There seems to be a lot of concern about the fact that you can hit a pothole or crack in the road and be knocked off, and not just hit by a car, so therefore a helmet is necessary, but this as I said before applies to walking along the road etc, etc.

No one (in the vehemently pro-helmet lobby) seems to see that cycling is just one event amongst many everyday events that yield a risk of unforseen accidents that may result in you hitting your head.The strange desire to focus purely on this one event whilst ignoring all the others as acceptable everyday risks that need no form of protection baffles me.

Maybe a helmet would help in the freak situation where a: your fall from your bike unexpectedly b: you were going sufficiently fast to be a danger c: your fall happens to be in such a way that your head is liable to hit the road d: your natural instinct to protect your head fails and you do actually hit it on the road. But all of these events together are more unlikely than a trip in the shower, stumble over a step etc, but all those risks are deemed acceptable, and not warrant any protective gear.

My main objection to all this debate is the stance that the majority of the pro-helmet people hold, that those who choose not to wear a helmet are in some way idiotic bufoons, because they chose not to see the risk in the same way as them.