmet laws or have seen an enormous increase in helmet use such as here in the UK. Why on earth would anyone want to ignore the research of the past 19 years? Doesn't simple curiosity draw you to see if your figure of 330% is correct? (which it almost certainly isn't).

So to answer: Obviously if I put a helmet on of some sort the moment i get out of bed and wear it during my waking hours, yes I believe it would reduce the risk of head injury. Although no doubt statistics would prove me wrong, I feel reasonably safe at home, work and inside my car and wouldn't want to wear a helmet. Would I wear a helmet to partake in the safe activity of riding to the shops? No, because I can't see any sense in wearing a helmet for one safe activity when I didn't wear one for others. Would a helmet reduce my chances of a head accident? Yes of course it would, as it would for all times I wore it.

Let us just remind ourselves of what we're talking about here: It's about this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/20...
the first half-line of which says "Helmets do not provide sufficient protection to warrant the claim that they are highly effective..." and I absolutely agree with that.

If you then follow the links in that article, and follow the links in those links, you find some fascinating stuff, and bang up to date too. It links to the Journal Of Medical Ethics, (An international peer-reviewed journal for health professionals and researchers in medical ethics).

In this article "The Health Hazards of Safety Legislation by STEPHEN J WATKINS, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH"
http://jme.bmj.com/content/38/6/338.abstract/reply... published online July 10, 2013

we read: "Although it is self evidently true that cycle helmets have a protective function in certain accidents the benefit that would be expected from the physics of the situation has not been demonstrated in population studies." (Where does that put your figure of 330%, Mikee?)

"Cycle helmets do not offer anything like the degree of protection that is sometimes assumed so this is a serious potential problem. It is unethical to mislead."

"The case for cycle helmets is weaker than the case for helmets when playing football and on a par with the case for helmets when driving. The added risks of cycling rather than driving on a local journey for a middle aged adult are comparable to the added risks of taking the car instead of the train or driving on an all purpose road instead of a motorway."

"Cycling is a safe activity which benefits health. Yet the commonest reason given for not cycling is safety. If we compel cyclists to wear helmets we give out the message that it is on a par with riding a motorcycle or with working on a building site. It is unethical to mislead people into making harmful choices."

And so on.

Guys, the internet is full of this kind of stuff. The only way to take an opposite view is to find a piece of research that is completely out of date and stick to it. That is *exactly* what went on in the other recent 51 page thread on this subject.

More: http://jme.bmj.com/content/38/6/325.full

" Their central claim is that although there are thresholds of competent risk-taking beyond which the state may legitimately intervene (such as with respect to highly addictive drugs or motorcycling without a helmet), the risks associated with cycling simply do not rise to this level. The overall probability of sustaining a head injury while cycling is minuscule. Philosophical foundations of the liberal state require that individuals be accorded great personal latitude to engage in health-affecting behaviour without substantial governmental intrusion, such as smoking in private, consuming alcohol, eating fatty and high caloric foods, skiing, marathon running, mountaineering and so forth. It seems unfair and undesirable to require that individuals shoulder greater shares of the cost burden in order to compensate society for their mildly risky lifestyles. As the authors note, basic notions of fairness imply that similar cases of risk be treated in similar ways. While there is no special moral or legal right to cycle with one's hair to the wind, I am sympathetic to the authors' contention that the freedom to determine personally acceptable levels of risk is part of the fabric of liberal society. Unless the risks to cyclists are shown to be substantial, and the causal connection between helmet-wearing and reduced head injuries can be firmly established, it seems difficult to justify such legislation. "

Another question mikee (which you'll probably ignore like you have the others): You have children; the time will come when they start driving; At that time they will be at significantly greater risk than they would be if cycling (I believe young men are 10 times more likely to die in a car than on a bicycle).

Are you going to allow them to drive helmet free while you continue to wear a helmet when cycling, and will you be absolutely certain that the right person is wearing the helmet?

[ALawson]

Most non serious cyclist who do wear helmets cannot even wear them properly!

This is a good thread.

I am 36, always wear a lid as does my 2 year old on his scooter (and will do when he gets on a bike). Never wore a lid skiing until some bad concussion, will always wear one simply because they keep your head warm.

I know the chances of needing it on a bike are slim, but it cannot increase the severity of a head injury in the event of experiencing one.

As you were!

[TSCfree]

Wear one if you like. I was knocked off last year, glad I was wearing my helmet.

[mikee boy]

heebeegeetee said:

mikee boy said:

The study I linked to before shows for a 'normal cyclist' this 'miniscule amount' is 330%.

In answer to your question, yes. Obviously. I don't think anybody would claim otherwise.

To which your next question will be: "so, should walkers be made to wear helmets?"

Me: "No, I don't agree with compulsion"

Anyway, I wasn't asking you, I was asking heebeethingee.

The irony here of course is that we have mikee boy insisting I answer a question, having himself spent the entire thread not answering questions or ducking out of them with answers such as "the thread is about cycling" instead of just answering the bloody question.

Before answering I'll remind you that your study is 19 years old, it was done at a time when helmet use was only just being taken up widely, there has been 19 years of earnest study done since, taking in jurisdictions that have either introduced helmet laws or have seen an enormous increase in helmet use such as here in the UK. Why on earth would anyone want to ignore the research of the past 19 years? Doesn't simple curiosity draw you to see if your figure of 330% is correct? (which it almost certainly isn't).

So to answer: Obviously if I put a helmet on of some sort the moment i get out of bed and wear it during my waking hours, yes I believe it would reduce the risk of head injury. Although no doubt statistics would prove me wrong, I feel reasonably safe at home, work and inside my car and wouldn't want to wear a helmet. Would I wear a helmet to partake in the safe activity of riding to the shops? No, because I can't see any sense in wearing a helmet for one safe activity when I didn't wear one for others. Would a helmet reduce my chances of a head accident? Yes of course it would, as it would for all times I wore it.

Let us just remind ourselves of what we're talking about here: It's about this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/20...
the first half-line of which says "Helmets do not provide sufficient protection to warrant the claim that they are highly effective..." and I absolutely agree with that.

If you then follow the links in that article, and follow the links in those links, you find some fascinating stuff, and bang up to date too. It links to the Journal Of Medical Ethics, (An international peer-reviewed journal for health professionals and researchers in medical ethics).

In this article "The Health Hazards of Safety Legislation by STEPHEN J WATKINS, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH"
http://jme.bmj.com/content/38/6/338.abstract/reply... published online July 10, 2013

we read: "Although it is self evidently true that cycle helmets have a protective function in certain accidents the benefit that would be expected from the physics of the situation has not been demonstrated in population studies." (Where does that put your figure of 330%, Mikee?)

"Cycle helmets do not offer anything like the degree of protection that is sometimes assumed so this is a serious potential problem. It is unethical to mislead."

"The case for cycle helmets is weaker than the case for helmets when playing football and on a par with the case for helmets when driving. The added risks of cycling rather than driving on a local journey for a middle aged adult are comparable to the added risks of taking the car instead of the train or driving on an all purpose road instead of a motorway."

"Cycling is a safe activity which benefits health. Yet the commonest reason given for not cycling is safety. If we compel cyclists to wear helmets we give out the message that it is on a par with riding a motorcycle or with working on a building site. It is unethical to mislead people into making harmful choices."

And so on.

Guys, the internet is full of this kind of stuff. The only way to take an opposite view is to find a piece of research that is completely out of date and stick to it. That is *exactly* what went on in the other recent 51 page thread on this subject.

More: http://jme.bmj.com/content/38/6/325.full

" Their central claim is that although there are thresholds of competent risk-taking beyond which the state may legitimately intervene (such as with respect to highly addictive drugs or motorcycling without a helmet), the risks associated with cycling simply do not rise to this level. The overall probability of sustaining a head injury while cycling is minuscule. Philosophical foundations of the liberal state require that individuals be accorded great personal latitude to engage in health-affecting behaviour without substantial governmental intrusion, such as smoking in private, consuming alcohol, eating fatty and high caloric foods, skiing, marathon running, mountaineering and so forth. It seems unfair and undesirable to require that individuals shoulder greater shares of the cost burden in order to compensate society for their mildly risky lifestyles. As the authors note, basic notions of fairness imply that similar cases of risk be treated in similar ways. While there is no special moral or legal right to cycle with one's hair to the wind, I am sympathetic to the authors' contention that the freedom to determine personally acceptable levels of risk is part of the fabric of liberal society. Unless the risks to cyclists are shown to be substantial, and the causal connection between helmet-wearing and reduced head injuries can be firmly established, it seems difficult to justify such legislation. "

[b]Another question mikee (which you'll probably ignore like you have the others): You have children; the time will come when they start driving; At that time they will be at significantly greater risk than they would be if cycling (I believe young men are 10 times more likely to die in a car than on a bicycle).

Are you going to allow them to drive helmet free while you continue to wear a helmet when cycling, and will you be absolutely certain that the right person is wearing the helmet?[/b]

Which question haven't I answered?

All your hysterics (for example, the bit in bold) are based around the same point. You are arguing against compulsion, you are saying that there are riskier things peolpe do and they should wear helmets for those. I agree with both those points. I have never said otherwise (if I have please show me where). All I am saying is that helmets offer an increased protection from head injuries while cycling. You keep banging on about compulsion and quote articles about compulsion like some oppressed minority.

But to answer that question DIRECTLY. YES, I would allow them to. BUT, it's their decision, not mine and I'm not in favour of compulsion anyway.

[mikee boy]

Hugo a Gogo said:

mikee boy said:

I stand by my claim. If the chance of sustaining a head injury is X without a helmet and 3.3X with a helmet, then that's 330%.

My question was regarding the scale of the difference, not the absolute amount.

no, chance of your injury being a head injury, not the chance of getting a head injury

the vast majority of cyclists don't get head injuries, it's a miniscule risk

Main outcome measures: Type of accident and nature and distribution of injuries among patients with and without safety helmets. Results - There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to type of accident or nature and distribution of injuries other than those to the head. Head injury was sustained by 4/114 (4%) of helmet wearers compared with 100/928 (11%) of non-wearers (P=0.023). Significantly more children wore helmets (50/309 (16%)) than did adults (64/731 (9%)) (P<0.001). The incidence of head injuries sustained in accidents involving motor vehicles (52/288 (18%)) was significantly higher than in those not involving motor vehicles (52/754 (7%)) (X2=28.9, P<0.0001). Multiple logistic regression analysis of probability of sustaining a head injury showed that only two variables were significant: helmet use and involvement of a motor vehicle. Mutually adjusted odds ratios showed a risk factor of 2.95 (95% confidence interval 1.95 to 4.47, P<0.0001) for accidents involving a motor vehicle and a protective factor of 3.25 (1.17 to 9.06, P=0.024) for wearing a helmet.

[mikee boy]

Hugo a Gogo said:

mikee boy said:

I would consider it if I considered there to be a risk sufficient to warrant it and I'd wear one knowing that it would reduce my risk of a head injury. I can't think of a high enough risk to wear one, but if there was a risk high enough I'd wear a helmet (and any other protection that was relevant).

the 'high enough risk' is the exact same as for cyclists

pedestrians have similar levels of head injuries as 'normal' cyclists

so why don't you wear a helmet?

mikee boy said:

Would I recommend it to anybody else? As above, if I considered there to be a risk sufficient to warrant it and I thought they weren't aware of that risk.

same point again, why don't you then?

Because I do not consider walking risky enough to wear a helmet. But I accept that, if I did wear a helmet, I'd reduce the chance of a head injury.

If you don't want to wear a helmet, that's your decision, I have never said anything else. But you naturally assume I'm trying to get you to wear one. I'm just pointing out the benefit of a helmet in reducing the risk of a head injury in cycling.

"but what about people getting fat if they don't cycle" etc etc, go on, carry on. I'm out for 2 days of touring the lovely Yorkshire countryside, at 10mph, wearing a helmet. And if I walk into a shop, I'll take it off. I won't wear it in bed either.

[heebeegeetee]

mikee boy said:

1. Which question haven't I answered?

2. All your hysterics (for example, the bit in bold) are based around the same point. You are arguing against compulsion, you are saying that there are riskier things peolpe do and they should wear helmets for those. I agree with both those points. I have never said otherwise (if I have please show me where). All I am saying is that helmets offer an increased protection from head injuries while cycling.

3. You keep banging on about compulsion and quote articles about compulsion like some oppressed minority.

4. But to answer that question DIRECTLY. YES, I would allow them to. BUT, it's their decision, not mine and I'm not in favour of compulsion anyway.

1. Questions such as why are you confining this debate to cyclists (quote article in OP: "Currently, the most ferocious debate about the effectiveness of helmets – and the legitimacy of forcing competent adults to wear them – centres on cycling. It is not entirely clear why..."), why would you take your helmet off after cycling, etc etc.

2. Which bold bit?
There's no hysterics, I'm just simply posting the results of what is obviously calm and reasoned research done in a proper manner. The hysterics come from people such as yourslef, part of the British public who are wrong about almost everything http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bri...

You have your opinions but invariably research shows you are wrong. The difficult bit is getting you to look at research, beyond something very old picked to suit your argument.

3. No I'm not , I'm really not at all. Yes some of my quotes are taken from articles discussing compulsion but that doesn't make them invalid. When research repeats that the chances of suffering a serious injury when cycling is miniscule, that is the fact no matter where this is published.
And btw, it was Fungle and not I who said

TheFungle said:

FWIW I don't think it should be compulsory to wear a helmet but I also don't think it would be wrong to compel people to wear them.

4. And the second part of the question was "are you convinced the right person is wearing the helmet?" Because I would put it to you that evidence that says the wrong person is wearing the helmet is simply overwhelming.

[Hugo a Gogo]

mikee boy said:

quote from survey

what are you trying to prove with that?

the starting point was people who had accidents that made them go to hospital

the whole 'survey' (of a massive 1000 people) is people with relatively serious injuries

so how can you extrapolate from that all of the millions of people who don't have accidents, bearing in mind that the 'riskiest' cyclists will be massively over-represented?

it is a tiny risk, and repeating this '330%' rubbish as if it was meaningful is pointless

like saying there is a 330% higher risk of being hit by a meteorite in the morning compared to being hit in the afternoon

[mikee boy]

Hugo a Gogo said:

mikee boy said:

quote from survey

what are you trying to prove with that?

That, in the event of an accident, you are 330% more likely to have a head injury if you're not wearing a helmet than if you are. You're arguing absoulte risk, not relative risk.

[Hugo a Gogo]

mikee boy said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

mikee boy said:

quote from survey

what are you trying to prove with that?

That, in the event of an accident, you are 330% more likely to have a head injury if you're not wearing a helmet than if you are. You're arguing absoulte risk, not relative risk.

the (flawed) survey shows that in the event of an INJURY REQUIRING HOSPITAL TREATMENT it is 330% more likely to be a head injury if you aren't wearing a helmet - 0.035 to 0.1 remember

that is not the same thing as 'in the event of an accident'- all those accidents with no injury are not counted - or even not 'in the event of an injury' - all those injuries that do not require hospital treatment are not counted
head injuries are far, far more likely to require hospital treatment so are disproportionately represented
this is known as 'cherry picking data'

all this is in response to me saying the risk from not wearing a helmet is miniscule, which it is, and you've said nothing to disprove that

[heebeegeetee]

mikee boy said:

That, in the event of an accident, you are 330% more likely to have a head injury if you're not wearing a helmet than if you are. You're arguing absoulte risk, not relative risk.

And I think *exactly* the same applies to pedestrians. Research after research after research has said that risks to cyclists and peds are similar. (I also rather think you could apply the figure to almost every fall, and homes and workplaces are major sources of falls).

have a read of this US document on pedestrian casualties, and note how often head injury or trauma is referred to:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC285973...
"INJURY PATTERNS"



Frontal collisions are categorized by the height of the impact relative to the location of the pedestrian’s center of gravity. Most adult vehicle collisions occur when the center of gravity is above the upper front edge (bumper) of the oncoming vehicle, whereas in pediatric pedestrian collisions the center of gravity is often below the bumper. In adult collisions, the front bumper strikes the lower leg region. The legs are accelerated in the direction of vehicle travel, while the upper body and head are brought into contact with the hood and/or windshield. Therefore, there are three distinct impacts. The first is between the lower leg and the bumper. This is immediately followed by contact between the thigh area and the upper edge of the hood. These impacts cause rotation of the upper body, resulting in another impact between the head/shoulders and the hood/windshield region. At low speeds, the pedestrian remains on the hood. At higher speeds, the increased momentum causes the legs to rotate above the head before falling back onto the hood. At even higher impact speeds, the pedestrian somersaults onto the windshield/roof after head impact. Further increases in impact speed can cause the pedestrian to pass fully over the vehicle. This leads to subsequent impacts with the ground and other roadway objects as the pedestrian slides/rolls/bounces to rest.

The severity of the injuries is related to many factors, including vehicle speed, the angle of impact of the vehicle upon the pedestrian, the center of gravity of the pedestrian, the part of the body that first comes into contact with the vehicle, the part of the vehicle the pedestrian impacts first, and the vehicle design. Most injuries arising from these vehicle and ground impacts in adults are trauma to the head, legs and pelvis., tibial plateau fractures and ligamentous injuries of the knee, as well as traumatic brain injuries, are all common.23 One study showed that the most common injuries seen in children, aside from superficial injuries, involved the head and neck (34.6%), with musculoskeletal injuries the second most common (22.2%). In contrast, the same study found that among adults, musculoskeletal injuries (41.4%) were more common than head and neck injuries (26.7%). The statistical trend of musculoskeletal injuries being more common than head and neck injuries also remained consistent in a sub-analysis in older-adult pedestrian collision victims.24 Most pediatric pedestrian collisions that involved traumatic brain injury did not involve cervical injuries. Regardless of this fact, a review of one database showed that pediatric C-spine dislocations most commonly result from pedestrian collisions.25 The most common injuries seen in pediatric pedestrian collisions tend to be traumatic brain injuries and<<

[neilr]

A lot of (non cycling) friends rib me about wearing a helmet, sugggesting that I think its going to save me in the even of a crssh. What they or most people don't think about is this..

The chances of a massive accident (if you're not cycling like a nob) are pretty slim in all faireness, and if you do have one, a helmet is probably not going to save you is it. However, the chances of being clipped and knocked off are much much bigger, ive had a lot of very near misses from idiots trying to get past to save a couple seconds recently, lot of people here have been knocked off. Its that scenario thats the reason i wear a helmet, as you far more likely to have you head contact the tarmac/kerb etc once youve been clipped. If anyone doesn't think a helmet will afford them some protection for their skull in that sitution they don't deserve the brains they were born with.

However, compulsory legislation is wrong. Freedom of choice etc. Plus, if cycle helmets were made compulsory just watch at the prices rise, because you'd HAVE to buy one.

INterestingly, i took my bike 'round the block' yesterday (about 2 miles) just to see if everythign wsa present and correct after adjusting the gear change, i went in a cap and no helmet (not intentionally) and boy did I feel vunerable. Im sure it all in the mind for the most part but i was suprised how it affected me.


Not once did i draft a lorry or hold onto a car to gain extra speed like i do with the safety of a helmet

[SkinnyBoy]

My observations as follows are as a resident of Australia where helmet usage is compulsory.

Its part of the kit and theatre that cycling is, so wear one.

Nipping down to 7-11 about 500 yards down the street, maybe not but likelihood of being in a accident, probably 1 in a million.

People take the law with a pinch of salt here but on the whole most people do ride with helmets be they terrible City of Melbourne Blue things and KMart specials or uber lids from the OEM's.

I own 5 lids based on the activity I'll be doing, a full face Urge job for the gnar, an Urge enduro one for not so gnar, 2 Giro roadie lids in silver and black for coordination with the maillot dujour and a classic Specialized Sub 6 for Retro poncing.

I've come to the conclusion that most people need saving from themselves as the levels of fkwittery these days is astounding, and sad as it is, people die from avoidable cracks on the bonce. You only have to see the newspaper reports of lagered up oiks belting randoms who fall where they stand and crack their heads on the pavement under them.

These days nobody care what you look like, and to most avid cyclists if you turn up helmetless we are going to think you are a retard and steer well clear of your selfish assholio!

[WinstonWolf]

Nope, I think cyclists sans lid are cool. I'm thinking of getting an old skool cap