hi,

thanks for all the further replies, this is a very interesting topic and I am enjoying reading around it. I haven't come to much consensus so far (I won't get into the debate) but somewhere in all the arguments must lie SOME objective 'truth' about whether cycling helmets are good or bad. But I can't see it yet! The only one point I will mention (whilst trying desperately to remain objective!) is that I do think it is important to bear in mind that, as with anything, there are negatives to helmet use as well as positives. The trick is to try to find the balance of positives and negatives. I haven't made my mind up yet, and am certainly willing to change my thinking if I can find convincing evidence one way or the other.

Personally speaking my gut reaction is that helmets may be less effective than is commonly held by the pro-hlemet supporters, but I don't think gut reactions are a very good way to go (so often they are misleading) and so I am willing to let my views be informed by logic and analysis - I am open and willing to change my mind and start wearing a helmet, but I am also aware of possible negatives. (I should also confess to a contrary streak - I'm currently helping to set up a Sudbury school!). The flip side of my contrary streak, however, is that I am also VERY safety concious - I do a lot of DIY (always wearing gloves, helmet, safety glasses, and a safety line for any work at height) and also regularly wear a helmet to go surfing. Regarding cycling, I guess I find it difficult to really conceive of day-to-day cycling (as opposed to sporting cycling) as really dangerous in the same way, but maybe I'm wrong and need to rethink my views. Certainly, to claim there are NO accidents in Holland would be foolish, as would assuming what is true for Holland is true for everywhere else.

I had a look at the pro-helmet site (http://www.bhsi.org/) and I do admit that after reading that, http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ seems rather less balanced than their 'about' page claims - it's unfortunate that neither site seems to give much credence to the opposing views, since both positions clearly are well-thought-out, have evidence to back them up, and are passionately defended (too passionately, perhaps). However, one side must eventually be wrong. Does anyone know of any good books on the subject? I had a look on amazon but there didnt seem to be anything that looked like an objective examination of both sides of the argument.

Oh, and I will mention that I actually live in Japan, not the states, and so cycling (without a helmet) is very commonplace here. However, I live in Okinawa, which as a legacy of the years of American occupation (no offence to Americans intended however - I'm from England by the way) has very little in the way of public transport and cycling infrastructure - the car is the only way around Okinawa for the vast majority.

Finally, sturmcrow - thanks very much for your 'none of my business' statement (and the warning, gratefully recieved!), you are of course correct and I do feel the need to step-up my safety measures now I have someone more important to think about. Hence this (informal) investigation. Again, balanced against the reduced likelihood of head injury is a down-side, and in this case (perhaps I am being contrary again) I do feel there is some legitimacy to the concern that cycling helmets are part of a wider trend in society to live in fear of the often-statistically-very-unlikely (crime is a similar issue) based partly on wide media coverage of statistically tiny events. The danger here is that we become a society (made up of individuals who are) terrified of ever taking risks (not perhaps a bad thing in itself) and so afraid to do things that are actually statistically very safe (not such a good thing) and become unable to assess risk and deal with it logically (a very bad thing, since it effectively leads to paralysis by analysis).

As an educator I do find the (completely understandable from a parent's point of view) urge to protect children from any risk of harm at odds with what I percieve as the need for children to test their skills and develop their own risk-assessment strategies. Again, balance is called for.

(as a subjective experience this is of limited relevance, however as a very young child I fell on a playground concrete surface (in the pre-soft surfaces days) and was hospitalised for weeks with a front-to-back hairline fracture - should I have not been allowed to play there? Or do parents need to let their children play and experience risk? John Holt wrote that it is only the children of overprotective parents who take stupid and needless risks - but accidents to of course also happen to children whose parents are not overprotective - that's the nature of risk)

But again, I don't wish to state any strong loyalty to either position, since many safety measures are simply (and statistically) a very sensible idea. The unanswered question remains: are cycling helmets one of those? Personally, I have no idea.

Wow, that turned into a long post, it's now time to go pick up my little one (in the car). thanks for reading. I welcome any further input, this is a fascinating (becuase it's very important) area. If i could make one polite request: can we all try to keep an open mind? I feel the polemised debate can be a distraction from the important job of sorting through the evidence.

thank you kindly for reading, and I look forward to any further thoughts people post on this important issue.

happy cycling