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

Dermot Illogical · 11-09-2013 3:58pm

monkeybutter wrote: »

Nah, I want to see his point of view. Do you have a point of view yourself there?

Sure do. I don't believe that cycling in normal conditions is so unsafe as to require protection beyond that provided by a good chamois.
I also like the wind in my hair.

I don't mind anyone else wearing a lid, as it's none of my business. I dislike being told what to do by helmet advocates, but don't mind hearing their views as long as they aren't trying to be the boss of me.

It's all about freedom.

CramCycle · 11-09-2013 4:02pm

monkeybutter wrote: »

If you drove a car would you chose one with abs, seat belts and air bags or one without any of these?

I have driven many classic cars with several of these missing, the seatbelt is designed to protect the dashbard from damage by you in a collision in many instances of classic cars and would cut you in half alot of the time

monkeybutter wrote: »

Just trying to see the logic behind not wearing one.

Sometimes during the summer when it's hot I will not wear one.

But I have never come up with a logical reason not to wear one the rest of the year other than I don't feel like it or they look gay or I didn't want to have to bring one around after locking the bike up somewhere.

Rotational spinal/neck injury, I would use one if I was concerned about wether I could have an open casket at my funeral or not but in that situation I wouldn't really care that much.

hardCopy · 11-09-2013 4:08pm

monkeybutter wrote: »

Would you choose the same car with optional safety features or without?

Would you drive a car without a helmet?

monkeybutter · 11-09-2013 4:12pm

hardCopy wrote: »

Would you drive a car without a helmet?

Yes because of the other safety equipment.

Would I be safer with a helmet on though? Probably yeah as long as it didn't block my view.

hardCopy · 11-09-2013 4:15pm

monkeybutter wrote: »

Yes because of the other safety equipment.

Would I be safer with a helmet on though? Probably yeah as long as it didn't block my view.

Why wouldn't you use every available safety aid?

monument · 11-09-2013 4:15pm

monkeybutter wrote: »

Yes because of the other safety equipment.

Would I be safer with a helmet on though? Probably yeah as long as it didn't block my view.

You have no other safety equipment while walking, so why don't you wear a helmet?

doozerie · 11-09-2013 4:17pm

monkeybutter wrote:

I wouldn't choose a car without abs, seat belts etc.

If it's hot I will sometimes go for the cooler option yeah. I'm choosing comfort. On a day like today I'd go with a helmet.

Presumably then you are happy that there is no contradiction in those two choices on your part. So why does your question to Seweryn seem to imply that his making the same choices as you would be somehow hypocritical?

monkeybutter · 11-09-2013 4:18pm

monument wrote: »

You have no other safety equipment while walking, so why don't you wear a helmet?

You are making a logical point. Maybe I should wear a helmet when out walking. There's no logical reason not to.

monkeybutter · 11-09-2013 4:19pm

doozerie wrote: »

Presumably then you are happy that there is no contradiction in those two choices on your part. So why does your question to Seweryn seem to imply that his making the same choices as you would be somehow hypocritical?

I'm clearly not, I had a reason for my choice. Is he not wearing one based on comfort?

doozerie · 11-09-2013 4:45pm

monkeybutter wrote:

I'm clearly not, I had a reason for my choice. Is he not wearing one based on comfort?

I'm well confused now.

You say you don't wear a helmet sometimes - fair enough, that's your choice, and mine too on occasion as it happens.

You give reasons such as "you don't feel like it", "it looks gay", and "you don't want to have to carry it" - fine, at least one of those choices has me scratching my head but that hardly matters as you didn't even have to provide reasons in the first place.

Now you are apparently asking/challenging someone else to provide their reasons for making the same choice - why? Is this one of those "my reasons are bigger than your reasons" discussions?

NeedMoreGears · 11-09-2013 4:55pm

My own approach to wearing a helmet is much the same as Doozerie's above.

I generally wear one except

a). On short spins down to the shops or whatever (despite the fact that I can hit 35-40kph just by freewheeling down the hill)

b). when I'm not cycling

c). on the turbo

Mostly it's force of habit combined with my view that on balance it will reduce injuries in certain relatively low energy impacts. It also tends to put me in the right frame of mind from a safety perspective - much the same as putting on a seat belt and checking the mirrors when I get into a car (yeah I know helmets and seat belts are not necessarily directly comparable).

Having said that, I doubt a helmet will do a lot for me in a high speed collision with a motor vehicle. If others want to wear one/not wear one, it's up to them.

Seweryn · 11-09-2013 6:34pm

monkeybutter wrote: »

Would you choose the same car with optional safety features or without?

If both cars costs the same then I possibly would, otherwise I am not sure and I wouldn't care much. I didn't want to go that route really. My point was that driving is more likely to cause head injuries than cycling, so if you wear a helmet on your bike then doing it so when driving makes even more sense.

monkeybutter wrote: »

Would I be safer with a helmet on though? Probably yeah as long as it didn't block my view.

You probably would, and there are helmets designed for drivers. Why they are not popular? Why you can't order one with your new car? Surely, it is in nobody's interest to tell us that driving is deadly dangerous.

Amazingfun · 12-09-2013 12:46am

My 2cents:

I'm a long time cyclist in Dublin CC, and have never worn a helmet. Like many others, I feel both speed and awareness of surroundings are things that factor in to safety on the road, and being that I am a female over 40 now, I tend not to cycle like a speed-demon young one, lol, so that is in my favor.

I've never had a problem (yet!) that wasn't handled by slowing down and/or looking ahead/around and anticipating the idiocy of others. That last one has saved me more times than I can count at this stage! I think my scariest moments have come mainly from Bus Drivers who swerve into bike lanes too quickly sometimes, but I've managed to stay alive and unscathed so far.

**Someone above mentioned the 'wind in the hair' thing. I admit this remains one of cycling greatest pleasures for me as I have hair down to the middle of my back and I often use my morning cycle as a replacement for a hair dryer, haha....in the good weather that is!

tomasrojo · 12-09-2013 12:57am

Raam wrote: »

Does wearing a helmet not make it safer if you fall, even a little bit? And those who advocate not wearing one, is it a safety thing or a style thing or a macho man thing or what? Or is there some evidence that a helmet doesnt actually give you any protection or even that wearing one could be dangerous in itself.

On the basis of what I consider the better evidence (the population-level data for head injury rates in jurisdictions that have raised helmet-wearing rapidly over a few years), I have concluded that helmet-wearing doesn't raise or diminish your chances of a serious head injury very much. A helmet is an object approximately the size of your head, so it is quite an encumbrance when you're off the bike.

So I stopped wearing one after Dorothy Robinson's studies started appearing in the scientific literature. It was around that time that I came across the data for the relative risk of cycling compared with other common activities, and realised that how I felt before I was exposed to a lot of road safety campaigns was actually correct: utility cycling is not dangerous.

I don't "advocate not wearing one", but I think the whole subject is a waste of time and energy that could be better spent on strategies to diminish the likelihood of bike-motor vehicle collisions in the first place, which is actually what most people who wear helmets are afraid of and are trying to mitigate.

Raam · 12-09-2013 8:09am

I've said it before but the reason I wear one stems from seeing a friend knocked down in a low speed accident and going over to help him and being acme to see through to his skull where he hit the kerb. This from the days before helmets were common place.

I don't actually believe that a helmet will take effect in the vast majority of incidents that might befall a cyclist but there might just be the one that it does.

Besides the lip on the front of mine keeps the rain out of my eyes.

Wishbone Ash · 12-09-2013 8:55am

Amazingfun wrote: »

I tend not to cycle like a speed-demon young one, lol, so that is in my favor

You assume that cycling safely will protect you from being involved in an accident but unfortunately it doesn't prevent others from being careless. I was brought down twice in 2012 by the actions of careless motorists and I was cycling in a safe manner on both occasions.

RayCun · 12-09-2013 1:23pm

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

Having said that, I doubt a helmet will do a lot for me in a high speed collision with a motor vehicle.

I doubt that too. If a car drives straight into you at 60 km/h no helmet in the world is going to help. But my guess is that a lot of cases where a bike crash is caused by a car, what happens is that a car pulls out in front of a bike, or overtakes too close and clips the bike's handlebars, or the bike is doored, and so on. So the collision the helmet is protecting you in is you vs the road/kerb/car, at the speed you were cycling.

galwaycyclist · 12-09-2013 1:42pm

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

You assume that cycling safely will protect you from being involved in an accident but unfortunately it doesn't prevent others from being careless. I was brought down twice in 2012 by the actions of careless motorists and I was cycling in a safe manner on both occasions.

Uh no she doesn't appear to assume anything of the kind. If you read the rest of her post.

Amazingfun wrote: »

I've never had a problem (yet!) that wasn't handled by slowing down and/or looking ahead/around and anticipating the idiocy of others. That last one has saved me more times than I can count at this stage! I think my scariest moments have come mainly from Bus Drivers who swerve into bike lanes too quickly sometimes, but I've managed to stay alive and unscathed so far.

**Someone above mentioned the 'wind in the hair' thing. I admit this remains one of cycling greatest pleasures for me as I have hair down to the middle of my back and I often use my morning cycle as a replacement for a hair dryer, haha....in the good weather that is!

She is clearly talking about cycling defensively. Cycling safely, as you put it, could imply the cyclist as a passive participant following certain "rules" regardless of the situation. How do you know you were cycling "safely"?

droidus · 12-09-2013 1:54pm

RayCun wrote: »

I doubt that too. If a car drives straight into you at 60 km/h no helmet in the world is going to help. But my guess is that a lot of cases where a bike crash is caused by a car, what happens is that a car pulls out in front of a bike, or overtakes too close and clips the bike's handlebars, or the bike is doored, and so on. So the collision the helmet is protecting you in is you vs the road/kerb/car, at the speed you were cycling.

The apocryphal German study estimated a reduction of serious head injury of 80% if appropriate helmets were worn in cars.

RayCun · 12-09-2013 2:04pm

Sounds apocryphal all right. Between seat belts, airbags, and roll cages, drivers already have a lot of protection in low-to-mid speed collisions. How many collisions are going to fall in the sweet spot between "gets past all other safety devices" and "might as well be wearing a hat"?
Or by "appropriate helmet" do they mean "tougher than a motorcycle helmet", and by "reduction in serious head injuries" do they mean "let's ignore everything that happened below the neck"?

droidus · 12-09-2013 2:48pm

That study does exist IIRC, I think I saw a link to it here. Regardless it seems that a lot of people think that mandatory helmets for drivers could save lives and prevent injury

'Helmets would be substantially more effective than many vehicle design options"

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/car-helmets-atsb.html

Some more here:

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/05/driving-without-dying-helmets-for.html

Mandatory helmets for drivers?

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/18301/maryland-considering-mandatory-helmets-for-drivers/

It seems to me that every argument that can be made for cycling with a helmet can also be made for driving with a helmet.

Dermot Illogical · 12-09-2013 2:51pm

RayCun wrote: »

Between seat belts, airbags, and roll cages, drivers already have a lot of protection in low-to-mid speed collisions. How many collisions are going to fall in the sweet spot between "gets past all other safety devices" and "might as well be wearing a hat"?

Still....what harm can it do to wear one? If there's any possibility that it could help, how could anyone object?

RayCun · 12-09-2013 3:03pm

droidus wrote: »

That study does exist IIRC, I think I saw a link to it here. Regardless it seems that a lot of people think that mandatory helmets for drivers could save lives and prevent injury

'Helmets would be substantially more effective than many vehicle design options"

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/car-helmets-atsb.html

Almost as effective as driver airbags, and more effective than side impact airbags and improved restraints.

droidus wrote: »

Some more here:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/05/driving-without-dying-helmets-for.html

Same study

droidus wrote: »

Mandatory helmets for drivers?

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/18301/maryland-considering-mandatory-helmets-for-drivers/

This article was posted as an April Fool's joke.

droidus wrote: »

It seems to me that every argument that can be made for cycling with a helmet can also be made for driving with a helmet.

Cars come equipped with a wide range of safety measures that are more effective than helmets to protect the driver in case of collisions. Bikes don't, it's helmets or nothing.

CramCycle · 12-09-2013 3:19pm

RayCun wrote: »

Cars come equipped with a wide range of safety measures that are more effective than helmets to protect the driver in case of collisions. Bikes don't, it's helmets or nothing.

Cars come with a wide range of safety measures that have been shown to be useful/effective over time. Helmets for cyclists are one of the only claimed safety devices for bicycles but for some reason has little or no known evidence showing them to be either useful or safer in comparison to not wearing a helmet.

tomasrojo · 12-09-2013 3:21pm

Well, in addition to helmets, there are also the options of spine protection and "air bags" (Hövding).

Robotic exoskeletons will be next.

RayCun · 12-09-2013 3:28pm

CramCycle wrote: »

Cars come with a wide range of safety measures that have been shown to be useful/effective over time. Helmets for cyclists are one of the only claimed safety devices for bicycles but for some reason has little or no known evidence showing them to be either useful or safer in comparison to not wearing a helmet.

Two things
1. a lot of money is spent on testing cars and their safety devices with crash test dummies etc. The same amount will never be spent on testing bike helmets
2. the real world tests we have of car safety devices - car crashes - are subject to a lot of investigation. Any crash that does serious damage to a car is recorded, and over time you can see how many of these serious crashes resulted in serious injuries. Bike crashes aren't recorded in anything like as much detail. If someone gets wiped out by a truck an accident report will get filed. If someone is in a collision and is seriously injured, a report will be filed. If someone is in a collision and walks away, 99% of the time no report will be filed.
So the only data available is necessarily vague, "there was this amount of cycling, and this many head injuries. Now there is this amount of cycling and this many head injuries". Attributing any change, up or down, to helmets, would be crazy when there are so many other factors that aren't being measured.

droidus · 12-09-2013 4:00pm

RayCun wrote: »

Quote:
This article was posted as an April Fool's joke.

Ha. Sorry. But take a look round, this has been seriously proposed.

droidus · 12-09-2013 4:20pm

+

"Bike helmets make way more sense for motorists than cyclists.

If you are hit by a car while on a bike, a helmet will do very little to spare your brain as it decelerates from, say, 60kph to 0 in 3cm of foam.

If you are hit by a car while driving, a bike helmet will be much more effective because its role in deceleration occurs after the car's crumple zone (70cm+) has dissipated much of the force. That means when you smash your head against the windscreen or crumpled canopy, the velocity of your head is much much lower than in a car/bike collision.

An interesting study here that found bike helmets for motorists could reduce serious head injuries by up to 40% - much more effective than airbags.
http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/atsb160.html"

RayCun · 12-09-2013 4:51pm

As I said, in a head-on collision between bike and car a helmet will do no good. A helmet is going to be useful (if ever) when your head collides with the ground at cycling speed.

That study in the link compares the efficacy of driver helmets with padding the interior of the car, side airbags, and improved restraints. It's the same one referred to in one of your links a few posts up. It does not say helmets would be more effective than steering wheel airbags.

droidus · 13-09-2013 9:22am

RayCun wrote: »

As I said, in a head-on collision between bike and car a helmet will do no good. A helmet is going to be useful (if ever) when your head collides with the ground at cycling speed.

That study in the link compares the efficacy of driver helmets with padding the interior of the car, side airbags, and improved restraints. It's the same one referred to in one of your links a few posts up. It does not say helmets would be more effective than steering wheel airbags.

Er... no. its a different study by the same people. The first one was published in 2004, the second in 1997.

Im also surprised you were able to find such a conclusive reply to claim that was never made.

The fact is that most cars don't have curtain airbags or padded interiors. Helmets are both the cheapest and most effective solution in these cases.

The estimated benefit for protective headwear (in the form of a helmet) is between $380 million (assuming a fully airbag equipped fleet) and $500 million (assuming no vehicles with airbags). Estimated harm benefits are also given for other protective measures such as air bags alone, both front and side-mounted bags, and improved seat belt systems and penetration resistant side window glazing. The benefits are presented in terms of the savings per vehicle for two discount rates, 5 and 7 per cent. At the former discount rate the estimated benefit in savings of head and face Harm are $154 per car for padding of the upper interior, and $476 and $626 for protective headwear for cars with and without airbags.

RayCun · 13-09-2013 9:50am

The study
http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/atsb160.html
is from 1997

the report
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/car-helmets-atsb.html
was published in 2004, but as far as I can see is referencing the same study.
Both Australian sources, and both compare helmets to interior padding, side airbags and improved restraints.

I haven't read the full study, but the abstract and executive summary (and the text of the report in the second link) are clearly comparing helmets to padding

Results indicate that there is considerable potential for reducing the severity and consequences of impacts to the head by padding the upper interior of the passenger compartment. The total annual benefit of this measure, in terms of reduced HARM, would be about $123 million, or $154 per car (with a 5% discount rate). However, an even greater level of protection would be provided by the use of protective headwear.

If there is a report somewhere that says driver helmets are more effective than steering column airbags, I'd like to see that stated explicitly.

RayCun · 13-09-2013 9:52am

side-note, but there is a big difference between design features - airbags, crumple zones, ABS - and features that require behaviour changes - seatbelts, speed limits, helmets - to be effective.

magicbastarder · 13-09-2013 10:10am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnyhkBU1yaw

Iwannahurl · 24-09-2013 10:15am

Government report on children's physical activity and health avoids helmet hysteria: http://www.growingup.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/Conference_2012/GUI_KF_A4_2_obesity.pdf

bambergbike · 24-09-2013 11:34am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Government report on children's physical activity and health avoids helmet hysteria:http://www.growingup.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/Conference_2012/GUI_KF_A4_2_obesity.pdf

While unfortunately also avoiding the entire topic of (active?) travel ... surely a report on physical activity among 13 year olds should report back on how they get around the place? Biking, walking, public transport (which usually involves some walking or biking) or being driven?

Iwannahurl · 24-09-2013 2:55pm

The above report focuses on key findings based on preliminary figures.

The GUI project has looked at school travel in at least one previous report: http://www.growingup.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Second_Child_Cohort_Reports/Growing_Up_in_Ireland_-_Overweight_and_Obesity_Among_9-Year-Olds.pdf

Iwannahurl · 25-09-2013 8:01pm

Brief case report in the New England Journal of Medicine (2010) showing how a patient in the Netherlands suffered severe problems with walking due to Parkinson's disease but retained his ability to cycle. The NEJM felt obliged to include a disclaimer with regard to the fact that the patient was not wearing a helmet: "The patient is not wearing a safety helmet because in the Netherlands, wearing a safety helmet is neither required by law nor customary."

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMicm0810287

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaY3gz5tJSk

Foyler · 25-09-2013 8:35pm

Thanks for the link and vid IWH, very interesting and a welcome change from a lot of the BS in this thread.

Iwannahurl · 02-10-2013 8:24pm

Found these while looking for something cycling-related in Limerick. The second is the by now ubquitous politician's tick-box exercise. Still funny though, imo.

<snip>

Seweryn · 02-10-2013 8:48pm

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Found these while looking for something cycling-related in Limerick. The second is the by now ubquitous politician's tick-box exercise. Still funny though, imo.

"Some drivers don't know how to pass cyclists. It's a big safety concern..."

Who issued them driving licences in the first place?

Beasty · 03-10-2013 7:34am

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Found these while looking for something cycling-related in Limerick. The second is the by now ubquitous politician's tick-box exercise. Still funny though, imo.

<snip>

Sorry but the copying of newspaper articles and other copyrighted material is not permitted on Boards. You are permitted to link to an online version (if one exists)

tomasrojo · 29-11-2013 4:26pm

Interesting development in Queensland. May go nowhere, of course.

Inquiry into Cycling Issues: Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee
November 2013

The Committee is appreciative of the fact that bicycle helmets, that meet national standards and are correctly fitted, provide some protection against head, brain, and facial injuries and is therefore of the view that the use of helmets should be encouraged. However the Committee is not convinced there is sufficient evidence of the safety outcomes of compulsory helmet wearing to justify the mandating of helmet wearing for all cyclists of all ages regardless of the situational risk.

The Committee is concerned that the introduction of mandatory helmet laws may have had an unintended, adverse impact on cycling participation rates in Queensland and therefore the overall health of the state. It also believes there is sufficient evidence provided by the Northern Territory example that a relaxation of mandatory helmet laws in lower risk situations (such as cycling on footpaths and on dedicated cycle paths), does not inevitably reduce the safety of cycling.
The Committee is therefore of the view that relaxing mandatory helmet laws in specific circumstances is likely to increase cycling participation rates with a range of associated health benefits and economic benefits in tourism areas. The Committee also believes that a relaxation of mandatory helmet laws may assist in normalising the perception of cyclists by motorists.
The Committee is therefore making a number of recommendations regarding relaxation of the mandatory helmet laws in specific circumstances.

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/THLGC/2013/INQ-CYC/rp-39-29Nov13.pdf

I think it's getting a negative response in official circles so far.

Iwannahurl · 12-12-2013 11:47pm

Found a reference to this on the ETSC website. It's a cycle helmet report published by MAPFRE, a Spanish insurance company.

http://www.fundacionmapfre.org/fundacion/en/road-safety/research/cyclists-helmet-research.jsp

Helmets, for cyclists but not for pedestrians or car occupants, were also mentioned in a recent road safety campaign.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2013/Vulnerable-Road-Users-Represent-70-Of-All-Brain-Injuries-As-A-Result-Of-A-Road-Collision/

NeedMoreGears · 13-12-2013 1:53pm

I've never heard of the Elvik or Corchane studies referenced on pages 7 and 8. They do (at least as summarised by MAPFRE) seem to suggest wearing a helmet is a good idea in terms of head injury reduction (possibly at the cost of increased neck injury).

Any of the members of the science community able to comment on the validity of the findings or otherwise?

I'd be grateful for comments regarding the injury reduction claims only ; i.e. not those claims re reduced participation rates, visibility issues etc etc

tomasrojo · 13-12-2013 2:46pm

I haven't looked at the PDF, and I don't have time, but Cochrane is presumaby the Cochrane Review, which purported to take an unbiased look at the best available evidence and summarise it. Unfortunately, the authors of the review decided that their own work and work very similar to it constituted the best available evidence, which means it's really rather lop-sided, consisting only of case-control studies.

Elvik is Rune Elvik, who is a distinguised researcher, from what I've read. He actually takes the Cochrane Review to task for omitting good-quality research and including poor-quality research in that very paper referenced. Of all the studies done in this area, Elvik's is the only one that can't be understood with undergraduate-standard statistics. For that reason, I can't comment on it, and neither, it seems, can many of the researchers in this area. I haven't seen any attempt to call it into question or discredit it.

If you take Elvik as being broadly true, I guess you can summarise it as:
* helmets have a modest protective effect, at the expense of increased risk of neck injury
* soft-shell helmets don't work as well as hard-shell helmets (this being based on the protective effect diminishing over time, and disappearing if you take later data in isolation)

Something recent about Elvik:
http://sciencenordic.com/bike-helmets-are-less-effective-we-think?utm_source=ScienceNordic.com+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6d0875d123-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3bb7f89ffc-6d0875d123-239715405

Not sure whether that's just a journalist playing catch-up on the research from a few years ago.

Unknown Soldier · 13-12-2013 6:34pm

I choose too wear one, bar the short trip through the estate to the shops.
I do it for the same reasons I wear a seat belt when driving and a hard hat when on site. There are a myriad of circumstances on a bike, in a car, on site, when nothing will save my life but there are those small instances where they all might make the possibility of a serious injury slightly less so. Depending on the type of accident, obviously.

Gorman700 · 16-12-2013 1:18pm

How do lads find them uncomfortable and heavy, they adjust and are light as ****!! People are stupid not to wear them, try leather in your head off a step at 10mph, never mind 30!

Chips Lovell · 16-12-2013 1:19pm

Gorman700 wrote: »

...try leather in your head off a step at 10mph...

If I do it, should I put it on YouTube?

CramCycle · 16-12-2013 1:28pm

Gorman700 wrote: »

How do lads find them uncomfortable and heavy, they adjust and are light as ****!! People are stupid not to wear them, try leather in your head off a step at 10mph, never mind 30!

MOD VOICE: Please read the thread fully before commenting, there have been several opinons and reasons given for both sides of the argument on the yay or nay to wearing helmets. Do not respond to this post in thread, please PM me if you wish to discuss.

Seweryn · 16-12-2013 1:43pm

Gorman700 wrote: »

People are stupid not to wear them, try leather in your head off a step at 10mph, never mind 30!

Do you also put your helmet on when running or walking at 10mph?

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

Comments

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