Not only are helmets a matter of choice - they are more about the perception of safety than actual safety.

When the Star on Sunday journalist got in touch, he was clearly hoping CTC would condemn her “dangerous” cycling behaviour. I made it clear we could not condone cycling at night without lights as that was illegal, but immediately went on to say that it was surely obvious that the video was just a bit of fantasy. I then made it perfectly clear I did not think there was anything unsafe about riding without a helmet. He seemed surprisingly interested and spent 15 minutes going through the arguments - maybe he has kids himself and had previously assumed that, as a responsible parent, he has to make sure they wear helmets. Anyway, got to explain all of the following points:

* Cycling is not an exceptionally dangerous activity - mile for mile you are about as unlikely to suffer a fatality while cycling as while walking, and the proportion of cycling hospitalisations which involve head injuries is about the same as for walking and driving:

* The health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks involved - by a factor of 20:1 according to one estimate;

* The evidence from places where helmet use has been increased significantly, notably through helmet laws (e.g. in Australia, New Zealand, parts of the USA and Canada etc) is that cycle use has declined drastically, and that safety for the remaining cyclists has not detectably improved, in some cases it appears to have got worse.

* There is very little evidence about the reason(s) for this apparently counter-intuitive lack of benefits from helmet-wearing, however there are plenty of possible explanations. For one thing, helmets offer at best only very limited protection, they are (and can only be) designed for minor knocks and falls, not impacts with moving traffic. And then there are a whole host of possible reasons why the wearing of helmets may make cyclists more likely to hit their heads in the first place, potentially negating or outweighing whatever (at best limited) benefits a helmet might provide in the event of such an impact.

* For instance, it is known that some people, including young children as well as teenagers, "risk-compensate" when using helmets, i.e. act less cautiously. Drivers may also risk-compensate - one small-scale study has found that they leave less space when overtaking a cyclist with a helmet than one without. By effectively increasing the size of the head, a helmet may also turn what would otherwise have been mere glancing blows or even complete "near misses" into very serious neck injuries or "rotational force" injuries of the kind most likely to result in brain damage. Or, by reducing the numbers of cyclists, pressure to wear helmets may also be counter-productive by reducing the "safety in numbers" for those cyclists who remain. There are other possible factors but these are the main ones.

I explained all this very patiently to him. I also sent him links to CTC's main helmet page (http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4688 and http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4641) and to the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (www.cyclehelmets.org).

Unsurprisingly, none of this found its way into the Star on Sunday's article. The only bit that he used was how CTC couldn't condone cyclists riding at night without lights. He has correctly quoted the words I used. However he has presented them in a way which gives the impression I also criticised her for not using a helmet, when the very opposite was the case. Even the bit about the video being obviously just a fantasy got omitted.

Bloody journalists! - or should that be "bloody editors?"

Best wishes

Roger Geffen

Campaigns & Policy Manager

CTC, the national cyclists' organisation

Cheers Roger

I guessed that this was how it all panned out – it must annoy the hell out of you when you spend all that time explaining the above only for it to turn into a soundbite. You have my word that I won't be editing the above!

Didn't she steal that Coke, too?

What really pisses me off is that those cars that float off on balloons don't really do it in real life. Adsvertising standards eh?

Exactly but they won't say anything about inappropriately driving a vehicle, which is not liscenced or taxed to fly, up into the fecking sky will they? Plonkers.

I'm really surpised at the Star....

...I mean did they not ask Roger if he thought she was "fit"? Isnt that more their style. ;-P