'Compulsory cycle helmets' - bbc.co.uk article

CiB

meanredspider wrote:

IF you're refering to me with some of those comments (it's difficult to tell) please do me the favour of reading what I wrote before spouting your cr@p.

It ws aimed at anyone who equates not wearing a helmet with the invalid use of their taxes to fund treatment. You can include yourself if you like.

meanredspider wrote:

I was told by a police driving instructor, for instance, that a fatal RTA costs on average a million quid to society. Whatever the accurate figure, that's worth saving.

Is it? Is money the sole factor? You may as well introduce laws to ban anything that carries an element of risk in that case. "If it saves just one life it's worth it" - pffft. And we all sit at home scared to do anything in case it results in an end-cost to the NHS? And this mythical million pounds per fatal RTA? Plucked out of the air, an average that has a nice friendly ring to it - a million pounds sir, please send the cheque asap. If the bloke who painted my house tried to tell me that his average job costs £10000, what am I supoosed to do with that information? Smile and say well you'd better charge me ten grand too if that's your average. Gaah. A meaningless number.

meanredspider wrote:

So you've paid your taxes (more than me? Probably not but whatever). Do you really think that gives you any more rights? If so, you're so far right wing that there's just no point in taking this any further... but I couldn't follow the point you were trying to make. WTF has Afghanistan got to do with anything?

Apologies if you couldn't follow it. Let's try again. The argument in favour of compulsion often - as in this case - veers down the path of the cost to the NHS to treat the injured, and that some people don't want their taxes to be spent treating people who contribute to their own lack of well-being. Quite why the real culprit - the driver who knocks the cyclist over - isn't included in this mix is a bit wierd, but there yer go. The obvious analagy for the NHS cost is the cyclists don't pay road tax argument, where the hard-of-thinking somehow imagine how their tax's distribution gives them some claim on the end-result of its usage. Sorry chief - that doesn't happen. I've flagged up the fact that 'your taxes' - except they're not your taxes, they're the government's taxes - all goes into one big swimming pool of cash that's spent on whatever Osbourne fancies spending it on. Us little people who pay a few grand a year are contributing v little of the overall total, and what you or I may have contributed to the pot so far this year has been p!ssed up the wall on some scheme or other that costs more per day that we'll pay in tax in a lifetime. Up to you whether you wish to infer from that the I believe the war in Afghanistan to be a bigger waste of cash than a Save The Lesbian Whale Outreach Community Support Team on Camden Borough Council or whatever.

Quite how all that makes me out to be raving fascists I'm not sure, but hey - I'll take that complement anyway, and I've had worse. I don't like big government, or govt that pokes its face into private and personal choices. Where the potential compulsion for helmets has debatable benefits anyway makes it even more of a reason for Cameron & his mates to leave this one well alone. And like I've said, the opposite of Compulsion is not a ban. It's the freedom of the individual to make that choice.

I wear one too sometimes. I have the choice see?

meanredspider

I'm going to pull one bit out of your response CiB as point 1 doesn't apply, point 2 you've missed (and/or not read what I read elsewhere) but point 3 has a familiar ring to it:

In many countries (Belgium for one, I believe, but I think it's common in Western Europe - I believe - not categorical) the driver of a car (or his insurance) picks up the liability in any accident involving a pedestrian or a cyclist - regardless (I believe) of fault.

This lifts the burden of such accidents from the mutuelle or healthcare insurance provider. It also has the effect of making drivers far more careful arround cyclists and pedestrians - probably a Good Thing.

Your last point I can wholeheartedly agree on - we do have a choice and I'm pleased we do

meanredspider

White Horse wrote:

Can anyone find an advert by a retailer or helmet maker that claims safety as a selling point?

They all claim things like "lightweight", "well ventilated", "stylish" etc. If people were wearing helmets because they saved your life, don't you think retailers and manufacturers would use that as a selling point? Much like the car safety ratings?

Quite the opposite - most helmets have a disclaimer in them - that'll be the lawyers earning their "crust". The safety bit comes from the testing standard (Snell or BSxxxx or whatever) - a manufacturer would be very foolish to claim safety over and above meeting those standards.

meanredspider

Kieran_Burns wrote:

MRS - I suggest you read those links I've given you. They are very informative and useful.

I will - thanks

Agent 57 wrote:

Yes; many of them have been mentioned in this thread.

What I've seen so far (before reading K_B's stuff) is:

- the "Cars Drive 3" Closer" study
- "Potential" of rotational injuries
- There's no unequivocal statistical proof that helmets help

They are the usual ones too. Any key ones I've missed?

W1

meanredspider wrote:

I'm going to pull one bit out of your response CiB as point 1 doesn't apply, point 2 you've missed (and/or not read what I read elsewhere) but point 3 has a familiar ring to it:

In many countries (Belgium for one, I believe, but I think it's common in Western Europe - I believe - not categorical) the driver of a car (or his insurance) picks up the liability in any accident involving a pedestrian or a cyclist - regardless (I believe) of fault.

This lifts the burden of such accidents from the mutuelle or healthcare insurance provider. It also has the effect of making drivers far more careful arround cyclists and pedestrians - probably a Good Thing.

Your last point I can wholeheartedly agree on - we do have a choice and I'm pleased we do

Insurance companies are regularly billed for NHS healthcare/ambulances in this country too. That's nothing to do with assumed liability (which is a crass and legally repungent policy).

hmbadger

Kieran_Burns wrote:

MRS - I suggest you read those links I've given you. They are very informative and useful.

Indeed. Interesting, and I WILL look at it properly someday. But I can't really understand the big deal. To me its common sense that overall helmets will lessen injuries in some situations, and are overall a good thing from the injury point of view.

Which doesn't mean to say that it's true. I got round to wearing a helmet about a year ago. Glad I did - when I was knocked off the bike a couple of weeks I whacked the back of my head on the road. Hardly felt it. Seriously impressed with the helmet, I had no idea they were that good.

I have no problem with those who don't wear a helmet, absolutely none. But I do think some of the reasoning is painful to read / listen to.

dilemna

hmbadger wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

MRS - I suggest you read those links I've given you. They are very informative and useful.

Indeed. Interesting, and I WILL look at it properly someday. But I can't really understand the big deal. To me its common sense that overall helmets will lessen injuries in some situations, and are overall a good thing from the injury point of view.

Which doesn't mean to say that it's true. I got round to wearing a helmet about a year ago. Glad I did - when I was knocked off the bike a couple of weeks I whacked the back of my head on the road. Hardly felt it. Seriously impressed with the helmet, I had no idea they were that good.

I have no problem with those who don't wear a helmet, absolutely none. But I do think some of the reasoning is painful to read / listen to.

+1

W1

dilemna wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

I have no problem with those who don't wear a helmet, absolutely none. But I do think some of the reasoning is painful to read / listen to.

+1

That may be so - but there is a big, big step between being in favour of wearing helmets (which I am, personally), and being in favour of forcing (by law) everyone to wear one - particularly when the evidence is far from clear.

nation

Kieran_Burns wrote:

4. Some insurance companies sometimes claim a cyclist has contributed negligently to "accidents" they're involved in by not wearing a helmet, even when there has been no head injury. In fact, no such claim has succeeded, partly thanks to CTC lawyers.

(full disclosure: I work for an insurance company and see lots and lots of RTA injury claims)

I'd probably change that to most insurance companies argue that not wearing a helmet was contributory negligence, although no such claim has ever been upheld in court, depending on how you interpret it. In fact, it's never actually been argued.

The vast, vast, majority (less than 1%) of bodily injury compensation claims never see a courtroom, and it is quite routine for insurers to push for reductions in damages of about 25% in incidents involving cyclists not wearing helmets. The headline cases where insurers have backed down from doing so have tended to be more about negative publicity than anything else.

Just to be clear, I'm posting this more for information than anything else, not claiming that this is how it should be or defending it. If you are involved in an accident while not wearing a helmet, you will need some extremely determined solicitors to avoid a reduction in damages. Personally I'm of the opinion that if it was argued, pretty much any judge in the country would rule in favour of the cyclist.

Clank

rjsterry wrote:

My parents (both vets) noticed an increase in dogs with hip dysplasia as laminate floors became popular. If you've ever seen a dog trying to corner at speed on such a floor, you'll know why.

Um, if your folks know where I can find numbers to support this, I know a group that would find the data really helpfull in maintaining dog health.

Apologies for dregdging up an old post, but pooch-welfare is close to my own heart.

On topic: wearing helmets = win
Not wearing helmets = boo.

I had a blunt-force head injury many years ago and lost most of my memories prior to the injury. I got hit by a brick, but the fact is the brain is a remarkabley fragile thing. Despite this, I don't think I could support compulsory wearing.

rjsterry

Clank wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

My parents (both vets) noticed an increase in dogs with hip dysplasia as laminate floors became popular. If you've ever seen a dog trying to corner at speed on such a floor, you'll know why.

Um, if your folks know where I can find numbers to support this, I know a group that would find the data really helpfull in maintaining dog health.

Apologies for dregdging up an old post, but pooch-welfare is close to my own heart.

On topic: wearing helmets = win
Not wearing helmets = boo.

I had a blunt-force head injury many years ago and lost most of my memories prior to the injury. I got hit by a brick, but the fact is the brain is a remarkabley fragile thing. Despite this, I don't think I could support compulsory wearing.

I think it's mostly anecdotal, but I'll ask.

One thought on helmets: although I ride reasonably quickly (usually a lot faster than the 12.5mph quoted above at any rate), in the few shunts I have had where my head has hit something, I've slowed down significantly by the time I 'make contact'. This rather weakens the argument that they are only useful in low speed accidents - they may well be, but I'd guess that more accidents are low-speed than the 30+mph head on collision where you're obviously in serious trouble.

dilemna

W1 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

I have no problem with those who don't wear a helmet, absolutely none. But I do think some of the reasoning is painful to read / listen to.

+1

That may be so - but there is a big, big step between being in favour of wearing helmets (which I am, personally), and being in favour of forcing (by law) everyone to wear one - particularly when the evidence is far from clear.

But compulsion doesn't force everyone to wear a helmet, only those that refuse to do so :roll: .

snailracer

W1 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I'm going to pull one bit out of your response CiB as point 1 doesn't apply, point 2 you've missed (and/or not read what I read elsewhere) but point 3 has a familiar ring to it:

In many countries (Belgium for one, I believe, but I think it's common in Western Europe - I believe - not categorical) the driver of a car (or his insurance) picks up the liability in any accident involving a pedestrian or a cyclist - regardless (I believe) of fault.

This lifts the burden of such accidents from the mutuelle or healthcare insurance provider. It also has the effect of making drivers far more careful arround cyclists and pedestrians - probably a Good Thing.

Your last point I can wholeheartedly agree on - we do have a choice and I'm pleased we do

Insurance companies are regularly billed for NHS healthcare/ambulances in this country too. That's nothing to do with assumed liability (which is a crass and legally repungent policy).

In most of western Europe, technically speaking the car is insured, not the driver as in the UK. Car insurance is basically treated as an additional tax on cars to cover accidents. I'm sure the car does not consider it unfair.

wgwarburton

meanredspider wrote:

...What I've seen so far (before reading K_B's stuff) is:

- the "Cars Drive 3" Closer" study
- "Potential" of rotational injuries
- There's no unequivocal statistical proof that helmets help

They are the usual ones too. Any key ones I've missed?

Yeah: cycling isn't dangerous.

This is often presented as "Why wear a helmet for cycling, when you don't wear one for <insert other everyday activity>?" but that's not really the issue.

Cycling is perceived as dangerous. Cyclists are portrayed as victims.

Helmet wearing is generally assumed to be a wise precaution to take to guard against the risk of injury. This is serious misinformation.

The risk of serious injury is very low, even if it was significant there's no real evidence (above point) that helmets help, but the assumption persists.

It's the assumption that's dangerous- by promoting or enforcing the use of helmets the perception that cycling is dangerous is reinforced.

That perception discourages cycling. How many people don't cycle because "it's too dangerous!"? How many people have told you you're brave to ride? Did that make you feel good? It shouldn't have done.

This perception impacts "safety in numbers", which I believe has actually been demonstrated to make cycling safer.

The net effect is that the whole culture of helmet promotion is actually increasing the risk to you. Now. Today. Fortunately, from very low to very slightly less low.

A helmet doesn't make you safer. Other cyclists do. By promoting the former, the latter are discouraged, increasing the risk to those that remain.

You may assume this is insignificant. In my view it's anything but: the only reason it appears insignificant is that the change in risk disappears into the noise floor because the risk is so low, anyway.

Cheers,
W.

W1

dilemna wrote:

W1 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

I have no problem with those who don't wear a helmet, absolutely none. But I do think some of the reasoning is painful to read / listen to.

+1

That may be so - but there is a big, big step between being in favour of wearing helmets (which I am, personally), and being in favour of forcing (by law) everyone to wear one - particularly when the evidence is far from clear.

But compulsion doesn't force everyone to wear a helmet, only those that refuse to do so :roll: .

Sorry, what? You would be compelled to wear a helmet by law, and should you refuse to do so you will be fined.

CiB

Well put Buns. That (above) really sums up why I don't wear one - there is no inherent appreciable risk in my mind in cycling along quiet and not so quiet roads. If there's little or no risk to mitigate, what does a helmet bring to the party? Why dress up in protective gear in the face of a non-existent problem?

Like I said earlier, 40 years or so of tumbling off a bike from time to time hasn't made me wary of damaging my head. I reckon I'll carry on doing as I do thanks.

I wonder if the reason why helmet-weaers get so het up about us that don't is because we're effectively cocking a snook at them, as in "look at you, yer gret poof wearing yer fancy-dan safety gear". Is that it? You're on the wrong end of the wrong stick if it is.

I don't care if anyone else rides with or without one. I wish you all didn't care about us that don't, and could refrain from dishing out abuse based purely on choice of head gear.

dilemna

W1 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

W1 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

I have no problem with those who don't wear a helmet, absolutely none. But I do think some of the reasoning is painful to read / listen to.

+1

That may be so - but there is a big, big step between being in favour of wearing helmets (which I am, personally), and being in favour of forcing (by law) everyone to wear one - particularly when the evidence is far from clear.

But compulsion doesn't force everyone to wear a helmet, only those that refuse to do so :roll: .

Sorry, what? You would be compelled to wear a helmet by law, and should you refuse to do so you will be fined.

You bell end. I won't be fined as the law won't need to compel me to wear a helmet as I already do, but those who don't will :roll: . I wished I hadn't been sucked into posting again on this thread as your twisted logic is the reason I avoid. This thread is going no where. As I previously wrote, great if you wear a helmet, great if you don't. But frankly I don't care a monkey's as this topic is now boring me.

meanredspider

WGWarburton wrote:

A helmet doesn't make you safer. Other cyclists do. By promoting the former, the latter are discouraged, increasing the risk to those that remain.

.

Interesting view.

Trouble is (from my perspective) only a small part of the risk from cycling for me comes from other vehicles - it was busy this morning and, in 15 miles, only 4 cars shared the same bit of tarmac that I was on. I saw one other bike going the other way. I'm not sure how seeing 5 other bikes is going to help except that they could administer first aid and call an ambulance if I fell off (on ice or gravel - my two biggest hazards). It's pretty important to me that if I do come off, I'm in good enough shape to call for help myself because it could be 15 minutes before somebody else happens upon me. The modest protection a helmet provides, I believe, is worth it. I'm not for compulsion though.

And the speed point made above is very valid. Unless you are launched headlong into some object, your biggest enemy is the ground. You're unlikely to be have a vertical velocity component much above 12.5m/s regardless of how fast you are travelling forwards. And, frankly, even if I was launched headlong, I'd prefer to be wearing a bobblehat than a bare head.

dilemna

CiB wrote:

Well put Buns. That (above) really sums up why I don't wear one - there is no inherent appreciable risk in my mind in cycling along quiet and not so quiet roads. If there's little or no risk to mitigate, what does a helmet bring to the party? Why dress up in protective gear in the face of a non-existent problem?

Like I said earlier, 40 years or so of tumbling off a bike from time to time hasn't made me wary of damaging my head. I reckon I'll carry on doing as I do thanks.

I wonder if the reason why helmet-weaers get so het up about us that don't is because we're effectively cocking a snook at them, as in "look at you, yer gret poof wearing yer fancy-dan safety gear". Is that it? You're on the wrong end of the wrong stick if it is.

I don't care if anyone else rides with or without one. I wish you all didn't care about us that don't, and could refrain from dishing out abuse based purely on choice of head gear.

Are you for real? I don't give a monkey's whether you wear a helmet or not. Those who wear helmets don't get "het up" as you put it. It is people like you, Luddites, who still choose not to wear them and then start throwing your toys out of your prams when you think mandatory helmet use comes a step nearer. At least get things right :roll:.

wgwarburton

dilemna wrote:

...You bell end. I won't be fined as the law won't need to compel me to wear a helmet as I already do, but those who don't will :roll: . ....

dilemna wrote:

...Think how stupid the average person is.......
half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.....

Oh, the irony...! :-)

Cheers,
W.

W1

dilemna wrote:

W1 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

W1 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

I have no problem with those who don't wear a helmet, absolutely none. But I do think some of the reasoning is painful to read / listen to.

+1

That may be so - but there is a big, big step between being in favour of wearing helmets (which I am, personally), and being in favour of forcing (by law) everyone to wear one - particularly when the evidence is far from clear.

But compulsion doesn't force everyone to wear a helmet, only those that refuse to do so :roll: .

Sorry, what? You would be compelled to wear a helmet by law, and should you refuse to do so you will be fined.

You bell end. I won't be fined as the law won't need to compel me to wear a helmet as I already do, but those who don't will :roll: . I wished I hadn't been sucked into posting again on this thread as your twisted logic is the reason I avoid. This thread is going no where. As I previously wrote, great if you wear a helmet, great if you don't. But frankly now I don't care a monkey's as this topic is now boring me.

Well, what a great waste of internet that post was then. Your comment made no sense and was of no use. I presume you've worn one from the day you were born and will wear one until the day you die.

Please highlight my twisted logic? (You bell end).

meanredspider

dilemna wrote:

Are you for real? I don't give a monkey's whether you wear a helmet or not. Those who wear helmets don't get "het up" as you put it. It is people like you, Luddites, who still choose not to wear them and then start throwing your toys out of your prams when you think mandatory helmet use comes a step nearer. At least get things right :roll:.

+1

W1

meanredspider wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Are you for real? I don't give a monkey's whether you wear a helmet or not. Those who wear helmets don't get "het up" as you put it. It is people like you, Luddites, who still choose not to wear them and then start throwing your toys out of your prams when you think mandatory helmet use comes a step nearer. At least get things right :roll:.

+1

I thought you opposed compulsory helmet use? Make your mind up!

meanredspider

W1 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Are you for real? I don't give a monkey's whether you wear a helmet or not . Those who wear helmets don't get "het up" as you put it. It is people like you, Luddites, who still choose not to wear them and then start throwing your toys out of your prams when you think mandatory helmet use comes a step nearer. At least get things right :roll:.

+1

I thought you opposed compulsory helmet use? Make your mind up!

I am. I didn't read into the post above that said he was in favour of compulsory wearing - I've highlighted the line that gave me the clue. The point dilemna has made is that compulsory wearing only inconveniences/upsets those that choose not to wear a helmet. If you wear a lid on every ride, the law is going to be transparent to you. That's not the same thing as supporting the law though.

[/b]

wgwarburton

meanredspider wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

A helmet doesn't make you safer. Other cyclists do. By promoting the former, the latter are discouraged, increasing the risk to those that remain.

.

Interesting view.

Thank you.

meanredspider wrote:

..., frankly, even if I was launched headlong, I'd prefer to be wearing a bobblehat than a bare head.

Might be better to go with the bobble hat, anyway. It'll be lighter and smaller, and also it won't be strapped to your head, so it can slip off, if necessary.

Don't underestimate your head. It's been evolving for a long time to protect your brain against injuries. You instinctively know how big your head is and protect it. Your neck muscles etc have evolved to stop it whacking the ground in a fall. It may not be a good idea firmly to strap a big lump of plastic around it and compromise all that.

Interestingly, and related to the rotational injury theory, your scalp protects your brain by slipping (and your hair, if you have any left, acts as a lubricant- try to turn your head by putting your fingers against the side of it and moving them sideways). There's a researcher trying to use this mechanism to make Motorcycle helmets safer:

http://www.europeanplasticsnews.com/sub ... 1266328469

...perhaps the technology will filter down to cycle helmets one day.

Cheers,
W.

CiB

dilemna wrote:

Those who wear helmets don't get "het up" as you put it.

Oh. It must be me then. I could have sworn that I keep reading posts claiming that we have nothing to protect in our skulls, or that Darwin's Law will weed us out of the gene pool, and - I may be mistaken here but - some might even refer to us as Luddites, throwing our toys out of the pram just beacuse there are people who believe that everything in life should be regulated by the state, with criminal sanctions for everyone who fails to comply. But that's not getting het up is it, that's just the normal give & take of internet debate. Nazis. Whoops.

That's what bugs me. Us not doing something that has little or no effect on cycling safety, might be forced to by law because enough people who wear one can't or won't accept that helmets are just an optional additon to the cyclists' lot for quite a few of us, and because come the day when some busy-body MP who wants to make a name for himself introduces a bill to enforce it, not enough people will step up to say 'errr - no thanks, it's not necesary'. There'll be too many people who aren't affected by compulsion - because they already wear a hat - who will enthusiastically back it, and suddenly the personal choice to ignore a non-existent risk will have gone, and I'll run the risk of a £50 fine for daring to ride 2 minutes to the local park on a cycle way without wearing some ridiculous safety gear. Cheers. Thanks for nothing.

CiB

I wrote:

Suddenly the personal choice to ignore a non-existent risk will have gone, and I'll run the risk of a £50 fine for daring to ride 2 minutes to the local park on a cycle way without wearing some ridiculous safety gear.

Let's chop out all the flim-flam and cut to the chase. This is why I can't do with compulsion. Just this.

snailracer

WGWarburton wrote:

...
This perception impacts "safety in numbers", which I believe has actually been demonstrated to make cycling safer.

The net effect is that the whole culture of helmet promotion is actually increasing the risk to you. Now. Today. Fortunately, from very low to very slightly less low.

A helmet doesn't make you safer. Other cyclists do. By promoting the former, the latter are discouraged, increasing the risk to those that remain...

Then, logically, to increase cyclist safety, a law should be passed banning the use of helmets :?:

wgwarburton

snailracer wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

...
This perception impacts "safety in numbers", which I believe has actually been demonstrated to make cycling safer.

The net effect is that the whole culture of helmet promotion is actually increasing the risk to you. Now. Today. Fortunately, from very low to very slightly less low.

A helmet doesn't make you safer. Other cyclists do. By promoting the former, the latter are discouraged, increasing the risk to those that remain...

Well logically, to increase cyclist safety, a law should be passed banning the use of helmets :?:

Yes, that would be logical but it'd be better to focus on education, first. We need a big public information campaign to ensure people are aware of the risks.

People are far to ready to legislate. All that's needed is some common sense... :-)

Cheers,
W.

meanredspider

WGWarburton wrote:

Don't underestimate your head. It's been evolving for a long time to protect your brain against injuries. You instinctively know how big your head is and protect it. Your neck muscles etc have evolved to stop it whacking the ground in a fall. It may not be a good idea firmly to strap a big lump of plastic around it and compromise all that.

Interestingly, and related to the rotational injury theory, your scalp protects your brain by slipping (and your hair, if you have any left, acts as a lubricant- try to turn your head by putting your fingers against the side of it and moving them sideways). There's a researcher trying to use this mechanism to make Motorcycle helmets safer:
.

I'm not really convinced by some of this evolution stuff. I'm finding it hard to think of situations where, for millions of years necessary, we'd have the equivalent of our head bouncing along tarmac or even travelling fast enough for rotational injuries to occur. It's probably precisely the opposite - we get rotational injuries becouse we've never exposed our heads to this type and scale of force. Which, as I think about it, kinda supports the idea of giving it a helping hand with a lid.

I really am open to listening to well-constructed ideas (like yours above) but I'm still not seeing any empirical evidence, however flimsy, that says a helmet causes real harm. In all the debates on here about helmets, the best I've seen is either "I've never needed one so they must be useless" or one strained neck muscle. That's balanced against loads of anecdotal posts where people (including myself) believe helmets have protected them in some way. Given how strong the views are, I'd have thought the "anti" or even the agnostic side would have come up with a few examples of "lucky I wasn't wearing a helmet". There's lots of theoretical stuff - neck muscles etc (though I suspect your neck muscles strengthen with helmet use in any case) - but it is just nearly all theoretical. That's honestly why I'm pro-wearing (but not pro compulsion)