Cycle helmets - to wear or not to wear?

There is a big debate raging in the local London press at the moment about the wisdom of wearing cycle helmets (for push bikes, mind, not motor bikes) and whether it should be made compulsory.

This has been triggered by yet another accident between a cyclist and an HGV, in which naturally the cyclist came off worst.

Opinion seems to be split between the do-gooder brigade, who would like to see the wearing of a certain standard of helmet be compulsory even when cycling through the parks or in your own garden, and the to-hell-with-it brigade who think no one should wear them at all and if you do you are a namby-pamby. At least, those are the people that seem to be writing in to the press. The reality of course has to be rather different and somewhere in the middle ground.

There is no question that in certain circumstances, wearing a helmet can probably save lives. If you regularly use busy roads full of fast moving traffic it makes sense to protect yourself and there will always be some drivers who do not look carefully enough or who think they have enough time to take the risk and can beat the cyclist to the junction. And there will always be some cyclists who think they are fast enough to beat the car/lorry and are immune from danger and so take unacceptable levels of risk with their own safety. I see it time and again, working in central London, and often the vehicle is not at fault, but the cyclist is. In the vast majority of those circumstances, wearing a helmet wouldn't have saved them - they weren't that sort of accident. 

But forcing us to do something where there is no conclusive proof of the outcome (which there isn't - some of the countries where there are the highest incidences of cyclist deaths are those which have compulsory helmets, such as Australia, and some of the safest are those where it isn't compulsory but there are equally as many if not more accidents) is moving another step towards a nanny state we can do without. Much better to make sure that all the facts unadulterated by bias and political slant are put before people and allow them to make up their own mind.

We all have different tolerances of risk and we should be allowed to exercise them. Forcing this on cyclists would be to take away a significant element of personal choice and probably enjoyment; I remember cycling when I was a child (albeit many years ago in a less busy time and environment) and one of the things I really enjoyed was cycling fast with the wind blowing through my hair and the sense of freedom it gave me. Wearing a helmet wouldn't have done that.

I do get a little tired of the state telling me how to live every aspect of my life  and whilst this wouldn't affect me because I don't ride a bike any more (can you imagine it?!) it is another example of interference where it isn't needed. What ever happened to assuming personal responsibility? Bring it back!