Oldjohnw wrote:Btw, I do not and have never objected to the thread running on for many more thousands of pages. I'm not quite sure why my innocent and genuine enquiry was jumped on by some.
I don't think putting a point of view different from yours ought to be called "jumping on you". It is what a forum is for.
I am very conscious that the idea that helmets are not worthwhile and effective is not being made in the world outside some cycling circles. We seem to be moving more and more towards the public consensus that cyclists ought to wear helmets, but my strong belief is that this is bad for the cause of increasing cycling as a public good, which I don't think I need to make here.
Helmet compulsion, and even helmet promotion, lead to cycling being seen as a specialist sport, not an everyday means of transport, and demonstrably lead to a decrease in cycling.
The case against helmets is counterintuitive, and "common sense" says that they must be worthwhile. For this reason, the case against needs to be actively made. In the present climate, neglect of using the science and as much publicity as possible, to put the counter view is leading in the wrong direction. We are becoming, as far as cycling goes, more like Oz or NZ, rather than like Denmark or NL.
The view that debate on the subject is boring and futile is often expressed by those who wear helmets and are happy with being a member of what they see as an elite. They want to shut down opposing views. I am happy to read that you are not of this persuasion, but I hope this will help you understand my motivation in posting as I have.