How many of you ride without a helmet?

wishitwasallflat · October 2011

gmacz - just curious as to why you insist that anyone under 16 must wear a helmet if thye are with you but you don't wear one yourself? i don't understand why you think they should wear one but not you - thier heads are made of the same stuff as yours after all. Also I would imagine if you wore on that would be the example of the behavious you expect from them.

Genuinely curious ...

pip306 · October 2011

why would anyone ride without a helmet! daft daft daft did anyone see helicopter heroes this week well if u didn't you would have seen several ridders taken out by a car and all had cracked helmets where they hit the floor hard. think i would prefer that to a cracked head

PostieJohn · October 2011

Wish have you changed your tyres yet?
I've been looking for an update on the other thread.

gmacz · October 2011

I am an adult and make my own decisions.
Under 16 are kids and they dont have a choice, helmet everytime.
Should be compulsary for kids to wear helmets.

wishitwasallflat · October 2011

Fair enough gmacz I do respect that and I do make decision for my kids they don't line and wouldn't make themselves - so up to that point I follow your reasoning. Where I am lost though is why if you think (if I am right and you do) that it is good for under 16 to wear helmets it's not good for you to ?

Don't want to labour the point but I am curious - I find this whole helmet debate fascinating as to be honest I have always worn one, always would and have never really ever considered not and am interested in the arguements against.

scazzer · October 2011

Use to do alot of MTB and always wore a lid if doing off road rides,and generally if out for casual road ride then i never did :oops: ..........

Had road bike since March this yr and have always worn a helmet,felt strange at first but now it just a natural thing to do and if you try out diff lids you can get 1 that feels comfy on ya and after abit you forget ur wearing it........

Done c2c Wales this yr and 1 of our pals came off on the 1st day and went head first into a dry stone wall.................
Luckily he was wearing a lid as it absolutely got trashed and saved him from a very serious injury possibly life threatening and location we where at would have meant a long wait for help,but he got away with few cuts n bruising but at least we where to have a laugh about it later thx to his helmet.......

gmacz · October 2011

People smoke even though it gives you cancer.
People drink to excess and this gives you loads of problems.
People take drugs etc
All about personal choices.
No problem with any of the above.
Helmet or no helmet, all about personal choices.
Kids- no choice, must wear helmet or no bike.
This is a personal view of mine, whatever anyone else does is fine by me.

merak · October 2011

gmacz wrote:

Should be compulsary for kids to wear helmets.

This is exactly what CiB and I are talking about. I respect parents' choice in this matter but I abhor talk of compulsion.

merak · October 2011

pip306 wrote:

why would anyone ride without a helmet! daft daft daft did anyone see helicopter heroes this week well if u didn't you would have seen several ridders taken out by a car and all had cracked helmets where they hit the floor hard.

scazzer wrote:

Done c2c Wales this yr and 1 of our pals came off on the 1st day and went head first into a dry stone wall.................
Luckily he was wearing a lid as it absolutely got trashed and saved him from a very serious injury possibly life threatening and location we where at would have meant a long wait for help,but he got away with few cuts n bruising but at least we where to have a laugh about it later thx to his helmet.......

And still the anecdotes come, and still almost every hat-wearing missionary has had their life or their friend's life saved multiple times by their helmet, and still no-one can explain how come there was not absolute carnage on the roads pre-1985 when polystyrene hats were unheard of.

Scotxr · October 2011

merak wrote:

pip306 wrote:

why would anyone ride without a helmet! daft daft daft did anyone see helicopter heroes this week well if u didn't you would have seen several ridders taken out by a car and all had cracked helmets where they hit the floor hard.

scazzer wrote:

Done c2c Wales this yr and 1 of our pals came off on the 1st day and went head first into a dry stone wall.................
Luckily he was wearing a lid as it absolutely got trashed and saved him from a very serious injury possibly life threatening and location we where at would have meant a long wait for help,but he got away with few cuts n bruising but at least we where to have a laugh about it later thx to his helmet.......

And still the anecdotes come, and still almost every hat-wearing missionary has had their life or their friend's life saved multiple times by their helmet, and still no-one can explain how come there was not absolute carnage on the roads pre-1985 when polystyrene hats were unheard of.

I'd left this thread ages ago because i'd said my piece but people are still rehashing strange arguements.

Pre 1985 how many cars and cyclists were on the road? Pre '85 how good were bikes - were people travelling as fast or for as many miles on their bike? The answer is comparing bike riding from then to now is just not fair. Maybe if you say the deaths of cyclists haven't went up but the number who are cycling now has doubled/trebled then surely something has changed to stop numbers increasing with bike usage.

I still cant believe people are also still rolling out the "why not wear helmets in the shower or in the car?" arguement - which is rediculous as they well know. Shall we do a poll on how many people have fallen off a bike and how many have fallen in the shower (or walking to the shops - another favourite). Modern cars are now full of air bags and saftey cells - the reason racers wear helmets are different to normal car drivers.

thegibdog · October 2011

Scotxr wrote:

Pre '85 how good were bikes - were people travelling as fast or for as many miles on their bike?

Well, that depends if you were on a boneshaker or a penny farthing... :roll:

CiB · October 2011

I find it difficult to take seriously anyone who uses the word 'rediculous'. Just saying.

I'm also still puzzled by the anger that's directed at the non-believers. It's almost scary at times. Still. Ho hum & all that.

Thebigbee · October 2011

To the mods - please can you just turn this into a sticky - but with a well set out poll?

I think my stats about the TDF say a lot.

Hundreds of riders, riding flat out over 100s of KM.

Yet only just over 1 death over 10 years....

It is NOTHING to do with wearing a helmet.

How many of the cyclists that died - died from head injuries alone?

I would guess that the majority of cyclists died after being hit by a car - and from multiple injuries - nothing to do with the wearing of a helmet.

PLEASE - sort this dull argument out and get some proper stats once and for all!!

merak · October 2011

Scotxr wrote:

Pre 1985 how many cars and cyclists were on the road?

Pre 1985, there were more cyclists on the road than there are now. There might have been fewer cars, but car and road design was much less advanced than they are now. Serious and fatal injuries of both pedestrians and cyclists have fallen in recent years but those pf pedestrians more than cyclists, so the explanation is not the wearing of helmets.

Pre '85 how good were bikes

Excellent as far as I remember.-

were people travelling as fast or for as many miles on their bike?

As fast, further and more of them. Do you think today's little blip up in road cycling constitutes some sort of maximum? Not a bit of it. Road clubs were bigger, people rode further and as fast in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s - oh, and many more people commuted on bikes before car ownership became routine. When and where I grew up, all the kids cycled to school - pretty much 100% - no-one wore helmets and I don't know anyone who suffered a head injury on their bikes.

The answer is comparing bike riding from then to now is just not fair.

It's absolutely fair.

Maybe if you say the deaths of cyclists haven't went up but the number who are cycling now has doubled/trebled then surely something has changed to stop numbers increasing with bike usage.

If you think the number of people cycling or the distance cycled has increased over the pre-1985 era, then you have a very short (and erroneous) perspective.

I still cant believe people are also still rolling out the "why not wear helmets in the shower or in the car?" arguement - which is rediculous as they well know.

It's not ridiculous as I have pointed out in the other thread.

Shall we do a poll on how many people have fallen off a bike and how many have fallen in the shower (or walking to the shops - another favourite).

Nearly four times as many pedestrians died in the UK last year as did cyclists, so walking to the shops is not as innocuous as you suggest. And these figures do not include slips, trips and falls on icy or uneven pavenents.

Modern cars are now full of air bags and saftey cells - the reason racers wear helmets are different to normal car drivers.

And yet over eight times as many motor vehicle occupants died in the UK in 2010 (835) as did cyclists in spite of the airbags and cells. Would hard shell helmets help? Undoubtedly. The reasons racers wear helmets is to protect against exactly the same sort of injury that kills motorists on the road.

meanredspider · October 2011

merak wrote:

Nearly four times as many pedestrians died in the UK last year as did cyclists, so walking to the shops is not as innocuous as you suggest. And these figures do not include slips, trips and falls on icy or uneven pavenents.

Modern cars are now full of air bags and saftey cells - the reason racers wear helmets are different to normal car drivers.

And yet over eight times as many motor vehicle occupants died in the UK in 2010 (835) as did cyclists in spite of the airbags and cells. Would hard shell helmets help? Undoubtedly. The reasons racers wear helmets is to protect against exactly the same sort of injury that kills motorists on the road.

Merak - your stats work against you. 4x as many pedestrians died but how many more pedestrians are there than cyclists? 8x as many motor vehicle occupants but how many more etc...etc

Pedestrian deaths are likely to have fallen exactly because car design has radically improved in recent years. They are designed, tested and rated on pedestrian impact - particularly versus head injuries with likely head impact points designed to protect the pedestrian. The same design and testing is not done for impact with a cyclist.

And cycle helmets are not designed to protect cyclists against exactly the same injuries as car occupants. A car driver ( the one certain and most frequent occupant of a car) is most likely to strike the steering wheel with his face. Last time I looked my bike didn't have a steering wheel.

Scotxr · October 2011

CiB wrote:

I find it difficult to take seriously anyone who uses the word 'rediculous'. Just saying.

I'm also still puzzled by the anger that's directed at the non-believers. It's almost scary at times. Still. Ho hum & all that.

And I find it difficult to take anyone seriously that wants to correct people's spelling or grammar but to be honest I dont expect any more from you. Just saying.

greasedscotsman · October 2011

Thebigbee wrote:

To the mods - please can you just turn this into a sticky - but with a well set out poll?

I think my stats about the TDF say a lot.

Hundreds of riders, riding flat out over 100s of KM.

Yet only just over 1 death over 10 years....

It is NOTHING to do with wearing a helmet.

How many of the cyclists that died - died from head injuries alone?

I would guess that the majority of cyclists died after being hit by a car - and from multiple injuries - nothing to do with the wearing of a helmet.

PLEASE - sort this dull argument out and get some proper stats once and for all!!

Sorry, but your TDF stats (from the helmet poll thread) are wrong. 4 cyclists have died at the TDF. Adolphe Helière drowned swimming off the French Riviera during a rest day in 1910 and Tom Simpson died of heart failure at the 1967 race, probably related to the amphetamines that were found in his jersey and blood afterwards. I think both of these can be disregarded in a thread about helmet use.

So it’s not 1 every 10 years or so, it’s 1 every 49 races (it's been run 98 times).

Scotxr · October 2011

Here's a decent little read dispelling a few of the myths that have been pedalled (

) out in this thread.

https://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehe ... sandfacts/

Scotxr · October 2011

a little extract.....

Myth 24: More people die in car accidents than in bicycle accidents so why isn't there an effort to promote driving helmets?

Fact 24: This myth is one of many that begins with a false premise then poses a question based on that false premise. If you look only at absolute numbers, yes, more people are killed and injured in car accidents than in bicycle accidents. But when you look at things statistically, measured per trip or per mile, cycling has a far higher injury and fatality rate than driving. On a per mile basis, cycling is about 11 times as risky as driving. On a per trip basis, cycling is about three times as risky as driving. Before you get too upset about these numbers, remember that they really are irrelevant, and were only brought up show the idiocy of the whole "driving helmet" premise which is unfailingly brought up on every web site railing illogically against bicycle helmets. When you're in a car, you're inside a reinforced steel structure with multiple active and passive safety features to protect you. These include side airbags, head curtain air bags, front air bags, seat belts, padded dash, and safety glass.

Oh and the site does have references which is a lot more than some of the nonsense i've heard coming from posters....

Scotxr · October 2011

And more....... (loving this site

)

Myth 39: Motor racers, fighter pilots, and imperialist goons wear real helmets every day. What we call a "bicycle helmet" is not a helmet. It is Styrofoam beanie.

Fact 39: Helmet standards are specific to each activity. A helmet for auto racing has requirements specific to the sport. First, it must be fireproof. Second, it has to be full face. Third, it does not have to be exceptionally light. A football or hockey helmet needs to be able to withstand multiple impacts, it is not replaced after every impact like a bicycle helmet so it is constructed differently. A bicycle helmet is designed to absorb impact in a crash then be replaced. It must be light. It must be well ventilated. Expanded polystyrene foam is used in many types of helmets. It has excellent impact absorption properties and it is lightweight. It can be fabricated to vary the impact resistance to desired levels. The same type of foam is used in a variety of products that require impact resistance, from car bumpers to packaging foam.

The critical factor is whether the helmet meets standards that have been established to dictate appropriate protection. For example, Snell Memorial Foundation, the leading test lab for helmets, has different helmet standards for the following activities.

Bicycling
Horseback Riding
Motorcycling
Children's Motorsports
Karting
Moped Riding
General non-motorized activities
Recreational skiing and snowboarding
Skiing
Competitive Automotive Sports
Anytime someone brings up the "foam hat" schtick, it's an indication that they have no idea what they're talking about.

Myth 40: I can break a bicycle helmet apart with my bare hands. That proves that the material is so weak that it offers no protection.

Fact 40: It's true that you can rip apart a helmet that lacks a hard shell with your bare hands. Such an action is totally different than the helmet hitting the pavement and the impact being absorbed by the expanded polystyrene foam. Flexural shear loads aren't of any consequence It's not unlike many other impact resistant materials. A sheet of tempered glass, such as a refrigerator glass shelf, is incredibly strong and impact resistant against being hit on the surface or having items dropped onto it. Yet tap the edge of the glass and it will shatter into thousands of tiny pieces (which is why refrigerator shelves typically have a plastic around the edges). You can also break apart the foam blocks that are used for packing material for fragile items but that is meaningless in terms of the protection they offer to the fragile item. This sort of myth is typical of the desperation of those opposed to bicycle helmets to come up with something, anything, no matter how patently ridiculous, to base their opposition upon.

Even hitting an empty helmet on the surface with great force does not prove anything. When a helmet is on a head, the head is providing a load to the foam. It is much more difficult to break a helmet that's being worn, than an empty helmet.

CiB · October 2011

Scotxr wrote:

CiB wrote:

I find it difficult to take seriously anyone who uses the word 'rediculous'. Just saying.

I'm also still puzzled by the anger that's directed at the non-believers. It's almost scary at times. Still. Ho hum & all that.

And I find it difficult to take anyone seriously that wants to correct people's spelling or grammar but to be honest I dont expect any more from you. Just saying.

Ha.

Mixing up they're/their/there, pedals/peddles, brakes/breaks, lose/loose is one thing, it's just a case of using a correctly spelt word in the wrong context. Your posts are littered with grammatical errors, most of which I just groan inwardly at but let them go. You can't help it. Rediculous doesn't exist as a word; it's unusual in not having a similar word that looks & sounds like it and with which it could be confused, which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that you saw it, didn't even consider that it didn't look right but you thought you'd post it anyway without bothering to check. Much like your assertions that falling 3 feet etc will probably kill anyone who does it. What utter cobblers.

Sorry Scott - your arguments are a joke, your insistence that cycling is so dangerous that it warrants PPE in all situations is a joke, and your view that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a waste of time is also a joke.

BTW, I wore a helmet yesterday. It suited the circumstances.

Scotxr · October 2011

CiB wrote:

Scotxr wrote:

CiB wrote:

I find it difficult to take seriously anyone who uses the word 'rediculous'. Just saying.

I'm also still puzzled by the anger that's directed at the non-believers. It's almost scary at times. Still. Ho hum & all that.

And I find it difficult to take anyone seriously that wants to correct people's spelling or grammar but to be honest I dont expect any more from you. Just saying.

Ha.

Mixing up they're/their/there, pedals/peddles, brakes/breaks, lose/loose is one thing, it's just a case of using a correctly spelt word in the wrong context. Your posts are littered with grammatical errors, most of which I just groan inwardly at but let them go. You can't help it. Rediculous doesn't exist as a word; it's unusual in not having a similar word that looks & sounds like it and with which it could be confused, which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that you saw it, didn't even consider that it didn't look right but you thought you'd post it anyway without bothering to check. Much like your assertions that falling 3 feet etc will probably kill anyone who does it. What utter cobblers.

Sorry Scott - your arguments are a joke, your insistence that cycling is so dangerous that it warrants PPE in all situations is a joke, and your view that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a waste of time is also a joke.

BTW, I wore a helmet yesterday. It suited the circumstances.

You're arguements are the joke. You offer no evidence other than if I remember correctly quoting someone from another forum that said wearing a helmet is bad - good job.

As for grammar, thanks for pointing all that out. I will hand back my BSc and my PGcert straight away stating that CiD has found me out.

Scotxr · October 2011

CiB wrote:

Scotxr wrote:

CiB wrote:

I find it difficult to take seriously anyone who uses the word 'rediculous'. Just saying.

I'm also still puzzled by the anger that's directed at the non-believers. It's almost scary at times. Still. Ho hum & all that.

And I find it difficult to take anyone seriously that wants to correct people's spelling or grammar but to be honest I dont expect any more from you. Just saying.

Ha.

Mixing up they're/their/there, pedals/peddles, brakes/breaks, lose/loose is one thing, it's just a case of using a correctly spelt word in the wrong context. Your posts are littered with grammatical errors, most of which I just groan inwardly at but let them go. You can't help it. Rediculous doesn't exist as a word; it's unusual in not having a similar word that looks & sounds like it and with which it could be confused, which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that you saw it, didn't even consider that it didn't look right but you thought you'd post it anyway without bothering to check. Much like your assertions that falling 3 feet etc will probably kill anyone who does it. What utter cobblers.

Sorry Scott - your arguments are a joke, your insistence that cycling is so dangerous that it warrants PPE in all situations is a joke, and your view that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a waste of time is also a joke.

BTW, I wore a helmet yesterday. It suited the circumstances.

Here is a website which has done a literature search and summary of each study.

http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/pract ... ffect.html

junglist_matty · October 2011

100% of statistics are tosh.

Bike crashes are impossible to predict. Take for example some facts, not made up statistics....

1. Wearing bike gloves then falling off will prevent you cutting the skin on your palms, this is fact.

2. Wearing shin guards will prevent pedal pins from cutting your shin's / knees when you fall off, this is also fact.

3. Wearing a helmet will prevent your head from bleeding when you fall off and hit your head against a sharp object, this is also fact.

Whether or not the impact from hitting your head hard against an object will prevent brain damage or death is impossible to say, but it will prevent painful injury, for those dumb enough, try the following...

Stand with your back up against a brick wall. tilt your head forwards so the back of your head is about 5cm from the wall. Now with a fair amount of force nod your head back and hit the back of your head against the wall... It won't kill you, but it will hurt enough not to want to do it again; if you did this experiment properly you will have managed to cause a small cut to your scalp and drawn blood.

Now repeat the above experiment whilst wearing a bike helmet.... Oh, amazing, we've discovered that by wearing a helmet, it doesn't hurt to hit your head against a wall!

Just think of this as a good enough reason to wear a helmet.... just in the same way you are happy enough to wear some gloves after discovering that falling and using your palms as a way to stop your fall results in your palms being grazed and stinging for a couple of days.

Wearing a helmet or not, its personal choice, in my opinion its a stupid choice not to; whether it saves your life from brain damage is another debate, but it certainly stops small injuries as described in our little experiment above; that's the reason I wear one.

merak · October 2011

junglist_matty wrote:

100% of statistics are tosh.

Bike crashes are impossible to predict. Take for example some facts, not made up statistics....

1. Wearing bike gloves then falling off will prevent you cutting the skin on your palms, this is fact.

2. Wearing shin guards will prevent pedal pins from cutting your shin's / knees when you fall off, this is also fact.

3. Wearing a helmet will prevent your head from bleeding when you fall off and hit your head against a sharp object, this is also fact.

.....

Wearing a helmet or not, its personal choice, in my opinion its a stupid choice not to; whether it saves your life from brain damage is another debate, but it certainly stops small injuries as described in our little experiment above; that's the reason I wear one.

So you also wear shin guards, right?

merak · October 2011

meanredspider wrote:

Merak - your stats work against you. 4x as many pedestrians died but how many more pedestrians are there than cyclists? 8x as many motor vehicle occupants but how many more etc...etc

Answered in the other thread. If you are a cyclist and a pedestrian and a car occupant, the probability of serious or fatal injury was comparable in 2010 for the three activities.

Pedestrian deaths are likely to have fallen exactly because car design has radically improved in recent years. They are designed, tested and rated on pedestrian impact - particularly versus head injuries with likely head impact points designed to protect the pedestrian. The same design and testing is not done for impact with a cyclist.

And your point is?

And cycle helmets are not designed to protect cyclists against exactly the same injuries as car occupants. A car driver ( the one certain and most frequent occupant of a car) is most likely to strike the steering wheel with his face. Last time I looked my bike didn't have a steering wheel.

And your point is? Surely you should be advocating ful face hard shell helmets for car drivers.

The bottom line is that in 2010 if you cycled, walked and used a car you were roughly equally likely to die while carrying out each activity. So why PPE for bicycles and not for car occupants or pedestrians?

CiB · October 2011

Scotxr wrote:

You're arguements are the joke. <choppity chop, dull dull dull...>

As for grammar, thanks for pointing all that out. I will hand back my BSc and my PGcert straight away stating that CiD has found me out.

Jeez man. They dish out those sort of qualifications to people who can't even use "you're" in context, and can't spell arguement?

That explains a lot. You can't use basic grammar; your convoluted and selective quoting of stats & external references is worthless. BSc & PG Cert indeed - strewth. LOL huge amounts at your efforts.

Sorry to make it personal, but I've had enough of this discussion and I'm bored with the insinuation that it's nuts to avoid wearing a helmet. It's going nowhere and it's all been done.

Scotxr · October 2011

CiB wrote:

Scotxr wrote:

You're arguements are the joke. <choppity chop, dull dull dull...>

As for grammar, thanks for pointing all that out. I will hand back my BSc and my PGcert straight away stating that CiD has found me out.

Jeez man. They dish out those sort of qualifications to people who can't even use "you're" in context, and can't spell arguement?

That explains a lot. You can't use basic grammar; your convoluted and selective quoting of stats & external references is worthless. BSc & PG Cert indeed - strewth. LOL huge amounts at your efforts.

Sorry to make it personal, but I've had enough of this discussion and I'm bored with the insinuation that it's nuts to avoid wearing a helmet. It's going nowhere and it's all been done.

Make it personal all you want, it shows just how little you have to say with any meaning. I could go through your posts and pick holes in your spelling or grammar but i'm not that sad.

rolf_f · October 2011

Scotxr wrote:

I could go through your posts and pick holes in your spelling or grammar but i'm not that sad.

I wouldn't if I were you - you'd be completely out of your depth.......

merak · October 2011

Scotxr wrote:

a little extract.....

Myth 24: More people die in car accidents than in bicycle accidents so why isn't there an effort to promote driving helmets?

Fact 24: This myth is one of many that begins with a false premise then poses a question based on that false premise. If you look only at absolute numbers, yes, more people are killed and injured in car accidents than in bicycle accidents. But when you look at things statistically, measured per trip or per mile, cycling has a far higher injury and fatality rate than driving. On a per mile basis, cycling is about 11 times as risky as driving. On a per trip basis, cycling is about three times as risky as driving. Before you get too upset about these numbers, remember that they really are irrelevant, and were only brought up show the idiocy of the whole "driving helmet" premise which is unfailingly brought up on every web site railing illogically against bicycle helmets. When you're in a car, you're inside a reinforced steel structure with multiple active and passive safety features to protect you. These include side airbags, head curtain air bags, front air bags, seat belts, padded dash, and safety glass.

For a site that claims to be dispelling myth this is logical garbage. Why choose per mile or per trip statistics? Because it apparently answers the challenge "More people die in car accidents than in bicycle accidents so why isn't there an effort to promote driving helmets?". But it doesn't. And if the per mile or per trip statitics are irrelevant how do they show the idiocy of the driving helmet premise? They don't.

The point is that whatever the per mile or per trip numbers, eight times more people die in cars than on bikes in the UK (according to DoT statistics - where does he get his per mile and per trip data from?), so why not advocate PPE for cars? Apply the per mile basis to pedestrians and the argument would go the other way. And talking about the reinforced steel structure and so on is the same sort of illogical special pleading that you and others have indulged in - or is he saying that because cars have these measures that wearing hard shell helmets in cars would have no effect on survival rate - because that's plain stupid.

By the way, just to repeat, my argument has never been that bicycle helmets are useless or that they provide no protection. I have said over and over again that I wear one sometimes when I deem the risk profile to be appropriate. What I abhor is the proselytising argument that berates people for not ALWAYS wearing them, the confused thinking about risk profiles that people trot out ("if it saves one life a year it's worth it!"), the ridiculous stream of personal anecdotes claiming that helmets saved their individual lives, the inference that in the real world helmets make a huge difference to the incidence of cyclist death and serious injury and the implication that cycling is such a dangerous activity that you always have to wear a helmet and that if you don't you're mad or bad.

How many of you ride without a helmet?

Comments

Categories