- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
London cyclist approaching junction.jpgAlmost 9 in 10 people back headphones ban and compulsory helmets for cyclists say survey
A poll conducted for The Sunday Times has found that almost nine in ten people (89 per cent) think cyclists should be banned from wearing headphones, and almost as many (85 per cent) believe cycle helmets should be compulsory.
The majority of respondents who describe themselves as “more cyclist than motorist” in the survey of 1,867 people conducted by YouGov agreed with those views.
59 per cent of those respondents agreed that wearing of helmets should be compulsory, an issue that is regularly the subject of fierce debate among riders, and 67 per cent of them said that there should be a ban on headphones.
The latter issue was in the news last week after Mayor of London Boris Johnson said in a radio interview about the safety of cyclists that he would be in favour of riders being banned from wearing headphones.
Other findings of the survey include that two thirds of all respondents – rising to three in four of those considered themselves cyclists first and foremost – believe that lorries should be banned from cities during rush hour, something British Cycling's Chris Boardman called for last week in an open letter to Mr Johnson.
Several things differentiate the YouGov survey from some others we have reported on road.cc.
First, respondents aren’t self-selected, as many opt-in internet-based polls are, and which tend to encourage only those with a strong opinion one way or another to respond.
Also, as well as splitting out responses by standard demographic breaks such as gender, age, social grade and region, it also divides them by voting intentions as well as by “motorists,” “people who regularly use a bicycle,” and those who are “more cyclist than motorist.”
How does YouGov separate those categories? Well, it’s based on a question that asks respondents to state:
I regularly drive a motor vehicle and do NOT regularly use a bicycle (60 per cent)
I regularly use both a motor vehicle and a bicycle, but I generally use my motor vehicle more often than my bike (9 per cent)
I regularly use both a motor vehicle and a bicycle, but I generally use my bicycle more often than my motor vehicle (3 per cent)
I regularly ride a bicycle and do NOT regularly drive a motor vehicle (4 per cent)
I do not regularly use either (25 per cent)
As a result, 60 per cent of YouGov’s weighted sample fall into the category it terms “motorists” and 15 per cent are “people who regularly use a bicycle,” including 7 per cent who are “more cyclist than driver.”
Asked, “What do you believe is the most common cause of cycling accidents [sic],” 36 per cent of people said “poor standards of cycling by cyclists,” while 22 per cent cited “poor standards of driving by motorists” and 11 per cent went for each of “badly designed roads” and “too many lorries and other large vehicles on the roads.”
Analysis of police reports in incidents in which cyclists were killed or injured carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory in 2009 found that reckless riding was responsible for only a small percentage of collisions, with police attributing blame to the motorist in around three out of four cases.
As happened across most of the questions, there was a polarity in responses among those considering themselves cyclists or drivers.
Some 41 per cent of motorists blamed poor standards of cycling, and just 20 per cent driving; among regular bike riders, 20 per cent said cyclists were to blame and 30 per cent drivers, and there was an even greater gap among those defined as more cyclist than motorist – 13 per cent versus 36 per cent.
Other responses highlight that different perceptions of road safety exist depending on whether you’re more used to being behind the steering wheel or on the saddle of a bike.
Only 1 per cent of motorists thought badly designed roads are the most common cause of cycling accidents, but that rose to 9 per cent of regular cyclists and 14 per cent of those who are more cyclist than motorist.
Bad upkeep of roads (e.g. potholes) was thought to be a factor by 4 per cent of motorists, but 8 per cent of regular cyclists and 10 per cent of those who are more cyclist than motorist; conversely, drivers were much more likely to see pedestrians as being to blame for cycling accidents than cyclists were, at 11 per cent versus 6 per cent of regular cyclists and 5 per cent of people who are more cyclist than motorist.
Other questions addressed issues including whether sentences for both drivers and cyclists breaking road laws are tough enough, presumed liability, publishing accident data and details of accident blackspots online, increasing the number of cycle lanes, and whether there should be early-start traffic lights for cyclists.
You can find the complete results of the YouGov survey, including the full breakdown of responses by demographic groups and voting intentions, here.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- IanMK 4 min 15 sec ago
What would really help the visibility at junctions is cars not parked close to them. Has anyone ever run a campaign telling drivers to park at...
- Jogle 4 min 51 sec ago
US: Suspended driver shocks judge by joining Michigan court Zoom call while driving...
- OnYerBike 22 min 42 sec ago
My reading of the Cycling UK article and linked Regulations is that a fixed rear wheel is explicitly counted as a braking system (or, pedantically,...
- Secret_squirrel 57 min 47 sec ago
Do any of the of current doping products have anger management issues as a side effect? Asking for my Columbian cousin.
- EK Spinner 1 hour 47 min ago
I don't know what the light is, but for this purpose I use a moon aerolight which is a red and white double ender that can be used as either front...
- a1white 1 hour 49 min ago
How about this Cateye one, cheap at Halfords: https://www.halfords.com/cycling/bike-accessories/bike-lights/cateye-ref...
- HLaB 2 hours 3 min ago
https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/lanarkshire-driver-rippe......
- brooksby 2 hours 8 min ago
Only if they were also allowed to wear a Chelsea football strip, IIRC
- brooksby 2 hours 9 min ago
Sorry, my google translate still can't put that sentence into English…
Add new comment
126 comments
Drivers wearing ear buds is now on the rise, why are we not looking at a ban on wearing these in cars whilst driving? I wear ear buds whilst commuting, and the noise level is never loud enough that I cannot hear what is going on around me. I probably make more effort at looking around when I am wearing these. Helmet as always I say personal choice. There are always going to be poor cyclists/drivers and pedestrians, lets not try and vilify each other, but look out for each other!
@fluffykitten
I've never understood the reaction many UK pedestrians have to a cyclist using a bell as a polite warning.
In other countries I have not had this reaction, and riding off-road I found many ramblers appreciated the friendly warning that I was coming through
Using the bell on my commuting in London, I've had people swear at me, spit at me, make sarcastic "ding ding" comments (usually drunk men in the evening)
as far as I am concerned, the bell is an essential part of my commuting bike, and I'd rather annoy someone, than have a collision with a pedestrian who walks out in the road without looking
Heart/circulatory diseases and cancer deaths due to being overweight in the UK 2010: 35,944 (London 4,647).
Cycling deaths 2010 UK, 111.
People should be encouraged to cycle, harping on about helmets and the danger of cycling is daft, cycling is approximately as dangerous as walking, whilst if more people cycled, thousands of lives could be saved.
None of the news articles have any sense of proportion.
The only thing this survey has proved is that the vast majority of UK residents are really, really ignorant about cycling. How about doing another one but give the respondents the information first. Mind you, given the "persistence of myths" effect, the results probably wouldn't be that much different.
The earphone thing really gets strong reactions. other than social rides i always use earbuds. I've been cycling with noise isolating earphones for years, but started wearing them after years of learning how to move and behave on the road safely and confidently without them. As safe as i know i am with earphones, I would hesitate to recommend a beginner cyclist to wear them before gaining experience on the road.
I do think anyone that relies on sound alone to make turns or passing maneuvers is acting in a dangerous manner. Sure you can listen to reinforce what other senses are telling you but unless you physically look to confirm it is safe to turn or pass then your not safe. listening alone is unsafe.
Motor bike helmets are sound isolating. Most wear foam ear plugs, even the police who have headsets on while driving. no backlash here.
Deaf people are allowed to cycle and to ride motorcycles. no backlash here.
motorcycle lessons teach you only to look. you can hear whatever you want but unless you see that is is safe to move you do not move.
cars, especially luxury vehicles come with sound isolation glass and wadding throughout the vehicle. they are designed to isolate you from the environment outside of the car. Yes you are more vulnerable on a bike this is exactly why you have to be super disciplined with observations.
car stereo's drown out all noise outside of the vehicle. you wouldnt wind the window down and listen before changing lanes? no you look.
I think people just knee jerk on this and think it must be dangerous without thinking about it.
Its not for everyone, neither is wearing a helmet. Why cant we just let folk be! too many people thinking they have some kind of authority to preach to others. If i want to commute on a tricycle in my mr Blobby suit with beats headphones on its up to me.
Seems that the moral majority just love to wag the finger and tut tut.
The fact is most people in the world are cyclists and by that I mean able to ride a bike. We learn as kids without a care in the world for helmets or HiViz (unless we ride with our over-cautious parents!). Many of us give up cycling in adulthood and then conveniently forget the joy we had on our bikes as kids. There is some risk of injury and a very small risk of death but these are greatly outweighed by the health benefits, the freedom and the enjoyment that cycling gives us. Not many of us die in the process but when we do it almost always involves a motor vehicle and, disproportionately, involves a HGV or PSV. As this is a fact why would wearing a helmet stop lorries from killing you? Why would removing earphones stop a coach or a lorry from crushing you? The answer is they wouldn't. So why then are these solutions to cycling deaths being proposed? Bias? Prejudice? Ignorance? illogic?
Peoples opinions are sometimes not worth a jot, usually because they are ill-informed, prejudiced or just plain illogical. I suspect that many surveyed by YouGov can be placed into any or all of these categories.
Maybe we should make pedestrians, who are jogging or running, wear helmets too and stop them from wearing headphones. Better still, why don't they run in the road! With the kids on skateboards and rollerblades! Bloody nuisances!
Good grief.
This latest debate seems like a sneaky way of passing a helmet law by pinning the headphone debate along with it.
I don't think wearing headphones is sensible, yes I know deaf people cycle safely but they have also had a lifetime to adapt to it.
Helmets though (even though I wear one sometimes) should still be a personal choice.
Personally speaking, I managed to make it through from about 1974 to 2007 without wearing or needing a lid BUT (I know we've all heard the anecdotes...) after a friend of mine died from what would have been a easily survivable fall (brain haemorrhage due to a base of skull fracture), I do wear a lid nearly every time I ride one of my bikes.
Now I can see people either nodding in agreement with my personal decision or shaking their heads, understanding the reasons but disagreeing with them...well I do wear a lid to save me in the odd chance that I do hit my head and don't get mangled in the process by a truck or car.
So lets put all the cards on the table, helmets are not the safety panacea that the uneducated think that they are, because while they may save you in impacts of <30mph (well they are only tested up to 30mph anyway) you are already in serious danger of injury or death...would it not be better to prevent the fall first!?!
So do I still wear a lid knowing that, well yes I do, it is convenient for mounting the lights and video camera etc on and could save me from the lower speed impacts and banging my thick skull on some street furniture and ending up even madder than I already am, but in the majority of recent cases it will just as likely hold my skull together to make identification easier.
Never the less I do encourage all riders to wear them but other than for children or youngsters I vehemently disagree with making them compulsory, especially when so many of those uneducated people believe that it is going to make any significant dent in the casualty figures that we are currently seeing. This is because they'll do bugger all to protect your spleen, liver or other internal organs that will cause you to bleed out while lying on the road if damaged in a substantial collision impact!!
I never understand why I bother reading these strings. It always ends up the same way. I wear a helmet every time I get on my bike. Because I want to (and it makes me look cool like Chris Froome
) But hey, if you'd rather not wear one, then don't. You will simply look less cool than me, which is fine. Until "the man" makes it compulsory, then you have the freedom of choice. I'm old enough to remember all the fuss about car seat belts becoming compulsory 30-odd years ago. Let's stop shouting at each other (particularly at those with headphones in who may struggle to hear the arguments at regular volume) and enjoy however we choose to ride our bikes.
Without going in to enough details to identify the friend that died (I need to ask the family before I do this?!), according to the coroners report that the base of skull fracture was caused by a single direct impact to the rear of the skull, whereby the force of the impact was transferred to the weakest part of the skull...the thin bone at the base of the skull. From the autopsy evidence of the impact site/injury the pathologist determined that the impact speed was probably less than 20mph, there were no other vehicles involved and no other indications of significant impact injury (minor bruising to elbows, shoulders and buttocks).
The coroner determined from this autopsy report that the fall and impact would more than likely have been survivable if he had been wearing a cycle helmet, insofar that the impact site at the rear of the skull was at the thickest part and showed no signs of significant damage.
So I have to go with those that have far more medical expertise and experience than I do, as to both the cause of death and the potential survivability of this fall, if a helmet had been worn.
As an engineer with over 20 years experience in safety critical industries, material testing etc I much prefer my own ability to analyse the scientific/engineering data available and then decide for myself what is or isn't safe, though as an engineer I am always open to changes in technology and debate...so am always learning.
Yes I do appreciate that strapping both a light and video camera to the lid can detract from the ability of a helmet to absorb and dissipate the force of any impacts, so you are correct.
"This is like strapping a sharp rock to your head with the intent to lower the effectiveness of your helmet."
I do though consider the risk acceptable, at least for the light, to be able to have illumination wherever I turn my head. The video camera is a slightly different matter though, as I have found that since wearing one when ever I cycle I get far less abuse from other road user, which probably does balance out the increased risk of the helmet not being able to absorb any impacts in a fall, in possibly preventing other types of incident.
As to the increased risk of torsion injuries, well there are cyclists that have suffered such traumatic injuries through not wearing a helmet, so regardless there is a risk that has to be accepted for either wearing or not wearing a lid...?!
Now to the speed of the impact tests you are correct that they are not tested up to 30mph, I should have been more circumspect with what I wrote and not try and rely on memory, considering I did have the links to these documents somewhere that state the following:
"Helmet standards require helmets to be designed only to survive a simple drop test onto an anvil. The maximum permitted deceleration of the dropped head form is typically 300g, which is equivalent to an impact velocity of 20 km/h (12.5 mph).
The performance of a helmet above an impact velocity of 20 km/h is neither tested nor defined. Cycle helmets usually fail catastrophically rather than gradually, through total compression or disintegration. It is therefore not simply the case that the proportion of the force absorbed will decrease with increasing velocity. It is a matter of conjecture as to whether significant protection to the head would be afforded at higher speeds, and this is likely to vary from helmet to helmet. Mclntosh and Dowdell34 appear to have found no cases of helmeted cyclists surviving crashes where
the equivalent impact velocity was greater than 20 km/h.
Whilst it is possible that some helmets may provide useful protection above the impact velocity for which they are tested, a report by the Consumers Association35 suggests that most helmets do not meet even the stipulated standard, and are therefore likely to provide reduced protection below 20 km/h. 14 helmets out of the 24 tested failed the test criteria for shock absorption, and two of the remainder failed tests related to retention and strap strength. Only two of the 24 helmets met the more
demanding Snell absorption test, and one of these caused some impairment of a cyclist's vision."
(taken from: http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/effectiveness.pdf)
I also refer to this article with regard to oblique testing of helmets: http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-eps/metallurgy/perg/Docume...
So I am well aware that helmets as are currently manufactured and tested etc are not the safety panacea that the media is trying to make them out to be, which I is why I do not nor have supported the compulsory introduction of helmets other than for children, sorry but as they are more likely to have minor falls etc and that both their skulls and brains are still developing they are more susceptible to minor head injuries that can have devastating consequences.
So will I still wear a lid knowing this, yes I will and I will still encourage other cyclists to wear them as I said earlier but it is down to personal choice and not legislation, unless they really do improve the minimum standards that helmets are manufactured to. But until the causes of falls is addressed in the first place, as in the shoddy state of the roads, the poor design of the roads and the appalling "them" and "us" attitude between cyclists and other roads users has been resolved helmets are not going to save the numbers that keep getting banded around!
I remember when this website used to write about the wonderful pastime/sport/world of cycling.
Now its just friggin Hi Viz, Helmets and the Highway Code.
Give it a rest for heavens sake.
We've had a compulsory helmet law here in NZ since 1994. Cyclist modal share has declined and injuries and deaths have gone up since then. A recent two year coroners review of thirteen cyclists deaths has finally started to move away from focusing on high vis and helmets as the sole safety measures. Unfortunately his only recommendation was for another report. It would be great to put the onus for safe roads on society rather than on cyclists.
Same old, same old shit I see
Should cyclists wear a helmet? In my opinion yes
Should cyclists wear headphones? In my opinion no (or at least not at a volume which prevents them hearing the surrounding events.
Should either of these be compulsory? No
Like I said at the start Same old same old shit once again
Which only shows how ill informed most brits are.
It is not innocent until proven guilty, it is statistically you were probably in the wrong therefore your insurance company is going to take a hit. We'll worry about whether your guilty or not in court later. Current system is insurance company will refuse the payment, will find any excuse to avoid a payment, it does take years, and if you happen to die of complications all the better.
As an aside, as the driver is the one who is going to be assumed as the probable cause of an accident, the idea is that they will try a bit harder to avoid one. ( i suspect it won't work though!)
The fundemental flaw of the British Legal system, the truth does not matter, it is who is the better orator.
Are you new around here?
Not many deaths, certainly not statistically significant either way.
Weylandt (sp), Casartelli (sp) both died in crashes at speed going downhill. More specifically they died because they hit something large and imoveable, wall, concrete block. Would Casartelli have survived if he had worn a helmet? no one knows.
What if another cyclist wants to overtake you ... if you aren't aware, then you might have a side-on collision if you drift across the path. It is definitely NOT safe to cycle with headphones on as you won't be fully aware of your surroundings.
As to wearing a helmet ... most cyclists already do. I don't think it should be compulsory as the only person who's safety is affected is the rider, and it should be their choice if they wish to wear one.
So deaf people should be banned from cycling too?
I'm not commenting on the main topic because it makes me too angry.
But on bells - I can never figure this out. Half the pedestrians you encounter get annoyed if you ring the bell, even just one 'ding', because they see it as aggressive and imperious, but the other half reproach you for not having rung your bell to warn them you are behind them.
The old-fashioned brrrrring bells have less of this effect, but still have some of it.
Today I had a 4x4 force pass in a lane with inadequate width, honking as he drove at me, pretty clearly prepared to clip me if needed, then pointing at the (closed by police due to an RTC) cycle track. No helmets or open ears would have stopped that. It needs either redesigned roads without dangerous-width lanes or tougher policing of motor vehicles - those should be the next steps.
You wouldn't know it from the way people argue vociferously on here.....
Agree, cycling is not that dangerous. And never believe anything you read in the news. It is a massive skew of information - it reports events which are out of the ordinary because they are interesting. Headlines of 'Thousands successfully commute to work by bicycle everyday' don't really happen.
With all respect, you have no idea whether the fall would be survivable or not. It is extremely difficult to reconstruct the circumstances of a crash and without instrumentation recording what happened you are making a wild speculation.
Or it may exacerbate the oblique blow you sustain and turn a painful injury into a life-threatening one.
Helmets are most definitely NOT tested up to 30mph impact speeds.
This is like strapping a sharp rock to your head with the intent to lower the effectiveness of your helmet.
Again, with all respect, do what you want, but I think a large number of us would prefer to trust our own judgement. I certainly don't think from your post that you have the same decision-making process that I do. Unsurprisingly I prefer mine. I encourage you to do what you want and not to spend your time encouraging anyone else.
There is no case for making helmets compulsory for children. This should be left to the parent to judge the risks and benefits. There is no clear basis to judge that helmets are useful for children.
This is very clearly a subject about which there is much less known than most people, including the "educated" believe.
Darren makes a passing comparison with compulsory car seatbelts. There is no comparison. Using the seatbelt, that is already in the car, stays there when you park it, automatically adjusts to a proper fit, does not make you look like an alien, or sweaty and besides it's not as if you're exerting yourself driving, is hardly any trouble at all. And making seatbelts compulsory did not stop anyone driving.
Helmets on the other hand, don't come with the bike, can't be attached securely to the bike when it's parked (or not without extra hassle), is complex to fit correctly and useless if not, does make you look weird (identifies you as a member of the social out-group who all jump red lights), does make my head at least, horribly sweaty. Helmets are altogther so much trouble that they suppress the number of people cycling in all countries where either law or social pressure require them. And the people they stop cycling are not the sporty types who would take some kind of exercise anyway, but the peaceful pootlers, who don't take any other exercise at all, so they get fatter, which is such a shame because they would be safer cyclists anyway, because pootlers avoid the dangerous roads where the scorchers get their speed kicks and don't do that awfully hazardous wheels-in-the-air mountain-biking. Riding slower also gives more time to react.
Interesting statistic: 13% of the cyclists admitted to Dutch hospitals are helmet-wearing sport cyclists, even though more than 98% of the cycle traffic in the Netherlands comprises bare-headed (or normally hatted) riders of non-sporting bicycles. The pro-helmet speedy and thrill-seeking scorchers really are doing a more hazardous kind of cycling, for which a helmet may well be advisable. They need to wise up to the differences and stop trying to lumber us peaceful pootlers with THEIR safety gear etc.
Sure a lot of pootlers have been browbeaten into wearing the darned things. I was one of them. Since I stopped wearing a helmet (except when it's icy, when it's fortunately cold enough I don't get sweaty) the problem I was having with stiffness in my neck has largely resolved and I'm sure that traffic gives me a wider berth.
No whole-population-based data shows any association between increased wearing of helmets in that population (whether increased by social or legal pressure) and fewer deaths per amount of cycling. Probably this is because increased helmet wearing is associated with increasingly sporty cycling, against which the fundamentally safer pootlers feel discouraged and stop cycling, and also the tendency of drivers to regard cyclists wearing "all the proper kit" to be more skilled, so less likely to wobble if passed very close. Not a safe assumption of course.
If helmets are made compulsory here: I WILL stop cycling. I'll be retired soon, so maybe I'll go live in another country, one with more respect for freedom and an individual's right to choose. Germany perhaps.
While I agree with you, we are at a critical stage in utility cycling development that all the myths, fallacies and hyperbole that is spouted against investing in sustainable forms of transport are torn down once and for all and we end the ridiculous huge subsidy cars receive.
It's not just "the media". It's people like yourself that consistently claim, despite a mountain of uncertainty that a helmet did this, or that. Frankly I see this as a form of lying.
What evidence do you have that bicycle helmets prevent serious brain damage in children? What are probabilities that a child on a bicycle will have an accident of the type theoretically mitigable by a helmet? How do those risks compare to that of an infant tumbling around the living room? Should infants at play be required to wear helmets such as the ThudGuard.
Honestly, you really have no business even having an opinion on this subject, let alone suggesting compulsion of anything unless you have the answers to some questions which no one else does.
I strongly suggest doing a lot more research before you start handing out advice.
It is certainly foolish to drift sideways without looking behind. Even with earphones I tend to be fully aware I am cycling on a road, and would never change line without looking. If you don't look, but rely on hearing, that is when you might cause a collision with a silent bicycle.
Mrmo - my point is that while bike tech and advances in training have possibly made racing faster, better doping control will have balanced that out, so one could argue that the pro peloton may be the closest we can get to a control group, where any variation in the risk in severity of head injury may be attributable to helmet use.
I can remember an ad showing a thoroughly mashed Specialised Sub 6 lid crashed into a traffic island by a pro racer (I want to say Abdoujhapharov but am not sure)
Thank *goodness* that at least some common sense (and scientific understanding) prevails on this forum. Excellent post.
If you're finding helmets "complex to fit correctly" then how you're operating a bicycle without trouble is beyond me. If you find helmets "so much trouble" then you must find life in general in inconvenience. My helmet weighs 175g - I hardly know I'm wearing it, it's ventilated enough that I rarely, if ever, get horribly sweaty.
As a helmet wearing cyclist, I have absolutely no problem with whatever other cyclists wear or don't wear on their head. Do what you want, it's your head, but it's the venom with which "anti-helmet wearers" on this site have I find a bit distasteful.
Just out of interest, if you rode a motorbike, would you wear a helmet?
Pages