Canada’s first bicycle mayor lashes out against helmet law

Boatsie wrote:

I like helmets.. It'd be nice to go up the shops without one though.. Unfortunately I don't believe appreciation of what they do is with all people. Road bikes can build a nice momentum.. I've seen the result of a helmet becoming 3 separate pieces and after concussion my mate on a steep descent MTB. He'd be a veg.. Yet he's with smarts still thanks to a helmet.. He's also with 2 eyes thanks to bullet proof lenses and a broken set of sunnies.. Can't recall the brand.. Anyway, I like helmets.. Habit, second nature, if people were able to control themselves we could enjoy running around naked.. But they'd jail us if we did that.. A lot of dumb people on bikes too.. Like.. Not sure if it will grip but I'll try it anyway although I know I don't know skids. Live to ride, ride to live

It is rare on this website to read a post which makes absolutely no sense, apart possibly from the last four words.

Boatsie wrote:

I like helmets.. It'd be nice to go up the shops without one though.. Unfortunately I don't believe appreciation of what they do is with all people. Road bikes can build a nice momentum.. I've seen the result of a helmet becoming 3 separate pieces and after concussion my mate on a steep descent MTB. He'd be a veg.. Yet he's with smarts still thanks to a helmet.. He's also with 2 eyes thanks to bullet proof lenses and a broken set of sunnies.. Can't recall the brand.. Anyway, I like helmets.. Habit, second nature, if people were able to control themselves we could enjoy running around naked.. But they'd jail us if we did that.. A lot of dumb people on bikes too.. Like.. Not sure if it will grip but I'll try it anyway although I know I don't know skids. Live to ride, ride to live

what an utter crock of shit, a cracked helmet equals a failed helmet, at those speeds a helmet is overwhelmed by the forces involved thus barely absorbing hardly any of the forces involved. Increasing head size means increase in chances of hitting something with your head, your friend and as happens with helmet wearers from pro racer to wobbly newbie will crash again, and again and again.

Avoiding the incident due to not taking greater risks than without a helmet (particularly in downhill riding) is massively better than relying on a piece of styrene foam that even in best case scenario in lab testing won't prevent you from being a 'veg'.

You need to bother to understand the feebleness of helmets and why people wearing them bang their heads more often.

ride to stay alive, stay alive by not wearing a helmet and simply ride unencumbered!

Cugel wrote:

If poor motoring was significantly improved, cycling (and being a pedestrian, as well as car-occupant) would be a lot safer. It's likely also that improvements to motoring behaviours would reduce pollution and perhaps even the car-litter of parking-anywhere. How to make improvements to motoring, then?

Many say it's not possible, because of the cost (e.g. of more traffic police, courts and so forth) but also because of the lack of a political will. Car lovers rule.

But imagine politicians making a good case (economically and socially) for vastly reduced harm from cars and other motorised vehicles. It would contribute to the solution of a great number of other problems besides that of slightly dangerous cycling: pollution, global warming, resource wastage and the bill to the NHS. It would be likely to improve everyone's quality of life, including that of the former motoring fans.

FInes can pay for the police and courts. An elected government with 5 years could make a lot of changes to motoring law and it's enforcement in that time - perhaps enough so less mad motoring becomes the new norm, like not smoking in public or not persecuting gay people.

Cugel

Well said. I agree that road users behaviours need to change to enable safer use of transport.

I must state though that I am in favour of helmet wearing (not necessarily compulsory helmet wearing). Last week, my wife, who is an acomplished and competent cyclist, was out on a social cycle along the pathway crossing the Forth Road Bridge. He colleague braked suddenly due to a hazard on the path, and my wife clipped her friend's bike. As a result, she seems to have gone over the bars and fell onto her right shoulder. Her speed was probably around 10mph. There was no other traffic, wheeled or pedestrain involved. There was no mechanical failure.

I say "seems to" as she was knocked unconcious in the accident, she can't recall what happened, but does remember shouting out just before the impact, then not much is that clear until the following day. She has facial injuries  but fortunately hadn't broken her teeth, damaged her glasses, has serious abrasions to her hands (also wedding and engagement rings) and has two broken bones in her hand. She was taken to hospital, but was discharged later that evening into my care.

One week on and she still has symptoms of concussion, but they are diminishing. Her face is healing as are the other wounds. The broken hand will take up to 12 weeks to heal, so for the meantime she is unable to work. She's a Doctor, so there's strict infection controls re hand washing, she also can't do non-clinical work as she can't concentrate for any lenght of time and is still forgetting things. She's most annoyed that she won't be cycling over most of the summer due to the broken hand.

What's this got to do with helmet wearing? Well she was wearing a SIPS helmet, and on first inspection it seemed to have suffered some minor scrapes on the front edge and no other visible damage. However, on close detailed examination, it was uncovered that the shell was cracked, right through, although there was little compression of the shell. If she had not been wearing a helmet, all of that energy would have been fed into her face and skull. It might have resulted in a fractured skull. It might have resulted in a trauma subarachnoid haemorrhage. The  brain might have been permanantly  damaged. We'll never know what might have happened.

I don't think you'll ever see her cycling without a helmet.

Scottish Scrutineer wrote:

Cugel wrote:

If poor motoring was significantly improved, cycling (and being a pedestrian, as well as car-occupant) would be a lot safer. It's likely also that improvements to motoring behaviours would reduce pollution and perhaps even the car-litter of parking-anywhere. How to make improvements to motoring, then?

Many say it's not possible, because of the cost (e.g. of more traffic police, courts and so forth) but also because of the lack of a political will. Car lovers rule.

But imagine politicians making a good case (economically and socially) for vastly reduced harm from cars and other motorised vehicles. It would contribute to the solution of a great number of other problems besides that of slightly dangerous cycling: pollution, global warming, resource wastage and the bill to the NHS. It would be likely to improve everyone's quality of life, including that of the former motoring fans.

FInes can pay for the police and courts. An elected government with 5 years could make a lot of changes to motoring law and it's enforcement in that time - perhaps enough so less mad motoring becomes the new norm, like not smoking in public or not persecuting gay people.

Cugel

 

Well said. I agree that road users behaviours need to change to enable safer use of transport.

 

I must state though that I am in favour of helmet wearing (not necessarily compulsory helmet wearing). Last week, my wife, who is an acomplished and competent cyclist, was out on a social cycle along the pathway crossing the Forth Road Bridge. He colleague braked suddenly due to a hazard on the path, and my wife clipped her friend's bike. As a result, she seems to have gone over the bars and fell onto her right shoulder. Her speed was probably around 10mph. There was no other traffic, wheeled or pedestrain involved. There was no mechanical failure.

I say "seems to" as she was knocked unconcious in the accident, she can't recall what happened, but does remember shouting out just before the impact, then not much is that clear until the following day. She has facial injuries  but fortunately hadn't broken her teeth, damaged her glasses, has serious abrasions to her hands (also wedding and engagement rings) and has two broken bones in her hand. She was taken to hospital, but was discharged later that evening into my care.

One week on and she still has symptoms of concussion, but they are diminishing. Her face is healing as are the other wounds. The broken hand will take up to 12 weeks to heal, so for the meantime she is unable to work. She's a Doctor, so there's strict infection controls re hand washing, she also can't do non-clinical work as she can't concentrate for any lenght of time and is still forgetting things. She's most annoyed that she won't be cycling over most of the summer due to the broken hand.

What's this got to do with helmet wearing? Well she was wearing a SIPS helmet, and on first inspection it seemed to have suffered some minor scrapes on the front edge and no other visible damage. However, on close detailed examination, it was uncovered that the shell was cracked, right through, although there was little compression of the shell. If she had not been wearing a helmet, all of that energy would have been fed into her face and skull. It might have resulted in a fractured skull. It might have resulted in a trauma subarachnoid haemorrhage. The  brain might have been permanantly  damaged. We'll never know what might have happened.

I don't think you'll ever see her cycling without a helmet.

To be on the safe side, she should also wear a helmet whilst walking around, especially when going up or down stairs. Also showers can be treacherous - make sure she wears a helmet whilst showering.

hawkinspeter wrote:

To be on the safe side, she should also wear a helmet whilst walking around, especially when going up or down stairs. Also showers can be treacherous - make sure she wears a helmet whilst showering.

Reminds me of that organisation that was set up to promote shower helmets after the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust (BHIT) proved such a success; the Shower Helmet Initiative Trust.

Scottish Scrutineer wrote:

Well said. I agree that road users behaviours need to change to enable safer use of transport.

 

I must state though that I am in favour of helmet wearing (not necessarily compulsory helmet wearing). Last week, my wife, who is an acomplished and competent cyclist, was out on a social cycle along the pathway crossing the Forth Road Bridge. He colleague braked suddenly due to a hazard on the path, and my wife clipped her friend's bike. As a result, she seems to have gone over the bars and fell onto her right shoulder. Her speed was probably around 10mph. There was no other traffic, wheeled or pedestrain involved. There was no mechanical failure.

I say "seems to" as she was knocked unconcious in the accident, she can't recall what happened, but does remember shouting out just before the impact, then not much is that clear until the following day. She has facial injuries  but fortunately hadn't broken her teeth, damaged her glasses, has serious abrasions to her hands (also wedding and engagement rings) and has two broken bones in her hand. She was taken to hospital, but was discharged later that evening into my care.

One week on and she still has symptoms of concussion, but they are diminishing. Her face is healing as are the other wounds. The broken hand will take up to 12 weeks to heal, so for the meantime she is unable to work. She's a Doctor, so there's strict infection controls re hand washing, she also can't do non-clinical work as she can't concentrate for any lenght of time and is still forgetting things. She's most annoyed that she won't be cycling over most of the summer due to the broken hand.

What's this got to do with helmet wearing? Well she was wearing a SIPS helmet, and on first inspection it seemed to have suffered some minor scrapes on the front edge and no other visible damage. However, on close detailed examination, it was uncovered that the shell was cracked, right through, although there was little compression of the shell. If she had not been wearing a helmet, all of that energy would have been fed into her face and skull. It might have resulted in a fractured skull. It might have resulted in a trauma subarachnoid haemorrhage. The  brain might have been permanantly  damaged. We'll never know what might have happened.

I don't think you'll ever see her cycling without a helmet.

^^This is why I will always wear a helmet myself, HOWEVER I am against mandated PPE for exactly the reasons Burt is so vociferous about.

For me it's about informed consent, I know that I am liable to challenging my cabapility of grip on a bike more so than walking, and my hands being utilised to gripping bars over being open and free, therefore have an increased likelyhood of falling over and reduced ability to put my hands out to protect my noggin from MINOR concussive injury or abrasion. I know that in an incident involving 30mph+ of automobile, a plastic hat is going to do diddly squat, so my personal behaviour is not going to be influenced by my wearing of it (I don't rush to make gaps in traffic that may not be there in 0.5s time). I know that my being on a cyclicle on the road is going to leave me at the mercy of certain individuals that  would rather weren't also on the road, and their behaviour is also unlikely to be influenced by said helmet.

I cannot say the same for other people's behaviour, which is why everyone should be adequately educated and allowed to make that decision.

I also know that in the hierarchy of protection, as detailed by the HSE, PPE is the last resort and to rely on it alone over a proper engineered solution is inexcusable, indefensable and liable to manslaughter charges if it were a workplace. As such, whilst it is my choice to wear a helmet, I will always call for proper infra over anything else, and would love to see "designers" of bad junctions held suitably accountable.

Scottish Scrutineer wrote:

 

What's this got to do with helmet wearing? Well she was wearing a SIPS helmet, and on first inspection it seemed to have suffered some minor scrapes on the front edge and no other visible damage. However, on close detailed examination, it was uncovered that the shell was cracked, right through, although there was little compression of the shell.

A cracked helmet without accompanying compression likely did very very little in the way of mitigating the impact forces towards the head - the principle behind the impact protection of a helmet is in creating an inelastic collision whereby the force is wasted on compressing the EPS which will not 'spring back' onto whatever it is protecting.

It is the same principle as crumple zones in modern cars, a hard material that cracks/retains form rather than compressing isn't much good for creating the controlled deceleration necessary for protection.

A cracked helmet most likely means a large shearing force on the EPS, which is caused by force parallel to rather than towards your head (the differential in speed between your sliding head and the ground outside the helmet). MIPS is designed to reduce that force as EPS is complete crap against shearing.

The crack is more a sympton of inadequete protection against rotational momentum by both the MIPS system and EPS rather than an indicator of its effectiveness. How much force it absorbed before cracking is anyones guess, was it more or less than the increased rotational forces added by the leverage of the helmet? Who knows. On the bright side it protected her against abrasion in the area at least.

Scottish Scrutineer wrote:

What's this got to do with helmet wearing? Well she was wearing a SIPS helmet, and on first inspection it seemed to have suffered some minor scrapes on the front edge and no other visible damage. However, on close detailed examination, it was uncovered that the shell was cracked, right through, although there was little compression of the shell. If she had not been wearing a helmet, all of that energy would have been fed into her face and skull. It might have resulted in a fractured skull. It might have resulted in a trauma subarachnoid haemorrhage. The  brain might have been permanantly  damaged. We'll never know what might have happened.

I don't think you'll ever see her cycling without a helmet.

The helmet cracked and failed to provide much, if any protection.  Cycle helmets are supposed to work by compressing the foam, which absorbs some energy, but cracking absorbs almost none, so it would appear likely that most of the force of the collision was transferred to her head.  Take a piece of expanded ploystyrene, the stuff helmets are made of and try compressing it between your finger and thumb; it takes a lot of effort.  Now try snapping it between your fingers, very easy; that's how much energy was absorbed by her helmet, the rest went to her head.

Professional collision investigators have examined many post crash helmets, and as far as I'm aware, haven't yet seen one that crushed, they all cracked.

Then there is risk compensation; would she have been riding so close and paying so little attention if she hadn't been wearing a helmet?

There are tens of thousands of these "helmet saved my life" stories, but the death rate of cyclists doesn't fall as helmet wearing rates increase, so they can't be true.

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html

Cugel wrote:

The evidence that helmets do not decrease head injury rates in cyclists (and in fact may increase them) has long been available. However, there isn't much evidence that cycling infrastructure is any use in increasing safety either. Two large factors are involved with the infrastructure issue:

1) Infrastructure for cycling can be well designed or poorly designed, well maintained or not at all. In Britain the vast majority of cycling infrastructure (mostly a line to give us the gutters) is badly designed. Other types, such as shared paths with pedestrians, are also problematic, both because they're shared and because they often don't service A to B journeys but scenic rambles. 

ii) Cycling infrastructure of a well-designed kind costs a huge amount of money to make, not least because it includes the costs associated with having to get rid of extant stuff in the way, if the infrastructure is within towns and cities. It's also seen (righty I believe) as a waste of money since we already have an extensive cycling infrastucture known as "the roads".

The roads are very good for cycling of every kind, including A to B and also the scenic tours and rides. One factor is problematic: the dangerous, incompetant and inconsiderate drivers of motorised vehicles. Even with the presence of such motorised idiots, the roads are still very good for cycling. Many of us will have done tens of thousands of miles on them without coming to harm.

If poor motoring was significantly improved, cycling (and being a pedestrian, as well as car-occupant) would be a lot safer. It's likely also that improvements to motoring behaviours would reduce pollution and perhaps even the car-litter of parking-anywhere. How to make improvements to motoring, then?

Many say it's not possible, because of the cost (e.g. of more traffic police, courts and so forth) but also because of the lack of a political will. Car lovers rule.

But imagine politicians making a good case (economically and socially) for vastly reduced harm from cars and other motorised vehicles. It would contribute to the solution of a great number of other problems besides that of slightly dangerous cycling: pollution, global warming, resource wastage and the bill to the NHS. It would be likely to improve everyone's quality of life, including that of the former motoring fans.

FInes can pay for the police and courts. An elected government with 5 years could make a lot of changes to motoring law and it's enforcement in that time - perhaps enough so less mad motoring becomes the new norm, like not smoking in public or not persecuting gay people.

Cugel

I disagree, for several reasons.

Firstly, I don't believe the cost is _that_ great compared to the amount already spent on constantly rebuilding bits of the road network, though in a way that usually involves making it worse for cycling (and walking) rather than better.  Again-and-again I encounter bits of roads that have been remodelled without taking anything into account but the convenience of the motorised.

Secondly, yes we already have 'the roads', but the problem is all those (ever-larger) motorised vehicles on it.  Saying 'most of us' have done N miles on them, misses the point that that isn't true if by 'us' you mean 'the UK population' rather than 'self selected readers of a website'.

  Getting drivers to drive better seems an impossible challenge, and if one is going to attempt the near-impossible, why not go the whole-hog and just get rid of them entirely?  Ban motorised vehicles from an increasing number of roads.  Restrict them to a few major car-routes.  I get that it's a hell of am ambitious thing to aim for, but so is 'getting drivers to drive better'!

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Cugel wrote:

The evidence that helmets do not decrease head injury rates in cyclists (and in fact may increase them) has long been available. However, there isn't much evidence that cycling infrastructure is any use in increasing safety either. Two large factors are involved with the infrastructure issue:

1) Infrastructure for cycling can be well designed or poorly designed, well maintained or not at all. In Britain the vast majority of cycling infrastructure (mostly a line to give us the gutters) is badly designed. Other types, such as shared paths with pedestrians, are also problematic, both because they're shared and because they often don't service A to B journeys but scenic rambles. 

ii) Cycling infrastructure of a well-designed kind costs a huge amount of money to make, not least because it includes the costs associated with having to get rid of extant stuff in the way, if the infrastructure is within towns and cities. It's also seen (righty I believe) as a waste of money since we already have an extensive cycling infrastucture known as "the roads".

The roads are very good for cycling of every kind, including A to B and also the scenic tours and rides. One factor is problematic: the dangerous, incompetant and inconsiderate drivers of motorised vehicles. Even with the presence of such motorised idiots, the roads are still very good for cycling. Many of us will have done tens of thousands of miles on them without coming to harm.

If poor motoring was significantly improved, cycling (and being a pedestrian, as well as car-occupant) would be a lot safer. It's likely also that improvements to motoring behaviours would reduce pollution and perhaps even the car-litter of parking-anywhere. How to make improvements to motoring, then?

Many say it's not possible, because of the cost (e.g. of more traffic police, courts and so forth) but also because of the lack of a political will. Car lovers rule.

But imagine politicians making a good case (economically and socially) for vastly reduced harm from cars and other motorised vehicles. It would contribute to the solution of a great number of other problems besides that of slightly dangerous cycling: pollution, global warming, resource wastage and the bill to the NHS. It would be likely to improve everyone's quality of life, including that of the former motoring fans.

FInes can pay for the police and courts. An elected government with 5 years could make a lot of changes to motoring law and it's enforcement in that time - perhaps enough so less mad motoring becomes the new norm, like not smoking in public or not persecuting gay people.

Cugel

 

I disagree, for several reasons.

 

Firstly, I don't believe the cost is _that_ great compared to the amount already spent on constantly rebuilding bits of the road network, though in a way that usually involves making it worse for cycling (and walking) rather than better.  Again-and-again I encounter bits of roads that have been remodelled without taking anything into account but the convenience of the motorised.

 

Secondly, yes we already have 'the roads', but the problem is all those (ever-larger) motorised vehicles on it.  Saying 'most of us' have done N miles on them, misses the point that that isn't true if by 'us' you mean 'the UK population' rather than 'self selected readers of a website'.

 

  Getting drivers to drive better seems an impossible challenge, and if one is going to attempt the near-impossible, why not go the whole-hog and just get rid of them entirely?  Ban motorised vehicles from an increasing number of roads.  Restrict them to a few major car-routes.  I get that it's a hell of am ambitious thing to aim for, but so is 'getting drivers to drive better'!

Road repairs and new roads can be modelled to be of use to everyone, not just motorists. The same money spent can improve or make a road suitable for all, including the cyclists and pedestrians. In many cases. perhaps the only changes required are rather more traffic policemen vigorously applying the already existing laws?

Not addressing bad driving and the dominance of the car/lorry has detrimentral effects on a lot more than just cycling, not least the car-encased people themselves. Why spend zillions on fixing one problem (just cycling dangers, with new infrastructure for cycling) when adressing the fundamental problem of bad driving and car dominance will solve a great many more issues with one far less expensive stroke?

There's a lot to be said for banning cars within inner cities or towns. Many are implementing this around the world. There's a lot to be said for introducing alternatives to the car, from the levels of public transport we used to have 50 years ago to implementing serious car-share schemes. There's also a lot of effort by some to replace van deliveries with cargo bike deliveries, for the last local leg. Change is possible.

It's easy to shrug and accept the status quo. If we always did this, we'd still be ruled by absolute monarchs and practice slavery in every household. We'd be praising wife-beating, smokey worplaces and factories or industries that murder & maim a high proportion of those working in them.

Cugel

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

When you look at the stats in Canada, it shows what we see elsewhere in the world where helmets are forced upon people on bikes or there are significant rises in helmet wearing. Deaths haven't reduced and nor have injuries as a rate of cycling. The pattern is exactly the same not just in cycling but boxing, lacrosse, ice hockey, gridiron (the early deaths were actually mostly non head injury related so the headgear created a massively more dangerous environment due to actions of the participants), even skiing has seen no drop in injuries on the slopes despite virtually 100% wearing.

Even in Ice hockey they found as early as the 1970s that helmets earing had a direct negative effect on traumas to all parts and to the head though it decreased cuts.

what about the stats on life changing injuries. Doesn’t take much of a head injury to end your quality of life but not kill you. 

Paul7189 wrote:

what about the stats on life changing injuries. Doesn’t take much of a head injury to end your quality of life but not kill you. 

True. But the sort of injuries caused when a moving (or not moving) cyclist comes into collision with a moving motor vehicle is not really what a typical cycling helmet has been designed to protect you against. Which means that it doesn't provide any real help, but makes it look like the powers that be are Doing Something. Well, doing something other than actually making roads safer for vulnerable road users...

Paul7189 wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

When you look at the stats in Canada, it shows what we see elsewhere in the world where helmets are forced upon people on bikes or there are significant rises in helmet wearing. Deaths haven't reduced and nor have injuries as a rate of cycling. The pattern is exactly the same not just in cycling but boxing, lacrosse, ice hockey, gridiron (the early deaths were actually mostly non head injury related so the headgear created a massively more dangerous environment due to actions of the participants), even skiing has seen no drop in injuries on the slopes despite virtually 100% wearing.

Even in Ice hockey they found as early as the 1970s that helmets earing had a direct negative effect on traumas to all parts and to the head though it decreased cuts.

 

what about the stats on life changing injuries. Doesn’t take much of a head injury to end your quality of life but not kill you. 

So you're saying that those who choose not to wear helmets will receive life changing injuries but don't die at a worse rate than people who wear helmets and receive life changing injuries and die or don't die, care to provide some stats to prove your point? What about those that don't have an injury at all who don't wear helmets, what about those not wearing who avoid the incident altogether, either through no risk compensation, no additional kinetic energy on their heads and n extra circumference so as to more likely strike or be struck??

When countries or sports go from low or zero helmet wearing to mandation - or as I said large increases without that mandation, we have in virtually every instance where statistics are avilable, see that the effects of that has had a negative effect.

By definition that means that those who wear helmets have more incidents and deaths, it also proves that those without aren't.

Professional cycle racing has seen a huge increase in serious traumas, there's a study that asked pro cyclists from two different eras, guess which era had by far the worse outcomes in terms of crashes/traumas? Yup, post helmet mandatory wearing. That's despite better tyres, better brakes, better on course safety protocols, despite all that AND the helmets pros have died and got injured on course in greater numbers for the same period of time post helmet rules, how can that possibly be if helmets were actually having the effect you beleive them to have?

Australia and New Zealand were the first countries to have an all age mandation to wear, not only did cycling drop off a cliff but the rates of harm went up despite all the cyclists now wearing helmets (barring the odd few 'rebels'). Again, how is this possible given your belief that helmets protect and not wearing means more life changing outcomes?

Again, as per the snippet I took from a 1987 report, it clearly stated that head and neck injuries increased post helmet wearing in ice hockey, given Ice Hockey is one of Canada's main sports you'd think they'd have actually looked at the facts. Another major study was done again in 2002  regarding helmets and injuries in ice-hockey, guess what, same outcome. Here's a snip from the 2002 report that basically mirrors what they said in 1987.

Note how they had changed the environment for the hockey players by banning certain moves/contact (similar to what they did in rugby but gridiron actually increased/promoted these dangerous moves) thus that had the biggest positive benefit.

We see the same outcomes in gridiron, massive CTE brain injuries to millions of US males, far too often shortening their lives and increases in suicides. By comparison rugby league and union have far fewer concussions overall and far less long term brain injury issues, yet only one of the sports has in essence a full on crash helmet. Only one of the sports decided that having zero boundaries whatsoever in terms of contact between very large men (including being blindsided) and using a hard-shell helmet as a weapon was a good thing!

The evidence is incontravertible, yet people like yourselves still ignore the facts, it beggars belief frankly, and that's before we even get to comparing people on bikes to people on foot or in cars and the rest of society who die and have serious life changing injuries due to forces imparted to the head! Or are 160,000 hospitalisations annually in E&W all non helmet wearing cyclists, Are all the 1.3Million reported head injuries all cyclists not wearing helmets, clearly it's not, people cycling not wearing a helmet who end up having a head injury are a tiny, tiny fraction of the numbers (and the majority of them are due to criminal acts of others), and yet it's the only group you're concrned with to wear helmets, why?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Okay, so why is it that we never get these truthful mayors/politicians in our country?

Ooh! I think I know this one. Is it because we don't elect them?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Okay, so why is it that we never get these truthful mayors/politicians in our country?

Well, CB might not be a mayor, but he says pretty much the same thing, and I would definitely vote for him.

burtthebike wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Okay, so why is it that we never get these truthful mayors/politicians in our country?

Well, CB might not be a mayor, but he says pretty much the same thing, and I would definitely vote for him.

Seconded!