dondare said:
In spite of my opinion that helmets are unnecessary because serious accidents are not more common among cyclists than any other group, I do sometimes wear one if I am travelling on a stretch of road which is so poorly desgned that it increases the risk of an accident. It isn't that I believe the helmet will do the slightest bit of good if I'm hit from behind by a speeding car, it's that I don't want the driver to be able claim contributary negligence. I'd sooner see all reference to cycle helmets removed from the Highway Code.
(hilighted bit that I think is sadly very true)
Its simply spurious to claim that there is a clear advantage in wearing a helmet. Leaving aside, for the moment, the argument that making people wear helmets discourages people from cycling (as its irrelevent to my individual decision) the biggest problem we face is that if you end up as witness in court to an accident in which you've been hit, and you weren't wearing a helmet, the prosecutor will use that against you. And many a judge will believe that this is evidence of being irresponsible. And yes, its barking mad, but thats how it is.
If it is appropriate for cyclists to wear helmets to ride, say, three miles, then pedestrians (who suffer a similar rate of head injury per unit distance travelled) should also wear helmets for walking, say, three miles. No one believes that they should; the problem is that there is such a widely held, popular misconception that cycle helmets are
obviously good.
The solution? Well, the only one I can think of is to encourage more people to cycle. This misconception only works because most people aren't cyclists.