[Closed] Jersey Cycle Helmet Law

Obviously they paid no attention to the 'Australian' experiment, one of best ways to put people off cycling.

And after previous press, it seems they want to show they are now looking after their children...

stupid law. Everywhere it has been done rates of cycling have dropped and often rates of head injury per mile cycled has increased.

what a stupid law make it compulsary to wear one whatever your age!
so when you turn 18 you can stop wearing one...

Slogo - when the evidence says it does not good? Reduces the number of cyclists thus the health of the nation without reducing head injury per mile cycled.

Its the wrong answer to the wrong problem

statistics are bollocks especial the ones that come out of the mouths of politicians!

They did it in Australia, cycling dropped markedly.

Serious question - If you ride without a lid in Australia, can they a) Catch you? and b) Do anyhting about it if they do?

Just a thought.....

I'm all for helmets, and wear one most of the time (I crash a lot) but I'd never in a million years support their compulsory use. In fact, if it came in here, I'd ride more without one in protest.

Well I shall add that it has been done in australia 'bad cycling' dropped markedly. There is a sutdy (I can't remember but TJ has it) that link the likelihood to commit a traffic offence with the fact to wear or not the helmet.
Then why are people put of cycling when they have to wear a helmet is beyond me. I mean even all is bravado TJ wears one. I have seen it. It's a standard XC lid that will cause is spin to shatter if he looks at the ground.

Slogo - Member

statistics are bollocks especial the ones that come out of the mouths of politicians!

+1 any reports I know of that show drop offs in number of cyclists are produced by cycling groups by fairly questionable methods. Many 'proper', peer-reviewed, medical reports show no such drop and no increases in liklihood to have an accident just because you wear a helmet.

There are equally interesting studies showing that the main reason for unwillingness to use helmets is because people in a position to vocally support their usage (that'd probably include us then) don't, thus making it all a bit uncool.

When is the law coming into place to make helmet-wearing in cars compulsory?

I'm sure you could wrap the belt around your head if you wanted 😉

Oh well, that's bugger all - looks like we're going to have compulsory [url= http://www.gov.im/ConsultationDetail.gov?id=147 ] BELLS [/url]here.....

WTF ?

I thought it meant Bell helmets for a second. Bells are law here in Sweden for any bike riding on the road. I don't use one on my mountain bike though (technically I just haven't found one that doesn't shake itself to pieces yet). The police actually enforce stuff like this occasionally too, if they're not up to something 'important' and catch you in the act. No lights/reflectors/bell = big fine (about £50-100 per missing bit).

I'm all for helmets, and wear one most of the time (I crash a lot) but I'd never in a million years support their compulsory use. In fact, if it came in here, I'd ride more without one in protest

Everywhere it has been done rates of cycling have dropped and often rates of head injury per mile cycled has increased.

TJ I think I have found the answer.

Could be falkirk mark. could be.

Is PP Australian?

Warpcow, you seem to think that biased 'cycling groups' have some sort of agenda againt cycling helmets out of sheer evilness. 🙄
Could it not , just perhaps, be because these militant velocimaniacs would like to see some ACTUAL benefit to a law that would reduce cycling, despite your made-up statement about 'no studies showing a reduction'

Why, for instance, are the hospitals of Amsterdam and Beijing not overflowing with maimed, brain damaged cyclists?

One thing that I have learned for sure is [b][u]all[/u][/b] the research is pish, everyone seems to have an agenda and the amount of evangelical people who want to burn heretics is large.

For example the only studies that show large benefits fro helmet wearing are after the fact statistical studies on A&E admissions. These are a self selecting sample - no one who hits their head without a helmet and has no injury is included, no weighting for experience can be done as they do not know what the comparison between the relative experience of the A&E attendees and non attendees are and so on.

Then there is the Australian stats. One side shows a reduction in head injury since the law and say it has saved lives, the other side point out that miles cycled has reduced more than the reduction in head injury and head injury rates have decreased faster in pedestrians so show that the helmet law has made things worse. Neither side knows who has stopped cycling if anyone.

Then offroad biking is not considered separately. [i] My guess[/i] would be that there are a lot more head impacts but of a lessor severity - but there is absolutely no studies done into this.

Then there is the fact that head injuries are very very unlikely - this makes research harder as you are studying one in millions occurrences

Lies damn lies and statistics - a healthy scepticism to the lot is needed and a sensible person makes their own mind up having read the evidence

Could the link between increased head injuries and compulsory helmet wearing be due to the 'claim' mentality that is sweeping the world i.e. I was wearing a helmet and fell off my bike and my head hurts, therefore the helmet didn't do its job?

If attempts to protect people from accidents were truely sincere, places that brought in helmet laws would also make it a requirement that toddlers learning to walk would wear some kind of head protection, that elderly people were not allowed to wear slippers (a big cause of accidents in the home apparently) and that whenever there is frost or ice, all pedestrians should wear saftey helmets, and perhaps body padding (I know of 3 people with broken bones from slipping over this winter including a concussion).

No one knows votchy. [i]My guess[/i] is two things - one that the more experienced cyclists stopped cycling leaving only the crashers and that risk compensation had an effect.

There is no research into this tho that I have seen

west kipper - Member

Warpcow, you seem to think that biased 'cycling groups' have some sort of agenda againt cycling helmets out of sheer evilness.
Could it not , just perhaps, be because these militant velocimaniacs would like to see some ACTUAL benefit to a law that would reduce cycling, despite your made-up statement about 'no studies showing a reduction

Ok, I should've qualified my made-up statement (it was to some extent 😉 ): there are no studies that can show a direct link between helmet legislation and reduction in number of cyclists, though I cannot deny that there will always be some who will be put off by the thought of messing up their hair (I personally don't wear a helmet when commuting 😯 )

There is absolutely no consideration of outside factors in what is an enviably long timescale for such studies. Has the number of cars on the road increased in the same time? Yes. Have there been major changes to the infrastructure and social conditions of major cities/modern countries? Yes. You could go so far as to suggest that the growth of TV and video-games, junkfood, etc could all be equally valid factors for study.

I don't use one on my mountain bike though (technically I just haven't found one that doesn't shake itself to pieces yet)

[img] [/img]

If attempts to protect people from accidents were truely sincere, places that brought in helmet laws would also make it a requirement that toddlers learning to walk would wear some kind of head protection, that elderly people were not allowed to wear slippers (a big cause of accidents in the home apparently) and that whenever there is frost or ice, all pedestrians should wear saftey helmets, and perhaps body padding (I know of 3 people with broken bones from slipping over this winter including a concussion).

If the attempts were sincere, they'd do something about the elephant in the room. The 30mph 4-wheeled elephant that kills people.

Warpcow - the Aus experience was the year before and the year after the helmet law. IIRC this showed an immediate fall but there were some outside factors discussed - i can't remember what they were.

Doesn't affect me one way or the other. I always wear a helmet road cycling and offroad cycling - I don't want to hurt my head if I fall off my bike.

Duh.

🙄

If anyone is curious, the Dept of Transport, Road safety research and statistics division has obtained a report from Transport Reseach Laboratory called:

"Published project reprot ppr 446 - The potential for cycle helmets to previent injury, a review of the evidence by D Hynd,R Cuerden,S Reid, S Adams. November 2009."

I think this must be available on the internet. I have seen a hard copy. It caused a lifelong helmet wearing collegue to stop wearing a helmet once he had read it. I have not had chance to look through it yet.

There is some info on the UK report here:

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_the_potential_for_cycle_helmets_to_prevent_injury___a_review_of_the_evidence.htm

The Australians also brought in a raft of road traffic laws and enforcement on speeding, drink-driving etc, things that should have made cycling safer and more desirable (with or without a helmet) yet it still went down.
Anyway, I'm off out (without BTW!) for a wee road run.

The problem with making helmets compulsory is that they only work for certain types of impact and if you come off your bike at high speed they may or may not save you from a serious injury; there simply isn't a guarantee that the helmet will act as required. To my knowledge there isn't even an accepted performance standard for helments.

With car seat belts and airbags their effectiveness has been proven through years of testing and real life examples and so it is only right that they are now a legal requirement. Making helmets compulsory when it can't be proved either way if they will be effective in the majority of accidents seems pointless. I do wear a helmet but much of the time it just makes me hot and doesn't add to my feeling of well being when cars pass too close.

I guess taking reckless and poorly skilled/ stupid drivers off the road is seen as being too much of a vote loser...

Is PP Australian?

Hell no. Thank God. Been there though. Once was enough.

I have no problem with compulsory bells - I think anyone who does not have one / use one is a clown - what is the downside of having one? All my bikes have a bell

midnighthour:

I'm not sure why they would stop wearing it, some of the main conclusions are:
1) Helmets are effective at reducing injury, especially cranial fracture.
2) 10-16% of fatalities could have been prevented with a helmet.
3) helmets are particularly effective for children
4) No evidence found for the previously noted mythical rotational injuries.

And questions the "population based" approach versus the controlled and detailed hospital-based research methods.

have no problem with compulsory bells - I think anyone who does not have one / use one is a clown - what is the downside of having one? All my bikes have a bell

I have no room on my bars on any but my road bike, but I can't think of the last time I needed to warn someone of my approach when offroad, fortunately I see that few other trail users in tight situations!

TJ- I didn't see anthing about that. The one I saw was based on government data that was about 5yrs apart and didn't mention anything other than the helmet law and the figures (posted by those evil velocimaniacs).

Helmets? [url= http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/strip.aspx?id=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27 ]Foolproof[/url], aren't they?

[img] http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27 [/img]

😆

Ta for the link to the TRL review. It will make interesting reading. TRL is known for its evangelical approach to mechanistic passive road safty - leg protectors for motorbikes and so on

a quick glance tells me two things - they have just ignored / discounted risk compensation and have ignored studies that clearly show rotational forces having an adverse effect.

How would they have ignored the studies, when they have introduced the topic for discussion?

This registers about 1.5 on my give a toss meter [it goes to 11]

I wear a helmet 95% of the time
If they made it law to wear one all the time - I wouldn't change my ways for a couple of reasons
They'd have to catch me
They'd have to get valid ID details from me
a £60 fine wouldn't be the end of the world

I haven't got a password to get to the full thing but this
Curnow WJ. The efficacy of bicycle helmets against brain injury.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2003,35:287-292.
Very much questions the facts about prevention of rotational injury

I think anyone who does not have one / use one is a clown

I'm a clown then. I don't think they are as effective as a voice. I do have a VERY loud 'ding dong' bell on my commuter though - Bloke in front of me this morning managed to ignore 2 uses of that on a quiet offroad cycle path......

I have no problem with compulsory bells - I think anyone who does not have one / use one is a clown - what is the downside of having one? All my bikes have a bell

Then that makes me (and most other people, I suspect) a clown.

What I object to is compulsory this, compulsory that - I always wear a helmet but I wouldn't advocate it being made compulsory. Same with bells - if I meet anyone else out on the trail and I think that they haven't seen or heard me then I slow down and speak. Works for me.

Coffeking - the TRL review clearly states that they are not considering any behavioural effects into crashing and weather helmets have any effect on this.

Studies in the past have shown significant alterations in behaviour when passive safety measures are taken. it does not invalidate the review totally but it is a limitation on it.

The TRL review also dismisses rotational effects with a very limited discussion of limited sources.

Edit - I just found in one of the appendices a comment which explains some of the doubts over rotational injury.

Typically a linear impact causes a focal brain injury and a oblique impact a diffuse axon injury. None of the studies separated these two types of brain injury so we don't know if the helmeted folk had a higher rate of difuse axon injury or not

Both of these are in line with previous TRL reviews and research on this.

Its a good review but a clearly slanted one - thus as with all research and reviews don't forget your pinch of salt.

I’m going to go against the grain here and say I’m in favour of compulsory helmet wearing in the UK, I do think the law should go further and applied to all age groups…
I can’t see why so many people are anti compulsion…

I know the same studies get wheeled out each time and we’re told that “Statistically” helmets make you no safer, and cycle use goes down with compulsion to use one, but in all honesty I think it’s cobblers, no such law would ever be properly enforced anyway, but if it were I think we would see a reduction in fatal and serious head injuries for cyclists involved in RTAs …

Anyone who’s hairstyle and image matters more than trying to minimise (not mitigate) the risk a brain injury shouldn’t really be riding a bike on UK roads anyway; where the drivers are angry and careless and the signage, road markings and cycle lanes are apparently designed to help kill those who are not alert when it comes to their own safety, so pull em over and fine em, get them off the road or force a helmet on their heads, it may save them from themselves…

I for one will never ride on a UK byway or highway without a helmet, while I agree cyclists shouldn’t feel that unsafe on the roads, the fact still stands that they are not, they are at the mercy of other road users anger management and lack of attention, and as such a cycle helmet should be compulsory in this country…

TJ - the helmets in the test (the paper you quoted, I have access to that source) that that report highlights are from 1987. Does anyone remember the helmets of 1987?

[img] [/img]

🙂

Massive wide items, generally poorly designed with poor coverage and limited internal padding. While the question is a good one, I'm not convinced that that report does anything more than throw doubt at soft-shell helmets impact friction and question their weight. Significant questions arise as to how much helmet-floor grabbing has any effect (and that's what the TRL report says) as the helmet tends to rotate around the head on impact, massively reducing the rotational force that the head actually sees.

Anyone who’s hairstyle and image matters more than trying to minimise (not mitigate) the risk a brain injury shouldn’t really be riding a bike on UK roads anyway; where the drivers are angry and careless and the signage, road markings and cycle lanes are apparently designed to help kill those who are not alert when it comes to their own safety, so pull em over and fine em, get them off the road or force a helmet on their heads, it may save them from themselves…

Perhaps we should make the roads safer and get rid of the angry and carless drivers first? You know, since a helmet will make naff all difference if you're hit by a car anyway...

Cookea - when the evidence base for it is so poor? There really is no significant evidence head injuries would be reduced significantly and serious concerns that some more serious head injuries would be increased?

there is also the basic fact that it would put people of riding thus reduce the health of the population as a whole

Coffeeking - there is lots of other research on this and the effects have been seen in other sports where helmets have been adopted.

There really needs to be better research done - even another TRL report found this effect was there but questioned how much relevance it had.

One interesting thing is the adoption of a test for rotation for motorcycle crash helmets and the alterations to the design of them since.

limited internal padding.

internal padding does nothing to reduce impacts - infact it can make it worse. You need to unerstand how a helmet works

If there is lots of research, why is none presented here (or in any of the review papers) as worthy and conclusive? Yes rotation is considered in motorbike helmet design, and hence stiffer shells were included to allow the helmet to slip more on impact, but we are talking significantly different situations, the mass and speed of a motorbike is generally higher than that of a general bike user (it seems that most on here struggle to even reach an average of 15mph on road). Cross comparison from one sport to another does not make for good science IMO. Yes more research needs to be done specifically, but I do not believe it makes sense to actively work against helmets until it is proven to be a problem rather than a question. Having crashed multiple times with a helmet I can conclude that every time my head hasn't rotated as the helmet hasn't grabbed the floor - it's grazed along the floor and shaved the surface off. This in itself (while not scientific) questions the validity of the tests performed in 1987 that show helmet-floor grabbing (primarily because of the different helmet construction etc I'd say).

re the internal padding comment, the point was that it was seen that one possible "good" thing about bike helmet design is that its relatively low internal padding helps to decouple the helmet from the head during rotational impact. I know how the helmet works thanks.

For example the only studies that show large benefits fro helmet wearing are after the fact statistical studies on A&E admissions. These are a self selecting sample - no one who hits their head without a helmet and has no injury is included, no weighting for experience can be done as they do not know what the comparison between the relative experience of the A&E attendees and non attendees are and so on.

That or on a more serious way I think the number of helmet sales should be taken into account.

Cross comparison from one sport to another does not make for good science IMO.

Unlike TJ I think there is a lot of effort put into increasing helmet efficiency. If you look to "new" helmet and early 90's helmet you'll see they are fairly different.

Simple solution:-
The Law makers trying to pass this act have to get on a bike wearing a helmet.
They are then all mown down by a 40ton truck, if they survive, then they can pass their law. Something tells me they would not be willing volunteers for that experiment (may be popular with the masses though).
8)

Theoretically I can ride my motorbike at 70mph whilst wearing just flip flops, swimming trunks and an approved helmet. Thus proving that the law is an ass. Helmets if & when you want to, compulsion definitely not.

'just back (again)from approx 50ish helmetless miles round some of central Scotlands most dangerous roads and...I'm still ..alive!
Unlike the usual arguments, this law means compulsion for uder 18s doing ANYTHING on a bike, not just scary bodacious-to-the-max MTBing but riding to the shops, sitting on the bike in the street etc.

A lot of you think us 'non' types are playing some kind of libetarianist intellectual game with our attitude, but trust me I'm not.
This kind of law represents yet another attempt to move the goalposts with regard to road safety, away from those who should have a duty of care -motor vehicle drivers, and onto the back of the cyclist, but politicians wont rock the boat when it comes to such things.

Ever notice its always regions with the most bad driving, aggresively car-centric infrasructure that push for compulsory helmet wearing?
Far easier to enact a useless token law like this, than ask the voters to slow down and look where they're going...

Indeed - the best way to improve cycle safety and reduce risks is
1) adopt the continental laws on cycle priority
2) engineer roads for cyclist safety not car convenience.

These two measures will do far more than helmets would - and that is backed by a lot of research.

Don't forget - the maximum speed limit on Jersey is 40MPH, Likelihood of a helmet being important in a crash is higher...

Don't forget - the test speed for helmets is 12MPH, Likelihood of a helmet being important in a crash involving a car is minimal...

It’s not the impact with the car that kills you it’s often the secondary impact, when that primary contact sends you rag-dolling into a tree/wall/lamp post or any other piece of street furniture.

The rotational injury point seems to get spouted every time, and to be quite frank from what I can gather (I’m sure you’ll all correct me) it seems to be a pedants point; concerned with the specific geometry of an imaginary crash, where a rider travelling to the (smooth but hard asphalt) ground on a certain trajectory with their head/shoulders at a certain angle, and a helmet shaped and covered such that it provides increased leverage about the cyclists neck and greater coefficient of friction with the ground, transmitting more force into this arrangement of bodies than a bare scalp would, thus spannering the individual in question, when was this study conducted out of interest, and what specific test pieces and were looked at in testing to prove the theory?

I don’t know about you, but I ride in a world littered with hard, blunt, immovable objects all waiting to cause Blunt force trauma to the cranium of an un-helmeted cyclist bounced off the bonnet of a Range rover…
Would that life were so simple that we could all have text book RTAs…

I don’t wear a helmet because I know it will save my life, I wear one because it might save my life, I feel the balance of odds are more in favour of it having some positive effect, studies conducted 20 years ago in a foreign country without our road layouts or street furniture are almost valueless as the incidents they describe aren’t the one’s I’m most likely to get involved in here and now are they…

Perhaps we should make the roads safer and get rid of the angry and carless drivers first? You know, since a helmet will make naff all difference if you're hit by a car anyway...

Good luck with your campaign to rid Britain of the motor car, I will happily sign your petition, but I doubt you’ll change much…

No-one is suggesting ridding the roads of cars, cookeaa, just that forcing people to wear a polystyrene hat is not a substitute for the responsibility of motorists to be lessened, which is what these laws result in.
If you're are serious about compulsion you should be campaigning for the adoption of lightweight, fiberglass, motorcross style helmets, incuding for car occupants.
After all, if it saves just one life its worth it , right?

cookea - the rotational injury thing - some studies have shown up to 50% of death causing brain injuries in cycle crashes are attributable to rotational forces. Sample sizes are low tho as there are so few of these.

Its not a mythological thing - its real although more research is needed into it.

Rotational forces happen with oblique impacts which is common.

The reason I keep banging on about this is that its clear the tendency of cycle helmets to make rotational impacts worse is dangerous and limits the usefulness of the helmets significantly. Better design of cycle helmets could make them much safer without any other penalty

I never said it was a substitute for others good practise, but legislation that forces people to take some sort of consideration for their own safety is hardly nanny state stuff really, how many people don’t use their seat belt these days based on the logic that “other people shouldn’t be crashing into me”?

Obviously drivers should be more considerate, but the fact is they’re not, and while I agree with your sentiment, I wouldn’t fancy proving the point with my own skull, feel free to head butt a speeding car if you feel the ends justify the means…

In my own job I’m required to go to various work sites from time to time where protective equipment is required, due to the nature of the environment and the increased possibility of some sort of accident, I don’t opt out of wearing a hard hat or toe caps because “other people shouldn’t drop things on me” the fact of the matter is regardless of peoples intention or behaviour accidents can and do happen.

Enforcing measures to reduce risk is pretty standard in most spheres of life, IME being in an environment where PPE is required actually makes the wearers more mindful of potential risks and action/measures to avoid them, being compelled to wear a helmet sends a message;
You are not in a safe environment, you are not engaged in a safe activity… pretty much sums up cycling on UK roads…

I suspect most falls from bikes don't involve other road users anyway

You are not in a safe environment, you are not engaged in a safe activity… pretty much sums up cycling on UK roads…

This is the misunderstanding - actually cycling is a very safe activity - with serious accidents very rare indeed in terms of journeys made or miles cycled.

Wearing helmets reinforces the myth that it is a dangerous pastime / activity

You do realise cookeaa, that your construction hat is more protective than your precious cycle helmet?.
and please, stop trying to find some equivalence between seatbelts and cyclehats- there is none.
Cycling on even Britains roads is not, believe it or not, statistically dangerous, why send out the message that it is with a substandard ineffectual piece of crap perched on your head?

one death per 4 million hours cycled.

West Kipper - I have to disagree with you about the construction helmets tho - not much use in cycle situations. Different styles of helmets for different protection - construction helmets are to protect against walking into things and things falling on your head.

..and all those people who give up cycling due to the inconvenience will go on to live a less healthy lifestyle that puts a burden on the taxpayer way in excess of those who suffered 'savable' head injuries.

one death per 4 million hours cycled.

That's an odd way of presenting the data - most forms of transport would use deaths per miles for stats

TJ, I cant see much difference between a brick dropped from a height, to the oft claimed cyclists injury of a head hitting a kerb.

A lot of the argument about the added safety of wearing a helmet seems to miss the point. Yes a helmet wont necessarily save you if hit by a car, as a head injury may not be the most serious injury inflicted.
One of my wifes running friends was hit by a dump truck turning into a building site. She suffered a crushed pelvis, two broken legs, almost had her right arm amputated. However none of these were life threatening - they could have been, but weren't.
If she had not been wearing a helmet she would have died, her head was almost pulled under the rear wheels of the truck. The paramedic who saw to her at the scene and doctor who operated on her both said, considering the damage to her helmet she would have died if her head had been subjected to the forces the helmet took. Oh and she is almost back to full health, still cycling, stil running and definitely wearing a helmet.
Of course there will be many cases where wearing a helmet wont be a factor in reducing an injury or helping evade death, however their effect on helping reduce head injury and death through head impact can not be ignored, no matter how one choses to interpret the statistics.

Edward, you, and the paramedic are actually claiming that an inch and a half of polystyrene, counteracted the forces of being run over by a dump truck?
WOW!, helmets have improved then!
(or it could have been sheer luck that she survived)

are actually claiming that an inch and a half of polystyrene, counteracted the forces of being run over by a dump truck?

who knows? - possibly it could, maybe the helmet just stopped the injury going over the threshold between life & death

Why not stand there in a bike helmet & start whacking yourself over the head with a rounders bat.
Try to to record at what point & force you either can't take it any more or are too injured to carry on
now, - when you've recovered - try the same experiment without the hat & see what the difference is

I suspect there'll be a point at which the helmet will allow to to carry on whereas without it you'd be seeing stars

Uplink, the same experiment could be conducted with a knitted acrylic beanie, and the results nearer to the so-called cycle helmet end of the scale than the cyclehelmet to a proper fibreglass helmet.

BTW,what if she had been dragged further under the wheels by the straps though, would you all then be so fixed in your views?

I'm trying to point out that the helmet could have saved her as stated

Maybe he impact was too severe to be survivable without the lid & just survivable with
if you can't see the possibility of that, there's no point carry on the discussion

As I said earlier in the thread I couldn't care less whether they make it a legal requirement or not as I'll still do what I want

If I didn't wear a helmet I would be very ill as mine split when I hit my head on a wall after a van driver opened a door on me. +1 for compulsory helmets here

Uplink, NON HELMET COMPULSION ('put that in caps for y'all) does not mean that YOU will be 'forced to not wear a helmet'
I'm therefore happy with the present situation and happy you're doing what you want.
However, there's alot of you who clearly would tell ME what's safest for MY health and well being despite a lack of evidence, and despite less experience in many cases.
There's not much point putting any store in protecting your thinking and reasoning matter, if you dont think and reason with it, after all.

I'm gonna leave you to this kipper - you seem to be getting yourself all worked up there

I'd hate to see you explode or anything 🙂

Explode? You trying to tell me that I'm an anti-helmet jihadist suicide-bomber, like? 😉
(you might not be wrong)

Death to the unbelievers!

I think in this case its the 'believers' and the blind faithful that are the issue

A pedestrian in town was hit by a truck and dragged under it and died. If she'd been wearing a helmet, maybe she'd still be alive? Compulsory helmets for all pedestrians, I say!