Wrongheaded - taking a stand against helmet compulsion

EdinburghFixed

Just a quick post to bring this to people's attention:

www.wrongheaded.org.uk

If you've not been paying careful attention, it might surprise you to know that there are just a few days left before the UK's first mandatory helmet law gets to the committee stage. 10th-14th March!

If you have a couple of minutes and you're not in favour of the law, please sign the CTC / Sustrans petition right now, and better yet, pop an email off (even a form one) to the committee address - details on the site, including form letter if you can't be bothered writing yourself.

Please don't think this won't effect you because you don't ride in NI. There is already movement on a mandatory helmet law in Scotland off the back of the law in Jersey and success (so far) getting the NI one through.

And please don't put it off. The committee sits in two days, and the deadline for signing is four after that. Take five minutes of your life, it will be worth it!

Cheers,

Crapaud

As a chronic sufferer of CHTF (Chronic Helmet Thread Fatigue) I'm loathe to post, but ...

From the Headway manifesto to the Scottish parliament, "introduce a network of cycle lanes and mandatory cycle helmet legislation for children". If this runs true to form for single issue groups, it's the thin end of the wedge towards mandatory helmet wearing and cyclepath compulsion.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, EF, I've not been paying attention.

Petition signed.

EdinburghFixed

Glad it's of interest!

You probably noticed that the Wrongheaded site specifically doesn't address whether helmets work or not - I suppose precisely to avoid the whole mess of "but the modern standard isn't as strong as the older ones" etc. etc. ad nauseum.

I guess it's not really relevant when there were no cycling deaths in NI in 2009 or 2010, and no child cycling deaths since 2005 - but 10,000 annual deaths from sedentary disease (or at least, things made worse by a sedentary lifestyle).

Ho hum. It's just the sort of thing our lot are daft enough to support, as well.

davmaggs

Signed it

Out of interest is there a particular lobby group or organisation (perhaps manufacturers assn) running the campaigns or providing the 'facts' to politicians that got them on to this issue?

Seems strange that they are spending time on such a non-issue

meanredspider

I'm not pro-compulsion but I'm not sure much of what's written stands up to much scrutiny - especially not the stats quoted (I love the bit about brain-heating BTW - it's amazing what race-drivers are capable of in closed cabins with nomex balaclavas and full helmets).

Let's hope there isn't compulsion but I'd like to see somebody coming up with some more solid data to prevent it happening

bompington

I signed the petition, although I am also against compulsion when it comes to entering your personal contact details online.
I personally can't think of a good reason not to wear a helmet, I agree with meanredspider's comment about some of the anti-helmet arguments, but I also agree completely that compulsion is a bad and counterproductive idea.

Headhuunter

meanredspider wrote:

I'm not pro-compulsion but I'm not sure much of what's written stands up to much scrutiny - especially not the stats quoted (I love the bit about brain-heating BTW - it's amazing what race-drivers are capable of in closed cabins with nomex balaclavas and full helmets).

Let's hope there isn't compulsion but I'd like to see somebody coming up with some more solid data to prevent it happening

Surely if someone wants to impose something on a group it's up to that person to prove that it would be of benefit, not for the "victims" to prove it is NOT useful. Rather like guilty until proven innocent!

meanredspider

Yeah - reading the data they quote shows that deaths from head injuries did come down so, on the surface, it's a Good Thing. The problem is that it's offset by other things and the links they make are pretty tenuous as, almost by definition, there's no control group.

Working in diabetes as I do, I'm aware that diabetes is growing by epidemic proportions and the diseases related to it (heart disease for instance) are growing accordingly. To say that there's been a growth in these diseases following a ban means nothing on its own. Which leaves us with the conclusion that serious head injuries are reduced by compulsory helmet wearing. It's not a convincing arguement against compulsion.

To confirm - I'm not pro-compulsion and so would like to see a more coherent and compelling arguement developed to stop it.

Headhuunter

meanredspider wrote:

Yeah - reading the data they quote shows that deaths from head injuries did come down so, on the surface, it's a Good Thing. The problem is that it's offset by other things and the links they make are pretty tenuous as, almost by definition, there's no control group.

Working in diabetes as I do, I'm aware that diabetes is growing by epidemic proportions and the diseases related to it (heart disease for instance) are growing accordingly. To say that there's been a growth in these diseases following a ban means nothing on its own. Which leaves us with the conclusion that serious head injuries are reduced by compulsory helmet wearing. It's not a convincing arguement against compulsion.

To confirm - I'm not pro-compulsion and so would like to see a more coherent and compelling arguement developed to stop it.

Head injuries fell but the number of cyclists on roads fell even more dramatically. Obliging people to wear helmets effectively puts a barrier up to cycling (and the health benefits associates with it). The problem is that it cannot be proven that cycle helmets provide an effective protection to cyclists and in many cases, cyclists in fatal accidents die from injuries other than those to the head. This seems a fairly balanced read
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html

Supergoose

I signed the petition too.

Thanks for bringing it up.

meanredspider

Headhuunter wrote:

This seems a fairly balanced read
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html

Except that it isn't. For starters it's published by an organisation whose policy statement clearly puts them opposed to helmet compulsion.

Then look at the way the Pro vs Con page is laid out. The Pro section has one heading. The Con section has multiple subheadings and points.

The evidence "for" helmets talks about a range of findings but often also links to a single study suggesting maybe there's no benefit.

The evidence "against" has very little of this style.

The arguement for rotational injuries talks of road accidents not cycling accidents - it's all very subtle but it really isn't balanced at all if you read it critically and question the meaning of each word and why it has been chosen.

It's frustrating that many of the references require payment to read them too.

The whole topic is a minefield which is why I'm pro choice.

That said, even on a site like that, there's quite a lot of evidence "pro" helmet wearing, a bunch that calls that evidence is question, and very little that suggests helmet wearing has a negative impact. On the balance of the evidence, I'd have to say that helmet wearing is a good thing - but it isn't clear enough for me to make it compulsory.

downfader

meanredspider wrote:

Yeah - reading the data they quote shows that deaths from head injuries did come down so, on the surface, it's a Good Thing. The problem is that it's offset by other things and the links they make are pretty tenuous as, almost by definition, there's no control group.

Working in diabetes as I do, I'm aware that diabetes is growing by epidemic proportions and the diseases related to it (heart disease for instance) are growing accordingly. To say that there's been a growth in these diseases following a ban means nothing on its own. Which leaves us with the conclusion that serious head injuries are reduced by compulsory helmet wearing. It's not a convincing arguement against compulsion.

To confirm - I'm not pro-compulsion and so would like to see a more coherent and compelling arguement developed to stop it.

OK take it from this standpoint..

What you'd effectively be doing with compulsion is criminalising the victim in the majority of cases if an unhelmeted cyclist gets hit through no fault of their own.

We already know that the DFT found 93% of cycists werent at fault in the collisions involving motorists in a big study in 2009, so to me it would be pretty much missing the point as to what the real issues are: human behaviour.

I wonder how Northern Ireland would have reacted during the times over the worst of the troubles had they all been obliged by law to wear bullet armour?

Even the best cycle helmet is only capable of withstanding something like 300kJ of energy upon impact iirc. A motor vehicle's force and weight will impart a few thousand at similar speeds. (I've lost the exact figures but its on the cyclehelmets.org site somewhere)

We now have several studies (one 2009 DFT study, a Bath Uni study, and I think another on top) that show drivers will drive closer to helmeted cyclists. They even admit it when asked in the DFT study.

Even if as you say you're pro choice, you still have to sign it. It will at the very least cost millions of £££ to change the law, and hundreds of thousands to police.

dilemna

I'm not bothered about compulsion to wear a lid as I already do, out of choice. There will be no need to tell me to wear one as I already exercised my free choice. I guess this legislation will finally kill these stupid threads where we who have chosen to wear helmets, for good reason, have been continually villified by the no sayers. Well now the tables are reversed, everyone is going to have to wear them. Wouldn't it be irony if a no sayer cyclist was killed in a collision as he wasn't wearing a lid on the last day he or she could exercise their choice not to wear one. Any one in their right mind who cycles a lot of miles wears a helmet. I just can't understand those who don't. Why would you not want to give your head as much protection as possible?

As to being a barrier to cycling - ballcocks it will. It will just be another accessory that people will have buy. Neds on BSOs will still continue to ride without helmets, but then again they are kamikaze cyclists anyway swerving on and off pavemnts, jumping read lights and cycling at night dressed in black and with no lights but they never get hit ......... It's always cyclists who stand out like Christmas trees who get taken down, like me, twice But each time I was wearing a helmet so my head was protected from injury.

Crapaud

dilemna wrote:

I'm not bothered about compulsion to wear a lid as I already do, out of choice. There will be no need to tell me to wear one as I already exercised my free choice. ...

That's the point: you have the choice to wear or not to wear. We mearly want to retain that choice.

dilemna wrote:

... I guess this legislation will finally kill these stupid threads where we who have chosen to wear helmets, for good reason, have been continually villified by the no sayers. Well now the tables are reversed, everyone is going to have to wear them. Wouldn't it be irony if a no sayer cyclist was killed in a collision as he wasn't wearing a lid on the last day he or she could exercise their choice not to wear one. Any one in their right mind who cycles a lot of miles wears a helmet. I just can't understand those who don't. Why would you not want to give your head as much protection as possible? ...

That works both ways - as the rest of that paragraph shows.

I wear a lid 99.99& of the time.

downfader

dilemna wrote:

I'm not bothered about compulsion to wear a lid as I already do, out of choice. There will be no need to tell me to wear one as I already exercised my free choice. I guess this legislation will finally kill these stupid threads where we who have chosen to wear helmets, for good reason, have been continually villified by the no sayers. Well now the tables are reversed, everyone is going to have to wear them. Wouldn't it be irony if a no sayer cyclist was killed in a collision as he wasn't wearing a lid on the last day he or she could exercise their choice not to wear one. Any one in their right mind who cycles a lot of miles wears a helmet. I just can't understand those who don't. Why would you not want to give your head as much protection as possible?

As to being a barrier to cycling - ballcocks it will. It will just be another accessory that people will have buy. Neds on BSOs will still continue to ride without helmets, but then again they are kamikaze cyclists anyway swerving on and off pavemnts, jumping read lights and cycling at night dressed in black and with no lights but they never get hit ......... It's always cyclists who stand out like Christmas trees who get taken down, like me, twice But each time I was wearing a helmet so my head was protected from injury.

I wear a lid most of the time, but out of choice and not because I think it will protect me from a car or a brain injury. There are times when I still leave the helmet at home, or take it off if riding through the common and its boiling.

It'll be a barrier to my cycling, and I've already said that if it came to the mainland England I would respectfully drop out of cycling. Cycling is about freedom, that isnt freedom.

bompington

downfader wrote:

I wear a lid most of the time, but out of choice and not because I think it will protect me from a car or a brain injury.

Errr, why do you wear it then?

Paulie W

Maybe the answer to this question is somewhere in the link provided by the OP but I would be interested in unpicking why compulsion leads to a fall in the number of people cycling.

Is this about casual cyclists simply not wishing to invest in a helmet and therefore 'giving up'?

Is it about people making a stand on prinicple?

Or is it about a shift in individual's perception of the dangers of cycling? i.e. if you have to wear a helmet it must be dangerous so I'm not going to do it

meanredspider

downfader wrote:

Even the best cycle helmet is only capable of withstanding something like 300kJ of energy upon impact iirc. A motor vehicle's force and weight will impart a few thousand at similar speeds..

The point being that the helmet will lessen the transmitted force and therefore increase your chances of surviving or reduce the injuries.

To borrow your body armour analogy - it isn't 100% effective - it will only stop some bullets/shrapnel to some parts of your body. The point is that it provides some protection to some of the most vulnerable parts of your body. It's a balance of risks. And so is a lid. But we're drifting off-topic here as this isn't a discussion of the pros of helmet wearing but that of compulsion

downfader wrote:

Even if as you say you're pro choice, you still have to sign it. It will at the very least cost millions of £££ to change the law, and hundreds of thousands to police.

I didn't say I wouldn't sign it but I'm less inclined to sign it based upon the weakness of the arguement put forward on that site - it makes me feel I'm being manipulated.

dilemna

Crapaud wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I'm not bothered about compulsion to wear a lid as I already do, out of choice. There will be no need to tell me to wear one as I already exercised my free choice. ...

That's the point: you have the choice to wear or not to wear. We mearly want to retain that choice.

dilemna wrote:

... I guess this legislation will finally kill these stupid threads where we who have chosen to wear helmets, for good reason, have been continually villified by the no sayers. Well now the tables are reversed, everyone is going to have to wear them. Wouldn't it be irony if a no sayer cyclist was killed in a collision as he wasn't wearing a lid on the last day he or she could exercise their choice not to wear one. Any one in their right mind who cycles a lot of miles wears a helmet. I just can't understand those who don't. Why would you not want to give your head as much protection as possible? ...

That works both ways - as the rest of that paragraph shows.

I wear a lid 99.99& of the time.

Errr ......... you miss the point. Currently the wearing of a cycling helmet is NOT mandatory. Everyone has a choice. I choose to wear one, you do not. The point I make is WHEN legislation comes into effect which will compel all cyclists to wear a helmet, when there will be NO element of choice, I and others who chose to wear helmets prior to complusion will have the satisfaction of knowing that it WASN't legislation that compelled us to wear a helmet but common sense and a wish to protect our head in the event of an off or collision. So although legislation will obvioulsy apply to EVERYONE it will have been enacted because of those cyclists who refused to recognise common sense and safety for their heads by not wearing a lid. I will have the satisfaction that the State has not compelled me to wear one as I ALREADY did. End of. Period.

dilemna

downfader wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I'm not bothered about compulsion to wear a lid as I already do, out of choice. There will be no need to tell me to wear one as I already exercised my free choice. I guess this legislation will finally kill these stupid threads where we who have chosen to wear helmets, for good reason, have been continually villified by the no sayers. Well now the tables are reversed, everyone is going to have to wear them. Wouldn't it be irony if a no sayer cyclist was killed in a collision as he wasn't wearing a lid on the last day he or she could exercise their choice not to wear one. Any one in their right mind who cycles a lot of miles wears a helmet. I just can't understand those who don't. Why would you not want to give your head as much protection as possible?

As to being a barrier to cycling - ballcocks it will. It will just be another accessory that people will have buy. Neds on BSOs will still continue to ride without helmets, but then again they are kamikaze cyclists anyway swerving on and off pavemnts, jumping read lights and cycling at night dressed in black and with no lights but they never get hit ......... It's always cyclists who stand out like Christmas trees who get taken down, like me, twice But each time I was wearing a helmet so my head was protected from injury.

I wear a lid most of the time, but out of choice and not because I think it will protect me from a car or a brain injury. There are times when I still leave the helmet at home, or take it off if riding through the common and its boiling.

It'll be a barrier to my cycling, and I've already said that if it came to the mainland England I would respectfully drop out of cycling. Cycling is about freedom, that isnt freedom.

Rather melodramatic .................. A hissy fit perhaps :roll: ?

FJS

dilemna wrote:

Any one in their right mind who cycles a lot of miles wears a helmet. I just can't understand those who don't. Why would you not want to give your head as much protection as possible?

That's the whole point - for those that cycle a lot of miles on the open road, as sport, recreation, long-distance commuting, etc, men in lycra, yes. But it would be a barrier for short-distance functional in-town cycling. It would once and for all settle that England would never ever have the chance to develop the kind of cycling other North-West European countries (Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, etc) have in their towns, and something that exists to some degree still in places like Cambridge.

Crapaud

dilemna wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I'm not bothered about compulsion to wear a lid as I already do, out of choice. There will be no need to tell me to wear one as I already exercised my free choice. ...

That's the point: you have the choice to wear or not to wear. We mearly want to retain that choice.

dilemna wrote:

... I guess this legislation will finally kill these stupid threads where we who have chosen to wear helmets, for good reason, have been continually villified by the no sayers. Well now the tables are reversed, everyone is going to have to wear them. Wouldn't it be irony if a no sayer cyclist was killed in a collision as he wasn't wearing a lid on the last day he or she could exercise their choice not to wear one. Any one in their right mind who cycles a lot of miles wears a helmet. I just can't understand those who don't. Why would you not want to give your head as much protection as possible? ...

That works both ways - as the rest of that paragraph shows.

I wear a lid 99.99& of the time.

Errr ......... you miss the point. Currently the wearing of a cycling helmet is NOT mandatory. Everyone has a choice. I choose to wear one, you do not. The point I make is WHEN legislation comes into effect which will compel all cyclists to wear a helmet, when there will be NO element of choice, I and others who chose to wear helmets prior to complusion will have the satisfaction of knowing that it WASN't legislation that compelled us to wear a helmet but common sense and a wish to protect our head in the event of an off or collision. So although legislation will obvioulsy apply to EVERYONE it will have been enacted because of those cyclists who refused to recognise common sense and safety for their heads by not wearing a lid. I will have the satisfaction that the State has not compelled me to wear one as I ALREADY did. End of. Period.

You're wrong on so many factors that it's difficult to know where to start. Perhaps you could begin by reading my post. :roll:

meanredspider

The whole "lid as a barrier to cycling" arguement is a little difficult to follow especially if you read some of the wrongheaded and other quoted sites.

They reason that people who don't wear helmets have more serious injuries because they are generally "risk takers". This must also include the group of people who currently cycle but wouldn't if helmet compulsion was introduced because they would suddenly perceive cycling as "too dangerous".

In the meantime, "risk averse" folk who choose to wear a helmet anyway, will happily continue wearing one. Or will they suddenly decide that, now they are forced to wear the helmet they would have worn anyway, it's too dangerous to cycle?

downfader

dilemna wrote:

downfader wrote:

dilemna wrote:

I'm not bothered about compulsion to wear a lid as I already do, out of choice. There will be no need to tell me to wear one as I already exercised my free choice. I guess this legislation will finally kill these stupid threads where we who have chosen to wear helmets, for good reason, have been continually villified by the no sayers. Well now the tables are reversed, everyone is going to have to wear them. Wouldn't it be irony if a no sayer cyclist was killed in a collision as he wasn't wearing a lid on the last day he or she could exercise their choice not to wear one. Any one in their right mind who cycles a lot of miles wears a helmet. I just can't understand those who don't. Why would you not want to give your head as much protection as possible?

As to being a barrier to cycling - ballcocks it will. It will just be another accessory that people will have buy. Neds on BSOs will still continue to ride without helmets, but then again they are kamikaze cyclists anyway swerving on and off pavemnts, jumping read lights and cycling at night dressed in black and with no lights but they never get hit ......... It's always cyclists who stand out like Christmas trees who get taken down, like me, twice But each time I was wearing a helmet so my head was protected from injury.

I wear a lid most of the time, but out of choice and not because I think it will protect me from a car or a brain injury. There are times when I still leave the helmet at home, or take it off if riding through the common and its boiling.

It'll be a barrier to my cycling, and I've already said that if it came to the mainland England I would respectfully drop out of cycling. Cycling is about freedom, that isnt freedom.

Rather melodramatic .................. A hissy fit perhaps :roll: ?

Not really. We will have completely lost the battle for road safety and put the onus, yet again, on the victim, even criminalised and blamed them as I said earlier.

At the moment I wear one to a) keep the sun out of me eyes, and b) there are low branches on some parts of my route, the helmet will stop a cut or scratch.

People fall on the old "common sense" argument, but is it? Common sense, or even common knowledge is often wrong or misinterpreted (look at all the myths that surround cycling for instance)

Common sense should dictate that every study produced, and every bit of research conducted SHOULD say in no uncertain terms that a helmet works. It doesnt. Its barely 50/50, even the BMA only just passed the motion with something like 51/49 on their related vote to support compulsion. Where are the thousands of brain damaged cyclists, theres over 5 million of us riding bikes daily, probably more now??

If it was so clear cut, why do Headway and BHIT refuse to acknowledge and encourage safe riding techniques and cycle training? Why do they consistantly rely on wrong information? Why did they recently state in the Belfast Telegraph that there were something like 180,000 serious brain injuries a year in the UK suffered by cyclists?

The list goes on.

meanredspider

downfader wrote:

Common sense should dictate that every study produced, and every bit of research conducted SHOULD say in no uncertain terms that a helmet works. It doesnt. Its barely 50/50, .

I'll take 50/50 (especially as it's 50% that it doesn't work* rather than 50% that it causes harm)

* the definition of "work" in many of these studies is often "prevent serious head injury in major accidents"

downfader

meanredspider wrote:

downfader wrote:

Common sense should dictate that every study produced, and every bit of research conducted SHOULD say in no uncertain terms that a helmet works. It doesnt. Its barely 50/50, .

I'll take 50/50 (especially as it's 50% that it doesn't work* rather than 50% that it causes harm)

* the definition of "work" in many of these studies is often "prevent serious head injury in major accidents"

Would you buy a car with a seatbelt that works 50% of the time? Or use cancer drugs that are only proven to have a 50% cure rating?

meanredspider

downfader wrote:

Would you buy a car with a seatbelt that works 50% of the time?

I pretty much do - so do you - depends what "works" means. Try driving into a tree at 60 mph and see how well your seatbelt protects you. Or if a car T-bones you. That's how some of the data is presented - a helmet doesn't save you when you're run over by an artic - well, of course it doesn't. Same goes for the body armour. Some cancer drugs are less than 50% effective - 50% chances are pretty good in some circumstances. My friends Doug & John would have given their right arms for 50% chances earlier this year. 5% would have done them.

tonyf34

I'd be extremely peeved if the law was passed in NI, however if it came to the mainland it wouldn't stop me from cycling sans helmet. I'd exersize my right not to pay a fine IF I was ever caught without one (unlikely given the amount of effective policing these days)

I cycle plenty of miles, both utility and otherwise and never worn a lid in the near 30 years I've been riding on the roads and never intend to do so. I don't ever feel that my head is in danger, anecdotally I've had offs, being hit by a car and never banged my head.
Pack that in yer pipe and smoke it

downfader

I did read a stat today that said 14 children a year die in the States from strangulation related injuries from cycle helmets. If thats true it makes you wonder why theres not mroe said about that.

@meanred
OK, by work, what do we mean, because we're constantly told they prevent and protect heads and brains from serious injury. A recent exponant of "the helmet saved my life" (though it didnt save his brain) is James Cracknell. He took a blow from an artic wing mirror at about 40mph. If we are to beleive BHIT and Headway then this brain injury should have been prevented.

All though, I'll be honest, I thought we all outlined "work" earlier in the thread.

You also seem to forget that the general population, non-cyclists and cyclists included, think that cycle helmets do protect from high speed, high impact collision. There has been so little real information given out that misinformation is now the common thing.

EdinburghFixed

meanredspider wrote:

Yeah - reading the data they quote shows that deaths from head injuries did come down so, on the surface, it's a Good Thing. The problem is that it's offset by other things and the links they make are pretty tenuous as, almost by definition, there's no control group.

I'm not sure I follow you here - to what are you referring?

The main point of the argument against compulsion is that it reduces participation in cycling.

I'm not aware of any research which purports to prove one way or another *why* fewer people cycle and/or the ones who cycle do so less - but to argue that the lack of a control somehow weakens a population-level study into participation pre and post legislation seems to be missing the point.

It's also hard to see how it can be "on the surface, a Good Thing" that a law can reduce cyclist numbers by *more* than the reduction in head injuries... think about it. It's fundamentally true that banning cycling would eliminate cycling injuries, but what about the fat kids (and the cyclists!)

meanredspider wrote:

Working in diabetes as I do, I'm aware that diabetes is growing by epidemic proportions and the diseases related to it (heart disease for instance) are growing accordingly. To say that there's been a growth in these diseases following a ban means nothing on its own. Which leaves us with the conclusion that serious head injuries are reduced by compulsory helmet wearing. It's not a convincing arguement against compulsion.

Again, I don't follow exactly. Does the literature not demonstrate that exercise is valuable both in terms of the prevention and management of diabetes? Does the literature not demonstrate that helmet legislation reduces regular exercise, in the form of cycling?

It seems quite uncontroversial to draw a link between the two - so much so that we are now seeing studies in Australia etc. which put hard figures on the health *cost* of helmet laws?

Perhaps you need to offer a more specific criticism of the literature (are all the studies showing reduced cycling in each jurisdiction which passed a law systematically wrong? In what way?) for this to be a convincing rejection.

meanredspider

downfader wrote:

I@meanred
OK, by work, what do we mean, because we're constantly told they prevent and protect heads and brains from serious injury. A recent exponant of "the helmet saved my life" (though it didnt save his brain) is James Cracknell. He took a blow from an artic wing mirror at about 40mph. If we are to beleive BHIT and Headway then this brain injury should have been prevented.

All though, I'll be honest, I thought we all outlined "work" earlier in the thread.

You also seem to forget that the general population, non-cyclists and cyclists included, think that cycle helmets do protect from high speed, high impact collision. There has been so little real information given out that misinformation is now the common thing.

Well - that's exactly it. The sites and results quoted in wrongheaded aren't clear on what's expected by a helmet and whether they meet that requirement. I'm realistic about what I want a helmet to save me from. If I wanted more, I'd wear a motorbike lid. I don't expect a lid to save me if I'm hit by a car a 60mph. Would James Cracknell be better off dead?

Since so few people are actually killed cycling (none in NI recently?) wearing something that prevents death would be overkill. What we need to wear is something that mitigates other injuries - the risk/benefit thing.

BTW - I'm not sure I subscribe to the whole "penalise the victim" position. Most of the people I know who have benefitted from a helmet have done so in bike-only incidents (as per the most recent one on BR). My own helmet incident was on a diesel spill (it saved my face - not my brain)