To the OP. I’m sure if you stick to the reputable brands, find one that fits well, and a design that your child likes and will wear happily, you’ve done everything you can to ensure their safety.

Completely wrong junkyard.

Yes we all know your views but why can it not be the case that a helmet can protect me as an individual and be harmful to a group due to participation numbers of that group. No matter how many times you say it is wrong without explanation it will remain unclear to me what you actual objection is tbh.

Its real peer reviewed evidence from good research and critiques of the now frankly outdated Cochrane review for a variety of independent sources

Cochrane 2009 is outdated…you have really stayed objective haven’t you :rolls eyes: ..you do realise none of the papers cited in the CTC response are newer than the outdated Cochrane report? You are pretty much alone in criticising the premier world organisation for independent review v you and some pressure groups. Take your pick I suspect this time you won’t make the mistake of citing a paper written before it as evidence of the critique 😆 I mean I don’t expect flaws like this in your understanding to alter your view after all it is I and not you who does not get it and i should open up etc as i dont read the papers yadda yadda

Nor is it confusion about individual risk and group risk

So you say but you don’t explain why. You are wrong they are separate things

You claiming this shows you haven’t actually looked at the papers or understood the issues
Anyone actually interested in learning about this please follow the CTC links above.

yes he is right dont read the CTC critique of the papers after all if you want science dont read the articles, the comments from their peers and their replies read what a cycling pressure group thinks and there summary of the evidence or just listen to that nurse up there.
There is no other way to science and you will know you have got it when you agree with him.
PS
Most of the links from the CTC site to the actual research are broken all the ones to the BMJ and the Australian research so it’s quite hard to do read them. I would have assumed you knew this if you had read them – bit like arguing i should read a paper posting a link and then finding it out it cost $41 to read – you never did give me your copy of the article you implored me to read.

Junkyard – the cochrane review was 1999. hence the critique of it I cited had a later date as I told you on the last thread even copying and pasting the title page

Yes I know you don’t understand the science

Lets just be totally clear. The cochrane review ( not report) is 14 years old and is widely critised in peer reviewed journals for basic
methodolocal flaws,

Multiple studies since cast major doubt on its findings.

If you want to follow the science you read the scientific papers – I have done. you will find the evidence counterintuative, contradictory and of poor quality thus tehr is no way you can claim anything as proof.

http://cyclehelmets.org/1157.html for pages of links both supporting and not supporting helmets

BMJ published view from both sides

http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/356627/field_highwire_article_pdf/0

Paper is current

Editorial group: Cochrane Injuries Group.
Publication status and date: Edited (no change to conclusions), published in Issue 1, 2009. Review content assessed as up-to-date: 7 November 2006.

TJ you are trolling and derailing the thread. Drop it now. The OP was not asking for this debate again.

Junkyard – the cochrane review was 1999.

http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/userfiles/ccoch/file/Safety_on_the_road/CD001855.pdf
Published 2009 -as the date is on the front page and some references are from 2006 I would have thought it was rather obvious from even a cursory glance,

I know you don’t understand the science

still in good company then and please you are embarassing yourself now
re read your own critique and my response- if you think that shows you understand science and i dont then there is no persuading you.
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-helmet-debate-rumbles-on-in-the-mainstream-media/page/3#post-3854677

Lets just be totally clear. The cochrane review ( not report) is 14 years old and is widely critised in peer reviewed journals for basic
methodolocal flaws,

Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists
(Review)

Its still a review and still published in 2009. Hugor gave a link , you berate me for not reading links, and you did not read it , and you did a critique of it 😯 I would assume by now it is clear to all who does not read links nor understand what they are criticising never mind science.

Multiple studies since cast major doubt on its findings.

yes science would be nothing if it did not make unsubstantiated claims without evidence…I wish I understood it better. 😕

Citation: Thompson DC, Rivara F, Thompson R. Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists. Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews 1999, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD001855. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001855.

🙄

IT WAS PUBLISHED IN 1999 IT SAYS SO ON THE TITLE PAGE, IT SAYS SO IN THE CITATION THIS IS WHY CRITIQUES OF IT STARTED APPEARING IN THE EARLY 2000 AS I HAVE LINKED TO

it relies on 7 papers non of which are properly controlled. All of which have major methodologiocalical flaws. Of the 7 papers 4 were by the authors of the revives, the 2006 review of the review was done by the same people.

it falls far far short of any sensible definition of either good science or proof.

IT WAS PUBLISHED IN 1999 IT SAYS SO ON THE TITLE PAGE, IT SAYS SO IN THE CITATION THIS IS WHY CRITIQUES OF IT STARTED APPEARING IN THE EARLY 2000 AS I HAVE LINKED TO

First published TJ be precise, it is a new review – no comment on mistakingly calling it a report and not a review? no comment on the fact it has been redone? – ie a new review?

it relies on 7 papers non of which are properly controlled. All of which have major methodologiocalical flaws

Yes the cochrane collaboration the worlds leader in meta analysis of studies which has a worldwide reputation for systematic reviews of research which meets stringent standards for the validity/reliability of the data gained and is able to satisfy the scientific and health community if not a nurse from Edinburgh 😕

. Of the 7 papers 4 were by the authors of the revives,

Are you suggesting that the people who did the review were actually good at conducting research and published in the area they were reviewing…what is this madness of using experts? Did they not know there was a nurse more than willing to do this for them …scientists PAH morons

the 2006 review of the review was done by the same people.

Ok two points – it was 2009 – i told you this twice your attention to detail does you credit. You did read the link didnt you ? I know you didnt because it was not a review of the review it was a new review of the data ..there are a few clues in the actual report that are impossible to miss if you actually read it but i will just give you the most obvious

We searched the following databases;
• CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library issue 3, 2006)
• MEDLINE (1966 to 2006, September, week 3)
• EMBASE (1980 to 2006, September (week 39))
• Sport
• ERIC
• NTIS
• Expanded Academic Index
• CINAHL
• PsycINFO (1970 to 2006, August, week 4)
• Occupational Safety and Health
• Dissertation abstracts
• Web of Science (2005 to 2006, (searched October 3, 2006))
• Pubmed (searched October 3, 2006 (last 12 months))

So there you go you moan at me for not reading links and you don’t read links yourself even after being mocked for it and given the link….are you not embarrassed by this ?[ tbh this whole thread is becoming embarassing].

it falls far far short of any sensible definition of either good science or proof.

Well it falls far short of what you want but it seems clear to me that your understanding of science and research methodologies is less than those published in the field.
I can see why no one bothers to debate this with you.
You really do not understand what you are commenting on
Here have a win based around argumentum ad nauseam because you are never going to stop arguing
Why not agree to leave the helmet debates alone…I know I shall now
Here have the last word you know you cannot resist telling me again why I am wrong.

A slight increase from 307,000 in April:

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/bike-helmet-for-kids

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-helmet-debate-rumbles-on-in-the-mainstream-media

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/would-you-helmet-nazi-content#post-3139927

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/psa-another-study-on-the-efficacy-of-bike-helmets#post-3128520

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/thank-god-for-helmets#post-3071801

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/so-i-decided-to-write-off-my-helmet-today#post-3015561

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/will-the-uk-every-be-like-this#post-3001646

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/no-helmet#post-2983986

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/my-helmet-is-very-deformed-graphic-photo-content#post-2963127

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-woman-who-tragically-died-in-dent-on-the-letjog-ride#post-2956453

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmets-2#post-2941835

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cyclist-hit-15-times-with-hammer-by-driverfor-riding-too-slow-up-a-hill#post-2943106

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/this-really-makes-you-want-to-wear-a-lid#post-2919841

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/good-or-bad-advert#post-2894537

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/james-cracknell-wear-a-helmet-video#post-2783611

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/bmxers-idiots#post-2758996

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/motorcyclist-protesting-helmet-laws-dies-in-bike-crash-while-not-wearing-helmet/page/3

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/wear-a-helmet-kids#post-2705179

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/psa-helmet-debate-on-radio-2-now#post-2584202

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/if-helmets-were-to-be-made-compulsory#post-2573922

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmet-on-your-child-always#post-2482018

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/some-very-sad-news#post-2476001

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-great-helmet-debate#post-2432920

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/kids-cycling-to-school-without-helmets-is-it-me-or#post-2368335

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/compulsory-helmet-law-in-ni#post-2236497

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/how-smug-will-tj-be

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmets-possibly-the-last-word

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/anyone-else-hear-peter-thatchel-on-jeremy-vine-calling-for-compulsary-helmets/page/2

🙂
Junkyard – it is you that wrongly called it a report not me

Junkyard .you do realise none of the papers cited in the CTC response are newer than the outdated Cochrane report?

actually all of them areas the review is 1999

Yes you keep saying it is 2009 – and you are wrong every time

IT WAS PUBLISHEd IN 1999 thats why the citation is 1999

It was reviewed in 2006 and republished in 2009 after various critiques in answer to the crtitiques It is not a fresh examnation of the evidecne in 2009

I do not know why you have to be so offensive – shows the paucity of your arguemnt I suspect

Yes the cochrane collaboration the worlds leader in meta analysis of studies which has a worldwide reputation for systematic reviews of research which meets stringent standards for the validity/reliability of the data gained and is able to satisfy the scientific and health community if not a nurse from Edinburgh

Yes correct it has – but this review falls far short of that which is why ther eare multiple peer reviewed published critiques of it

You see I can read and I do understand it. I clearly understand far mor eabout this that you as you cannot even read a citation

here is opne such critique of it

Accident Analysis & Prevention

Volume 37, Issue 3, May 2005, Pages 569–573

The Cochrane Collaboration and bicycle helmets

W.J. Curnow

Abstract

Effective interventions for care of health need to be based on scientific evidence. To this end, the CochraneCollaboration insists that its reviews should be based on reliable data, normally obtained by randomised controlled trial. To constitute evidence, data should also support a hypothesis in accord with scientific laws and knowledge. From these considerations, an appraisal is made of the conclusion of the Cochrane review Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists, that it establishes scientific evidence that all types of standard helmet protect against injuries to the brain. It is concluded that the review takes no account of scientific knowledge of types and mechanisms of brain injury. It provides, at best, evidence that hard-shell helmets, now rarely used, protect the brain from injury consequent upon damage to the skull. The review therefore is not a reliable guide to the efficacy of helmets and to interventions concerning their use.

And as teh review of the review in 2006 dismsised curnow critique he ran anotehr

Accident Analysis & Prevention

Volume 39, Issue 3, May 2007, Pages 433–436
Brief communication
Bicycle helmets and brain injury

W.J. Curnow

Abstract

This paper replies to criticism by Cummings et al. [Cummings, P., Rivara, F.P., Thompson, D.C., Thompson, R.S., 2006. Accid. Anal. Prev. 38, 636–643] of an article [Curnow, W.J., 2005. The Cochrane Collaboration and bicycle helmets. Accid. Anal. Prev. 37, 569–573] disputing a conclusion of a Cochrane Collaboration review, namely, that it establishes scientific evidence that all types of standard bicycle helmet protect against injury to the brain. In response to the conclusion of Cummings that the review’s case–control studies provide such evidence, I explain that their design is inadequate to do this.

And as you will complain tht you can only getthe abstract I have got the fulltext – I had better not publish it on here I guess but I willput the discussion from the above artiel – if you want the full thng and any others I will give them to you but privately

te reivew referred to is the cochrane review

The review’s conclusion that its case–control studies establish scientific evidence that helmets protect against brain injury and its recommendation that cyclists should be encouraged to wear them are not supported. First, the studies’ primary choice of outcome of interest is inappropriate and disregards the science; second, bias in their control groups is likely; third, their findings are too limited and outdated to be useful now.

Referring to the first point, the review dismisses both randomised controlled trials and cohort studies because head injury is a relatively rare outcome, but this is a reason based on cost advantages of the case–control design when cyclists with head injury are cases, rather than on need for thorough scientific assessment of preventive health care. Indeed, such advantages enter into the choices of head injury (of all kinds) as cases and other injury as controls. This conforms with popular belief that equates head injury and the risk of the even rarer death and chronic disability, but it jumbles together problems for scientific research that involve disparate injuries and risk factors and it distracts attention from the important outcome of interest, intracranial trauma of severity AIS 4–6. Such trauma would be the appropriate choice for cases, but none of the studies collects, treats and interprets data in accordance with scientific knowledge of it and its causes, and findings of empirical association between reduced head and brain injury and the wearing of helmets say nothing about their efficacy against it.

Second, sub-analysis of data of Thompson 1996, like that made by Thompson 1989, suggests that the cases and controls of those studies differ in the prevalence of risk factors for brain injury; unmeasured factors may exist and add significant bias. This implies that the review’s flat conclusion that helmets reduce brain injury by 88% (the estimate of the small 1989 study) may be grossly in error. Further, that conclusion disregards the 75% derived from the larger sampling of 1996 and the possibility that the difference is just due to chance. Yet Cummings says that I do not consider the role of chance in the decline from 1989 to 1996 in the stated protective effect and that I suggest it is evidence. I do not; I acknowledge that the confidence intervals overlap—but the p-value of 0.08 is very suggestive of a real decline.

Use of case–control studies to obtain data derogates from the normal standard for Cochrane systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials—which Cummings suggests would be unethical. I comment on the ethics elsewhere (Curnow, 2006). Here, I point to the contrast with compulsory wearing of helmets, despite experimental evidence that helmets can increase axonal shear injuries (Corner et al., 1987). Further, the review finds only an empirical association between the wearing of helmets and brain injury. To establish scientific evidence, data would need to be obtained, treated and interpreted to test a hypothesis in accord with scientific laws and knowledge of brain injury. Neither the review nor its studies do this. Also, some in the Collaboration seem to have lost sight of this point, on the specious argument that Cochrane reviews need to focus on “real-world effectiveness” without concern about scientific theory. Though no coherent theory may be available for evaluating some kinds of health care, disregard of available scientific knowledge cannot be justified.

Third, the review’s conclusions are too limited and outdated to be useful. They are limited because they are explicitly restricted to cyclists who crash. The conclusions would hold for the whole population of cyclists only if those who crash are representative of it, which would not be so if wearing a helmet affected the risk of having an accident. The risk would be less if the more cautious cyclists chose to wear helmets, or greater if a helmet gave its wearer undue confidence, resulting in a little less care being taken. Such risk compensation has been suggested as an explanation for some safety devices in motor vehicles not performing as expected. It would appear to be likely for cyclists too; a study conducted in Victoria following publicity about helmets found that teenagers believed helmets would save them in a serious accident with a bus or a truck! (Elliott and Shanahan Research, 1986). I therefore suggest that an assumption that wearing a helmet does not affect the risk of having an accident is of dubious validity. Hence, there can be no certainty that the conclusions of the review can usefully be applied to the whole population of cyclists, contrary to its aim of “establishing the real-world effectiveness of helmets … for the promotion of helmet programs”. See also the comments in my Section 2.3.

The review’s estimates that helmets reduce the risk of head and brain injury by 85% and 88% date from the 1989 study, when almost all helmets had hard shells capable of protecting the skull. The indications are that present-day soft helmets cannot do this (Curnow, 2003), but the 1989 estimates continue to influence policy makers. For example, a leaflet issued by the US Department of Transportation in 1998 to promote the wearing of helmets states these estimates as fact and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission cites them in a press release of 29 March 2006. But the reviewers continue to uphold these estimates, despite knowing their influence on policy and that the adequacy of the control groups used to derive them has not been confirmed by sub-analysis like that used in Thompson 1989.
5. Conclusions

In view of the influence of a Cochrane review of bicycle helmets on policies for wearing, it should have the utmost reliability. All evidence should be obtained from experiment or randomised controlled trial based on relevant scientific knowledge. The current review should be removed from the Cochrane library.
Acknowledgements

TJ and Junkyard thats just for you, can you share it or do I have to cut the puppy in half

Hopefully by the time your lad gets to 13 helmets will be the norm.

Just back from Melbourne where cycling is rife, they are bally everywhere and cars give them space and they all wear helmets. Anecdotal I know but weather probably has more to do with cycling than compulsory helmets.

conclusions fronm the curnow 2005 paper

7. Conclusions
(a) The critical efficacy of helmets is against fatal and disabling
injury to the brain.
(b) The review’s conclusion that its five included studies establish
scientific evidence that standard bicycle helmets
of all types protect against injury to the brain is not supportable
because none of the studies possesses the requisite
scientific rigour.
(c) Due to the decline in use of hard-shell helmets, past findings
of their efficacy are not applicable to most helmets
now used.
(d) The review is not a reliable guide to interventions and is
not suitable for the Cochrane library.

As Vic Reeves would say

you wouldn’t let it lie….

So junkyard – to say that the cochrane review on cycle helmets is widely disputed, that it does not meet the usual standards for a cochrane review, that there is much peer reviewed debate and discussion over the methodology and findings is true and thus to say there is proof helmets are effective is wrong but to say there is evidence pointing each way and no protective effect has been proven is true.

there are plenty of other papers out there critiquing the cochrane review. Same sthe reare plenty of papers who have findings of much lower preotective effects than that review does or indeed sometime zero sometimes negative

Anyone still interested and I especially recommend this to Hugor as he is a doctor IIRC have a look at the BMJ site and follow the debate. Its interesting to see how doctors view this.

again you will find a lot of criticism of the cochrane review

http://www.bmj.com/search/compulsory%2520cycle%2520helmets

http://www.bmj.com/search/cycle%2520helmets

http://www.bmj.com/search/bicycle%2520helmets%2520cochrane%2520review%2520

I do wonder if they actually believe the rubbish they type over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

FTFY

Is there perhaps a call for a new forum alongside bike and chat where we can discuss shit we’ve talked about 317,000 times before? Just, you know, to avoid derailing too many threads. My reading of the topic was “WHAT bike helmet for kids” not “WHETHER kids should wear bike helmets”. Might be nice if people on both sides of the argument let it go.

To the OP – I have no kids and have nothing to add about what to get other than going down the LBS and trying a load on. You’ll pay a little more but it’s for the best.

I really don’t understand why people get so worked up about helmets. If the OP wants to protect his/her child by getting him to wear a helmet, then let him/her do so without feeling the need to rant about it. Personally I think it’s silly to believe that should you get hit by a car at 40mph, a helmet is going to make you better off. BUT if you fall off and hit a rock, it’s putting a dent in the lid and not in your head and surely that’s a good thing.

Anyone still interested …

Doubtful.

teej, whilst I admire your diligence, do you not think STW has seen and heard enough about this now? The OP just wants a helemt recommendation. You recommned he doesnt use one, couldn’t you just leave it there mate?

Toys – hence my post at the top of the page
I do not recommend he does not use one.

TandemJeremy – Member

But before getting sidetracked please note FIT is all – do not get one big enough to grow into, do not get one with a one size fits all shell. do not rely on a cradle to take up slack a

I think informed decision making based on the evidence is good.

Its not me who started making claims about what helmets can or cannot do.

Why am I not surprised TJ is still going at this?

Seriously – you need to look at yourself and your approach to ‘discussions’ TJ – your opinion is not always the correct one and for every piece of ‘evidence’ you ever find on the interweb to ‘prove’ your argument, there is another piece of evidence to the contrary.

MF – Hence I said ( for helmets reducing injuries)

this is has not been shown at all. Some evidence points that way, some does not.

there is no proof any way and I do not claim there is. there is significant body of evidence and research that as I said above is contradictory, counter-intuitive and almost universally of poor design and badly flawed.

To claim – as some do on here that it is proven wearing helmets protect you from injury is simply wrong. It is far from proven.

Seriously though TJ, I don’t actually care what you think.

Dear God!!!

Seriously though TJ, I don’t actually care what you think.

You need to supply evidence to prove this.

Maybe a few graphs? Definitely some spurious Wikipedia links 😉

You need to supply evidence to prove this.

Maybe a few graphs? Definitely some spurious Wikipedia links

😆

Oh look – if any of you actually want to understand the issues a discussion piece in the BMJ and a series of responses to the discussion.

http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/31/conflicting-evidence

and then read the read responses

Its actually interesting and you will see how controversial the cochrane review is.

Loads of interestign discussion on the BMJ site with people of all persuasions. I found two pieces from consultants in emergency medicine – one pro one anti

Teej do you not see that your behaviour here is not about the helmet debate, it’s gone much further than that, it’s about you. Please step away from the keyboard and think about the reality of what is going on here.

muahahaha ha haaa haaa!

😆

I struggle with long sentences but it’s worth noting that Dr Ian Walker, the psychologist who carried out the research into the effect helmets have on driver behaviour, is a supporter of helmets for children. He’s not advocating compulsion, he just thinks they’re sensible:

I’d always recommend helmets for children, whose accidents are slow-speed falls in the absence of traffic. But for adults, who travel at higher speeds, often in the presence of motor vehicles, we will never have a 100% reliable answer about whether they decrease or increase risk. In the interests of full disclosure, I very rarely wear a helmet myself. What you do is your own decision. Just make that decision is based on your reading of the evidence rather than guesswork, that’s all I’m asking.

To Wear Or Not to Wear (and Is That Even the Right Question?): Ian Walker on Cycle Helmets

His comments about lower speed accidents in the absence of traffic would also seem to apply to the majority of accidents in mountain biking.

Well, as the data sets show your son is statistically more likely to be eaten out on the trails by a crocodile than fall off and hit his head, i’d not bother with a helmet. Furthermore the average child is more likely to take more risks wearing a helment which of course must cover your son. Lastly as the research does not prove helmets work, they evidently don’t as testified by many on here.

But of course as a parent you may want to ingore all that and buy a helmet as suggested by a few on here.

Teej do you not see that your behaviour here is not about the helmet debate, it’s gone much further than that, it’s about you. Please step away from the keyboard and think about the reality of what is going on here.

Put in a much more eloquent way than I managed.

If the OP’s still reading (doubtful) then I have one piece of advice that may already have been covered (apologies but I can’t be bothered trawling through all that s*i* to check)

Helmets on kids are definitely dangerous… when they’re not on a bike.

There was a case somewhere where a kid rode to the park, left his helmet on and was strangled / hanged when the helmet / straps got caught in some play equipment.

So if you are buying a helmet for them (on which subject I have nothing to add), make sure they are removed for non-cycling activities.

Oh yes its clear what is going on here.

I give some uncontentious and good advice about how to chose a helmet discussing fit and so on

Make informed choices – but be informed and above all else if you are going to use a helmet get one that fits properly( not using a “retention system” to take up slack) You should not be able to get a little finger between the shell and the head at any point. a helmet that is too big with a “retention system” to take up slack is virtually useless – TRL who are very pro helmet even say this.

TandemJeremy – Member

But before getting sidetracked please note FIT is all – do not get one big enough to grow into, do not get one with a one size fits all shell. do not rely on a cradle to take up slack a

Someone else makes a series of comments about the efficiency of helmets that I try to add to by making this fairly uncontentious statement

this (helmets preventing injury) is has not been shown at all. Some evidence points that way, some does not.

I then am subject to a series of pejorative ad personal attacks based on a lack of understanding of the data and a total misrepresentation of my position. I show some of the criticisms (published in peer reviewed journals and on the BMJ website) showing the debate over the cochrane review

I ask that people look at the evidence in total and make informed decisions on this.

But on this forum no one is allowed to question the efficiency of helmets. Too many folk on here uncritically accept any data that shows reductions in injury and dismiss by reflex any data that shows no reductions in injury. Anyone who questions the efficincy of helmets is dismsissed a s a crank

Yes I should prerhaps not get sucked in – but I find it very hard to let teh dangerous and false positions adopted by some go by without challenge.

I merely stick to my consistent position. The actual evidence on helmet efficiency is dubious. the research is often flawedd and contradictory. Too many people have entrenched positions.

Open debate is good, Shouting down people is not becuse they slay your sacred cow is not.

His comments about lower speed accidents in the absence of traffic would also seem to apply to the majority of accidents in mountain biking.

Yup – I think that the arguments against helmet-wearing are weaker for mtbing and for child cyclists.

Anyway, I used to fall off my bike all the time when I was a kid, and I didn’t wear a helmet. I’m not convinced that 5 year olds do much risk compensation…