Helmet, Yes or No?

macondo01

B. -

Ah yes forgot that one !

Mark Alexander

Right here's my tuppence worth 8)

I never get on the bike without one.

3 accidents 2 under 15mph and 1 at 20+.
Met helmets. the two slow accidents 2 ended up with cracked shell and the third a puncture wound (to the helmet)

I'd rather not be injured than knocked out, cut to shreds or end up with brain damage. I agree though that if you come off at 30 then it probably won't help much!

ellieb

I have great respect for the scientific method:It has got us were we are today. I am correspondingly suspicious of evidence based on anecdote. (Don't get me started on MMR and the risk of autism)

But...

It is websites like cyclehelmets.org who give scientific research a bad name(as if the tendentious twaddle written there can be described as such) . Over the years I have done something like 200,000 miles as a motorbike courier, 50,000+ miles on a bike. Now, I clearly don't think either of these activities is going to kill me, otherwise I wouldn't do them. But for anyone to suggest that the risks are greater as a pedestrian or as a car driver is just plain ludicrous. Yes, this is based purely personal experience and is therefore anecdote, but the difference between my experience and what cyclehelmets.org is trying to suggest is just enormous. I cannot recall the last time I was at risk from a potentially injury threatening incident while out walking. It happens on a more than weekly basis when I cycle. Is anyone seriously saying that you feel more at risk walking than cycling? if so I'd like to ride where they do (Sark perhaps?). The risk is not enough to stop me cycling, but it is clearly there & wearing a helmet is a sensible reaction to it. People are put off cycling because riding in traffic has its dangers~ there is no getting away from it & to blame helmets for this is to blame the effect and not the cause.

dondare

Brixtonbiker wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

coriander:
> Actually, I feel that the cyclists jumping red lights, riding on the pavements and generally riding like w**kers (like the one I had a row with this morning) do much more to compromise my safety than people who don't cycle.

No argument with that at all!

Cheers,
W.

Its sometimes safer to jump the lights.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... article.do

need copy and paste the link.

The research did not show that jumping lights is safer. It only showed that a disproportionate number of women were killed by HGVs at junctions and the "RLJ is safer" theory is based on nothing other than a guess as to why this might be. This theory has not been supported either by observation or testing.
I've watched perhaps a trillion cyclists jump the lights and not one of them did it to be safe or would have been in any danger if they'd waited. They're just impatient twits who can't be bothered to wait and know that they'll probably get away with it.

dondare

Ellieb, if pedestrians aren't at risk, how are 700 or so killed by motor-traffic each year?

If cyclists are at more risk than pedestrians, why are less than 150 killed by motor-traffic each year?

Obviously there are usually more pedestrians than cyclists and this must be taken into account. When this is done, pedestrians are shown to have a higher accident rate per mile travelled than cyclists. Just because you feel safer when walking that doesn't mean you are safer.

wgwarburton

ellieb writes:

> It is websites like cyclehelmets.org who give scientific research a bad name(as if the tendentious twaddle written there can be described as such) .

I think it's intended to be accessible. The research it uses is all referenced and if you want to go to the source and interpret it yourself you can do so. Given how difficult it is to get definitive data on this complex and contentious issue I think it does a pretty good job.

> But for anyone to suggest that the risks are greater as a pedestrian or as a car driver is just plain ludicrous.

It might be counterintuitive, even to the point of being laughable, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong...

If you choose to cycle over a particular route then you'll typically be going, what, three or four times as fast as if you walked it? You'll therefore be "exposed to danger" for three or four times as long. My understanding is that most pedestrian and cycling fatalities involve a motor vehicle, so the longer you spend around them the more likely you are to be KSI'd.

I havn't, personally, done the research, nor am I an expert at analysing it, but that strikes me as a credible explanation of the numbers dondare has presented above.

There are similar calculations for car drivers, though I think they tend the other way. The point about a car crash, though, is that the energies involved are higher and (apparantly) the benefit to wearing a helmet is greater, so it is claimed that there are bigger benefits to wearing a helmet in a car than on a bike. Certainly the design compromises would be vastly different- cycle helmets are compromised by the need to be light and ventilated.

At any rate. It would appear that it is far from clear that cycling helmets offer major benefits over pedestrian helmets or motoring helmets, so why promote them, in particular?

Cheers,
W.

ellieb

...Which is why I don't trust the stats. I would question how they calculate the number of miles travelled. I wouldn't have a clue how many miles I walk a year. Until I got a cycle computer I wouldn't have known how much I cycle.

More to the point. I feel safer as a pedestrian because if you are not in the road at the same time as a vehicle you don't become a statistic. (Yes I know about cars mounting pavements.) If you take care you can avoid accidents. A significant proportion of ped deaths are the elderly or the drunk ie those whose situational awareness is below normal. Let's face it, cars don't appear from nowhere & even if the car is in the wrong, if you keep aware and keep looking as you cross the road it is relatively easy to avoid them. On a bike you can't always do the same. The risk is from other people and it is much more difficult to mitigate because of the higher speeds involved and the fact that the threat comes from behind etc. I take my life in my hands when I cross the road. I put my life in other peoples when I cycle. This is why my perception of my personal risk is not the same as the official stats.

It seems that a majority of people on this forum wear helmets. I would suggest they do so because they assess the risk based on their personal experience and decide accordingly. They are perfectly at liberty to do so while walking but don't choose to wear helmets. There is a lot of combined cycling experience on this forum. Maybe the stats are misleading

biondino

At any rate. It would appear that it is far from clear that cycling helmets offer major benefits over pedestrian helmets or motoring helmets, so why promote them, in particular?

Why not compare them to deep sea diving helmets and astronaut's helmets while you're at it? It's one of the things I hate most about the anti argument - the specious comparisons. If cycling helmets are beneficial in their own right (and in this post at least I'm not even arguing that) then they should be promoted, even if they save fewer lives than motorbike helmets do in crashes or diving bells do in underwater exploration.

I only give a toss about car drivers and pedestrians wearing helmets when I'm arguing on my car driver or pedestrian forums.

wgwarburton

Hi,
It's interesting that in 17 pages of discussion no-one's put forward any solid evidence that helmets make you safer. When those who have done some reading and investigation into the topic have suggested that this is lacking the helmet wearers have picked holes in the arguments, dissed the reasearch and asserted that the statistics must be wrong!

So, the original questions were is the 'only protects the head from impacts of up to 12mph' valid? and "Do you wear a helmet and if so or if not, why?"

..and the answers seem to be "It's a valid, but oversimplistic"

and, for most contributors, "Yes, I wear a helmet, I'm sure it's a good idea, even if I can't prove it"

with a few "No, I don't wear a helmet, there's no need"

It's been an education for me. I feel I've learned a lot about why people, especially serious cyclists, choose to wear helmets, and that's something that's puzzled me for a while.

Cheers,
W.

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

ellieb writes:

> It is websites like cyclehelmets.org who give scientific research a bad name(as if the tendentious twaddle written there can be described as such) .

I think it's intended to be accessible. The research it uses is all referenced and if you want to go to the source and interpret it yourself you can do so. Given how difficult it is to get definitive data on this complex and contentious issue I think it does a pretty good job.

> But for anyone to suggest that the risks are greater as a pedestrian or as a car driver is just plain ludicrous.

It might be counterintuitive, even to the point of being laughable, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong...

If you choose to cycle over a particular route then you'll typically be going, what, three or four times as fast as if you walked it? You'll therefore be "exposed to danger" for three or four times as long. My understanding is that most pedestrian and cycling fatalities involve a motor vehicle, so the longer you spend around them the more likely you are to be KSI'd.

I havn't, personally, done the research, nor am I an expert at analysing it, but that strikes me as a credible explanation of the numbers dondare has presented above.

There are similar calculations for car drivers, though I think they tend the other way. The point about a car crash, though, is that the energies involved are higher and (apparantly) the benefit to wearing a helmet is greater, so it is claimed that there are bigger benefits to wearing a helmet in a car than on a bike. Certainly the design compromises would be vastly different- cycle helmets are compromised by the need to be light and ventilated.

At any rate. It would appear that it is far from clear that cycling helmets offer major benefits over pedestrian helmets or motoring helmets, so why promote them, in particular?

Cheers,
W.

Fairly balanced.

However, you seem to be content to assume that the paraphrasing of the studies provided on cyclehelmets.org is accurate.

I'd really question that assumption.

I spend about 10 hours a week on a bike and about 10 minutes a day walking in a urban environment. Shoud I wear a helmet then?

Following the same line of reasoning, as I myself have advocated, have you gone and adjusted the comparative figures by about a factor of 7 or 8 to adjust for time spent as opposed to distance travelled, in order to compare walking (in an urban environment) to cycling on a time basis? You see, I think this is a far better comparison. We choose the appropriate form of transport based upon the type of journey. I would not choose a bike to travel between Edinburgh and Glasgow because its simply too far. It would take me about 4-5 hours, whereas in a car, it would take an hour.

Similarly, I would not walk to work because its about 12 miles and would take me 3-4 hours. On a bike it takes about 50 minutes.

I would not use my bike to walk around the corner to get sandwiches, I would walk.

Why, then, compare the number of miles travelled for such dramatically different types of journey?

I think that, for the 10 hours a week I spend on a bike, a helmet is worthwhile because, based on the per-mile statistics, adjusted to per-hour, assuming about 25mph for cars, 12 for cycles and 3 for walking, for example, I think I am about 3-4 times more likely to have an accident than 10 hours' driving and about twice as likely as 10 hours' trudging around Edinburgh by foot (this is all from memory, okay, so don't hold me to it!).

As I say, I'm pulling these numbers out of the air, sort of from memory, but I'd invite you to come up with some of your own, worked out from the data you are refering to.

cjw

WGWarburton wrote:

Hi,
It's interesting that in 17 pages of discussion no-one's put forward any solid evidence that helmets make you safer. .

Clealry you haven't read anything posted....

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/bicyclehelmetsreviewofeffect4726?page=7

There is plenty of evidence. Look at the tables in the link above there are 16 reports from a variety of sources that state helmets are effective...


Key points
Bicycle helmets have been found to be effective at reducing the incidence and severity of head, brain and upper facial injury.
Bicycle helmets have been found to be effective in reducing head injury for users of all ages, though particularly for children.
While most studies indicate that helmets offer protection from head injury, the relative risk of injury in helmeted and unhelmeted bicyclists has varied in different studies.
There is equivocal evidence relating to the link between helmet use and neck injury.
There is very little evidence relating to helmet use and bicycling style.
There is considerable heterogeneity in the studies relating to definitions of head and brain injury, choice of controls, target group and context in which cycling takes place.
Only one of the studies has been conducted in Great Britain.

biondino

Well, one problem we have is that as you point out, a lot of the studies which have produced pro arguments have been critiqued, primarily in their methodologies, and this obviously makes a difference to the strength of the argument. It's right and proper to question methods used when such methods are likely to be faulty, but even so, these studies will still often give a strong indication that helmets are a benefit.

The other problem is that the antis are very bad at differentiating areas where helmet benefits might be marginal or even negative - where there arguments are most valid and most welcome - with areas where helmet use is clearly a good thing. The risk compensation argument, for example, only exists when the rider is compensating for risk!

The "oh helmets are useless or worse above 12mph" argument is also useless because, as we have seen many times over anecdotally on this thread, they're not at all useless! Just because they are only *tested* up to 12mph does not mean they automatically become redundant or dangerous above that figure. If I buy a yoghurt with best before 17th September on it I may still eat it on the 20th; if I buy a packet of nurofen and I'm still feeling crappy I may take 12 instead of 8 in a day. If I weigh 100kg and ride a bike specified for 90kg or lighter riders I won't expect it to crumple underneath me. Tolerance and margin for error are built into these things - they have to be to protect the manufacturers.

Most of all, I think that experienced riders are very much capable of choosing whether to wear a helmet. They also, incidentally, are the ones most likely to be riding at high speed, where both accidents may well be worse (including rotational brain injury) and the efficacity of the helmet may be less. Perhaps it will be proven one day that they are actually a liability at this level, I don't know.

But the less experienced riders, the newcomers, the elderly, children - these are the people who are most likely to have exactly the type of low speed accident in helmets should be of use. That they also should be given further training, safety advice and kit is unarguable, and with a bit of luck these would reduce the likelihood of the helmet coming into play. But there will still be accidents, and while most wouldn't have been fatal anyway, even a minor head or facial injury can be traumatic and disfiguring and it's no surprise people should want to avoid it.

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

Hi,
It's interesting that in 17 pages of discussion no-one's put forward any solid evidence that helmets make you safer. When those who have done some reading and investigation into the topic have suggested that this is lacking the helmet wearers have picked holes in the arguments, dissed the reasearch and asserted that the statistics must be wrong!

So, the original questions were is the 'only protects the head from impacts of up to 12mph' valid? and "Do you wear a helmet and if so or if not, why?"

..and the answers seem to be "It's a valid, but oversimplistic"

and, for most contributors, "Yes, I wear a helmet, I'm sure it's a good idea, even if I can't prove it"

with a few "No, I don't wear a helmet, there's no need"

It's been an education for me. I feel I've learned a lot about why people, especially serious cyclists, choose to wear helmets, and that's something that's puzzled me for a while.

Cheers,
W.

I'm sorry - I thought you were relying on paraphrasing of data by Cyclehelmets.org?

You see, I'm relying on independent recommendations made by bodies such as the BMA, upon which legislators in a number of countries have based their actions. In the UK those legislators have determined that a clear case that compulsion has not been made out (except for children). However they did NOT say that the evidence was not pointing towards benefits of cycle helmet use, rather they state the opposite but recommend further study, which I think we all agree on.

No, I have not personally gone to the source, taken a degree in mathematics or statistics and re-evaluated the raw data. Have you? The difference is that I'm basing my views on those of qualified independent bodies, not people with a predetermined agenda.

Look again at the list of people associated with your much vaunted interweb site. The number of realyl qualified people is rather thin on the ground, and some of the people are merely journalists. Of those who have PhD's or MD's, I'd make the following observations;
- there are aparrently intelligent, qualified people who still believe that the moon landings were faked
- there are otherwise intelligent people who believe that all of Elvis, Marilyn Monroe and JFK were assassinated by the US government
- there are entire conferences organised by scientists who not only do not believe that global warming is the result of man's activities, but that it is not ocurring at all
- there are qualified structural engineers and accident analysts who are still writing articles to the effect that the twin towers were demolished as part of a master plan to give the US the excuse to go into Iraq and gain control over their oil...
- there are people in the US who steadfastly refuse to believe that the level of gun ownership bears any relationship to the number of shootings

Therefore, I do not find the ramblings of a tiny group of anti-helmet zealots particularly persuasive. I prefer to rely on the consensus of opinion. To me, it seems clear that a number of governments in a number of countries have looked at the issue of cycle helmets, requested that an overview be taken of available evidence, commissioned such a review and based their actions on the results. Every such review I have seen comes to the same conclusion - studies point to the benefits of wearing a helmet, but not conclusively, such that more study is required.

This is very far indeed from saying that there is no evidence of the benefits of helmet use. I cannot see any way of coming to that conclusion unless you don't want to wear a helmet in the first place and seek reasons not to.

It is also not incompatible with the observation that advocating or compelling helmet use might result in a reduction of the uptake of cycling as an activity, nor of the fairly well established correlation between overall cycle safety and levels of cycling. Said unbiased studies seem to generally advocate some means of introducing cycle helmet usage without incurring these negative effects. This is an entirely different debate from "am I safer or not safer today on my cycle to work with a helmet on."

I do not agree with you on this issue. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with your aparrent belief that somehow all of the people who have decided to take the view advocated by the balance of qualified individuals who have examined this issue as been somehow MORE arbitrary than either (a) your own (or my own) back of the envelope analyses of the same data or (b) the VIEWS expressed on a solitary website.

wgwarburton

AlwaysTyred writes:

> I do not agree with you on this issue. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with your aparrent belief that somehow all of the people who have decided to take the view advocated by the balance of qualified individuals who have examined this issue as been somehow MORE arbitrary than either (a) your own (or my own) back of the envelope analyses of the same data or (b) the VIEWS expressed on a solitary website.

We all seem to agree that there isn't really any hard evidence either way.

If that's the case, then the decision is, in some sense, arbitrary anyway. Having been cycling for a while I know that cycling without a helmet isn't particularly dangerous so from my narrow perspective I'm looking at the issue as "should I wear a helmet?".

It's clear that there's a substantial number of people who look at the issue very differently- their default, or starting, position is that wearing a helmet is a natural and obvious choice, since it might well protect you in an accident. From this perspective, not wearing a helmet is a concious choice in the face of common sense and strong evidence to the contrary, perhaps based on dubious science that claims helmets may cause serious injuries under wierd circumstances.

It's no wonder that things get heated. I've said several times that I've found this discussion educational, and this is largely why- I simply hadn't understood this alternative perspective. This is more of a criticism of me than of anyone else, as in retrospect it's pretty obvious!!
I'm not saying this is everybody's point of view, just that it appears there's a substantial number of people who's perspective is very different from mine in a way that I didn't understand, and I now feel much better informed.

It doesn't matter to anyone why I think people do or don't wear helmets. I'm not about to go about criticising people who've made a different choice from mine, but I do like to have an explanation as to why they have done so and I feel that I now have one that may well account for some of what I see.

Cheers,
W.

wgwarburton

cjw wrote:

> Clealry you haven't read anything posted....
>
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/re ... 726?page=7
> There is plenty of evidence. Look at the tables in the link above there are 16 reports from a variety of sources that state helmets are effective...

I've read that piece, and the critiques of it. I don't find it convincing, let alone compelling.

There's no point in us endlessly repeating the same assertions. I think it's clear there are some circumstances in which wearing a helmet can prevent some injuries, and for some poeple that's reason enough to wear one- "why wouldn't you?".

For others (ie me), the question is more- "why would I?" and it seems to me that there's a fair bit of inconvenience for marginal gain offset by marginal risk. I didn't see the point thirty years ago, and not much has changed since.
One of the most damning things, in my view, is that so many people have tried to hard to prove that helmets are A Good Thing and failed. That suggests to me very strongly that there is a problem with the technology as it stands at the moment.

I say- cycling is safe, why bother with a helmet? Others say these things can help in an accident- better to wear one. The burden of proof lies on the opposite side of the argument and as long as we're not discussing compulsion or trading insults it can sit there quite happiliy while we all get on with enjoying what we do!

I don't think I've insulted anyone. I havn't intended to. There have been some slightly pointed comments made on both sides but so far the discussions stayed pretty reasonable, which is a fine thing....

Cheers,
W.

always_tyred

That's pretty fair.

The slight note of caution is your interpretation of what motivates people to wear helmets. Its not clear how many people do so as a default, because they are appeasing non-cycling loved ones, or out of personal experience, such as watching an accident or experiencing an accident. However, I believe that the proportion of people who wear a helmet as a result of personal experience is quite high.

I hated wearing a helmet when I was a kid. I didn't. I fell off as a child and knocked myself unconscious. This was not enough to deter me. As a young adult, I knew better and cycled without a helmet. I moved abroad and was compelled to wear a helmet. Shortly thereafter, I went on holiday and had the opportunity not to. On an unfamiliar bike on unfamiliar roads, I fell off and knocked myself unconscious.

This knocked some sense into me, finally.

I have worn a helmet ever since. As I have become more experienced, the number of incidents I have had has fallen, now seemingly only resulting from mechanical failures, or ice (which, if I'm honest, I could have avoided by not cycling on farm tracks in the dead of winter!!). I've not hurt myself cycling for more than 5 years.

As such, I can see the argument for compelling helmet usage only in the young, although this misses out people taking up cycling later in life.

However I, and many others, have taken fairly personal decisions to wear helmets. I'm sure I could get away with not wearing one now. But why bother? I'm used to it now and it DEFINITELY doesn't do any harm.

lost-time

I've worn a helmet MTBing/commuting since around 1991. It deffinately has NOT saved my life but HAS stopped a few minor injuries and for me that is the PROOF I need to continue wearing one.
The thing that makes me laugh is when posters say cycling isn't dangerous. Now, I don't know what kind of cycling they do and I'm not knocking it, but, my MTBing IS or CAN BE dangerous. If you just pootle about in town or countryside then yes, I can't see much danger in that but if like me you like to tear yourself down hills and trails (eg Wales, Southern Spain) then there is an element of danger. Once again, if you do come off, you may not hit your head but that's a risk I wont take.
About a year ago I got knocked off my bike. I was doing ~15KPH. I landed on the ground on my right sholder and right side of my head. I hit the ground hard enough to see stars. The helmet broke as it was designed to spread and absorb the impact. Luckily I was OK apart from a few cuts and grazes and some bruising. My face was quite grazed from the gravel. I had no grazing above my hairline due to the shell of the helmet forming a barrier between head and tarmac. The only thing I can say is that if I wasn't wearing a helmet then I would have grazed my head and pulled out chunks of hair. I don't know if I'd have been knocked out or worse, had a serious head injury but the fact that it saved me from more cuts is enough for me.
So just because a helmet may not save your life doesn't mean it may not reduce some injuries.

cjw

lost-time. Agree with you on the MTB being more dangerous. Reasons being we ride through narrow, twisty, tree filled singletracks very fast; tree branches hit your head frequently (nicely deflected by a helmet) and it is not at all unusual to fall off the bike; very different to riding round town etc where it is very unusuall to fall off! Most MTBers have suffered minor injuries (suppose one counts broken bones as minor as they are not usually life threatening :shock: ). Deaths in mountain biking are actually very very rare, I seem to recall only one in the UK in the last 5 years or so, however broken bones and cuts are common. In last year I've had a broken rib, cuts on face (+ split lip) cuts on elbows / arms.

No MTBer rides without a helmet - at least I've almost never seen one (occaisionally you see teens in the woods without, but I wouldn't class them as MTBer).

dhobbs

Here's a mate's take on the matter. That crack in his lid could have been in his skull.

singlespeedexplosif

No MTBer rides without a helmet
I do.



Interestingly, I've twice been knocked unconscious on bouncy castles. Perhaps the wearing of helmets should be made mandatory? Either that, or I need to ensure I'm sober before getting on one..

itboffin

singlespeedexplosif wrote:

No MTBer rides without a helmet
I do.

+1

prawny

Noooooooo not again!!!!! :roll: :roll: :roll:

itboffin

prawny wrote:

Noooooooo not again!!!!! :roll: :roll: :roll:

You love it

roger_merriman

*wimper*

prawny

itboffin wrote:

prawny wrote:

Noooooooo not again!!!!! :roll: :roll: :roll:

You love it

Yes , yes I do 8)

DonDaddyD

I love saying

"Noooooooo not again!!!!!"

And my girlfriend doing it anyway.... :shock:

dilemna

Coriander wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

Their decision not to cycle affects your safety.

Actually, I feel that the cyclists jumping red lights, riding on the pavements and generally riding like w**kers (like the one I had a row with this morning) do much more to compromise my safety than people who don't cycle.

+1. Despite my left knee and hand slowly oozing bright red blood the first thing they did the cops and ambulance people was to ask me "Have you hit your head? It's good you're wearing a helmet," they said, "but we still have to check you haven't sustained any injury.........to it" They then did a few simple tests to check I wasn't concussed, my sight, balance weren't affected impaired, they did a few other things I didn't understand to check my head out. I was shivering my teeth chattering as I sat on the verge on the edge of the roundabout. Blood still trickled from my knee cap. My left side was killing me but my helmet it seemed had saved my head - my brain. The rear triangle of my training bike was a mess.

All those people who are cyclists and oppose cycle helmets haven't had a serious injury or narrow brush with death on a bike. They are talking out of their b**ks*d*s. No a cycling helmet might not prevent you being killed but it might just save your life. You are a long time dead. Cars are large heavy objects, windscreens leave large splinters of glass in your head, rocks by the side of trails are hard and immovable. I choose to wear a helmet as to me it makes sense especially having already been knocked off and injured. One is pretty vulnerable on a bike. For those who decide not to wear a helmet then it's their choice. A deluded choice but none the less their choice. Only legislation will compel them as in motorcycle helmets and car seat belts. I like to think I can do something without the Government compelling me to do so.

The most common reasons car drivers sight for not taking up cycling although alot would like to is because it is TOO dangerous. QED.

BTW if cycling RLJs come anywhere me when I am lawfully crossing a junction then they get struck. I've had a few successes and they won't do it again.

biondino

All those people who are cyclists and oppose cycle helmets haven't had a serious injury or narrow brush with death on a bike. They are talking out of their b**ks*d*s.

I suspect this is totally on the money, though I'm not sure you need to censor "backsides" (which took me a while to decipher!)

biondino

Though, windscreen glass shatters, rather than splinters. Though there's plenty of other glass on or near roads so fair enough.

unclemalc

dilemna wrote:

Coriander wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

All those people who are cyclists and oppose cycle helmets haven't had a serious injury or narrow brush with death on a bike. They are talking out of their b**ks*d*s. No a cycling helmet might not prevent you being killed but it might just save your life. You are a long time dead. Cars are large heavy objects, windscreens leave large splinters of glass in your head, rocks by the side of trails are hard and immovable. I choose to wear a helmet as to me it makes sense especially having already been knocked off and injured. One is pretty vulnerable on a bike. For those who decide not to wear a helmet then it's their choice. A deluded choice but none the less their choice. Only legislation will compel them as in motorcycle helmets and car seat belts. I like to think I can do something without the Government compelling me to do so.

Having been had off by careless driving three times now in the past 5 years, each time getting a sizeable dent in the helmet where my head would have been is enough proof (if I ever needed it) that the bit of polystyrene on top IS a life saver.
Wear one BEFORE it's too late...