Do you wear a helmet?

Gavin

Leroy42 wrote: »

I can see some benefits to wearing it, without wanting to start that tiresome arguement about how much etc, but can't see any benefits to not wearing one.

That's very true, I could wear it all the time and I would have the extra protection. I could wear it when walking, out drinking, sitting in work etc. I could do that, but I don't, because those scenarios do not significantly increase the chance of head injury.

It's risk evaluation, I try to be reasonably logical about things. For example, it also doesn't make much sense for a healthy young adult to have health insurance as the cost/benefit ratio doesn't work out. Watch what happens to people when you say that though. "Are you mad ? What if something happened to you !?!" People are not good at objectively evaluating risk.

Leroy42

Personal freedom?

Jeez, this isn't some communist state. Give me a freaking break. I guess you argue against seatbelts and zebra crossings!

I'm not syaing people should wear them, I agree that it's a persons choice, but no-one has been able to offer a good reason why a)if you beleive they offer protection you would not wear them and b) if you're events require them why you wouldn't use them in training

niceonetom

Leroy42 wrote: »

Jeez, this isn't some communist state. Give me a freaking break. I guess you argue against seatbelts and zebra crossings!

I'm not syaing people should wear them, I agree that it's a persons choice, but no-one has been able to offer a good reason why a)if you beleive they offer protection you would not wear them and b) if you're events require them why you wouldn't use them in training

Right, so you're not saying that people should wear them, but you obviously feel that they should have to provide you with a "good reason" for not wearing them.

The comparison to seatbelts and zebra crossings shows a lack of deep thought on the issue.

DirkVoodoo

Leroy42 wrote: »

Jeez, this isn't some communist state. Give me a freaking break. I guess you argue against seatbelts and zebra crossings!

I'm not syaing people should wear them, I agree that it's a persons choice, but no-one has been able to offer a good reason why a)if you beleive they offer protection you would not wear them and b) if you're events require them why you wouldn't use them in training

Jeez, I guess you make a lot of suppositions.

No, I have no problem with seatbelts, zebra crossings or even helmets. I do have a problem with zealots who rant about people not wearing them for relatively low risk activities.

Cycling fast downhill through the wicklow mountains, I would wear a helmet. Cycling through town, not such a big worry for me. Like El Tonto says, if you can't distinguish between different levels of risk (show me where all the fatal head injuries are around town) then why not wear a helmet all the time and completely minimize your risk of head injury?

petethedrummer

Leroy42 wrote: »

a)if you beleive they offer protection you would not wear them and

Risk Compensation,
The risk of a head injury is very small,
Looking dorky.

Leroy42 wrote: »

b) if you're events require them why you wouldn't use them in training

I don't train at high speeds in very close quarters with 50 other cyclists.

Bluefoam

Staistically you are more likely to suffer a serious head injury while walking on the pavement than while cycling a bike

DirkVoodoo

I think it's important to realize what helmets are designed to do and not what we think they do:

1. Are bicycle helmets designed to save lives?

If only they were. Helmets which could provide significant protection (if they existed) would be of such construction that few would care to wear them. Modern bicycle helmets are designed to mitigate the effect of an impact to the head of a person falling off a bicycle. At best, they reduce the chance of minor injuries.
"... it is impossible to build a helmet that will offer significant impact protection"

Dr. George Shively, The Snell Memorial Foundation
"... helmets will mitigate the effects of falling off your bicycle and striking your head... If a cyclist is accelerated by a car, then the helmet will not work and will not prevent a severe or even fatal injury"
Dr. Michael Schwartz, neurosurgeon and member of Canadian Standards Association Committee establishing helmet standards

This FAQ attempts to cut through current bicycle helmet hyperbole to provide the facts upon which responsible people can make measured decisions for themselves.

return to top of page
1. Are bicycle helmets designed to save lives?

If only they were. Helmets which could provide significant protection (if they existed) would be of such construction that few would care to wear them. Modern bicycle helmets are designed to mitigate the effect of an impact to the head of a person falling off a bicycle. At best, they reduce the chance of minor injuries.
"... it is impossible to build a helmet that will offer significant impact protection"

Dr. George Shively, The Snell Memorial Foundation
"... helmets will mitigate the effects of falling off your bicycle and striking your head... If a cyclist is accelerated by a car, then the helmet will not work and will not prevent a severe or even fatal injury"
Dr. Michael Schwartz, neurosurgeon and member of Canadian Standards Association Committee establishing helmet standards
return to top of page
2. Does helmet use save lives or reduce the number of serious head injuries?

Claims of reduction are very suspect. Such claims surfaced in Australia after introduction of helmet laws in the early 1990's. It was subsequently discovered that large reductions in cycling had been ignored.
While US helmet use was increasing from near zero to 30% or more from 1986 to 1996, there was virtually no difference between the trend lines for cycling and pedestrian fatalities. It is difficult to pick out on Tom Kunich's trends chart which line represents cyclists and which one pedestrians. (Data from the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA)). The results have been the same in Canada where large increases in helmet use have had no detectable affect on Canadian fatality trends.

The rapid increase in helmet use in Australia following legislation showed no helmet benefit. {9} The rates of decline in cycling equaled or exceeded rates of decline of cyclist head injuries. {10} Likewise, New Zealand experienced a dramatic rise in voluntary use prior to mandating but no reduction in the rate of serious head injuries. Reductions in cycling also were experienced. {10}

return to top of page
3. What about the stories of a helmet saving someones life?

We've heard these anecdotes, but the stories you won't hear are the more frequent ones of bareheaded cyclists falling off their bikes without incurring head injuries. They don't lend themselves well to story-telling.
The "helmet-saved-my-life" stories are mostly hyperbole. A plausible explanation for them is that a helmet is a fragile piece of styrofoam which is larger than the head it is on. A helmet on the head of a cyclist who falls from a bicycle on to a hard surface is almost certain to come into contact with the surface and be damaged. A cracked helmet is not proof of protection but rather of a failed helmet{8a}. It's all too easy then to assume a serious head injury would have been incurred without the helmet. Physicians are often the source of these stories, but they have no particular competence in the mechanics of a bicycle accident. When a helmet gets trashed it may well have prevented a nasty bump or even saved a few stitches, but the odds it saved a life are about the same as winning the jackpot in a lottery.

return to top of page
4. What kind of protection does a helmet provide?

Helmets are tested in the lab for straight line (linear) blows only. Test procedures set by standards bodies like Snell, ANSI, and CPSC require a helmet containing a 5kg (11lbs) rigid headform to be dropped onto a flat anvil from a height of 1.5 to 2.0 metres (5ft to 6ft 8in). If more than 300g's is imparted to the headform the helmet cannot be certified.
The outer shell of the 1980's hard shell helmet is designed to spread the force of an impact over a greater area of the head. The micro-shell of modern helmets does not do this, deforming instead and allowing the liner to start compressing at the point of impact. Whether this is good or not is open to question.

All shelled helmets reduce friction in a slide compared to no-shell helmets. The helmet's liner is made of foam sufficiently stiff that the head inevitably will absorb some of the impact. The stiffer the liner, the more shock the head will absorb. Theoretically, the liner is supposed to limit the deceleration for a typical fall on to a flat hard surface to a sub-lethal level, ie. less 300g's, by absorbing energy. Sub-lethal means anything from a very bad concussion to a coma. If a blow is of such severity that the liner is crushed to its minimum thickness, excess energy is absorbed by the head and the blow is likely to be lethal.

The medical profession now believes that even lesser accelerations can produce serious injury and that the 300g level is too high. However, it is unlikely that helmet standards will be raised to provide significant protection because the industry doesn't believe that consumers would buy the resulting products. The trend is in the opposite direction. In Australia, the standard was actually lowered because helmets produced under the old standard did not meet with market acceptance. Manufacturers are presently responding to market demand for helmets which improve air-flow inside the helmet and to fashion by manufacturing helmets with more holes them. While these pass standard tests, they spread impacts over a smaller area of the head, so when an impact occurs it will be more concentrated around the center of the impact.

More "information" here.

I would once again point to the dublin bike scheme, if cycling around town is so dangerous that helmets are a necessity to save lives, where is all the carnage and cracked skulls?

Chips Lovell

Leroy, do you wear a helmet when you're in a car? If not, why not?

Raam

The only time I care if someone is wearing a helmet is if they are cycling in a group with me.

Why?

Because if they fall and cut their head, the group has to look after their lovely gash and no one wants blood on their Sidis.

Leroy42

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Cycling fast downhill through the wicklow mountains, I would wear a helmet. Cycling through town, not such a big worry for me.

My question is why do you bother on Wicklow. Lets say you crash (god forbid, knock on wood etc) when descending. You hope that in some way the helmet will help reduce the risk of serious injury.

Now lets say your cycling through town, which as usual has minimum risks to you as a cyclist. Suddenly, out of nowhere, some eejit legs it out a shop and straight into you, down you go, head hits the pavement. Again, having a helmet on may, or depending on which study you read, may not help reduce the risk. However, since you agree, from your use in Wicklow, that it may provide some protection it seems reasonale to make use of such a safety device.

I don't train at high speeds in very close quarters with 50 other cyclists.

I might be wrong here, but I don't think helmets are deisnged only to work at high speed and in a group. As many have said, they seem to work fine on an MTB trail.

I am not a zealot, I neither agree nor disagree with the use of helmets. I am merely surprised that people can argue that using them for one form of cycling is fine, but another form of cycling, which by its nature carries the same risk just at lower levels, does not need them. The analoge with the shower does not equate, only if one argues that at home you wear a helmet, but never if your in your friends gaff or in a hotel.

Raam

Leroy42 wrote: »

... if one argues that at home you wear a helmet, but never if your in your friends gaff or in a hotel.

Proof that this debate has run it's course.

Stark

Leroy42 wrote: »

Now lets say your cycling through town, which as usual has minimum risks to you as a cyclist. Suddenly, out of nowhere, some eejit legs it out a shop and straight into you, down you go, head hits the pavement. Again, having a helmet on may, or depending on which study you read, may not help reduce the risk. However, since you agree, from your use in Wicklow, that it may provide some protection it seems reasonale to make use of such a safety device.

Any time I've come off the bike in that matter, it's always been a hand or an elbow injury. It's actually quite difficult to fall head first. I very rarely see people cycling with protective gloves though.

Gavin

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am merely surprised that people can argue that using them for one form of cycling is fine, but another form of cycling, which by its nature carries the same risk just at lower levels, does not need them.

This is the answer you are looking for. In my opinion, the level of risk does not warrant the need for a helmet. You are ignoring the answer.

High risk = helmet
Low risk = no helmet.

Chips Lovell

I'll give this one more go

Leroy42 wrote: »

My question is why do you bother on Wicklow. Lets say you crash (god forbid, knock on wood etc) when descending. You hope that in some way the helmet will help reduce the risk of serious injury.

Now lets say your cycling through town, which as usual has minimum risks to you as a cyclist. Suddenly, out of nowhere, some eejit legs it out a shop and straight into you, down you go, head hits the pavement. Again, having a helmet on may, or depending on which study you read, may not help reduce the risk. However, since you agree, from your use in Wicklow, that it may provide some protection it seems reasonale to make use of such a safety device.

Because the level of risk is lower. Crashing at 70kph is very different from crashing at 20kph. Indeed, you have a far better chance of avoiding hazards and not crashing at all at 20kph.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am merely surprised that people can argue that using them for one form of cycling is fine, but another form of cycling, which by its nature carries the same risk just at lower levels, does not need them.

Why are you surprised? You wouldn't wear a helmet when driving to Dunnes, but you would wear one while rallying. You wouldn't wear a helmet walking up a hill, but you would wear one scaling a cliff. It's perfectly reasonable to take precuations based on the level of risk.

Moflojo

Boxers or briefs, anyone?

Personally, I wear boxers, I just enjoy the extra bit of room.

I can understand why some people may wear briefs, they do offer some degree of support and comfort, but I find them a bit stifling.

Raam

I iz on my bikez wearin no hemletz

Leroy42

Good point Gavin, I do understand that.

Still doesn't make any sense to me why a person with such a piece of equipment already, and knowing that it could help, would not wear it due to the chance of needed it being less than their accepted risk level. This theory falls short, as normally the rules to base this type of decision on are some sort of cost-benefit. Cost of insurance, extra hassle involved, effect on ability, cost of implentation etc. None of these can be argued with putting on a helmet.

However, I firmly believe that despite many people stating risk etc, it really comes down to thinking that riding with a helmet is 'dorky' and riding without one is cool.

petethedrummer

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am merely surprised that people can argue that using them for one form of cycling is fine, but another form of cycling, which by its nature carries the same risk just at lower levels,

what are you on about? That sentence makes too little sense to even try and dissect.

Chips Lovell

Leroy42 wrote: »

Still doesn't make any sense to me why a person with such a piece of equipment already, and knowing that it could help, would not wear it due to the chance of needed it being less than their accepted risk level.

You're absolutely right. I own a bike helmet. Two in fact. I've really no reason not to wear it while walking across town to buy my lunch. I know the risk of my tripping up and splitting my head open are minimal, but why chance it? Only vanity to date has stopped me from wearing it because it looks dorky with my suit.

DirkVoodoo

Leroy42 wrote: »

Good point Gavin, I do understand that.

Still doesn't make any sense to me why a person with such a piece of equipment already, and knowing that it could help, would not wear it due to the chance of needed it being less than their accepted risk level. This theory falls short, as normally the rules to base this type of decision on are some sort of cost-benefit. Cost of insurance, extra hassle involved, effect on ability, cost of implentation etc. None of these can be argued with putting on a helmet.

However, I firmly believe that despite many people stating risk etc, it really comes down to thinking that riding with a helmet is 'dorky' and riding without one is cool.

Good point Gavin? Not to steal his thunder but I thought I was making the same point?

I also have my obligations to my many fans to look as good and professional as possible when out around Wicklow. I tend to be cycling with other people and in close proximity but at higher speeds and where drivers are less aware of cyclists, again this feeds into my patented "Risk-o-meter".

If you want to wear a helmet, go for it, if you don't then I don't care, I don't see why people seem to make it their business to be safety police for everyone else.

RobBaxter

Leroy42 wrote: »

Good point Gavin, I do understand that.

Still doesn't make any sense to me why a person with such a piece of equipment already, and knowing that it could help, would not wear it due to the chance of needed it being less than their accepted risk level. This theory falls short, as normally the rules to base this type of decision on are some sort of cost-benefit. Cost of insurance, extra hassle involved, effect on ability, cost of implentation etc. None of these can be argued with putting on a helmet.

However, I firmly believe that despite many people stating risk etc, it really comes down to thinking that riding with a helmet is 'dorky' and riding without one is cool.

It's incredible how you don't get any of the eloquently put responses to this same question that you keep asking.....

Boggles the mind

chronyx

cycling helmets are pretty for serious head protection.
If the accident happened, because no helmet protect your head, I think you'll regret very much!

The same as Lance Armstrong ,Once again, the accident occurred in 2010 tour de france,he hurt himself again.
if he didn't wear helmets,i think he would have a very serious injury.

petethedrummer

Leroy42 wrote: »

Still doesn't make any sense to me why a person with such a piece of equipment already, and knowing that it could help, would not wear it due to the chance of needed it being less than their accepted risk level.

Do you wear a helmet while in a car? If not, why not?

Leroy42 wrote: »

However, I firmly believe that despite many people stating risk etc, it really comes down to thinking that riding with a helmet is 'dorky' and riding without one is cool.

That is part of my reasoning. I had the hots for a girl a couple of years ago. I saw her on parnell st one day as I was cycling along in my big bell helmet. I couldn't stop to chat with the mushroom on my head. C0ck blocked by a helmet.

The second is that cycling for me is fun. I have to go through safety inductions for work, walk around in hi-viz, sign permits, wear helmets gloves, tape down leads, wear steel toe caps, attend safety meetings, wear googles, inform people of my whereabouts, carry a two way radio, turn off my moblie, the list goes on and on.

I get on my bike to get away from all that so I am not wearing a helmet, unless the non-wearing of a helmet precludes me from taking part in the cycling event/activity I chose to partake in.

niceonetom

chronyx wrote: »

cycling helmets are pretty for serious head protection.
If the accident happened, because no helmet protect your head, I think you'll regret very much!

The same as Lance Armstrong ,Once again, the accident occurred in 2010 tour de france,he hurt himself again.
if he didn't wear helmets,i think he would have a very serious injury.

As first posts go, I think we should take a moment here to appreciate this one. Drink it in. Savour it.

petethedrummer

chronyx wrote: »

The same as Lance Armstrong ,Once again, the accident occurred in 2010 tour de france,he hurt himself again.
if he didn't wear helmets,i think he would have a very serious injury.

Here's Lance not wearing a helmet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNCPEzdZs5s

Do you see him there. Wind in his hair, having fun. Looking cool until he does **** skid stop.

Leroy42

Sorry DirkVooDoo, you made a good point as well:D

I do get what people are saying, they believe that the low risk of an accident negates the need for the helmet. Walking to the shops, not much chance of falling off your bike there.

I am only talking about cycling, not walking, not hill climbing, not taking showers. Just cycling.

You ride a bike, there is a chance you could fall off. Make all the points about risk equations etc but if you guys are honest it's mainly because you think it's dorky. Can't say I disagree, but seems a strange way to look after yourself, worrying what others think

Chips Lovell

RobBaxter

petethedrummer wrote: »

That is part of my reasoning. I had the hots for a girl a couple of years ago. I saw her on parnell st one day as I was cycling along in my big bell helmet. I couldn't stop to chat with the mushroom on my head. C0ck blocked by a helmet.

Lol,

HELMETS - A serious C0CK BLOCK

RobBaxter

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry DirkVooDoo, you made a good point as well:D

I do get what people are saying, they believe that the low risk of an accident negates the need for the helmet. Walking to the shops, not much chance of falling off your bike there.

I am only talking about cycling, not walking, not hill climbing, not taking showers. Just cycling.

You ride a bike, there is a chance you could fall off. Make all the points about risk equations etc but if you guys are honest it's mainly because you think it's dorky. Can't say I disagree, but seems a strange way to look after yourself, worrying what others think

Your posts are getting annoying now. Are you trolling?

Looking like a dork is only part of it, you are more comfortable when you don't wear a helmet. Less sweaty, lighter, air runs through your hair and no straps around your chin. We judge the risks of our cycling to see do we wear them.

Actually, just reading your last line again. I would be surprised if you weren't a troll...

Chips Lovell

I give up.

Cretins, Fools, Morons and Lunatics

What about the morons?'

'Ah. Morons never do the wrong thing. They get their reasoning wrong. Like the fellow who says all dogs are pets and all dogs bark, and cats are pets, too, and therefore cats bark. Or that all Athenians are mortal, and all the citizens of Piraeus are mortal, so all the citizens of Piraeus are Athenians.'

'Which they are.'

'Yes, but only accidentally. Morons will occasionally say something that’s right, but they say it for the wrong reason.'

'You mean it’s okay to say something that’s wrong as long as the reason is right.'

'Of course. Why else go to the trouble of being a rational animal?'

'All great apes evolved from lower life forms, man evolved from lower life forms, therefore man is a great ape.'

'Not bad. In such statements you suspect that something’s wrong, but it takes work to show what and why. Morons are tricky. You can spot the fool right away (not to mention the cretin), but the moron reasons almost the way you do; the gap is infinitesimal. A moron is a master of paralogism. For an editor, it’s bad news. It can take him an eternity to identify a moron. Plenty of morons’ books are published, because they’re convincing at first glance. An editor is not required to weed out the morons. If the Academy of Sciences doesn’t do it, why should he?'

el tonto

el tonto wrote: »

Neeeeeeoooooowmygod.
They fell off their bikes while not wearing helmets, they're obviously all dead now.

Stark

There's something wrong with that picture. The rest of their bodies are hitting the ground before their heads. I smell a fake. Honestly, someone could come away from that picture thinking that the human body and reflex nervous system were equipped to deal with falls or something.

Bluefoam

Leroy42 wrote: »

but if you guys are honest it's mainly because you think it's dorky. Can't say I disagree, but seems a strange way to look after yourself, worrying what others think

I completely disagree with you.

I wear a helmet when mountain biking - because I am there for the purpose of putting myself at risk and my body on the line. Helmet also works well for deflecting branches etc. that you don't encounter on most roads.

When I ride my bike on the road, I do so in normal cloths - mostly. & am generally going somewhere where I will need to get off the bike. I don't like getting a sweaty head in these circumstances and I don't like having to carry a cycle helmet around with me. Plus I don't see the need for that level of protection while leisure cycling - my intention here is not to put my self in danger. There are major risks on the roads like speeding taxi drivers, hgvs & buses, but a helmet will do little to protect me from them - this is where I like to use my wits...

petethedrummer

So Leroy why stop at normal cycling helmets?

Why not shin pads, wristguards, full face helmets and back protector? these things are all available to buy and would prevent against many quality of life reducing accidents. You could fall on your back and break your spine if you hit a bad pothole and went over the handlebars. That would be as bad as any head injury. In fact I don't understand why you don't wear one. is it because you're afraid you'll look stupid with a back protector on? I think you'll find that it is. It may not look cool but you won't look cool when you're lying in traction with your broken spine.

snollup

wow, never reckoned there was such an anti helmet crew here on boards.ie. i also don't feel the need to wear one. reckon if i come-a-cropper with car/bus/truck helmet will be sod all use to me. reckon the risk of minor bumps and bruises are worth it for not being a sweaty mess.

blorg

It's not an anti-helmet crew, it is anti-compulsion and not feeling that helmets are necessary for everyday cycling. Most of the posters above have and wear helmets regularly (as I do myself.) Just not necessarily 100% of the time.

Leroy42 wrote: »

However, I firmly believe that despite many people stating risk etc, it really comes down to thinking that riding with a helmet is 'dorky' and riding without one is cool.

I don't think many of the people saying they don't always wear a helmet think that. This is something in your head. For me it is a comfort and hassle issue, nothing to do with how dorky it might make me look.

zuroph

I wear a helmet

I don't care if anyone else does or not.

tomasrojo

zuroph, that's a nice avatar.

DirkVoodoo

There is no anti-helmet crew here, in fact most people here wear helmets when I have been out on boards spins and if they don't then that's their choice.

I can understand why you might not like the sight of someone without a helmet riding a bike, but what business of yours is it? I mean, I might feel the need to comment if I saw someone letting their child take the wheel of a car in a supermarket, that's just dangerous and stupid. I wouldn't tell someone they should be wearing a helmet anymore than I would go up to someone and tell them not to eat that cheeseburger. Sure, it's probably not very good for them and there is a chance they could increase their risk of a heart attack. But it's their choice and we live in enough of a nanny state as it is.

Let me eat my cheeseburger in peace!

Now, where was I?

the_syco

When cycling: yes
When going through a windscreen: yes
When breaking the elbow on black ice: yes (helmet had a nice bounce of the tarmac as well)
When doing some crazy sh|t when I was younger: yes

To the people who do not like wearing one as it's uncomfortable, I ask you this: would you wear uncomfortable pants? Of course not: you'd get comfortable ones. Likewise with the helmet: get one that you like being on your head.

Signal_ rabbit

The same old arguments just keep getting a good old airing time and time again! If you want to wear a helmet for whatever reason you think or likewise you don't, then that is fine and thats your choice. But whatever you do is it absolutely necessary to force your opinions on others?

IM0

this reminds me of the simpsons [in a jazz club listening to musician]

Lisa says "you have to listen to the notes shes not playing"

homer "pfft..I can do that at home"

not bakunin

As a matter of interest, when was it that pro pelotons started wearing what we now regard as 'helmets'? Not those hilarious strips of padding used up to the early 90s that you see...

Single Malt

Signal_ rabbit wrote: »

The same old arguments just keep getting a good old airing time and time again! If you want to wear a helmet for whatever reason you think or likewise you don't, then that is fine and thats your choice. But whatever you do is it absolutely necessary to force your opinions on others?

I agree....as long as you consider your loved ones when making that choice.

DirkVoodoo

Single Malt wrote: »

I agree....as long as you consider your loved ones when making that choice.

?

I don't think my family take my lack of helmet wearing as a sign that I don't love them. As has been pointed out, you have to talk about the possible risk and not the possible outcomes. I don't see how trying to guilt people into wearing helmets is any different to forcing them to wear them outright.

petethedrummer

Single Malt wrote: »

I agree....as long as you consider your loved ones when making that choice.

Jesus H Christ. Someone is thinking of the children. Do you wear a helmet in the car?

IM0

petethedrummer wrote: »

Jesus H Christ. Someone is thinking of the children. Do you wear a helmet in the car?

no, but if you go through the windscreen and land on the road you'll be wishing you did :pac: what we need is a time machine, then we can use that to look at the outcome and go back and wear a helmet and play the tape to see if it would have made a difference.

Climate change? pfft - research a time machine instead guys its the final solution.

DirkVoodoo

Hmm...final solution...Nazis...Hitler....thread over?

vampire of kilmainham

I dont really bother wearing one but i think it should be made compulsery and yes i know i should wear one we all should really as far as i know it's compulsery in most other countries.:eek:

petethedrummer

vampire of kilmainham wrote: »

I dont really bother wearing one but i think it should be made compulsery and yes i know i should wear one we all should really as far as i know it's compulsery in most other countries.:eek:

Have you read up at all on cycle helmets? Any research? even one newspaper article?