Which Helmet

"DDEckerslyke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi folks

I've just spent an interesting hour or so reading through the debates on helmets which I think are
neatly summarised here greengas.u-net.comHelmetsByHillman.htmlOpen ↗ and
here lesberries.co.ukeffectiveness.pdfOpen ↗

I've decided to go ahead and buy one, but my question is which one? I've

got

Quoted message said:

about £30 to spend and the local shop stocks Specialized Chamonix and Met MaxTrack II in my size
(62/63 ie XXL when I wore a motorbike helmet)

though

Quoted message said:

I'm sure I could order or find others. Are all helmets basically the same apart from weight and
ventilation? Part of the reason I'm asking is that there was a 'Which?' magazine survey several
years ago and although all of the helmets were up to the relevant standards their performance
in tests

was

Quoted message said:

wildly different (and the standards are basically [censored] anyway). Are

helmets

Quoted message said:

that are up to the Snell standards any safer?

IMHO this is something that you have to try on before selecting the one for you. I found those of
nominally the same size varied significantly in 'fit' -- but maybe I have a strongly point head or
something 🙂

As for safety, generally helmets are safe if handled correctly. They rarely attack their owners.
Whether they are any help in an accident rather depends on what you hit/hits you, where and how
hard. Generally, for anything much above falling off your bike at low speed and banking your bonce
on the road they will have little discernable effect.

T

Quoted message said:

I've just spent an interesting hour or so reading through the debates on helmets which I think are
neatly summarised here greengas.u-net.comHelmetsByHillman.htmlOpen ↗ and
here lesberries.co.ukeffectiveness.pdfOpen ↗

I don't believe in "risk compensation" myself. I already have a few injury problems so wearing a
helmet isn't going to make me want to take any more risks.

I believe that I'm a fairly safe rider but the guy in the car behind me might be boy-racer or
mobile phone multitasker. I've also had a few spills off-road and wouldn't want to try any of these
without a helmet.

I say don't take that risk. Forget all the armchair philosphy and get decent protection for
something so important.

Quoted message said:

I've decided to go ahead and buy one, but my question is which one? I've got about £30 to spend
and the local shop stocks Specialized Chamonix and Met MaxTrack II in my size (62/63 ie XXL when I
wore a motorbike helmet) though I'm sure I could order or find others. Are all helmets basically
the same apart from weight and ventilation? Part of the reason I'm asking is that there was a
'Which?' magazine survey several years ago and although all of the helmets were up to the relevant
standards their performance in tests was wildly different (and the standards are basically [censored]
anyway). Are helmets that are up to the Snell standards any safer?

My brother has just bought a "Bell Paradox Pro". You can buy it for £16.95 (normal price £39.95) at:
merlincycles.co.ukCLEARANCE CENTER.htmlOpen ↗

Call them if you have any questions. They're very friendly. The helmet arrived last week and though
you can't test its crashworthiness it's very comfortable. It also seems well constructed. It also
has the "EN1078" sticker so at least it complies to a certain standard.

My own helmet doesn't have this sticker but is CPSC compliant. I think it's an American standard
(someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Read some reviews here for helmets: mtbr.comhelmetOpen ↗

These are user reviews though so beware. A lot of people tend to write-UP the things that they spend
money on, though of course some are too quick to criticise. Some of the reviews talk about the visor
falling down. Just to let you know that you can actually take it off on the Bell helmet.

I wear sunglasses when it's sunny and never use the visor (on my helmet) because it always sends
sweat right into my eyes.

...and some good-sounding advice I found here: wheelies.co.ukhelmets.aspOpen ↗

--
...meandering mule...

"DDEckerslyke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi folks

I've just spent an interesting hour or so reading through the debates on helmets which I think are
neatly summarised here greengas.u-net.comHelmetsByHillman.htmlOpen ↗ and
here lesberries.co.ukeffectiveness.pdfOpen ↗

I've decided to go ahead and buy one, but my question is which one? I've

got

Quoted message said:

about £30 to spend and the local shop stocks Specialized Chamonix and Met MaxTrack II in my size
(62/63 ie XXL when I wore a motorbike helmet)

though

Quoted message said:

I'm sure I could order or find others. Are all helmets basically the same apart from weight and
ventilation? Part of the reason I'm asking is that there was a 'Which?' magazine survey several
years ago and although all of the helmets were up to the relevant standards their performance
in tests

was

Quoted message said:

wildly different (and the standards are basically [censored] anyway). Are

helmets

Quoted message said:

that are up to the Snell standards any safer?

Any advice gratefully received

I always buy Giro helmets mainly because they stood by Lance Armstrong through his illness when most
others dumped him.

KC

DDEckerslyke <[email hidden]> wrote:

: I've decided to go ahead and buy one, but my question is which one? I've got about £30 to spend
: and the local shop stocks Specialized Chamonix and Met MaxTrack II in my size

If you want one, then the important point is that it must fit. Both the above helmets (and pretty
much all by decent makes) will satisfy all the relevant safety standards.

The size/shape of helmets varies between makes though (like shoes!) so the best thing to do is to
try them both on and choose the one that fits.

THe other important point is that once you have chosen one, get it adjusted properly. I helmet with
loose straps, or that sits 3/4 the way up your forehead is worse than useless since it won't protect
you if you fall.

Arthur

Make sure any helmet you buy fits well and sits comfortably on your head. It should not swivel so
that the strap garrottes you if you strike your brow. Make sure the lid would actually stay on your
head in a crash. (Difficult if your head is round!)

Ideally it should be well-vent(ilat)ed but might trap insects and get your head sunburnt. This is
your choice.

Try before you buy - I can't possibly tell what will fit you best.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

"mule" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't believe in "risk compensation" myself.

You may want to reconsider that in the light of the evidence from compulsopry seat belt wearing
which promised to save lives by the hundred but failed to deliver any statistically significant
improvement at all. It did, however, deliver the greatest recorded rise in cyclist and rear seat
passenger fatalities.

For me the issue is not whether risk copensation exists but how big the effect is. The more I read,
the bigger it looks.

Quoted message said:

I believe that I'm a fairly safe rider but the guy in the car behind me might be boy-racer or
mobile phone multitasker.

Helmets are designed to work at speeds of up to about 12mph. Any crash involving motor vehicles or
high speeds is outside the design parameters. The most you can expect is reduced road rash - which
is not a bad thing. The "head injuries" the liddites talk about are mostly trivial, of course, and
there is no credible evidence that a helmet has ever saved a single life (because nobody is terribly
anxious to go back and try the crash again in a controlled experiment).

Quoted message said:

I've also had a few spills off-road and wouldn't want to try any of these without a helmet.

Offroad is interesting. As far as I can see the more extreme offroaders, the body armour brigade,
are a perfect example of risk compensation in action: they wear armour so they can do things they
would not otherwise dare to do.

Quoted message said:

I say don't take that risk. Forget all the armchair philosphy and get decent protection for
something so important.

The crucial point is, according to the evidence helmets /are not decent protection./ All they do is
mitigate minor injuries.

Understand, I'm not saying don't wear a helmet, just that you can't expect a polystyrene foam
deflector beanie to act as some kind of magic talisman.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

If you want one, then the important point is that it must fit. Both the above helmets (and pretty
much all by decent makes) will satisfy all the relevant safety standards.

The size/shape of helmets varies between makes though (like shoes!) so the best thing to do is to
try them both on and choose the one that fits.

Hmmm...maybe it's just me but I've never had problems with a helmet not fitting well (of course
apart from it being undersized, too big, etc).

--
...meandering mule...

Quoted message said:

You may want to reconsider that in the light of the evidence from compulsopry seat belt wearing
which promised to save lives by the hundred but failed to deliver any statistically significant
improvement at all. It did, however, deliver the greatest recorded rise in cyclist and rear seat
passenger fatalities.

...interesting theory...

However you also need to bear in mind that these statistics will be for "before seatbelts made
compulsory" and "after seatbelts made compulsory" where the facts that:
- the number of road users has increased
- the performance of cars has increased

probably have NOT been (and cannot be easily) taken into account.

However I also take back some of my "I don't believe in risk compensation" because indeed (with a
little thought) it does happen every day. Drivers drive faster, not only because their cars ARE
faster because they know that they can brake later with anti-lock brakes, better performing brakes,
grippier rubber, etc.

Quoted message said:

Helmets are designed to work at speeds of up to about 12mph. Any crash involving motor vehicles or
high speeds is outside the design parameters. The most you can expect is reduced road rash - which
is not a bad thing. The "head injuries" the liddites talk about are mostly trivial, of course, and
there is no credible evidence that a helmet has ever saved a single life (because nobody is
terribly anxious to go back and try the crash again in a controlled experiment).

Quoted message said:

Offroad is interesting. As far as I can see the more extreme offroaders, the body armour brigade,
are a perfect example of risk compensation in action: they wear armour so they can do things they
would not otherwise dare to do.

I'm not an extreme off-roader. I'd take the same risks with or without a helmet based on my skills
and my confidence to tackle a particular trail.

Still...good point.

Quoted message said:

Understand, I'm not saying don't wear a helmet, just that you can't expect a polystyrene foam
deflector beanie to act as some kind of magic talisman.

Sure but if someone is even contemplating NOT getting/wearing a helmet I'd feel the need to tell
them otherwise. I have no idea whether there is a lack of any "real evidence" that helmets help to
prevent serious head injuries but I wouldn't advise anyone to take that risk.

Also I don't think it's a good example for any kids out there to see adults not wearing helmets.

Wearing a helmet is a "no brainer" IMO.

--
...meandering mule...

"mule" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

snip

Quoted message said:

Sure but if someone is even contemplating NOT getting/wearing a helmet I'd feel the need to tell
them otherwise. I have no idea whether there is a lack of any "real evidence" that helmets help to
prevent serious head injuries but I wouldn't advise anyone to take that risk.

Also I don't think it's a good example for any kids out there to see adults not wearing helmets.

Wearing a helmet is a "no brainer" IMO.

No -- it isn't -- IMO.

The reduction in risk for a normal, adult, road cyclist who does not engage in racing or any form of
'crazy cycling' (tm) is so minor (IMHO) that I do not feel moved to wear one for normal road cycling
(leisure & commuting) -- or on cycle tracks and gentle bridle paths.

When throwing myself down hills or through trees, off road or cycling in a large bunch on road I do
think the balance sways in favour of a lid.

I refuse to believe a few mm of polystyrene are ever going to be the principle thing that keeps me
alive while cycling.

T

"mule" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You may want to reconsider that in the light of the evidence from compulsopry seat belt wearing

Quoted message said:

However you also need to bear in mind that these statistics will be for "before seatbelts made
compulsory" and "after seatbelts made compulsory" where the facts that:
- the number of road users has increased
- the performance of cars has increased

The comparison is between the year or two before and the year or two after. Other factors are
essentially controlled out.

Quoted message said:

However I also take back some of my "I don't believe in risk compensation" because indeed (with a
little thought) it does happen every day. Drivers drive faster, not only because their cars ARE
faster because they know that they can brake later with anti-lock brakes, better performing
brakes, grippier rubber, etc.

Just so.

Quoted message said:

I'm not an extreme off-roader. I'd take the same risks with or without a helmet based on my skills
and my confidence to tackle a particular trail.

I like to think so, too, but I can't be certain.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Understand, I'm not saying don't wear a helmet, just that you can't expect a polystyrene foam
deflector beanie to act as some kind of magic talisman.

Quoted message said:

Sure but if someone is even contemplating NOT getting/wearing a helmet I'd feel the need to tell
them otherwise.

I would feel the need to suggest they read both sides of the argument. As far as I can tell the
verdict on helmets is "not proven."

Quoted message said:

I have no idea whether there is a lack of any "real evidence" that helmets help to prevent serious
head injuries but I wouldn't advise anyone to take that risk.

OK, but John Franklin *does* know, as do others, and their advice is that, statistically, helmets
make no difference ata ll: any protective effect is offset by other factors, risk compensation being
one obvious one.

There is a whole load of evidence. Last week I saw a chart showing child cyclist vs. child
pedestrian casualties over a twenty year period in New York. Helmet use had increased from zero to
in excess of 85% over this period, but the two lines varied as one. Either child pedestrians have
started wearing helmets and we don't know, or the helmets have no measurable effect.

cyclehelmets.orgcyclehelmets.orgOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Also I don't think it's a good example for any kids out there to see adults not wearing helmets.

Not a particularly copelling argument. Individual parents might choose to set an example (self
included) but I have also told my elder son what helmets can and can't do. Better that they are
informed properly, than that they believe the hype. Quotes from teenagers indicate that helmet
promotion has left them with a vastly exaggerated impression of the benefits of helmets.

Quoted message said:

Wearing a helmet is a "no brainer" IMO.

That could be taken in more than one way :-)

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗

mule said:

However you also need to bear in mind that these statistics will be for "before seatbelts made
compulsory" and "after seatbelts made compulsory" where the facts that:
- the number of road users has increased

Certainly

Quoted message said:

- the performance of cars has increased

Not in terms of how they're used: you could reasonably easily beat a 30 limit in a 1962 Ford Anglia,
and the overall standard of safety equipment and design has probably exceeded the pure performance
increase. Also the case that higher performance engines have been used to do the same with less, so
back in the 70s you'd get a 3.5 litre Rover quite commonly, these days hardly anyone drives a car
with an engine that big.

Quoted message said:

I'm not an extreme off-roader. I'd take the same risks with or without a helmet based on my skills
and my confidence to tackle a particular trail.

Still...good point.

I'm certainly not an extreme offroader, but I fully expect to fall off once in a while. Usually a
keeling over having failed to get cleats out type of accident rather than hit a tree at 50 km/h
type, but that's just the sort of thing a bike helmet *is* good for. Unless I'm just doing plain XC
along a decent track I'll always wear a helmet off road, because the sort of low speed exceeding
technical ability of rider to stay on accident is (a) what happens most to me and (b) is what a
helmet is designed to do fairly well.

Quoted message said:

Sure but if someone is even contemplating NOT getting/wearing a helmet I'd feel the need to tell
them otherwise. I have no idea whether there is a lack of any "real evidence" that helmets help to
prevent serious head injuries but I wouldn't advise anyone to take that risk.

Well, now you *do* have an idea that there's a lack of real evidence, because people here are
telling you, and they're finding out through researched peer-reviewed papers. So in effect you're
feeling a *need* to tell people a load of spin. That is patronising, and in overplaying a message of
actually minor importance you risk obscuring points of real safety, such as good roadcraft.

Quoted message said:

Also I don't think it's a good example for any kids out there to see adults not wearing helmets.

Why not? As has previously been stated, helmets are not likely to help save anything much in
significant doom-potential crashes. Aside from not needing to use your dental records to identify
the remains, that is, but at that point it's all rather moot in any case. You're not doing anything
silly, so it's not a bad example.

Quoted message said:

Wearing a helmet is a "no brainer" IMO.

Then since a helmet will serve exactly the same function of protecting you in potentially dangerous
situations such as using staircases (check out domestic accident figures and find how many people
get injured falling downstairs...) then presumably you always wear a helmet on stairs as well? If
not, why not? *Exactly* the same arguments apply.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

However I also take back some of my "I don't believe in risk compensation" because indeed (with a
little thought) it does happen every day. Drivers drive faster, not only because their cars ARE
faster because they know that they can brake later with anti-lock brakes, better performing
brakes, grippier rubber, etc.

If you can do something safely within certain parameters then you're not taking risks. You take
risks when you rely on a technological feature to compensate for your lack of skills.

...otherwise we might as well still be riding horses and penny farthings instead of cars, planes and
mountainbikes/racers.

Quoted message said:

Wearing a helmet is a "no brainer" IMO.

The caffeine was starting to take effect by this point...

--
...meandering mule...

mule said:

If you can do something safely within certain parameters then you're not taking risks. You take
risks when you rely on a technological feature to compensate for your lack of skills.

Sorry, this isn't true because it ignores the semantics of the use of the word "safely". We all know
one can be killed by taking a train or plane (statistically very safe modes of transport), yet these
are regarded as being safe. But there is a finite chance of doom, so we *are* taking risks. There's
no such thing as "safely", there's "safely enough to satisfy us", but that is not an absolutely safe
thing as is implied by "safely".

Quoted message said:

...otherwise we might as well still be riding horses and penny farthings instead of cars, planes
and mountainbikes/racers.

You appear to misunderstand what risk is. If you're riding a horse then despite no technology being
involved, you take a greater risk by moving faster. There's a finite chance even a champion jockey
will come to grief at a canter, but a bigger one at a full gallop. The jockey has the skill to move
at a full gallop, but that doesn't mean he isn't taking risks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wearing a helmet is a "no brainer" IMO.

The caffeine was starting to take effect by this point...

What effect was that then, making you want to go to the toilet?

I usually wear one for commutes etc., but it isn't a no-brainer. It's a degree of comfort-insurance,
really. I can pay a comfort price wearing it, on the offchance that I *might* be very uncomfortable
without it (probably not worse than serious discomfort: look at the specs for what it can do). But I
will be more uncomfortable with it on in any case if it's at all hot/humid and there are big climbs
involved. I don't make a habit of crashing and banging my head, so I prefer the risk of not wearing
it in such situations, rather than certainly remove pleasure from something I'm doing for pleasure.

Pete.

--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

"mule" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Drivers drive faster, not only because their cars ARE faster because they know that they can
brake later with anti-lock brakes, better performing brakes, grippier rubber, etc.

No, you were right first time. Drivers drive faster because they have ABS, airbags, seatbelts,
modern tyres, modern road surfaces, modern suspension.

A large part of the safety benefit is consumed as a performance benefit. Unfortunately that means
that while the driver still ends up slightly safer on average, other road users are at more risk.

Quoted message said:

If you can do something safely within certain parameters then you're not taking risks. You take
risks when you rely on a technological feature to compensate for your lack of skills.

Everything has a risk attached. The quantity of risk is what we change.

If you corner "safely" at 60mph in a modern car, whereas previously you cornered "safely" at 40, you
have taken a big chunk of the safety factor and converted it to extra speed. The laws of physics
remain the same. If there is a cyclist on the road round the bend you have less time to react and
more kinetic energy to dispose of.

It may seem safe, because the level of risk is still within your acceptable parameters, but you are
that much closer to the knife-edge and the risk is not equally shared out. Very few drivers die when
they hit cyclists or pedestrians.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wearing a helmet is a "no brainer" IMO.

No -- it isn't -- IMO.

Well I did say "IMO". Feel totally free to have your opinion! Lol

Quoted message said:

The reduction in risk for a normal, adult, road cyclist who does not engage in racing or any form
of 'crazy cycling' (tm) is so minor (IMHO) that I do not feel moved to wear one for normal road
cycling (leisure & commuting) -- or on cycle tracks and gentle bridle paths.

Well, first lets agree to disagree - I always wear a helmet.

Second: how do you come to the conclusion that the reduction in risk is that minor? Also if you
agree that there is even a minor reduction in risk, what makes you decide not to wear your helmet?
Discomfort, style, weight?

...If I was falling from my bike and knew that I would hit my head...and had the chance at that
moment "to wear" or "not to wear" a helmet I would definitely choose to wear it.

Thankfully I've never been in that sort of accident (and hope never to be in that situation). Still,
I've had enough health problems in my life to not need any more.

Quoted message said:

When throwing myself down hills or through trees, off road or cycling in a large bunch on road I
do think the balance sways in favour of a
lid.

Again I don't see how you come to this conclusion - but maybe we just won't be able to agree on
this one...

Quoted message said:

I refuse to believe a few mm of polystyrene are ever going to be the principle thing that keeps me
alive while cycling.

I also refuse to believe it. That'll be my road savvy and awareness...

=o]

--
...meandering mule...

Quoted message said:

The comparison is between the year or two before and the year or two after. Other factors are
essentially controlled out.

Hmmm. I refuse to believe this without further evidence...

Quoted message said:

I like to think so, too, but I can't be certain.

I'm certain. I'm known to have chickened out on some downhills before and it's not because I was (or
wasn't) wearing a helmet. I just didn't think that I was in the right frame of mind to tackle them.

- nobody heard that btw -

Quoted message said:

I would feel the need to suggest they read both sides of the argument. As far as I can tell the
verdict on helmets is "not proven."

I don't think there is another argument, but let's agree to disagree.

Quoted message said:

There is a whole load of evidence. Last week I saw a chart showing child cyclist vs. child
pedestrian casualties over a twenty year period in New York. Helmet use had increased from zero to
in excess of 85% over this period, but the two lines varied as one. Either child pedestrians have
started wearing helmets and we don't know, or the helmets have no measurable effect.

Could you point me to this chart? Again "over a twenty year period". If cars and cyclists have (say)
increased twofold then the same number of casualties isn't a worse situation.

Casualties = cuts+bruises, broken limbs, fatalities or head-injuries?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wearing a helmet is a "no brainer" IMO.

That could be taken in more than one way :-)

Ah...cheeky buggxx!

Well all I can say is that it's up to the individual. Call me chicken but I like to wear my helmet.
I don't like the heat/sweat/style of wearing one either but I don't see a choice.

--
...meandering mule...

Quoted message said:

That is patronising, and in overplaying a message of actually minor importance you risk obscuring
points of real safety, such as good roadcraft.

I do say somewhere in one of my posts that I don't take risks beyond my capabilities as a rider.

Sorry if I sound patronising but I don't intend to be.

Quoted message said:

Then since a helmet will serve exactly the same function of protecting you in potentially
dangerous situations such as using staircases (check out domestic accident figures and find how
many people get injured falling downstairs...) then presumably you always wear a helmet on stairs
as well? If not, why not? *Exactly* the same arguments apply.

Stairs will never be using mobile phones. Stairs aren't (for the most part) unpredictable. Stairs
will never try to speed up to make it through red lights. Stairs don't open doors on you without
looking in the rv- mirror.

When you're out riding it's not simply a matter of avoiding static obstacles. You're not in total
control of what happens.

Anyway I can see that my arguments are futile so I guess I'll just do my own thing.

--
...meandering mule...

My final post on this topic...

===Drivers===
I have a thing against bad drivers because I see them every day. Every day I see near misses - and
I'm not just talking about bikes here.

I'm not saying that I'm perfect but you won't catch me using a mobile phone while driving, opening a
door without checking what's behind me, speeding up to make that amber or changing lanes and
indicating after it's done.

===Cyclists===
I also see some idiot cyclists sometimes. Saw one last week around Swiss Cottage looking like he'd
carry straight on, then veering left at the last minute.

I don't for a minute think that a helmet compensates for stupidity, but on the off-chance that
something does happen to you I'd prefer to have something on my head.

Anyway that'll be me in that red helmet on my bike. If any of you are driving you won't score points
by knocking me off!

--
...meandering mule...

"mule" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The reduction in risk for a normal, adult, road cyclist who does not engage in racing or any
form of 'crazy cycling' (tm) is so minor (IMHO) that I do not feel moved to wear one for normal
road cycling (leisure & commuting) -- or on cycle tracks and gentle bridle paths.

Well, first lets agree to disagree - I always wear a helmet.

I presume we are agreeing to disagree on the wearing, not on the level of risk.

I have no problem with you wearing a lid. I choose not to.

Quoted message said:

Second: how do you come to the conclusion that the reduction in risk is that minor?

Well -- I believe cycling is essentially safe. I accept there is a risk but I estimate it to be
acceptable -- obviously, otherwise I would not cycle. I estimate that the number of accidents where
a helmet would make a significant difference is small -- let's assume its10% of all accidents --
which I suggest is a significant overestimate. (The vast majority of accidents do not involve
hitting ones head and a minority of accidents involve being hit with a large lump of metal in such a
way as the existance or otherwise of a helmet is immaterial.) So, you decide to wear a helmet to
protect youreslf from injury in 10% of a small number of accidents -- many do, fair enough. I decide
the difference is minor so go lidless.

Quoted message said:

Also if you agree that there is even a minor reduction in risk, what makes you decide not to wear
your helmet? Discomfort, style, weight?

Convenience. I also dispence with elbow & knee protection and a helmet when walking though
experience suggests I am more likely to graze knees and elbows or to bash my bonce when walking than
when cycling.

Quoted message said:

...If I was falling from my bike and knew that I would hit my head...and had the chance at that
moment "to wear" or "not to wear" a helmet I would definitely choose to wear it.

That makes sense. If I could put the lid on mid fall I would also do so. However, we have to decide
beforehand.

Quoted message said:

Thankfully I've never been in that sort of accident (and hope never to be in that situation).

Same here.

Quoted message said:

Still, I've had enough health problems in my life to not need any more.

Quoted message said:

When throwing myself down hills or through trees, off road or cycling in a large bunch on road I
do think the balance sways in favour of a
lid.

Again I don't see how you come to this conclusion - but maybe we just won't be able to agree on
this one...

The sort of off road I do is inherently more likely to result in falls. Since rocks, tree roots etc.
are there to be hit a helmet is not a bad idea.

See, I'm making a simple judgement. On road -- chance of accident small, effectiveness of helmet
smaller. Off road, chance of fall (notice the change of emphasis from accident to fall) high. A no
brainer really.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I refuse to believe a few mm of polystyrene are ever going to be the principle thing that keeps
me alive while cycling.

I also refuse to believe it. That'll be my road savvy and awareness...

Agreed. Careful, assertive cycling minimising risks is by far the most effective safety
precaution IMO.

See, we can agree.

: )

T