There's probably a great compound word in German for the feeling of being simultaneously charmed and perturbed after reading reports of research into the effect that cyclists wearing helmets has on motorists' behaviour, writes Matt Seaton.
The main finding of the research, carried out by Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist at Bath university, is that drivers pass more closely if the cyclist is wearing a helmet than not by an average of 85mm (3.3in).
So the implication is that while you assume wearing a helmet makes you safer on the road, the opposite may be the case.
If it means motorists give you less room because they're making judgments about your vulnerability and competence, wearing a helmet may make your cycling less safe, and certainly less pleasant.
That's the perturbing bit, but it's hard not to love this story for some of Dr Walker's other discoveries.
He found that we really are justified in our fear and loathing of white van drivers - they give us 100mm (4in) less room, on average, than other cars when they pass. But there was no data showing that the drivers of SUVs (4x4s), as a group, gave cyclists less room. You can't have everything.
But best of all was Dr Walker's evidence that motorists give women cyclists a wider berth - when he wore a long wig to impersonate a female rider, cars left 140mm (5.5in) more space when passing.
This proves either that the spirit of chivalry is not dead, or that the sexist old chestnut about "women drivers" extends to women cyclists, with women assumed to be less able to control their bikes. Take your pick.
Overall, it's wonderful that the hitherto obscure academic discipline of traffic psychology is enjoying an hour in the sun. It's obviously fascinating stuff, and can teach us a great deal about how improving road safety is not simply a question of installing hardware such as speed cameras, but changing hearts and minds through education.
The only unfortunate thing here is the focus on helmets, because the way this research will be received is as further ammunition for the already tedious trench warfare between the pro and anti bike helmet lobbies, with more impartial advice and the medical view getting lost in the crossfire.
But I suspect the helmet thing is a red herring here. The two closest misses I've had this year -- once a van, the other time an articulated lorry, both passing so close they almost brushed my right shoulder -- were when I was out on my racing bike, all togged up in full lycra kit.
It wasn't the helmet (which I was only wearing on one of those occasions) as much as the whole look that allowed the driver, in each case, to make an assumption about my ability to stay upright if they squeezed by with 6in to spare.
In other words, helmets are just one way -- albeit perhaps the most obvious way -- in which motorists size up cyclists. But let's give them some credit: while a good many clearly have trouble distinguishing a woman on a bike from a bloke in a wig, some are more observant.
In addition to whether you've got a helmet on, they may take in the type of bike you're riding and notice the clothing you're wearing. If it's going to help them get by you quicker, you can assume they're going to assess all sorts of subtle signals you're giving about what kind of cyclist you are.
In which case, we need to know more. For instance, I'd like to find out just how much room, on average, motorists would give someone dressed as a vicar or a lady of a certain age wearing a large hat with dried flowers on it. Would someone riding a sit-up-and-beg with a large basket get more space than a mountain biker? And does it make a difference if a dog is riding in the basket?
This is not as frivolous as it sounds. What's clear from this research is that all we road users operate with a good many rather foolish stereotypes, which actually help no one in the cause of road safety.
Anything else that would make us more aware of our prejudices would be useful . . . and probably amusing. Over to you, Dr Walker.
