We all enjoy the freedom that is associated with whizzing along on a bicycle, hence the anathema created by the paradoxical restriction of having to wear a helmet. They feel ungainly, make us sweat, and oh, um, save our lives if we are involved in an accident. The sense of clumsiness indicative of helmet usage seems punitive when weighed against life and death.

We cyclists are the most vulnerable when it comes to road users. We even trump pedestrians, for we are actually on the road, as opposed to the pavement. Casting an eye back to last year, and statistics highlight that in Britain alone, 125 cyclists were killed, and a further 2,567 were injured. This totalled 10% of all injuries received in relation to the highways. Just a third of UK cyclists wear helmets, which makes the aforementioned figures slightly less surprising.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) feel that all cyclists should wear helmets and, although somewhat draconian, that it should be made compulsory under law. Of course, the use of helmets is far from a panacea. Changes in the way that both cyclists, and motorists use the highways, would create a drastic reduction in the number of collisions.

There is a certain degree of polarisation when it comes to helmets. Whilst some feel that helmets would improve the general level of safety on the roads, others opine to the contrary, stating that motorists take less care when they see a cyclist wearing a helmet, because their brains register that the cyclist is somehow invulnerable.

In relation to personal injury though, one Mr Justice Williams has previously established the principle of contributory negligence for cyclists who fail to use a helmet. In March of 2009, Mr Justice Williams stated clearly that a cyclist would be held personally accountable for any injury pertaining to the head as a consequence of not wearing a helmet, thus potentially negating any personal injury compensation claims.