# Do Cycle Helmets Pose Any Safety Risks?



## NigC (22 Apr 2010)

Firstly, let me say I always wear a cycle helmet and unless something drastic happens, I always will 

My question relates to something in the back of my mind that I just can't remember  It's something to do with cycle helmets and somebody questioning their safety but that's all I can remember.

So does anybody know anything about what I'm talking about or did I just dream it up?

Please help this old fool with an extremely bad memory 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

*In Conclusion* (for me anyway).

The safety aspect of wearing a helmet is self evident - smacking your head against tarmac, kerbs etc. etc. is never a good thing, but if you're going to do it, you're going to have a lot easier time of it with a helmet on your head.


I'll try to summarise the cons of helmet wearing:

In an accident it might be possible to suffer some kind of "rotational" injury.
Research suggests (Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm) drivers allow more room for non-helmetted cyclists than those with helmets.
Helmets can restrict your abilities to look over your shoulder.
They're no use when faced with a 40ft artic/bus/other big vehicle.
Not wearing a helmet makes you ride more cautiously and therefore more safely.
*My Opinion*
Yes, I'm allowed as it's my post  This is what I'm going to do:

Carry on wearing a helmet as I always have!


Why?

Because I feel more comfortable with it on.
Because it reduces the number of ways I can be killed while cycling.
Because I tell my 7-year old daughter she must wear one.
Because I don't care if I look like a prat wearing it.
Bacause I already ride cautiously (I believe).


----------



## Mark_Robson (22 Apr 2010)

Do a forum search or check room 101. 
Admin or mods, pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese lock this now!!!!!!!


----------



## NigC (22 Apr 2010)

Hmmmm, I just did a quick search for "cycle helmets" and found it was a bit of a "touchy" subject. Wasn't expecting that  But I'm at work and don't have time to scour a million posts for the one piece of information I'm interested in:

Why is there such a debate? What potential risk to they pose?

Rather than starting a loooooooooooong debate, perhaps somebody can just fill in the blanks and then lock the thread  All I want to know is enough information to form my own opinion and make my choice


----------



## NigC (22 Apr 2010)

> There are some claims (usually by the stronger anti-compulsionists) that they can cause rotational injuries. I've seen the odd bit of anecdotal evidence, but no credible research.



Aha - that's sounds like exactly the detail I was looking for, thanks 

OK, you can lock it now


----------



## 2Loose (22 Apr 2010)

> There are some claims (usually by the stronger anti-compulsionists) that they can cause rotational injuries. I've seen the odd bit of anecdotal evidence, but no credible research.



...for either side of the argument. 

lock it - NOW!


----------



## NigC (22 Apr 2010)

Damn - I've used other forum software before that allows the original poster to lock their own threads - shame this one doesn't!

MODS where are you????


----------



## Mark_Robson (22 Apr 2010)

Please lock it!!!


----------



## snorri (22 Apr 2010)

snorri runs to check rations in basement nuclear shelter closed since ending of Cold War.


----------



## dondare (22 Apr 2010)

Don't get me started on bicycle helmets....


----------



## BentMikey (22 Apr 2010)

Whatever the case on individual benefits, when there's a mandatory helmet law there's a net cost to society in health terms.


----------



## Bollo (22 Apr 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Whatever the case on individual benefits, when there's a mandatory helmet law there's a net cost to society in health terms.



...and the Doomsday clock clicks another minute towards midnight.....


----------



## yello (22 Apr 2010)

It a very reasonable question and one that can perhaps be answered in greater depth. So I personally see no need to lock the thread unless it descends into an entrenched slanging match. 

I also see no problem in 'the same question' being debated again. After all, there are (understandably) many 'WVM cut me up' type posts on the forum


----------



## dondare (22 Apr 2010)

There has been a study, by the inappropriately named Dr. Walker, on whether cyclists who wear helmets are treated differently by motorists than those without.
He concluded that motorists give less room to helmeted cyclists and therefore are more likely to hit them.
So helmets increase the probability of such an accident happening.

There is also the argument that cyclists with helmets might feel invulnerable and therefore take more risks themselves, thereby increasing the probability of an accident. 

Many cyclists do not wear their helmet correctly anyway, reducing their effectiveness. Some attach lights and cameras to them which might negate their primary function.

The greatest risk is that if they become accepted as being necessary, then they will be made a legal requirement for all types of cycling. 

They also emphasize the dangers of cycling, which in fact are no greater than those of walking; an activity which no-one wears a helmet for. (If anyone wants to dispute this last point, then the gloves are off.)


----------



## SavageHoutkop (22 Apr 2010)

Aside from the 
'discouraging people to cycle'; 
'don't work above xx mph';
'encourages cyclist / other road users to take more risks'
and the
'would you wear a helmet walking down the pavement / as a passenger in a car / insert activity of your choice'

the thing you are looking for is that:

'wearing a cycle helmet can cause rotational injury';
and 
'as your head is bigger / heavier you may hit your head where you wouldn't have if you weren't wearing the helmet / the force at which you hit your head will be greater'.


(note, I wear a helmet and don't necessarily agree with any/all of the above)
(also with what I know of Statistics, which is more than some, I don't think any of the studies that I've looked at are rigourous...)


----------



## Theseus (22 Apr 2010)

SavageHoutkop said:


> (also with what I know of Statistics, which is more than some, I don't think any of the studies that I've looked at are rigourous...)



Indeed, I think the most reasonable summary to the whole debate is "We don't know"

Which is not a sound basis for compulsion.


----------



## upsidedown (22 Apr 2010)

Here we go.......


----------



## Davidc (22 Apr 2010)

Mine prevents the injuries I'd receive from Mrs DC if I didn't wear one!

Apart from that I've seen no reports of any study which is statisticaly valid. I'm waiting. Anecdotal reports from A&E departments, newspapers et al aren't evidence.

They're good for stopping head scrapes on canal towpath bridges as well.


----------



## summerdays (22 Apr 2010)

dondare said:


> There is also the argument that cyclists with helmets might feel invulnerable and therefore take more risks themselves, thereby increasing the probability of an accident.



I didn't wear a helmet today cycling the bike to the LBS for a service and I noticed that I was tending to cycle closer to the kerb on the busier roads - but therefore not necessarily safer. I found my reaction interesting when I realised what I was doing. So it did have an affect but it was a very short distance, so I didn't have long enough to adjust to the non helmet wearing.


----------



## biking_fox (22 Apr 2010)

> I didn't wear a helmet today cycling the bike to the LBS for a service and I noticed that I was tending to cycle closer to the kerb on the busier roads - but therefore not necessarily safer. I found my reaction interesting when I realised what I was doing. So it did have an affect but it was a very short distance, so I didn't have long enough to adjust to the non helmet wearing.



There is definetly a difference between a habitual wearer, not wearing the helmet on one ride, and someone who never wears a helmet, in terms of percieved safety. If you are used to wearing a helmet, then not doing so will feel odd.

There's also a marked difference between compulsion for a population, and individual choice.


----------



## jonny jeez (22 Apr 2010)

Touche said:


> Indeed, *I think the most reasonable summary to the whole debate is "We don't know"*
> 
> Which is *not* a sound basis for compulsion.




+1..A very accutrate summary.

Although interestingly, I draw the *opposite* conclusion... I'm in the "if in doubt, err on the side of caution" camp.....It must be the poker player in me always edging the odds in my favour.

That said, I do notice though that my lid restricts my rear vision a little bit and without it I find it a little easier to throw a good lifesaver. 

I was also once told that a lid will protect you from a fall or impact into a stationary object but will do little to assist against an impact with a moving vehicle. 

I promise myself that i will never find out if this is true. But as I dont know for sure, I wear one just in case...its no bother to me, so why not wear it...only vanity would stop me


----------



## Alan Whicker (22 Apr 2010)

I wear one because when I'm riding, my head's about the same height as a bus mirror.


----------



## Gibbyent (22 Apr 2010)

From my research (surfing the internet) where compulsion has been brought in there has been no significant change in the rate or seriousness of head injuries (in fact a statistically insignificant *increase* has been observed).

So it would appear that they make no difference in a serious incident.

I do wear one due to (uninformed) family presure and in the unlikely case I am involved in a collision it removes any hassles around contributary negligence arguments.

It has protected me from the odd low hanging branch though.


----------



## hackbike 666 (22 Apr 2010)

I wear one because I know BentMikey approves.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (22 Apr 2010)

Alan Whicker said:


> I wear one because when I'm riding, my head's about the same height as a bus mirror.



I step back from bus stops as busses approach (if I'm about to board) for the same reason - once a bus I was on thwacked the sign by the bus stop with his mirror. You notice them more after that...!


----------



## NigC (22 Apr 2010)

Gibbyent said:


> From my research (surfing the internet) where compulsion has been brought in there has been no significant change in the rate or seriousness of head injuries (in fact a statistically insignificant *increase* has been observed).
> 
> So it would appear that they make no difference in a serious incident.
> 
> ...



That makes a lot of sense.

After reading the comments, I'm not going to change my habits. I'll continue wearing it as it just doesn't feel right to not have it (didn't bother with it on a very short trip recently and I felt very vulnerable). And as vanity has never been a problem for me, my protection (however real or not) will continue to win this argument


----------



## hackbike 666 (22 Apr 2010)

SavageHoutkop said:


> I step back from bus stops as busses approach (if I'm about to board) for the same reason - once a bus I was on thwacked the sign by the bus stop with his mirror. You notice them more after that...!




I step back from the pavement or try and keep away from the edge of the pavement as it seems like common sense to me.TIA

You never know if something is going to mount it.



NigC said:


> That makes a lot of sense.
> 
> After reading the comments, I'm not going to change my habits. I'll continue wearing it as it just doesn't feel right to not have it (didn't bother with it on a very short trip recently and I felt very vulnerable). And as vanity has never been a problem for me, my protection (however real or not) will continue to win this argument



You do what you are happy with and which is tried and tested.

There always seems to be a crowd on here who try to change you because they think they are right all the time or know it all and everybody else is stupid and can't think for themselves or have no experience.


----------



## NigC (22 Apr 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> I step back from the pavement or try and keep away from the edge of the pavement as it seems like common sense to me.TIA
> 
> You never know if something is going to mount it.



I always keep well away from the edge whenever I'm walking - on a bike, lorries (with considerate drivers) give you space, but not if you're walking on the path - if you're near the kerb, you can get quite a pull from a lorry doing 40 and hugging the side


----------



## LostBoy (22 Apr 2010)

Reason to wear one:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DfiNZJK96I


Well off road anyway, again not enough conclusive research to prove either way on road.

But like others have mentioned don't feel as ease now without one on.


----------



## jimboalee (22 Apr 2010)

They offer no protection against a 40 tonne artic'.

Nor do they offer protection against a stray Gamma radioactive particle entering the atmosphere.

They do however, protect the wearer against bumping their head on the low doorway lintel at the Bridge Tea Rooms in Bradford on Avon.


----------



## downfader (22 Apr 2010)

OK I promise to bite my lip!


----------



## summerdays (22 Apr 2010)

Ok I shouldn't have posted in this thread ... my helmet broke today... the plastic adjusting strap at the back of the helmet (a Specialized one)... and I know I only bought it last year, possibly in the autumn. So had to go without the helmet coming home this afternoon too.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (22 Apr 2010)

summerdays said:


> ... my helmet broke today... the plastic adjusting strap at the back of the helmet (a Specialized one)... and I know I only bought it last year, possibly in the autumn. So had to go without the helmet coming home this afternoon too.



Mr SHK's specialized also broke a plastic bit (not that one, one connecting the plastic cushiony-things to the helmet) 

Back to the LBS, new helmet handed over, no probs


----------



## coshgirl (22 Apr 2010)

*Helmets...*

Just for the record, I do not wear one and never have done in over 35 years of cycling. Have no intention of even if the UK does end up bringing in MHLs (that's a mandatory helmet law for the uninitiated). I feel perfectly safe without one and moreover feel better able to look around me and am not inclined to follow the herd mentality (as many do).


----------



## Mike! (22 Apr 2010)

As a motorcylist i wear one, if i'm going to hit my head i'd rather have one than not....


----------



## hackbike 666 (22 Apr 2010)

Herd mentality and not personal choice?Thanks for that.I didn't use a helmet for twenty five years and its my choice to use one now.I can think for myself although people on here seem to have trouble understanding that.


----------



## coshgirl (22 Apr 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> Herd mentality and not personal choice?Thanks for that.I didn't use a helmet for twenty five years and its my choice to use one now.I can think for myself although people on here seem to have trouble understanding that.


 And it's my choice not to Hack. I just notice that it seems lots of people are out there in helmets and hi-viz who haven't got a clue how to ride a bike!


----------



## hackbike 666 (22 Apr 2010)

Actually I have a reason for wearing a helmet and it's because im a bald idiot and I feel happier with it on.Notice I didn't wear a helmet for twenty five years.
Sorry ratty today feel like shyte.
Your choice cosh I have no problem with that.I never questioned non helmet wearers ever.


----------



## Mark_Robson (22 Apr 2010)

coshgirl said:


> and am not inclined to follow the herd mentality (as many do).


So everyone who wears a helmet or high viz is a sheep and incapable of original thought?
Aw well, your entitled to your opinion I suppose, or do I ? Oh please someone think for me !!!


----------



## coshgirl (22 Apr 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> So everyone who wears a helmet or high viz is a sheep and incapable of original thought?
> Aw well, your entitled to your opinion I suppose, or do I ? Oh please someone think for me !!!


That's not what I said Mark and you know that. All I did say is that there are a number of cyclists out there who've 'got all the gear' as it were, but who don't seem to have a clue as to how to actually ride a bike safely on busy roads. The latter I believe is far more important in terms of safety than wearing hi-viz and helmets, but unfortunately people are taught that cycle safety comes down to those two factors pure and simple. Something I believe is actually very dangerous for all of us


----------



## Wheeledweenie (22 Apr 2010)

I wear a helmet because I want to but I am against mandatory helmet laws. I also wear high-vis because I want to but, again, I don't think it should be compulsory. 

I have a live and let live attitude when it comes to adults cycling but, going back to the op, I've yet to hear a persuasive argument about helmets adding to your injuries in the case of an argument. 

I too have heard the rotational injury thing but, given that when I came off on the road I scraped my helmet and not my head, I still wear mine.


----------



## Mark_Robson (22 Apr 2010)

coshgirl said:


> That's not what I said Mark and you know that. All I did say is that there are a number of cyclists out there who've 'got all the gear' as it were, but who don't seem to have a clue as to how to actually ride a bike safely on busy roads. The latter I believe is far more important in terms of safety than wearing hi-viz and helmets, but unfortunately people are taught that cycle safety comes down to those two factors pure and simple. Something I believe is actually very dangerous for all of us


Point taken, but as cycling becomes more popular you are going to get more inexperienced cyclists on the road. Everyone has to learn and everyone has been where they are today, so it's pointless being elitist. I think that the fact that they have all the gear is a good starting point, and hopefully they will stick with it and improve their cycling skills. 
Maybe it's time that bike shops offered a free copy of cycle craft with every new bike purchase or maybe local councils should run more beginners courses for budding commuters.


----------



## Captain (22 Apr 2010)

I always ride wearing my helmet.
I am a motorcyclist at heart so I always have to put on my jacket, gloves and helmet even if it's hot out. I did take off the other day forgetting to put on my helmet and gloves, 10 metres down the road I stopped and turned around to go get them because I just feel quite uncomfortable without. Even just maneuvering a motorbike it feels weird to me. 

@coshgirl: I don't think "herd mentality" has even a jot of influence over the issue, in fact I find it kind of insulting. 
To me it's an obvious choice but the explanation is best used on gloves - if I fall at speed I am likely to try to arrest my fall by throwing my hands out in front of me. They will get sandpapered pretty quickly if they stay under me and I would like to avoid it. A friend fell off his motorbike at 10mph and messed up his hands pretty badly and even lost part of a tatoo on his shoulder because he had given his gloves and jacket to his gilfriend riding pillion, she was perfectly fine.

In conclusion wear one if you want, don't if you don't want, anecdotal evidence is the only evidence we have (that I know of) so far.


----------



## coshgirl (22 Apr 2010)

@captain, I get your point but it's just that 'the herd' have been led to believe that cycle helmets offer far more protection than they actually do. And in no way can they be compared to motorcycle helmets either. Anyway, no insult intended, merely stating what I see on a daily basis. And my personal opinion is that safety efforts would be far more effectively directed in changing people's behaviour on the road - through better training for cyclists and drivers alike. Along with better and segregated cycle lanes. Alas that will cost the government money, so far easier to put all the onus for cycle safety onto cyclists themselves...


----------



## Captain (22 Apr 2010)

Indeed, Better education is required. 
Even the basic training (CBT) that moped riders are required to achieve would give most cyclists and motorists a much better understanding of eachothers needs for the carriageway. 

Me and friend noticed a little while ago how different our riding styles on the road were because his similar experience of biking is childhood paper rounds whereas mine is riding a slow moped. this means I look around myself more often take up a stronger position on the road, signal using road positioning as-well-as arm signals, etc..

Of course the issue is really about what a helmet will protect you from.

Does anyone have any info on the supposed "rotational injuries"?


----------



## coshgirl (22 Apr 2010)

@captain Bang on about looking round. I'm always checking over my shoulder and always indicate my movements. There seem to be a fair few cyclists out there that do neither. I believe there's a site where you can find all you'll ever need to know on cycle helmets and more if you're so inclined - www.cyclehelmets.org


----------



## Mark_Robson (22 Apr 2010)

Noooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## hackbike 666 (22 Apr 2010)

I wear Hi-Viz because i got fed up with the amount of SMIDSY's when I first started cycying to Waterloo in 1990.


----------



## downfader (22 Apr 2010)

Mike! said:


> As a motorcylist i wear one, if i'm going to hit my head i'd rather have one than not....



..must.. bite... lip..


----------



## J4CKO (22 Apr 2010)

I wear one as I might fall off, I have hit my head on concrete without one as a kid and was concussed and left a chunk of scalp on the road, it hurt, had I been wearing a helmet I wouldnt have had a scabby bald patch.

I dont ride differently with one, it can be dangerous out there, I am under no illusions a plastic hat will save me from one of Stobarts finest but sliding on cow shoot is best with one, unless of course the Eddie finds you before you get up.

A child in my sons school died, fell off, head to kerb contact, the inquest said a helmet would in all likelyhood saved his life.

I think a lot of the anti brigade just dont like wearing one, it doesnt look good, is uncomfortable etc and feel slightly under pressure and as such come up with largely anecdotal evidence as to helmets being the work of the devil, its your call, it isnt law but I will continute to keep a layer of deformable foam material between my head and the sky on the off chance it becomes my head and the road.


----------



## Trevrev (22 Apr 2010)

As with most things in life, it's all about personal choice.
Do what you feel is best for yourself !


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Apr 2010)

jimboalee said:


> They offer no protection against a 40 tonne artic'.
> 
> Nor do they offer protection against a stray Gamma radioactive particle entering the atmosphere.
> 
> They do however, protect the wearer against bumping their head on the low doorway lintel at the Bridge Tea Rooms in Bradford on Avon.



Bloody dangerous things lintels!


----------



## dondare (22 Apr 2010)

Anecdotal evidence suggests that helmets offer some protection against buzzard attacks but none against bears.


----------



## dondare (22 Apr 2010)

Ah-hah!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Apr 2010)

Part of the problem is the hypocrisy involved in compulsion.

Take the Thudguard as a microcosm of the debate.

We are supposed to accept claims of injury reduction as evidence for compulsion in cycle helmets - yet this is not evidence for the Thudguard to be worn

We are supposed to accept endorsement by paediatricians and safety organisations as evidence for compulsion in cyclists yet it is invalid when produced as evidence for the Thudguard

Oh - and I forgot - non cyclist injuries are either irrelevany or somehow less traumatic.

Feel free to choose, but do read the evidence.


----------



## Davywalnuts (22 Apr 2010)

I wear a helmet, and twice its saved my bonce from more serious damage, but the "only" thing that does worry me, is strangulation.. 

May sound weird and there's always a thought in my head that if all the odds are against me during an accident then the straps are going to strangle me. Yes yes, I dont know the odds, but its still a possibilty am sure given a random set of unfavourable circumstances.


----------



## hackbike 666 (22 Apr 2010)

Actually my worst ever accident involving hitting the back of my head on the pavement was during my p155up days,perhaps I should have worn a crash-hat then.


----------



## Bandini (22 Apr 2010)

Gibbyent said:


> I do wear one due to (uninformed) family presure arguments.



I sent my mum and grandma (after a few nags) arguments against compulsion (they were aware of the pro).


----------



## ComedyPilot (22 Apr 2010)

NigC said:


> Firstly, let me say I always wear a cycle helmet and unless something drastic happens, I always will





NigC said:


> All I want to know is enough information to form my own opinion and make my choice



By your first post I would say you already answered your second?


----------



## Riding in Circles (22 Apr 2010)

Davywalnuts said:


> the "only" thing that does worry me, is strangulation..



Just be careful what you say to her then.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Apr 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> Actually my worst ever accident involving hitting the back of my head on the pavement was during my p155up days,perhaps I should have worn a crash-hat then.



60% of all head injuries are alcohol rated - 1% cycle related (Wardlaw BMJ)

You are probably correct!


----------



## NigC (23 Apr 2010)

ComedyPilot said:


> By your first post I would say you already answered your second?



Not quite - by "something drastic" I meant some news posted in this thread that would alter my opinion. I've heard the cons, but I'm sticking with my lid anyway. I feel more comfortable wearing it and when I'm going downhill at 30+mph, I definitely feel more secure. I know there's many ways to die while cycling, but with it, I think that number is reduced


----------



## BentMikey (23 Apr 2010)

Perhaps the better answer would be not to take the risks that require wearing a helmet? 30mph is massively outside the design limits of a helmet, assuming you hit something at that speed.


----------



## NigC (23 Apr 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Perhaps the better answer would be not to take the risks that require wearing a helmet? 30mph is massively outside the design limits of a helmet, assuming you hit something at that speed.



You may be right. It's only a couple of short hills that give me that momentum and I won't take them at that speed if there's traffic around. I just feel I deserve to make up a little time after all the small inclines I have to take to get there 

Of course the worst bit is having to climb them on the way home  The last third I have to stand up and that always makes me less stable - I could walk, but when I get to that stage, I think it's time to retire the bike!!!


----------



## jimboalee (23 Apr 2010)

I wear a helmet when it looks good on the bike I'm riding.

I have a red coloured Specialized hat to match my red SWorks.
I have a silver coloured hat which looks OK when I'm riding my Blue/White Dawes Giro.

On my Pug PX10LE,,, are you joking? A Peugeot cotton cap maybe.

On all my other bikes,,, nope.


----------



## BentMikey (23 Apr 2010)

LOL, I like that Jimbo, fashion first. Gets my vote!


----------



## dondare (23 Apr 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> 60% of all head injuries are alcohol rated - 1% cycle related (Wardlaw BMJ)
> 
> You are probably correct!



Helmets might offer some protection if someone throws a bottle at you, or if you're attacked by a drunk.


----------



## NigC (23 Apr 2010)

After reading all that's been said, I've added my thoughts to my OP. Here's my thoughts....

*In Conclusion* (for me anyway).

The safety aspect of wearing a helmet is self evident - smacking your head against tarmac, kerbs etc. etc. is never a good thing, but if you're going to do it, you're going to have a lot easier time of it with a helmet on your head.

I'll try to summarise the cons of helmet wearing: 

In an accident it might be possible to suffer some kind of "rotational" injury.
Research suggests (Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm) drivers allow more room for non-helmetted cyclists than those with helmets.
Helmets can restrict your abilities to look over your shoulder.
They're no use when faced with a 40ft artic/bus/other big vehicle.
Not wearing a helmet makes you ride more cautiously and therefore more safely.
*My Opinion*
Yes, I'm allowed as it's my post  This is what I'm going to do:

Carry on wearing a helmet as I always have!

Why? 

Because I feel more comfortable with it on.
Because it reduces the number of ways I can be killed while cycling.
Because I tell my 7-year old daughter she must wear one.
Because I don't care if I look like a prat wearing it.
Bacause I already ride cautiously (I believe).
OK, so I know going at 30mph is never going to win the "most cautious cyclist" award and the helmet's effectiveness is vastly reduced, but sometimes you've just gotta do it when you at the top of the hill!


----------



## jimboalee (23 Apr 2010)

"Do cycle helmets pose any safety risks?"

Are thet dangerous in their own right??


They drip sweat onto spectacles.


----------



## johnnyh (23 Apr 2010)

jimboalee said:


> They offer no protection against a 40 tonne artic'.
> 
> Nor do they offer protection against a stray Gamma radioactive particle entering the atmosphere.
> 
> They do however, protect the wearer against bumping their head on the low doorway lintel at the Bridge Tea Rooms in Bradford on Avon.



Bloody dangerous place Bradford on Avon!


----------



## SavageHoutkop (23 Apr 2010)

NigC said:


> Helmets can restrict your abilities to look over your shoulder.



Do they really? Or is this a case of a bad fitting helmet? I specifically made a point of checking today and I can't see any part of my helmet when looking backward (aside from a bit of my visor, which doesn't interfere with anything).

Also, the people taking the most risks this last week on their bikes (jumping reds, dashing between stationary busses / trucks) have been non-helmet non-high viz wearers. This mornings was a ?student? on a raleigh-shopper type with a basket, who jumped two reds that I saw, and with music in the ears.


----------



## NigC (23 Apr 2010)

SavageHoutkop said:


> Do they really? Or is this a case of a bad fitting helmet? I specifically made a point of checking today and I can't see any part of my helmet when looking backward (aside from a bit of my visor, which doesn't interfere with anything).
> 
> Also, the people taking the most risks this last week on their bikes (jumping reds, dashing between stationary busses / trucks) have been non-helmet non-high viz wearers. This mornings was a ?student? on a raleigh-shopper type with a basket, who jumped two reds that I saw, and with music in the ears.



I have found a couple of times that the back of the helmet has got caught up in the hood of my jacket (hood down). A quick redress sorted it, but I couldn't turn my head until I'd done that.

But generally, I never have a problem with looking behind me.


----------



## BentMikey (23 Apr 2010)

I don't think helmets restrict your looking, and neither do earphones.

Nig, if you want to be a responsible parent and careful cyclist, the best thing you can do is book yourself and your daughter some cycling lessons. Yes, I'm sure you're already a competent driver and cyclist, but learning to deal well with road positioning and negotiation is a whole new thing. What's more, this will probably have 1000 times more effect than wearing a helmet well.


----------



## monkeypony (23 Apr 2010)

Do helmets make you faster?

If not, why do the pros wear them?

They do everything possible to save weight so I can only assume that a standard road helmet makes your head more aero than no helmet at all.

Or do they believe that a helmet will protect their heads in the event of an accident and is therefore worth the extra weight?

Have they all been conned by the manufacturers?


----------



## Davidc (23 Apr 2010)

> Interesting point you raise -how many of that 60% were also classed as pedestrians?



.... and how many as drivers


----------



## NigC (23 Apr 2010)

BentMikey said:


> I don't think helmets restrict your looking, and neither do earphones.
> 
> Nig, if you want to be a responsible parent and careful cyclist, the best thing you can do is book yourself and your daughter some cycling lessons. Yes, I'm sure you're already a competent driver and cyclist, but learning to deal well with road positioning and negotiation is a whole new thing. What's more, this will probably have 1000 times more effect than wearing a helmet well.



I will be booking my daughter for cycling lessons when she's a bit older. I've taken them and I'm sure it helped me. She's still at the stage a learning to control the bike well, so road awareness lessons are a bit too advanced just yet (we stick to open parks ATM). But it's certainly something she'll be taking in the future  And until she's old enough to make her own choice - she's wearing a helmet!


----------



## Theseus (23 Apr 2010)

monkeypony said:


> Do helmets make you faster?
> 
> If not, why do the pros wear them?
> 
> ...



The UCI made it a requirement to wear them, before this came into effect the use was sporadic at best. I have yet to see any research that has studied head accident rates amongst competetive cyclists from before and after the ruling came into place.

For some events (e.g. TT) the use of an aero helmet may decrease drag.


----------



## BentMikey (23 Apr 2010)

Excellent Nig!!


----------



## NigC (23 Apr 2010)

While I think about it, the research that suggests drivers give less room to helmetted cyclists is a little disconcerting.

I've been a driver been over 20 years and can honestly say I've never paid attention to whether a cyclist had a helmet or not. It must be a subconscious thought and the only way to make it a conscious thought is better education of drivers. While I was learning to drive, "making room for bikes" was barely considered at all (that I remember).

I'd like to think I always give cyclist plenty of room while driving, whether or not helmetted/hi vizzed etc. etc. but of course I'm sure I've been too close (than I would have liked as a cyclist) on the odd occassion.

When I'm cycling, I generally get given a decent amount of space by most motorists and those that are a bit too close will, I'm sure, have still been a bit too close if they'd given me another few centimeters.

It's the longer vehicles that worry me the most - if a car gets too close, it's usually gone before I have time to think about it, but with buses, artics and the like, there's a lot of thinking time in which to panic and make a mistake!


----------



## Mark_Robson (23 Apr 2010)

NigC said:


> While I think about it, the research that suggests drivers give less room to helmetted cyclists is a little disconcerting.
> 
> I've been a driver been over 20 years and can honestly say I've never paid attention to whether a cyclist had a helmet or not. It must be a subconscious thought and the only way to make it a conscious thought is better education of drivers. While I was learning to drive, "making room for bikes" was barely considered at all (that I remember).
> 
> ...


+1 I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Davidc (23 Apr 2010)

I find a few carefully executed wobbles while they're approaching helps keep busses and lorries further out.


----------



## NigC (23 Apr 2010)

Davidc said:


> I find a few carefully executed wobbles while they're approaching helps keep busses and lorries further out.



Hmmmm, never tried that one before - could make it interesting


----------



## jimboalee (23 Apr 2010)

johnnyh said:


> Bloody dangerous place Bradford on Avon!



Full of bikes with tiny little wheels every September.

Also in the attack of helmets,,, they trap wasps.


----------



## Mike! (23 Apr 2010)

downfader said:


> ..must.. bite... lip..



Couldn't really care less what you or anyone else think to be honest, it's a personal choice and i choose to wear one. Although i'd be interested as to why you are biting your lip?

Yes, of course a cycle helmet is not as good / strong or offers as much protection as my Shoei lid and i appreciate if i hit something hard enough in either i'll die.....


----------



## hackbike 666 (23 Apr 2010)

Mike! said:


> Couldn't really care less what you or anyone else think to be honest, it's a personal choice and i choose to wear one. Although i'd be interested as to why you are biting your lip?
> 
> Yes, of course a cycle helmet is not as good / strong or offers as much protection as my Shoei lid and i appreciate if i hit something hard enough in either i'll die.....



+1 billion.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Apr 2010)

> Interesting point you raise -how many of that 60% were also classed as pedestrians?



...or barstoolians?



dondare said:


> Helmets might offer some protection if someone throws a bottle at you, or if you're attacked by a drunk.



Or fall off a bar stool?




> A MAN paralysed when he fell off a barstool during a night's drinking has applied for legal aid to sue the landlord.
> 
> The former butcher, from Cookstown in County Tyrone, Ulster, is suing landlord Michael Newell over the accident six years ago.
> 
> ...





Should he have had his damages reduced for not wearing a helmet?


----------



## summerdays (24 Apr 2010)

NigC said:


> I will be booking my daughter for cycling lessons when she's a bit older. I've taken them and I'm sure it helped me. She's still at the stage a learning to control the bike well, so road awareness lessons are a bit too advanced just yet (we stick to open parks ATM). But it's certainly something she'll be taking in the future  And until she's old enough to make her own choice - she's wearing a helmet!



Maybe they do them at her school ... my son's school have just announced they are going to do Level 1 Bikeability (they've been doing Level 2 for some years now). My son's already done it elsewhere but knowing his great love of school work versus being in the playground with his mates on bikes I know he will want to repeat the course.


----------



## NigC (24 Apr 2010)

summerdays said:


> Maybe they do them at her school ... my son's school have just announced they are going to do Level 1 Bikeability (they've been doing Level 2 for some years now). My son's already done it elsewhere but knowing his great love of school work versus being in the playground with his mates on bikes I know he will want to repeat the course.



I've got a feeling they do, but I don't know any details as yet. But if they do, she'll certainly be taking the course


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Apr 2010)

summerdays said:


> Maybe they do them at her school ... my son's school have just announced they are going to do Level 1 Bikeability (they've been doing Level 2 for some years now). My son's already done it elsewhere but knowing his great love of school work versus being in the playground with his mates on bikes I know he will want to repeat the course.



Beware of the "School helmets" though....buy a reasonable one, Snell standard, no "Snag points" and with a comfortable and adjustable fitting system.

We were at a bike event a couple of years ago promoting commuting and utility cycling, and next to us was a stall promoting children's cycling. They were issuing helmets at a couple of quid as they were "essential" for the school's projects they carried out, and giving the normal horror stories as a final convincer - a real "hard sell technique".

They couldn't tell us which standards they passed, had no idea how they fitted (or even if they would fit) the children they were selling them to, and to me worst of all telling the adults that the local bike shop's (also had a stall) insistence on fitting and adjusting them to the wearer was a "waste of time and that you were "paying for the service" .

Still they were helmets - so that's alright then?


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Apr 2010)

NigC said:


> While I think about it, the research that suggests drivers give less room to helmetted cyclists is a little disconcerting.
> 
> I've been a driver been over 20 years and can honestly say I've never paid attention to whether a cyclist had a helmet or not. It must be a subconscious thought and the only way to make it a conscious thought is better education of drivers. While I was learning to drive, "making room for bikes" was barely considered at all (that I remember).
> 
> ...


The Ian Walker paper is to a certain extent backed up by the DfT. They showed drivers images of "stereotype" cyclists in order to gain an insight into drivers "perceptions" 

The alarming thing was that one of the outcomes was that helmet and lycra clad cyclist were "experienced" and could cope with close passes so there was no need to give extra room or slow down when overtaking!


----------



## summerdays (24 Apr 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Beware of the "School helmets" though....buy a reasonable one, Snell standard, no "Snag points" and with a comfortable and adjustable fitting system.
> 
> We were at a bike event a couple of years ago promoting commuting and utility cycling, and next to us was a stall promoting children's cycling. They were issuing helmets at a couple of quid as they were "essential" for the school's projects they carried out, and giving the normal horror stories as a final convincer - a real "hard sell technique".
> 
> ...



I buy my kids helmets at the LBS ... and they are definitely easily adjustable including at the back... though middle one needs a new one and "doesn't like the look" of the ones in the nearest LBS!!

Their school doesn't supply helmets or make it mandatory either ... if they come with helmets then fine but its up to the parent to make that choice. 

And every now and again I adjust the fit of them... why can't helmets stay as they are without having to keep adjusting them.


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Apr 2010)

summerdays said:


> I buy my kids helmets at the LBS ... and they are definitely easily adjustable including at the back... though middle one needs a new one and "doesn't like the look" of the ones in the nearest LBS!!
> 
> Their school doesn't supply helmets or make it mandatory either ... if they come with helmets then fine but its up to the parent to make that choice.
> 
> And every now and again I adjust the fit of them... why can't helmets stay as they are without having to keep adjusting them.



It is the kid's fault not the helmet!

One of the importance issues often missed by the "any helmet will do" brigade is exactly this - your child will grow and this means a certain amount of adjustment or the helmet will cease to function fully as the fit and security decreases.


----------



## Riding in Circles (24 Apr 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> It is the kid's fault not the helmet!
> 
> One of the importance issues often missed by the "any helmet will do" brigade is exactly this - your child will grow and this means a certain amount of adjustment or the helmet will cease to function fully as the fit and security decreases.



A badly fitting helmet can be far more dangerous than no helmet. I rode from the age of three to my late 20's with no helmet, how did I survive? These days I rarely wear one, but when I do it is more likely as a place to mount the camera or because I am at an event that insists on them.


----------



## summerdays (24 Apr 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> It is the kid's fault not the helmet!
> 
> One of the importance issues often missed by the "any helmet will do" brigade is exactly this - your child will grow and this means a certain amount of adjustment or the helmet will cease to function fully as the fit and security decreases.



I meant I even have to adjust mine regularly ... why do the straps slip - or is my head changing shape


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Apr 2010)

summerdays said:


> I meant I even have to adjust mine regularly ... why do the straps slip - or is my head changing shape



Option1 - Because the clips are cheap and "easily adjustable" means easily opened in use, so they slip

Place a couple of stitches in the straps and at the clips and this is resolved.



Option 2 - your head is changing shape ......


----------



## sheddy (25 Apr 2010)

BTW are hemets compulsory for London Marathon wheelchair races ?
Just curious


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Apr 2010)

Yes - most wheelchair race organisers state helmet and gloves.

The British Wheelchair Racing Association is typical..



> For each type of race, there are specific wheelchair equipment requirements that the sponsoring organization will provide. In addition, helmets and racing gloves are necessary to compete.


----------



## jonesy (26 Apr 2010)

Here's a fairly recent review of the effectiveness of cycle helmets:
http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/r...prevent_injury___a_review_of_the_evidence.htm


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Apr 2010)

jonesy said:


> Here's a fairly recent review of the effectiveness of cycle helmets:
> http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/r...prevent_injury___a_review_of_the_evidence.htm



Interesting..



> The project concludes that in the event of an on-road accident, cycle helmets would be expected to be effective in a range of real-world accident conditions, particularly the most common accidents that do not involve a collision with another vehicle and are often believed to consist of simple falls or tumbles over the handlebars.




Would be *expected to be effective* - not "*are effective*"


----------



## Norm (27 Apr 2010)

Blimey, you do try, don't you. 

They couldn't say "are effective" unless they were always going to be effective. If they found them to work in most scenarios, they would be "expected" to be effective, but it would depend on the exact circumstances of the accident.


----------



## GrasB (27 Apr 2010)

NigC, I've come to the conclusion that wearing a cycle helmet is purely a *personal choice*, so if you feel safer & more confident riding with one do so. But I will ask that you don't try & force this on anyone.

My self I've found the only time I've hit my head coming off a bike on the road[/b] is when I've been wearing one so I choose not to road ride with a helmet, that said if I ride off road I'll always wear a helmet as I feel the risk of hitting my head on something is far greater off road where the surface is lumpy & I'm much more enclosed by the immediate environment.


----------



## Mark_Robson (27 Apr 2010)

Norm said:


> Blimey, you do try, don't you.
> 
> They couldn't say "are effective" unless they were always going to be effective. If they found them to work in most scenarios, they would be "expected" to be effective, but it would depend on the exact circumstances of the accident.


+1
The report is simply reiterating what most people accept anyway. I don't think that many people will be surprised by it's conclusions.


----------



## NigC (27 Apr 2010)

GrasB said:


> NigC, I've come to the conclusion that wearing a cycle helmet is purely a *personal choice*, so if you feel safer & more confident riding with one do so. *But I will ask that you don't try & force this on anyone.*
> 
> My self I've found the only time I've hit my head coming off a bike on the road[/b] is when I've been wearing one so I choose not to road ride with a helmet, that said if I ride off road I'll always wear a helmet as I feel the risk of hitting my head on something is far greater off road where the surface is lumpy & I'm much more enclosed by the immediate environment.




I'm afraid I can't make any promises there - my daughter will definitely be forced to wear one until she's old enough to make up her own mind (I'm guessing around 50ish ) As for you lot: it's your choice and I'm not going to preach to you about my reasons  Just as long as it's a mutual agreement 

I've got to be honest: I wasn't expecting this thread after, what I throught, was a simple-enough question  But it's my fault for not doing any research before asking 

Safe cycling everyone


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Apr 2010)

Norm said:


> Blimey, you do try, don't you.
> 
> They couldn't say "are effective" unless they were always going to be effective. If they found them to work in most scenarios, they would be "expected" to be effective, but it would depend on the exact circumstances of the accident.



+1
So glad you agree with the point....


----------



## BentMikey (27 Apr 2010)

If helmets were effective, there would be very obvious evidence that they are. Instead any effect is lost and unproven either way.


----------



## Norm (27 Apr 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> +1
> So glad you agree with the point....


Cunobelin, we've agreed on the fundamental point (personal choice is king) from a long time back  and I don't think that anyone has ever suggested that they are a panacea or should be compulsory. 

Because a helmet _might_ help in some of the accidents which I _might_ have, I _usually_ wear one.


----------



## ufkacbln (28 Apr 2010)

Norm said:


> Cunobelin, we've agreed on the fundamental point (personal choice is king) from a long time back  and I don't think that anyone has ever suggested that they are a panacea or should be compulsory.
> 
> Because a helmet _might_ help in some of the accidents which I _might_ have, I _usually_ wear one.



Which there is no problem with, it is the stated pro-compulsion agenda of others that I have a problem with

Those who are quite happy to expect us to believe that all the evidence means we should make helmets compulsory, yet refuses to recognise the validity of the same organisations and medical journals when they don't fit a pro-compulsion agenda. The fact that helmets have limits is anathema, and giving the information for an informed choice is deemed "anti-helmet" and therefore time to sing LALALALA and place their fingers in the ears!

Rank hypocrisy


----------



## GrasB (28 Apr 2010)

NigC said:


> I'm afraid I can't make any promises there - my daughter will definitely be forced to wear one until she's old enough to make up her own mind (I'm guessing around 50ish ) As for you lot: it's your choice and I'm not going to preach to you about my reasons  Just as long as it's a mutual agreement
> 
> I've got to be honest: I wasn't expecting this thread after, what I throught, was a simple-enough question  But it's my fault for not doing any research before asking
> 
> Safe cycling everyone


I was more talking about people who are legally responsible for their own welfare. Your child is your responsibility & it's up to you to do what you see fit, however I'd hate for you to tell me I must wear a helmet & tell me my child must wear one as well for those are my decisions to be made not yours.


----------



## NigC (28 Apr 2010)

GrasB said:


> I was more talking about people who are legally responsible for their own welfare. Your child is your responsibility & it's up to you to do what you see fit, however I'd hate for you to tell me I must wear a helmet & tell me my child must wear one as well for those are my decisions to be made not yours.



No worries - I'm not the sort of person to tell others what they must do. I might give my opinion if I think you've not heard it before, but otherwise I'll keep quiet 

For what it's worth: I'm against compulsory helmet wearing for much the same reason - I don't want to be told what I should and shouldn't do, even if I agree with it I'd still like the option to change my mind


----------



## Norm (28 Apr 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Those who are quite happy to expect us to believe that all the evidence means we should make helmets compulsory, yet refuses to recognise the validity of the same organisations and medical journals when they don't fit a pro-compulsion agenda.


I haven't looked too hard, I must admit, but I don't remember anyone calling for them to be compulsory or saying that they are a solution for everything.


----------



## ufkacbln (28 Apr 2010)

Mark Robson has stated he is pro compulsion on previous threads.


----------



## Norm (28 Apr 2010)

OK, I'll give you that, but that was only a few weeks ago. Your position seems too entrenched for it to have only been developed over a few weeks, you seem too emotional about it.

Sorry, I'm just being nosey. You come across as being _strongly_ anti-helmet, although I think you sometimes wear one yourself. As I think most here agree with the idea of making your own decision without influence of peer pressure and myths, I was just wondering why you (appear to me to) take such a strong position.


----------



## Mark_Robson (29 Apr 2010)

What I actually said was that I am pro choice for adults but would be in favour of compulsion for young children. That is my opinion and I stick by it. Saying that I don't lobby for it and I don't try to preach to people that I know or see.


----------



## summerdays (29 Apr 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> What I actually said was that I am pro choice for adults but would be in favour of compulsion for young children. That is my opinion and I stick by it. Saying that I don't lobby for it and I don't try to preach to people that I know or see.



I can understand why you would want children to wear them (thinner skulls/more tumble accidents) ... but children often see them as seriously un-cool. You would either prevent some children from cycling or they would cycle with them on their handlebars to be ready to quickly put them on - which may cause more accidents. 

And the area's with the lowest take up would be the same areas where wearing seat belts and kids would play out on the street at night time. Most kids wear helmets so badly adjusted that they probably wouldn't do any good.


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Apr 2010)

Norm said:


> OK, I'll give you that, but that was only a few weeks ago. Your position seems too entrenched for it to have only been developed over a few weeks, you seem too emotional about it.
> 
> Sorry, I'm just being nosey. You come across as being _strongly_ anti-helmet, although I think you sometimes wear one yourself. As I think most here agree with the idea of making your own decision without influence of peer pressure and myths, I was just wondering why you (appear to me to) take such a strong position.



Find a post where I an anti-helmet. Anti-compulsion definitely!

I have stood firm on the ground that helmet standards are too weak and need to be stronger (Snell B90 as opposed to EN1078). I have stated and satnd by the evidence that some designs may actually cause injury and this needs to be addressed (rounder smoother safer campaign) as does the fact hat some of the designs may cause the helmet to be ejected in a crash and are therefore compromised.

Equally I feel that we need to look at why compulsion is so desirable in cyclists when it is one of the safer activities when you look at head injuries...the reasons behind why so many organisations that would benefit from victim-blaming to reduce their culpability... SMIDSYed - but the injuries are *your fault* because you didn't protect yourself from their negligence.

The problem is that we are not allowed to question the Holy Grail that is the cycle helmet or and it is far easier to claim that the posts are rabidly anti-helmet and therefore none of the science, evidence etc is valid.


Pointing out that helmets have flaws, that many of the pro-compulsion arguments don't hold water and that you need to make an informed decision is not and never has been anti-helmet.


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Apr 2010)

Again a reason why the Thudguard is so brilliant to illustrate flaws in the pro-compulsion argument

Both have evidence they save children from head injuries 
Both have unequivocal support from Cinicians, health care professionals, safety organisations etc
Both have used emotive claims

Yet we are supposed to believe all this when it applies to cycle helmets and make them compulsory, but ignore all the same evidence when we suggest children should wear Thudguards!

You are *allowed* to make the choice based on the evidence in the latter case, but not allowed to weigh up the same level of evidence in cycle helmets and make the same choice... Hardly a consistent standpoint


----------



## Mark_Robson (29 Apr 2010)

summerdays said:


> I can understand why you would want children to wear them (thinner skulls/more tumble accidents) ... but children often see them as seriously un-cool. You would either prevent some children from cycling or they would cycle with them on their handlebars to be ready to quickly put them on - which may cause more accidents.
> 
> And the area's with the lowest take up would be the same areas where wearing seat belts and kids would play out on the street at night time. Most kids wear helmets so badly adjusted that they probably wouldn't do any good.


+1 I live quite close to one of those estates and even to this day as a parent I still see things that shock me.
I agree with you entirely getting kids to wear helmets but it is doable. There's a lot of ways of introducing helmet wearing from an early age, ie only sell children's bikes with helmets, media campaigns etc. If every kid wore a helmet then there wouldn't be any stigma because it would be the norm. Wouldn't it be helpful to portray helmets as cool and effective rather than a hindrance? 
Obviously that kind of mindset change wouldn't happen over night but it is doable. Really it's not the kids that need educating, its the parents. 
I wonder how many no helmet parents on this site insist on their kids wearing a helmet? I know that I did until I realised that life was too short not to wear one.


----------



## summerdays (29 Apr 2010)

How come its failed with seat belts then... you won't get 100% uptake and its those areas where the uptake would be the lowest that you get the most unsupervised playing (not saying that's all bad). 

I don't know if you can test out the helmets as worn by your children's friends ... but have a look a school ... often helmet too small/too large, straps not properly tightened, or not done up at all.

We can't go down the compulsion route for anyone.


----------



## Mark_Robson (29 Apr 2010)

summerdays said:


> How come its failed with seat belts then... you won't get 100% uptake and its those areas where the uptake would be the lowest that you get the most unsupervised playing (not saying that's all bad).
> 
> I don't know if you can test out the helmets as worn by your children's friends ... but have a look a school ... often helmet too small/too large, straps not properly tightened, or not done up at all.
> 
> We can't go down the compulsion route for anyone.


It failed with seat belts because the parents aren't responsible enough to enforce the law or don't that their child's safety warrants the price of a booster cushion. People like that know the risks but choose to ignore them and I'm afraid that the only way to deal with them is through the courts. 
And I agree with your point about badly fitting helmets as I see it all the time but once again that's down to education. As for compulsion for children, it will probably never happen but that's not to say that it wouldn't be beneficial.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Apr 2010)

Of course it wouldn't be beneficial.


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Apr 2010)

Compulsory Thudguards would be equally (or even more)beneficial


----------

