[Closed] Wiggo on helmets

+10000

The problem wouldn't be half as bad if the cyclists were seen as law abiding moral high ground holders.

All bike manufacturers should employ [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontakt-5 ]Kontakt-5[/url] in their frame building process(not for weight weenies).Should ensure cars give you a wide berth but whatever you don't drop your bike.
Or why not go the whole hog and get some of these now redundant bad boy enforcers into the urban jungle.I'll take the driver at 0.48 seconds

Just saw this after the last tweet of Bradley.

@bradwiggins it's a valid one tho, as a driver I am so nervous driving alongside cyclists without helmets. Its like driving w/out a seatbelt

Day in day out I see stupid dangerous actions by fellow cyclists (and occasionally myself!) which not only put themselves in danger but others too, and to then bring all the enforcement against the driver is a bit of hipocrisy

Maybe. I'd argue that it rarely puts anyone else in danger. Deaths and injuries caused by cyclists are statistically insignificant. Deaths by motor vehicles not.

Bella Bathurst:

“Cyclists [in the UK] were faced with a landscape which either took no interest in them or appeared keen on actively eliminating them…the law ignored [cyclists]. The solution for many of them was to develop a style of cycling based on a combination of mountain biking, road racing, BMX skills and gymnastics…The law ignored them, so they ignored the law.”

The style of riding in Netherlands is much more relaxed. It's hard to ride slowly when you're expected to mix and merge with traffic travelling at 30mph

Maybe. I'd argue that it rarely puts anyone else in danger

Cyclist do something stupid, driver try to avoid him, drivers hit pedestrian.

Not such an unlikely occurence.

This thread is a disgrace.

You've put us in a cage with lions and your offering us protective clothing and lion taming lessons.

FFS do something about the Lions

I will be using this in the future!

*double post*

Not such an unlikely occurence.

But unlikely enough that I've never heard of it being claimed as the cause of an accident. Lots of guff about the "danger" of cyclists breaking traffic laws but as far as I can see they're almost never a danger to anyone but themselves (and even then a very small fraction of cyclist KSIs where the cyclist is actually at fault)

But unlikely enough that I've never heard of it being claimed as the cause of an accident

Well if you have never heard of it...

It seems to me that people are actually mixing things up. Structures and education = preventive measures.
Helmet and protective gear = protective measures.

They are not antagonist one with the other.

JEEEZ...........!

How difficult can it be to use common sense and minimise, minimise, minimise?

Maybe. I'd argue that it rarely puts anyone else in danger

Cyclist do something stupid, driver try to avoid him, drivers hit pedestrian.

Not such an unlikely occurence.

you sir are a buffoon

[url= http://www.sillycyclists.co.uk/2012/05/episode-39/ ]cyclist never do anything stupid.[/url]

no one is saying they don't

According to some on here it's always the motorists fault

According to some on here it's always the motorists fault

[img] [/img]

Love how this debate always comes back to evil car drivers and better driving standards....while completely ignoring the huge number of idiots on bikes.

Went out on the road for a few hours today (no helmet) and every car passed me with space to spare, on narrow roads cars waited (no revving or beeping) until they could pass safely, it was a joy....when i go out tomorrow on the MTB i will wear a helmet, i'd like to do some more Gravity Enduro next year and find myself pushing harder and harder on most rides....i've come off enough times among tree roots, stumps, rocks etc and seen the battle scars on my helmet to make me thankful it wasnt my scalp bearing the brunt of these lapses in talent....no car drivers, scary lorries or other such nonsense around....but still worth a helmet if you're likely to fall off, which i do from time to time.

However, on my way back in to town today i came across loads of kids (summer hols, oh joy) riding like dicks....no other word for it.

Riding two abreast while having a play fight involving pushing each other to the kerb or out to the road....riding on the pavement and then launching off the kerb into the road without checking if it was clear....its easy to blame the evil motorist but really and truly as a group we dont seem to have a minimum standard of competency for riding on the road, most adults i see out and about are fine but the kids seem intent on making themselves weaving, jumping RTC statistics.

Why's everyone latched on to the helmets point he made, it was one thing in a number of things he thought would increase safety.

He may be a good cyclist but he isn't God and so not everything he say will be gospel.

Hopefully his comments will send the debate in the right direction - its mainly the behaviour of motorists that is the biggest issue, not whether helmets should be made compulsory.

The driving test could feature a section on passing cyclists safely.....but to be fair the highway code covers this and a learner driver is expected to have studied this in preparation for their test.

I'd favour training in schools, both classroom, video and practical lessons.

Just for balance i've been out on two decent length road rides this week, encompassing country lanes, dual carriageway and town riding and not had any problems from cars.

Late to the party here.
What was Wiggins meant to say? he was fronted on TV during what should have been a happy time.
Wiggins is a racing cyclist and we somehow think some words from him would end all deaths forever.

For the record I've been riding a long old while now. Last year I was wiped out by a hit and run driver and left in the road. The back of my helmet was non existent after the collision. It may well have saved my life.
I safety officer wanted to use my lid as an example, but upon seeing it thought it was too graphic.

Where's TJ these day? He'd normally be all over this like a rash! It's been quite refreshing to have different people trundling out the same tired old arguments.

most adults i see out and about are fine but the kids seem intent on making themselves weaving, jumping RTC statistics.

Must be where you live. Most kids I see ride reasonably sensibly on road. Kids being kids? What next?

Anyway this thread was sparked by an adult cyclist death where a helmet would apparently have made no difference. An inch of polystyrene won't help when a bus drives over you.

What would help would be training for cyclists and more penalties for bad driving.

At the moment penalties are a joke. What will 3pts and a £37 fine for example do to discourage deliberate bad driving involving a punishment overtake. You'd get a bigger fine for overstaying on a parking meter.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/man-fined-37-for-careless-driving.html

not sure if anyone has linked to Wiggos account but,

Bradley Wiggins ?@bradwiggins

I wasn't on me soap box CALLING, was asked what I thought #myopiniondoesntcountformuch
Expand

6h Bradley Wiggins Bradley Wiggins ?@bradwiggins

I suggested it may be the way to go to give cyclists more protection legally I involved In an accident
Expand

6h Bradley Wiggins Bradley Wiggins ?@bradwiggins

Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as reports suggest

The driving test could feature a section on passing cyclists safely.....but to be fair the highway code covers this and a learner driver is expected to have studied this in preparation for their test.

Wiggo for PM

The most deadly vehicles as far as cyclists and all other road users for that matter are the big vehicles usually HGVs and as in this tragic case buses.The people who drive these drive professionally, 5 days a week most weeks of the year for years and years ,encountering cyclists, horses , pedestrians ,sleeping drivers,drunk drivers,Sunday drivers,tourists and god knows what else along the way,far more driving and far more experience of the road than most on here.How will a bit more driver training before they take their test realistically help reduce accidents for this group?
I just don't think it's that simple.

juan - Member
Cyclist do something stupid, driver try to avoid him, drivers hit pedestrian.
Not such an unlikely occurence.

6h Bradley Wiggins Bradley Wiggins ?@bradwiggins

Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as reports suggest

he hath spoketh 8)
end of thread?

Video and more info

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100174200/i-hate-to-disagree-with-bradley-wiggins-but-mandatory-cycle-helmets-would-be-a-terrible-idea/

Same old re hash

For - protects your head

Against
Reduce numbers so effect on health - tbh I am not concerned as not my problem if someone else does not exercise.
Safety in numbers - probably an effect but could be countered by education
Drivers reaction to helmets - Perhaps a factor/probably but who knows how they are affected if everyone wears one.

Big problem with stats is that those who dont need to go to hospital because a helmet worked are not in the stats

i sometimes think this gets sidetracked to it wont save your life and we ignore the effect it will have for minor/major but non life threatening bumps.

i knocked myself out and fubbared a helmet but rode off nan bield...I would not have ridden off without a helmet though I would have lived and may have got a nice helicopter ride

Depends what you want tbh.
Personally I think it is daft not to but I would not make it compulsory

If you have a £5 head, wear a £5 helmet.

I have cracked two helmets and walked away from both incidents unscathed. A third accident I had (slipped on ice and ****tted the back of my head on the road at a junction) resulted in no damage to the helmet, whiplash, concussion and a blinding headache for four days. I dread to think about the consequences of not having had a helmet on that day.

No doubt there is an argument that the road should have been gritted. But I went out on a cold morning, I knew the risk, I put safety equipment on to mitigate that risk. I'm still alive and healthy as a result.

What would you rather have in the steering wheel of your car? An airbag or a six inch metal spike? No doubt you'd drive more carefully with the spike, but you wouldn't accept it. So why on earth would you get on a bike without a helmet?

What would you rather have in the steering wheel of your car? An airbag or a six inch metal spike? No doubt you'd drive more carefully with the spike, but you wouldn't accept it. So why on earth would you get on a bike without a helmet?

Aren't most bike/car accidents SMIDSY?
If so how would a driver's reaction/thoughts/beliefs to helmet wearing matter...he ain't seen ya.

Death Data stats, When a cyclist is in collision with another vehicle, 71% chance of head injury being the COD when not wearing a helmet, 30% when wearing a helmet.

Surely whether or not a helmet is a good thing, and whether or not they should be compulsory are two very different debates? A lot of folk on here seem to confuse the two.

And as for

The most deadly vehicles as far as cyclists and all other road users for that matter are the big vehicles usually HGVs and as in this tragic case buses.

Wish I could say the same for First Bus and Citylink though. It's only a matter of time before they kill someone (cyclist or pedestrian) but the morons that run the company (and who drive for them) don't seem to give a damm.

What would you rather have in the steering wheel of your car? An airbag or a six inch metal spike? No doubt you'd drive more carefully with the spike, but you wouldn't accept it. So why on earth would you get on a bike without a helmet?

Can't fault the logic.

Absolutely can fault the logic. Scientific studies [url= http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/atsb160.pdf ](here)[/url] have shown that wearing a helmet while driving is probably more effective than wearing a helmet when cycling in terms of preventing injury, and that head injuries are more common while driving. So if you don't wear a helmet when driving, then why on earth would you wear one when cycling?

Can't fault the logic.

Yes you can, because the logic is flawed. I wear a helmet quite a lot, but if I perceive the risk of not wearing one to be negligible then I don't bother as cycling is more comfortable without one. Taken to it's logical conslusion, the argument for always wearing one because it's safer should also apply to all drivers and pedestrians.

How the ****ty**** is riding without a helmet more comfortable? If you are bothered about a little bit of helmet rub you aren't trying nearly hard enough and should give your bike to someone more deserving.

to be fair it really depends which helmet is chafing 😉

What would you rather have in the steering wheel of your car? An airbag or a six inch metal spike? No doubt you'd drive more carefully with the spike, but you wouldn't accept it. So why on earth would you get on a bike without a helmet?

Perhaps a better analogy would be , would you rather, or rather not, wear a helmet in the car?

One of the things that gets me about the helmet debate, is that if I seriously turned up at work every morning, in the car with a full face helmet on, the same people who would string me up for not wearing a helmet on my bike would think I was a lunatic. Yet head injuries are responsible for a massive number of fatalities in RTAs.

Helmet debate aside though, I'm more disappointed with the reporting. It looks like Wiggins was quizzed and so gave his general opinion in that laid back conversational tone he has, and bosh, it's front page headlines. BRADLEY WIGGINS PLEADS FOR LAW ON HELMETS. What bullshit.

Death Data stats, When a cyclist is in collision with another vehicle, 71% chance of head injury being the COD when not wearing a helmet, 30% when wearing a helmet.

And what do the same stats say for car occupant deaths or pedestrian deaths? I'm going to guess that head injuries feature fairly high there too.

glitch bump

How the ****ty**** is riding without a helmet more comfortable?

It's simple really. When I am cycling without a helmet it feels more comfortable than when I'm cycling with one. Particularly in hot weather. If you don't understand that I don't think I can find many shorter words to explain it.

you aren't trying nearly hard enough and should give your bike to someone more deserving.

Well gee, that's me told. Guess I'll have to give up cycling as I'm obviously just some sort of beginner/wimp/slob.

It's all down to perceived risk. We wear safety equipment to minimise the risk of injury. If you don't think there's any risk then you don't wear any safety equipment. It's your choice and responsibility to protect yourself appropriately, but riding on roads you can't always know all the risks.

On another note I'm sick of hearing the motorist getting it in the neck. I ride a bike and drive a car and there are complete idiots partaking in both disciplines. Ive just got back from London and some of the cycling I witnessed while walking the streets was nothing short of suicidal. Weaving in between buses, texting while riding (wtf!!!?), runnin red lights at junctions as well as crossings. If you carry on like that you are going to get into trouble and death is a very possible outcome.

If you have a fight against an HGV or a car or a bus on a bike you will lose, everytime. You may possibly even lose everything that is important to your entire existence. Do what you need to do to survive such a fight, it's your call.

On the whole London is not a safe place to ride bike, helmet or no helmet.

I do agree with the fact that there are idiots on both forms of transport, and that people should be cycling more safely than they do. I also don't know statistics on causes of cyclist/motorist [b]accidents[/b], however, having cycled in London for 6 or 7 years, and followed the safety campaigns, and therefore the cyclist [b]fatalities[/b], which are generally fairly small in number (8-20 a year), it seems, anecdotally at least, that the vast majority are one: women, and two: cycling as directed on the right hand side, often waiting at traffic lights, and are then crushed by turning HGVs/Buses.

I have never once heard of a cyclist being killed after being hit by a car having jumped a red light, although I don't doubt that it could happen, it's clearly nowhere near as common as being killed when an HGV turns across your path. Maybe an example where your perceived risk affects your judgement?

P.S. I should point out that I don't jump red lights, some people seem to espouse that it is 'safer' to get ahead of the traffic, I think you can be pretty safe while still waiting at the lights, although several friends have been hit from behind doing just that, it's never been very serious. I don't think jumping lights is particularly dangerous if done properly, of course it could be extremely dangerous if done improperly, but fortunately the vast majority of cyclist in London who do it, seem to do it safely (as in they don't get hit, it may not look safe to you or I). I choose not to do it because I know it annoys motorists and is used against us in arguments for better protection for cyclist and better cycling infrastructure.

It's simple really. When I am cycling without a helmet it feels more comfortable than when I'm cycling with one

I do love "scientific" proof that compare pedestrian with cyclist with car. As both the numbers and the mileage of the three part is so different.

Death Data stats, When a cyclist is in collision with another vehicle, 71% chance of head injury being the COD when not wearing a helmet, 30% when wearing a helmet.

Just to check, the missing 41 percent still die yes? Just of other stuff, possibly slow and and more painfull... These are death stats not death and injury stats. There's a hole in these numbers.

We need (and yes I'm being lazy I have no idea where to find them) numbers per 1000 of killed, injured, when in collision for both with and without a helmet.

If a cyclist is flung to the ground and then crushed, then a helmet may stop them receiving head wounds serious enough to kill them before they bleed to death... but it hasn't saved their life.

I do love "scientific" proof that compare pedestrian with cyclist with car. As both the numbers and the mileage of the three part is so different.

If you look at the scientific studies in detail they will nearly always take this into account by providing accident statistics by 'billion miles travelled' or sometimes statistics 'per trip'. It's an interesting point, in that air travel is probably the safest by 'miles travelled' and probably the most unsafe 'per trip'. It's important to know what measure a study uses, and the study will say which they use and why they chose it, but essentially, they realised your point a long time ago, and it is accounted for in scientific studies, so that's not a reason to dismiss them.

Get a helmet that fits? I find riding with a helmet in hot weather much more comfortable. But then what would I know about riding in hot weather

[i]If a cyclist is flung to the ground and then crushed, then a helmet may stop them receiving head wounds serious enough to kill them before they bleed to death... but it hasn't saved their life.[/i]

the study only looked at cases where a helmet could have made a difference. Being crushed under the wheels of a hgv would have been disregarded.

Did any one here Chris Boardman on this subject on the news last night? Very impressed with what he said. Look it up on the beeb. Or maybe I will and then post it up here

Indeed Klunk - even the CTC have to rely on convoluted straw man arguments such as "more people will die of heart disease because less people ride bikes" to prove that compulsory helmet laws are negative.

Bike Snob makes a good point:

But then I thought about it more, and I realized I shouldn't be angry at Bradley Wiggins. Instead, I should place the blame where it almost always belongs, which is on the journalists. Journalists are cycling's worst enemy. It's not reasonable make a competitive cyclist suddenly don an ill-fitting bike advocacy hement in the wake of a tragedy. Competitive cycling and bike advocacy really have very little to do with each other, apart from the fact that bikes are involved. Why do they need to ask Wiggins about it at all? If someone had drowned in the Thames would they hunt down Michael Phelps? A bus was involved in this collision too, but they don't go interviewing a professional monster truck driver--and if they did, I'm sure the monster truck driver would say something inane about how all buses should have gigantic tires so they can ride over everything in their path.

And Zulu I think you're being rather obtuse there, the CTC's point is that mandatory helmet laws reduce the number of people cycling which does have health implications - they're just making it juicy.

In the story linked to in the North Wales thread it says Wiggin "demanded" blah blah... 🙄

On the helmet stats, if the study only looked at cases where a helmet could have made a difference, then what proportion of all accidents is that? Not having a go (i know it seems I am), just very aware stats without context can be misleading.

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/aug/02/bradley-wiggins-helmet-cyclist-death?newsfeed=true ]http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/aug/02/bradley-wiggins-helmet-cyclist-death?newsfeed=true[/url]

Sums it up for me. This debate should not be about helmets, whether they work or not, whether they're worn or not, whether they're compulsory or not. That's a red herring. It's about preventing cyclist from getting hit and driven over in the first place, about redesigning the roads so that they're safe for syslists to use, about changing attitudes and providing adequate training for all road users.

even the CTC have to rely on convoluted straw man arguments such as "more people will die of heart disease because less people ride bikes" to prove that compulsory helmet laws are negative.

So, pretty much exactly the same reasoning used by the British Medical Assoc (before they caved to political pressure).

It's not convoluted - it is pretty much the main thrust of the anti-compulsion argument: compulsory helmets = less people cycling due to cost, comfort and greater perceived risk = lower public health to the extent that the loss outweighs any gains made for protecting individual heads.

No, its not Obtuse - the statistics clearly show that cyclists who [b]are[/b] involved in a crash are significantly safer wearing a helmet.

You can muddy the waters by saying that cyclists are more likely to have a crash if they're wearing a helmet, but there appears to be very little proof of this, only circumstancial evidence, such as a study that cars might drive a little closer (but no evidence that this actually means the cyclist is more likley to be involved in a crash) or that people take more risks wearing a helmet (well, thats down to them, isn't it)

To actually come out with a result that helmets are less safe requires you to make a link between reduction in cycling participation in Australia in the 1980's and an increase in heart disease - Well frankly I think thats convoluted and that the CTC care more about increasing the number of people cycling than they do about increasing the safety of those who already do.

I don't really care much about the outcomes of people who don't ride bikes, and in fact were clearly unlikley to anyway, I'm more concerned about the outcomes of the people who do ride bikes, and the ability of us as a cycling community to make an argument for more protection from the law and more facilities, and to do that we [i]absolutley[/i] need to argue from the moral high ground by saying "[u]we've done everything we can to make ourselves safe, now its over to you[/u]" - and if that means that [b]we[/b] as a cycling community have to wear helmets, have to stop running red lights, and have to stop riding around at night without lights on our bikes and on pavements, then so be it - because every time one of us does that, it weakens our argument.

Wiggins cleqrly zqnts to see the reduction in bicycle use theyve seen in Austrqliq. Id be more interested in how he explqins rqcers going faster since labs have developed tests for steroids, cortisone, EPO, growth hormone and a host of sti;ulqnts thqn his views on hel;ets>

Anyone got qn azerty keyboqrd to lend ;e<

I2ve ridden qbout fiv ehundred ;iles on uk roqds in the lqst week or so qnd reckon the ;qin proble; is the lqck of cqre drivers tqke qround cyclists qnd pedestriqns. I hope the oly;pic spectqting to;orroz is worth the risks I£ve tqken.

[i]On the helmet stats, if the study only looked at cases where a helmet could have made a difference, then what proportion of all accidents is that? Not having a go (i know it seems I am), just very aware stats without context can be misleading. [/i]

[url= http://btawa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/The-Potential-for-Cycle-Helmets-to-Prevent-Injury-Review-.-D.Hynd-UK-2009.pdf ]read it for yourself appendix H page 115[/url]

@pleaderwilliams

. It's an interesting point, in that air travel is probably the safest by 'miles travelled' and probably the most unsafe 'per trip'.

Really? British airlines have had zero fatalities in the last 10 years. How many road deaths have there been in that time?

UK 10 year fatality rates per billion passenger km.

UK Airlines - zero
Rail 0.2
Bus and coach 0.3
Car 2.4
Motorcycles 104

[url= https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ezAx96pTTkcJ:www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03760.pdf+&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgPyQjmJd2mkkEC-_N33VOggBmoCzpBWAuV-mqESwZfd4V9g0AkBWnryN-xKic5tJzE5PLEg3wOW2gMUCCvCq9GGMlm0tH_LfFQaS7IHQ3J0L_oZJSL8mwUE9jQN0rPnB1_Bd6p&sig=AHIEtbRKNb0GtWMwVp23JS-8Dx5YtxPoog&pli=1 ]UK Parliament Briefing Paper[/url]

So there are 10% or so of cases where a helmet would "probably" have helped. How many more qccidents would there have been if the cyclists had been wearing helmets and therefore more likely to be hit? (Bath uni) And how many more would die of heqrt diseqse because they stopped commuting due to the unacceptability of helmet hair in their job (a doctor in the Irish medicql times).

French stats say that not jumping red lights is the single most importqnt thing cyclists should do to stqy qlive. In most other cqses they qre the victim rqther thqn the cquse.

No, its not Obtuse - the statistics clearly show that cyclists who are involved in a crash are significantly safer wearing a helmet.

You can muddy the waters by saying that cyclists are more likely to have a crash if they're wearing a helmet, but there appears to be very little proof of this

Well the fact is that on a population basis there is no evidence of helmets hsving a protective affect. Risk compensation is the most likely explanation though drivers taking less care around "protected" riders might play a part. Look at the fatality trends for cyclists V peds from 1985 - 2004. They track each other despite helmet use increasing over that time period. There is no helmet affect.

[img] [/img]

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1071.html

Really? British airlines have had zero fatalities in the last 10 years. How many road deaths have there been in that time?
UK 10 year fatality rates per billion passenger km.
UK Airlines - zero
Rail 0.2
Bus and coach 0.3
Car 2.4
Motorcycles 104

To be clear, I'm not trying to say that airline travel is dangerous, just that stats can be misleading. Data from a different source that supports what I said (air travel least dangerous by billion miles/km, among most dangerous by billion journeys) is [url= http://web.archive.org/web/20010907173322/http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/risks_of_travel.htm ]here[/url].

N.B. DETR (where the data is from) is now known as the Department for Transport.

Maybe cycling should allow helmets to become compulsory for political reasons. This issue isn't going to go away. We live in a world where people with little knowledge on a subject can have a big impact on what gets done.
Getting this out of the way will allow the focus to move onto other aspects of road cycle safety, which will have a much bigger impact.

Data from a different source that supports what I said (air travel least dangerous by billion miles/km, among most dangerous by billion journeys) is here.

Fair point. Though in the decade to 2010 UK airline fatalities were zero. Can't get safer than that.

I think the real message from the numbers though is that travel (apart from motorbikes arguably) is safe. Even cycling. around 100 cyclists killed per year is fairly low. Then it is possible to reduce our personal risk well below the average as many if not most cycling fatalities are avoidable.

Route choice. - Some roads like fast dual carriageways are inherently unsafe due to high volume high speed traffic. There is a disproportionate number of cyclists killed on these roads.

Traffic awareness. Don't undertake buses or other large vehicles even when stopped unless you are certain you can get past and well in front before they move. Use a mirror. Anticipate what other road users might do and have an escape option planned.

Helmets are a sideshow other than for times when there is a high risk of crashing - technical off road, road racing etc. The risk of crashing for a good rider in normal road riding is tiny.

At the very best the research is inconclusive

[url= http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/all-those-helmets-posts-in-one-place/ ]http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/all-those-helmets-posts-in-one-place/[/url]

[url= http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/helmets ]Helmets in the Netherlands[/url]

Make cycling safe and the helmet argument becomes irrelevant

This issue isn't going to go away. We live in a world where people with little knowledge on a subject can have a big impact on what gets done.

People only don't know much because there's not enough decent research.

Well I wouldn't discriminate motorcycles and cars, as both have to adibe the same rules share the same space.

Just a point on this when I go out on mountain bike or road bike always wear a helmet. Just been out for a quick ride on the bikes with the wife. She's confident enough now to raise the saddle a little. Pulled up in front of the house after the ride she forgot about the hight of he saddle and only being 4 ft 11. Got unbalanced and fell into the road. Cut her arm and bounced her head of the kerb doing damage to the back of the helmet.it was quite a thump and she still has a headache. If she hadn't been wearing it it would have been a trip to A&E . it's an accident any of us could do no matter how good a cyclist you are. By all means don't make helmets compulsory but the wife was damn pleased that I refused to take her out on the bike unless she put the helmet on .her excuse was don't need it as only a short ride. And it showed her what the most innocuous accident can cause.