RobbiePrice

Ha - this is all rubbish! When I change from my 26" MTB bike to my 700c X-cross I notice it is much slower on all surfaces, and when I change from my 700c back to my 26"MTB. Guess what? Yep - I notice it is also slower on all surfaces. Only the fountain of youth will solve this worsening problem...

Helmet and a car - not designed for that impact. Cycle helmets are designed for the impact you get falling vertically from about 2m, not being hit by 2 tons of metal traveling 60 km an hour. Best wishes to your friend Scott.

I had a cycle crash this year in which the helmet I was wearing saved me. I still got a TBI, though. Not sure what happened, but the accident involved a sign in a bike lane on a busy road - so probably involved a car/truck too. I'm against mandatory helmets - it's like forcing women to completely cover themselves to protect them from men. It is addressing the wrong end of the problem. Reducing the number of cyclists increases nett morbidity, so it just isn't a rational public health response (unlike seat-belts which DO reduce morbidity). What should be compulsory is constructing decent off-road cycle facilities in and between all population centers. How are 6 year olds supposed to ride to school (yes most folks, Dutch kids of that age ride to school - go there and be amazed) Ironically, it is cheaper to build cities with off-road cycle facilities than not - because adding cycle space onto a road still needs to be engineered for the heaviest and fastest vehicle. Ditto for roads between towns. By increasing the number of cyclists commuting, we decrease the area of road required to cater for peak hour volumes of traffic. Add decent trains into the mix and (we in NZ are train poor) suddenly life is good. On the other hand, helmets should be compulsory for competition riding (races on and off road). I will always choose to ride a helmet, but as much for sun protection as head protection. On the other hand GLOVES should be compulsory!