Helmets - the definitive thread.. ** Mod Note - Please read Opening Post **

I have to say the person who replied with the Blackadder GIF is a genius

Alas the police have pulled the post, with several of the firt few responses along the lines of xenophobia, anti cyclist but one I hadn't even guessed would come was the sexual deviancy towards the police officer, FFS people, be better.

More technically, it was a significant sum of money and by making a reduction, which won't greatly affect the person as most payouts are extortionate, it's reasonable to assume the judge was stopping the defendants from coming back again and wasting months more time before payout. A legal friend once told me this was common as it stopped one side being stupid and complaining as if it went back it would potentially cost more and in other cases it stopped appeals in criminal cases as it could actually end up far worse second time around. I am not a lawyer and had a few beers on board when he explained it to me so am probably missing a bit. This does not make me feel better about the terminology used. To all of us it sounds bad, in layman's terms, the judge awarded him 3M, and told a story to stop it getting cut back later.

You have to wonder who is in charge of the social media for these guys, TJV don't care about brain injuries, they care about sponsorship, sponsors care about positive feedback mainly from amateur racers who wil pay stupid money for a lid that protection wise does nowt much more than a Lid from LIDL for 25euro. Someone there should have said, they want the most aero and / or stylish, because that's the market. There are no atypical casual commuter cyclists paying attention to the lids they are wearing so don't market to them.

Even that soundbite, we don't care if they buy someone else's helmet so long as they buy one, only the foolish believe that.

Not sure if there is a direct source but you can pull the data from multiple sources. HSE and Drugs and Alcohol Ireland have published data showing head injuries in hospitals at being between 25% and 40% related to alcohol intake. Even at the lower end of the scale, that is 500 TBIs per year relating to alcohol intake. Compared to the number of cycling injuries reported in total over a 3 year period which, in hospitalisations, in total, not just TBIs was less than the alcohol related TBIs for one year.

There are of course, other issues with this, most likely more drinkers than cyclists, but do we include youths, is it one session is equivalent to one spin, are cyclists more or less likely to not report because many already wear helmets, do many drinkers not report because they are too inebriated and so on.

Long story short, well over 1/4 of all A&E admissions are alcohol related in general, cycling in an urban A&E (presumably very biased) looks like it's roughly 3% but out of that 3%, some left before being even treated, 86 were reported as soft tissue damage and all of this misses the number of hours and euros saved from the HSE by regular cycling, compared to the cost that alcohol consumption brings to the HSE.

This said, as both an avid cyclist and drinker, I think it is a fair assumption that TBIs aside, cycling is better for your health than drinking. One leads to an increase in the cost on the HSE and puts it under strain, the other reduces the cost on the HSE.