Riding on roads isn't like mountain biking where you mostly control the amount of risk you take on. Riding on roads puts you at the mercy of other people's choices. I feel the need to wear a helmet anytime I'm riding on a road for that reason.

I don’t know any mountain biker that doesn’t wear a helmet. Most I ride with wear full face.

I don’t think there’s any riding situation where you can think you’re in complete control of the risk.

I wear a full-face helmet on a mountain bike, too.

My point is that when mountain biking, you encounter varied terrain and obstacles and you decide how to approach that based on your skill and experience. Some approaches are riskier than others. And sometimes you decide the best thing to do is just nope out and ride or walk around whatever it is.

The point is the risk on the road is smaller when you don't wear a helmet because drivers take less risk with you.

Even better if you are a woman in summer dress. Then the drivers give you way more space and are super careful around you. It was researched.

I think you're referring to Ian Walker's study. Yes, motorists on average passed helmeted cyclists closer than non-helmeted ones. The difference in average passing distance wasn't huge (1.3 m vs. 1.2 m) and was still a safe distance.

The amount of difference isn't as interesting as the fact of it. It indicates attention, which is worth a lot more than the inches.

Does it? That's a supposition, not a scientific fact. Presumably they all paid some attention by passing at a safe distance. I don't see why someone paying more attention would pass further away.

They moved over by coincidence? OK.

I have not read the study, but I would hope that they had the cyclists wearing the same clothes and riding on the same stretch of road in all tests. Otherwise you will end up with the situation where helmeted riders are more likely to be riding fast on roads that aren't as safe for cycling, Which would naturally lead to differences in driver behavior around them.

> It was researched.

It doesn’t mean the research wasn’t bullshit nor correctly understood what happened there.

> It was researched.

Citation needed please.

An attractive woman in a bikini on a bike probably elicits the slowest and carefullest passing by many of the drivers.

Helmets protect against falls. They don't protect against cars.

When you get side-swept by a car you're going to fall. Getting rammed from the side or behind is not the only collision scenario, and getting side-swept seems like an extremely more likely scenario in London out of all places, where traffic in general is slow.

This is sarcasm, right?

Not sarcasm. If a car isn't beside you they can't side swipe you. You are aware that London basically doesn't have multi lane roads, right?

Why would I be aware of that? A quick Google Maps search shows some multi lane roads.

Because this is a discussion about a London company. If you don't understand the context, you should at least be prepared to learn.

A quick Google Maps search shows some multi lane roads. Do you have a good way for me to learn more?

I'm not sure I agree. I have a family member that had a car turn in front of the without warning (they were in a cycle lane, the car turned across the flow of traffic without looking or indicating), and they hit the side of the car and landed on the other side head first. They were left without any significant injuries - I'm not sure the outcome would have been as favourable without a helmet.

they aren't intended to protect against cars, only falls, which are more likely to happen around cars

glad I could help out here