[/size]
Really? I find it rarely comes up as dinner party conversation, so I'd be curious to know: majority of cyclists or majority of people in general? I think non-cyclists are in general far readier to say "yes, seems like common-sense, why not?" because they have an inflated idea of the intrinsic risks of cycling and an unwarranted belief in the effectiveness of this particular intervention - and the downsides are not downsides that they personally can relate to.
I confess it's not a topic discussed at every function I attend, but where it is that is the response.
You make a fair differentiation between cyclists and the general population, but it's not something I consider when muklling on this. Nor does Parliament.
I'd say that about 40% of my usual circle of friends are cyclists. About 5% are keen cyclists.
I think you're right in believing that most non-cyclists would think 'yes, why not'.
I think they'd be in favour of people wearing a lid, but I don't believe they'd be in favour of compulsion.
I now no longer insist that my offspring wear lids, although I used to. They are 12, 15 and 17. If I were to insist, they
might be less inclined to ride. I'd rather they rode. They may ride just as happily in lids, but I can't be sure.
Thankfully, middle child (the keenest) is a helmet wearer.
Some friends are aghast that I let my issue take such fearful risks. These are the
'yes, why not' brigade.
But I don't believe they'd support a Bill in favour of mandatory helmet use. Nor do I believe that the majority of MPs would.
I'm not sure about non-cyclists having an inflated view of the intrinsic risk, as you say they do. Some do, certainly. I'm not sure most do. Many people my age (40s) say "We didn't wear them when I was young" and leave it at that.
Bafflingly, I remain a wearer of helmets on longer or bad-weather rides... but opposed to compulsion and convinced that it won't happen.
Interesting points nonetheless; and fuel for thought.