Anybody not wear a helmet? Discuss....

always_tyred

steve-m wrote:

most people wear them because of pressure from non-cyclists.

Rubbish.

always_tyred

Cunobelin wrote:

The 12 mph is the design and performance limit for helmets....

The question is if you had a car whose brakes were only designed and tested to 12 mph would you drive at 30 - 40 mph because "any braking is better than none"

The point is that if we are serious about helmets we should be getting rid of EN1078 and testing more in lines with SNELL ... Off the shelf sampling - higher impacts, better reproduction of real conditions.

We should be looking at getting rid of all the helmets that are designed and manufactured to standards that do not deal with real life situations.

Have you actually read any of the foregoing discussion on the relevance of the figure "12 mph"? If you did read it, what part didn't you understand - was it all the stuff about angles of incidence?

basha

Two riding buddies never wore helmets, one day one of them slipped off on a patch of diesel, this resulted in a flap of skull skin being peeled off.
Paramedic glued flap back to skull.
Two riding buddies always wear helmets NOW

jimmypippa

laughingboy wrote:

The British engineers are all in their 19 century graves, I fear.

Hey, I'm not that old.

Though I do wonder what I will be doing in 20-years time (when, judging from the increase in pension-age, I will still be about 30 years from retirement).

Ah well, semiconductor physics is used in photovoltaics. Maybe China will be outsourcing its manufacturing to a cheap country like the UK?

laughingboy wrote:

Anyway, the idea that wearing a helmet contributes to the perception of dangers of cycling is probably not provable by scientific means, but it makes perfect sense to me. The human brain is not very rational, and makes unconscious judgments based on any evidence, no matter how limited. So, if we see someone dressed in protective gear, then we put two and two together and think: dangerous.

Similarly, to use an analogy, when I see TV pictures of the smog in the Far East, I think: nasty smog! Then when I see pictures of people there walking around in medical masks, it makes me think that the smog must pose an immediate danger to those people's health. I make this judgement on very little evidence, and yet I know - if I ever use the rational part of my brain - that it may not be the correct conclusion. Yet, I still have the feeling that it the air is not safe.

And I doubt that a medical mask would do much for the most dangerous particulates (as many are so small) and even less for any gaseous pollution.

It might make one feel as if one was doing something.

This is unlike the situation with a helmet, where it can, and does make a difference.

laughingboy wrote:

That, I think is a valid - if unscientific - argument against helmets. By their oddness, they must create an irrational response, and people can't help overstating the dangers of cycling accordingly.

I hope my analogy is not too strained.

That is an argument against making helmets compulsory, but not against wearing one. [/quote]

Cunobelin

Always Tyred wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

The 12 mph is the design and performance limit for helmets....

The question is if you had a car whose brakes were only designed and tested to 12 mph would you drive at 30 - 40 mph because "any braking is better than none"

The point is that if we are serious about helmets we should be getting rid of EN1078 and testing more in lines with SNELL ... Off the shelf sampling - higher impacts, better reproduction of real conditions.

We should be looking at getting rid of all the helmets that are designed and manufactured to standards that do not deal with real life situations.

Have you actually read any of the foregoing discussion on the relevance of the figure "12 mph"? If you did read it, what part didn't you understand - was it all the stuff about angles of incidence?

Please read the post....... or do I need to make the connection between angle of incidence and actually duplicating this angle in testing for you?



Why do you have such a problem with a suggestion that we need to improve helmets?

If you red the test standards you will see that the anvils used and impacts (these are the stated performance standard of the helmet) do not all duplicate real life accidents.

If you wish to have a helmet that is designed to protect from head injuries in real life then they should be tested to duplicate these events. Not to an arbitrary level the the manafacturers are allowed to utilise as it means they can produce the bare minimum of performance. and are allowed to produce designs that when they strike at certain angles of incidence for which they are not tested can increase injury or fail in real life.

In the States there is a "Rounder, smoother, safer" campaign to get rid og the flat rears that cause arrest and rotation when the rear strikes a surface (angle of incidence

The Swedes have shown that some helmet straps fail to hold the helmet in place at certain angles of incidence and this research led to Professor Hurt of the American Head Prevention Research Laboratory to ask the ASTM (US equivalent of EN standards) to draft the legilsation such that helmets withthese designs would not pass due to the increasing number of cases where the helmet was not retained.

Any impact at the front or sides of the streamlined helmet is no different from other helmet shapes, but any impact on the rear wedge tends to rotate the helmet on the head, probably deflecting the helmet to expose the bare head to impact, and at worst ejecting the helmet completely from the head. Actually, everybody who has tested these streamlined helmets over the past years has encountered the problem of these helmets being displaced during impact testing at the rear wedge. Usually additional tape was required to maintain the helmet in place during rear impact tests; usually the basic retention system alone could not keep the helmet in place during impact testing on the rear of the helmet.

Unfortunately, the implication of helmet displacement and possible ejection in an actual accident impact did not register as a real hazard in previous years of testing, but now there are accident cases appearing that show this to be a genuine hazard for bicycle riders wearing these streamlined helmets. Accident impacts at the rear of these streamlined helmets can cause the helmet to rotate away and expose the head to injury, or eject the helmet completely. The forces generated from the wedge effect can stretch the chinstraps very easily,

As you get so upset about 12 mph let me rephrase this........

Cycle helmets are often poorly designed for their function and this need to be toughened up. If we accept that the only established measure we have of a helmet is the testing standard (with its predefined angles of incidence ) only guarantee the performance at that angle of incidence and not at any greater speed of impact than that defined then this is the information upon which we have to choose.

Helmet tests need to be toughened up for cycle helmets to meet real life circumstances if they are going to protect heads from head injuries.

Cunobelin

The argument about velocity versus speed / angle does remind me of SafeSpeed who used this to argue that impact with a car at a constant 30 mph was more dangerous than being hit by a car at 30mph but decelerating form a higher speed............making faster cars safer in built up areas and speed limits unwise

il_principe

Cunobelin wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

The 12 mph is the design and performance limit for helmets....

The question is if you had a car whose brakes were only designed and tested to 12 mph would you drive at 30 - 40 mph because "any braking is better than none"

The point is that if we are serious about helmets we should be getting rid of EN1078 and testing more in lines with SNELL ... Off the shelf sampling - higher impacts, better reproduction of real conditions.

We should be looking at getting rid of all the helmets that are designed and manufactured to standards that do not deal with real life situations.

Have you actually read any of the foregoing discussion on the relevance of the figure "12 mph"? If you did read it, what part didn't you understand - was it all the stuff about angles of incidence?

Please read the post....... or do I need to make the connection between angle of incidence and actually duplicating this angle in testing for you?



Why do you have such a problem with a suggestion that we need to improve helmets?

If you red the test standards you will see that the anvils used and impacts (these are the stated performance standard of the helmet) do not all duplicate real life accidents.

If you wish to have a helmet that is designed to protect from head injuries in real life then they should be tested to duplicate these events. Not to an arbitrary level the the manafacturers are allowed to utilise as it means they can produce the bare minimum of performance. and are allowed to produce designs that when they strike at certain angles of incidence for which they are not tested can increase injury or fail in real life.

In the States there is a "Rounder, smoother, safer" campaign to get rid og the flat rears that cause arrest and rotation when the rear strikes a surface (angle of incidence

The Swedes have shown that some helmet straps fail to hold the helmet in place at certain angles of incidence and this research led to Professor Hurt of the American Head Prevention Research Laboratory to ask the ASTM (US equivalent of EN standards) to draft the legilsation such that helmets withthese designs would not pass due to the increasing number of cases where the helmet was not retained.

Any impact at the front or sides of the streamlined helmet is no different from other helmet shapes, but any impact on the rear wedge tends to rotate the helmet on the head, probably deflecting the helmet to expose the bare head to impact, and at worst ejecting the helmet completely from the head. Actually, everybody who has tested these streamlined helmets over the past years has encountered the problem of these helmets being displaced during impact testing at the rear wedge. Usually additional tape was required to maintain the helmet in place during rear impact tests; usually the basic retention system alone could not keep the helmet in place during impact testing on the rear of the helmet.

Unfortunately, the implication of helmet displacement and possible ejection in an actual accident impact did not register as a real hazard in previous years of testing, but now there are accident cases appearing that show this to be a genuine hazard for bicycle riders wearing these streamlined helmets. Accident impacts at the rear of these streamlined helmets can cause the helmet to rotate away and expose the head to injury, or eject the helmet completely. The forces generated from the wedge effect can stretch the chinstraps very easily,

As you get so upset about 12 mph let me rephrase this........

Cycle helmets are often poorly designed for their function and this need to be toughened up. If we accept that the only established measure we have of a helmet is the testing standard (with its predefined angles of incidence ) only guarantee the performance at that angle of incidence and not at any greater speed of impact than that defined then this is the information upon which we have to choose.

Helmet tests need to be toughened up for cycle helmets to meet real life circumstances if they are going to protect heads from head injuries.

Hear hear. Excellent post. The current standards are a joke, honestly how many people here cycle at 12/15 mph or below? The only time I get below that speed for any sustained period is when going up hill. In fact how many helmet wearers on here are even using snell certified lids? Not many I'll warrant.

always_tyred

Okay, fair enough Emperor.

Jash, either you've missed the point or you are winding me up.

Cunobelin - what speed are cars crash tested at? What speed are they legally allowed to drive at? What relative speed of impact might they be subjected to with another vehicle? Is vehicle crash testing a joke? Are the vehicles we drive equipped with safety equipment that is a waste of time?

Nowhere have I ever proposed that helmets should not be improved, indeed I've proposed otherwise. I mean, how much lighter do they actually have to be, really? My interpretation is that there is a prevailing understanding that they are such a joke (as Jash puts it) that they are pointless, which is literally a dangerous assumption. It is that understanding that I'm challenging, by proposing that the 12mph test is more relevant and reflective of a greater degree of protection than one might assume my merely adding together vehicle speeds. Yet time and time again, that same speed is quoted back, together with the point that most vehicles travel faster than this. Which is to miss the point.

There seems to be an interesting disbelief that something so light and full of holes as a polystyrene helmet can offer protection. Yet, lots of people cycle around on plastic bikes (okay, plastic with some extremely brittle stuff in it) that you can deform between your fingers and thumbs. Surely that can't be strong enough to withstand day to day abuse? Can it?

always_tyred

Cunobelin wrote:

The argument about velocity versus speed / angle does remind me of SafeSpeed who used this to argue that impact with a car at a constant 30 mph was more dangerous than being hit by a car at 30mph but decelerating form a higher speed............making faster cars safer in built up areas and speed limits unwise

Except my argument is consistent with Newtonian mechanics, whereas that argument is utterly wrong. What's your point? You can tell the difference, right? I'm arguing that the relevant speed from which to calculate the force of impact between two bodies is their relative speed, and not the relative speed of two other bodies.

Cunobelin

Always Tyred wrote:

Okay, fair enough Emperor.

Jash, either you've missed the point or you are winding me up.

Cunobelin - what speed are cars crash tested at? What speed are they legally allowed to drive at? What relative speed of impact might they be subjected to with another vehicle? Is vehicle crash testing a joke? Are the vehicles we drive equipped with safety equipment that is a waste of time?

Nowhere have I ever proposed that helmets should not be improved, indeed I've proposed otherwise. I mean, how much lighter do they actually have to be, really? My interpretation is that there is a prevailing understanding that they are such a joke (as Jash puts it) that they are pointless, which is literally a dangerous assumption. It is that understanding that I'm challenging, by proposing that the 12mph test is more relevant and reflective of a greater degree of protection than one might assume my merely adding together vehicle speeds. Yet time and time again, that same speed is quoted back, together with the point that most vehicles travel faster than this. Which is to miss the point.

There seems to be an interesting disbelief that something so light and full of holes as a polystyrene helmet can offer protection. Yet, lots of people cycle around on plastic bikes (okay, plastic with some extremely brittle stuff in it) that you can deform between your fingers and thumbs. Surely that can't be strong enough to withstand day to day abuse? Can it?

The whole point is do you want nice cosmetic ventilated helmets or ones that actually work?

Research is showing that modern helmets are less and less effective in preventing injury. Thinner polystyrene absorbs less impact...

As it is thinner it needs to be harder to maintain structure (even with carbon cages) so is less absorbent,

There is also less of it to function as an absorber

The presence of snag points, square edges and angles that arrest movement transferring energy to the neck, and removing the helmet from the rider


The work of Prof Hurt (nominative determinism?) is typical of this research - and its findings.

The point about the 12 mph (it could be 15, 16, or even 20) is that whatever speed we are using the helmets are not offering as much protection as they could and should.

The speed and type of car testing is equally problematic - for instance side impact testing is performed at the level of the sub frame, not the higher and far less protected height of many of the 4x4s and utility vehicles which simply ride over the protective frame and cause greater damage that the safety tests predict or certify for the vehicle.

The mean height of maximum intrusion in EuroNCAP and legislative tests that had been performed at one institute was below that seen in accidents, suggesting that the ground clearance may be too low

European Enhanced Vehicle-Safety Committee

So the same applies - we are accepting blindly tests that are inaccurate and can give a far higher assessment of safety than is appropriate. So yes we are driving around in cars that have safety equipment that is a waste of time.... it (like helmets) fails to live up to the claims and we simply allow this fraud to be perpetuated instead of demanding appropriate equipment that actually protects.

Hence the recurrence of the 12 mph as it is quoted by the testers with the same assurance and gravity as the "safety rating" of a vehicle. You are not going to get the testers to produce reports that state "directional forces" or the likes in the same way as they are neve going to publish

"this is the safest car in its class (but only if hit by family car - if you are hit by a 4x4 you are stuffed)"

This is where the danger lies - you should accept that a thin layer of light well ventilated polystyrene is a compromise with fashion and profit that offers very limited protection and this protection decreases year after year. Over assessment of the ability to protect is far more dangerous than under assessment. His is why the "any helmet is better than none" is such a fallacy - the concept that wearing a piece of equipment that is inadequate and poorly designed as protection should be questioned.

If anyone is serous about head protection - lets start a similar campaign to that in the US for less ventilated, heavier helmets that actually offer a reasonable level of protection.

always_tyred

Do you wear a helmet?

You are it seems now going on about how much protection you need. Do you wear a helmet at all, or not, out of protest?

Cunobelin

We have proven that helmets are not the panacea claimed and interestingly may even cause more injuries!

Professor Hurt is on record as stating that the number of diffuse head injuries (those caused by movement of the brain inside the skull) is increasing as the ability of modern design to absorb impact and lessen the causes of this movement decreases

Hence do I take other choices that affect my decision whether to wear a helmet?


My impact height on a recumbent racer is lower than on a touring recumbent but the speed is faster - do the risks correlate?

Equally Tricycles are exempt from motorcycle helmet laws so is my recumbent trike less of a risk than the others?

Is the Brompton less stable than my Thorn or the Airnimal safer because it is able to keep up with traffic, or more dangerous because of its speed?

Do I risk compensate and use helmets differently?

The quick answer is sometimes - and which helmet I wear is changeable as my needs are different.


The decisions I make are simply that - personal decisions and do not affect the need to improve helmet design.How that helps or supports this thread I have no idea - I would not touch a helmet that is EN1078 and refuse to buy Giro because they do not Snell certify their helmets.and am not happy with any on the present market.

always_tyred

So.... you have a helmet for each bike?

Riiiiight.

baser

I have to say I didn't wear a helmet until last year (to cool for school) then a mate of mine just in front of me on a long decent came off in a big way broke his collar bone and smashed his helmet to bits, he spent a week in a coma but lived doctors all say he would have been a goner without the helmet. The next day I went out and bought a helmet and have not been without one since.

Its a personal choice but if I would have been leading that day and come off I would not be posting this reply to all you lovely people.

Cunobelin

Always Tyred wrote:

So.... you have a helmet for each bike?

Riiiiight.

No - I have a stable of 14 bikes at present and only 4 helmets.

Different priorities and needs..... for instance the Reevu with a mirror provides excellent rear views on the recumbents but the "heads down" on the Airnimal, Thorn or Brompton maes it impractical. My Specialized Airwave is fine for the Brompton, and for touring, but on a racing bike such as the Airnimal the Specalized 2D is more appropriate. However the most used helmet tends to be the Specialized Deuce. I very rarely wear one on the Delibike or the Catrike.

With the exception of the Reevu all are Snell rated, and are heavy - with a maximum of EPF the 2D is a compromise for Summer but has a softer internal layer that makes up for the decreased thickness. Increasing the absorbency over similar designs.

All have the smoothest design I could find and a minimum of snag points.

I also occasionally wear a safety helmet whilst at work that is EN 397 compliant.

I still fail to see how this helps the issue of improving the design and performance of helmets to meet the criteria and impact that real life presents.


Modern helmets are less protective than older designs and fail totally in some areas of protection - this deficiency needs to be addressed.

b0y1nterupted

i do because i do believe its is safer....

its never gonna save your life in a major accident.....

but it may protect in a smaller one....

bikesdontfloat

I've had to makes trips to A&E on 3 occassions with head injuries and I wasn't wearing a helmet at any of these times.

I think that the likelyhood is that on 2 of those occassions a bike helmet would probably have significantly reduced the severity of the injury. The third time is more difficult to call but I suspect that wearing one would have made the injury worse.

The only problem with these anecdotes is that I was only on my bike for the the third. On the first occasion, at primary school I was tripped up and went headfirst into a wall, splitting my forehead open to the bone. A cycling helmet would probably have made a difference here.

The second was being hit by a car turning into the side road that I was crossing on foot. The car took my legs out and the side of my head smacked the road, splitting it open and giving my severe enough concussion that I didn't know what day it was, how old I was, when my birthday was or who my wife was. Again, a helmet would have soaked up at least some of the impact.

The final occassion involved taking a corner in damp greasy conditions at an "ambitious" speed. The rear wheel slid away and down I went. My chin was the part of my head that hit first, making an ugly ripped wound, followed by my eyebrow which didn't suffer as much. Now a helmet may have saved my eyebrow from injury, but quite possibly at the cost of forcing my chin harder into the tarmac.

For some reason though this hasn't persauded my to wear a helmet when I'm walking around during my day to day life. Why is that the helmet wearing epiphany only seems to strike after incidents involving bikes and not after those involving slipping in the bath/tripping in the street/tree branches falling on the head etc?

Cunobelin

I can't remember who it was, but someone posted that the plural of anecdote is not evidence!


Also it is a "fixed" concept ...... try daring to suggest that another factor like poor mechanical maintenance, over assessment of skills, training, poor judgement were factors that would have prevented the injury in the first place and made the helmet unnecessary and you will be treated like an unsympathetic and evil pariah!

daniel_b

I wear one mostly, when I had my 2 mile commute, 80% of which was on cycle lanes, and through a park, I didn't wear a helmet for that, but all other cycling I wear a helmet, and have two so I have a choice

steve-m

Always Tyred wrote:

steve-m wrote:

most people wear them because of pressure from non-cyclists.

Rubbish.

Well it is certainly not due to overwhelming evidence that they offer any form of increased safety but thanks for your well considered reply

Rich158

I always wear a helmet, but mainly because I've been a mtb'er for about 10 years, and would never consider riding off-road without a helmet. Now I commute by road I simply don't feel safe without a helmet.

On the usefulness debate, I've had scores of nasty accidents off road, including hitting trees etc, where a helmet has definately saved me from worse injuries. I appreciate that in a high speed accident they'll be next to useless, but if they offer me a bit of protection in a slow speed accident, then I'm willing to put up with a bit of discomfort for that. If a helmet even offers a 1% chance of lessening my injuries then I'll take it, after all you only get one brain, and it doesn't do to fuck with it.

jedster

Always Tyred,

Just wanted to thank you for the very clear explanation of why the 12mph test on helmets is highly relevant and why the fact that many of us tend to cycle around 20mph does not mean the helmets are worthless. Nice job.

The fact that a couple of contributers don't appear to get your point is nothing to do with shortcomings in your explanation. I've noticed that othewise intelligent people tend to switch off their logical faculties when joining this debate! That does extend to people who aggressively favour compulsion as well as people as well as the strident antis who feel that they can only defend their right to not wear a helmet by rubbishing helmets.

J

always_tyred

Cunobelin wrote:

I can't remember who it was, but someone posted that the plural of anecdote is not evidence!


Also it is a "fixed" concept ...... try daring to suggest that another factor like poor mechanical maintenance, over assessment of skills, training, poor judgement were factors that would have prevented the injury in the first place and made the helmet unnecessary and you will be treated like an unsympathetic and evil pariah!

I have no idea what your position is. You have 4 helmets and appear furious at their adequacy.

Yet you also appear to be critical of people who wear helmets and ridicule them for wishing the protection they offer.

It also appears that certain non helmet lobbyists identify with you. Is this what you want? I mean, if you want better helmets, do you actually want to encourage people not to wear one at all?

Pragmatically, by the way, heavier, thicker, smoother helmets are never going to be adopted. If you do indeed want better helmets, those helmets are not going to get better by getting heavier and less well ventilated, they are going to get better by the adoption, by economies of scale, of more advanced materials. If you ever want that to happen, I'd suggest encouraging people to wear helmets.

Another point is that Iw ould have thought that the cyclist who believes that they can avoid head injury by the power of their own skills is probably over assessing their skills. this to me makes a great deal more sense than proposing that cyclists who are cautious enough to wear helmets suddenly become cavalier when wearing one.

jedster

can't remember who it was, but someone posted that the plural of anecdote is not evidence!

Like it. And it's true of course. On the otherhand, anecdotes can be useful ILLUSTRATIONS. For example I someimes read comments along the lines that hemlets are not usefulin real world cycling accidents. Anecdites can demonstrate that there are some real world accidents in which helmets ARE useful. What they can't do is prove how valuable wearing a helmet is to your safety.

J

npowell28

Forgot mine this morning. Remembered after i had locked the house up and put the keys back through the letterbox for my girlfriend. It's the only time i haven't worn it and the only time i've come off my bike. I wasn't badly hurt but it made me think. I'll make sure i have it in the mornings from now on. :oops:

always_tyred

steve-m wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

steve-m wrote:

most people wear them because of pressure from non-cyclists.

Rubbish.

Well it is certainly not due to overwhelming evidence that they offer any form of increased safety but thanks for your well considered reply

Pot, kettle, black.
Perhaps you would like to propose why the statement is not rubbish?

always_tyred

Rich158 wrote:

I appreciate that in a high speed accident they'll be next to useless

Not necessarily. My argument is that in a high speed impact they'll be next to useless, but that in a high speed accident, although you are more likely to have a high speed impact (to the head) it does not necessarily follow that this is the case, and therefore helmets provide potential protection for a great proportion of incidents than you might think.

None of this is inconsistent with (a) the right not to wear a helmet or (b) the wish to see them improved.

But it is inconsistent with saying (c) I'm super and I can avoid all incidents, its not dangerous anyway, plus helmets are useless so why bother la la la I hate the way they look and I don't want to wear one I'm not listening.

roger_merriman

this is why these threads go on and on, because proof is some what lacking and there are some fairly overstated claims on both sides.

always_tyred

roger merriman wrote:

this is why these threads go on and on, because proof is some what lacking and there are some fairly overstated claims on both sides.

What have I said that's overstated? I've rebuffed statements like "helmets are useless" and "they only protect you if you are moving below 12 mph" and "people only wear them because non cyclists tell them to" or "pedestrians are at higher risk than cyclists" or "helmets make people cycle more dangerously" or "helmets put people off cycling", all of which I agree are overstated.

The equivalent might be "helmets are perfect protection for cycling accidents" or "helmets are fantastic" or "only clever people come to the conclusion that they should wear a helmet" or "people who are confident enough not to wear a helmet are reckless cyclists" which I'm not aware of anyone having said. Although it seems that they might as well have been.

You see MY problem with the debate is that the overstated claims tend only to come from one side.

biondino

bikesdontfloat wrote:

I've had to makes trips to A&E on 3 occassions with head injuries and I wasn't wearing a helmet at any of these times.

I think that the likelyhood is that on 2 of those occassions a bike helmet would probably have significantly reduced the severity of the injury. The third time is more difficult to call but I suspect that wearing one would have made the injury worse.

The only problem with these anecdotes is that I was only on my bike for the the third. On the first occasion, at primary school I was tripped up and went headfirst into a wall, splitting my forehead open to the bone. A cycling helmet would probably have made a difference here.

The second was being hit by a car turning into the side road that I was crossing on foot. The car took my legs out and the side of my head smacked the road, splitting it open and giving my severe enough concussion that I didn't know what day it was, how old I was, when my birthday was or who my wife was. Again, a helmet would have soaked up at least some of the impact.

The final occassion involved taking a corner in damp greasy conditions at an "ambitious" speed. The rear wheel slid away and down I went. My chin was the part of my head that hit first, making an ugly ripped wound, followed by my eyebrow which didn't suffer as much. Now a helmet may have saved my eyebrow from injury, but quite possibly at the cost of forcing my chin harder into the tarmac.

For some reason though this hasn't persauded my to wear a helmet when I'm walking around during my day to day life. Why is that the helmet wearing epiphany only seems to strike after incidents involving bikes and not after those involving slipping in the bath/tripping in the street/tree branches falling on the head etc?

The old "why don't pedestrians wear helmets" argument. Hey, go for it! Let us know how it works out! Just don't compare it to helmets for cycling as, um, they're completely different things.

a concept under discussion wrote:

the idea that wearing a helmet contributes to the perception of dangers of cycling

What makes me laugh here is that the anti-helmet brigade argue with seeming sincerity that helmets a) make cycling look more dangerous than it is but also b) when people do where helmets, they cycle more recklessly! Surely one cancels out the other - they cycle more recklessly than a scared cyclist, which simply returns them to the mean.