//Mind you, this increases my other risks: obesity, heart problems, diabetes...//

Because you can't go to the gym? Or just go for a walk? It's exercise that reduces the risk of obesity, heart problems, diabetes, stroke and so on, not the specific act of riding a bicycle. It was reported last year that the president of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, likes to bounce on a trampoline whilst naked and holding his dog. So I'm sure you can find some form of exercise which is sufficiently weird to be appealing to you.

//A state that takes the "liberty" to order its citizens to wear a helmet might just as well order them to wear uniforms, carry guns and be turned into killing-machines.//

Yeah... because wearing a hat which is made from expanded polystyrene foam rather than fur, fabric or wool is exactly like shooting people (sarcasm).

A bicycle helmet is nothing like an army helmet, Yuyutsu. They are designed differently because they have different purposes. They don't even look similar. I can see why you'd want to boycott army helmets after the army made you wear one, but boycotting bike helmets makes absolutely no sense unless the army forced you wear one of those too. Since the only thing that bike helmets and army helmets have in common is the word 'helmet', couldn't you just solve your problem by thinking of your bike helmet as your 'cycling bonnet' or some other acceptable euphemism?

I'm curious, Yuyutsu... do you wear clothes to protect yourself from sunburn, hypothermia and such like? Didn't the army make you wear clothes too? If you going to be consistent in your silliness, shouldn't you be a full-time naturist?

Of course, you could always get yourself a Hovding:

http://tinyurl.com/jacy8xh

That way you can preserve your vanity - unless you crash, but if you crash without any head protection you'll mess up more than your hair.

Thank you, Toni. I was about to comment similarly, but you've done it really well.

Watching the Swedish video reminded me that there's something even more important than bicycle helmets for cyclists (bicycle and motor) and that's bright clothing. Nearly all the cyclists in the video are wearing black. I am personally terrified of hitting a cyclist simply because I can't see them - their dark clothing blends into the bitumen and the roadside vegetation (where I live there are a lot of cyclists on the 80-100kph highways between small towns; there are some cycle ways but I've never seen a cyclist on them.)

So, I think cyclist should wear high-vis vests at the very least. Those little strobe lights are not enough, high-vis gear is better because it gives a physical shape to the cyclist, while a flashing light ahead could be a stationary road sign (still to be careful around, but not moving unpredictably).

Yuyutsu, I hope the army didn't make you wear high-vis as well, so that you are now head-set against it.

Because I sometimes have to go onto construction sites, I have a white card and high vis gear. So I can advise that high fashion high-vis is now available, like my classy purple steel-capped boots.

I'm curious. Which military is it that enlists women to battle? Or is Yuyutsu's references to himself/herself as "she"/"her" done to maintain an air of mystique?

Yuyutsu: No, I wasn't suggesting 'that car drivers/passengers should also wear helmets', obviously each vehicle needs safety gear appropriate to its type and the likely dangers.

I was challenging your argument that you are entitled to take silly risks as long as you pay your own medical costs. My friend and her husband may have had medical insurance (even if they did I suspect the insurance company will have dumped them on to the public system by now) - but the ramifications of serious injury go way beyond the financial cost, whoever pays for it. Family, children, then their children, friends, the family business, the driver of the other car involved who even if not at fault will have to live with the consequences.

While the circumstances of every accident will be different, the aim should be to minimise the consequences by improving roads, cars, bikes, safety gear etc etc. The fact that you personally have stopped riding and now walk is irrelevant. You are still paying for other people's injuries. And who knows, one day as you're walking along the footpath, you might be grateful that the car doesn't hit the bike on the road beside you (and wipe you out as collateral damage) because of their legally required safety equipment.

Dear Cossomby,

First, I don't take silly risks - I take calculated risks.

We all take risks whatever we do and life is a dangerous business (which always ends in death!), but I estimate myself to be overall at the low-end, below-average at risk-taking. Most others that I know take greater risks.

Second, I didn't claim that I am entitled to anything - rather, that YOU and your state are not entitled to dictate to me, under the violent threat of prosecution, which risks I may or may not take.

Third, I was never complaining about having to pay for other people's injuries. It was rather you that made this complaint that you do not wish to pay for my injuries and in response I affirmed that I do not expect you to pay my bills.

---

Dear Poirot,

<<Do you per chance look both ways before you cross the road?>>

Yes, why?

Perhaps if there was a law mandating that then I would have to reconsider, but as far as I know there isn't any, so why would I not follow common-sense?

<<Givien your seemingly absolute predilection for doing exactly as you please>>

I aspire to live by God's will, rather than by what pleases me, what pleases you or what pleases society.

<<Regarding seat belts>>

I also had an accident, many years ago where I've hit a tree at 40km/hour and my seat-belt probably saved me from a serious injury. As I just told Cossomby, I'm naturally not a big risk-taker so I wear my seat-belt anyhow.

You are very welcome to relate your experiences and tell me why you think that I should take precautions against this or that. I'll listen and unless I have a serious reason to object your proposition, I'll appreciate and probably follow your advice. In the case of bicycles I do have a serious objection, in the case of seat-belts I don't. I do however object the disrespect and insult by government not allowing myself and others to make our own choices.

P.S. seat-belts don't help when being hit from behind.

Yuyutsu,

"P.S. seat-belts don't help when being hit from behind."

I beg to differ.'

We were stationary - and we were WHOMPED! from behind by a heavy van travelling at between 50 and 60 kms an hour.

I can assure you if we hadn't been wearing a seat belts we would have been thrown any which way - as it was, we were all securely in place directly after the impact.

My son and I had mild seat belt welts after the accident and the next day I had tenderness transverse across the chest where the seat belt had been.

From that evidence, the seat belts must have stopped us from being propelled forward during the initial impact.