Helmets - the definitive thread.. ** Mod Note - Please read Opening Post **

Beasty

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Helmets not required for Tour de France 2014 Grand Depart
http://www.ctc.org.uk/helmets-not-required-for-tour-de-france-2014-grand-depart

I thought UCI rules, which require helmets, would prevail. You may also want to check the date of that article;)

doozerie

Beasty wrote: »

I thought UCI rules, which require helmets, would prevail. You may also want to check the date of that article;)

It does mention a "special dispensation" from UCI, but on the other hand the following does appear very relevant to the date:

It was hoped by the Yorkshire organisers that some teams may consider wearing flat caps instead of helmets, to help inspire a generation to get back on their bikes. One company has even specially designed ‘flatter’ cap, with enhanced aerodynamics, but retaining the sun and rain repelling peak which may be so necessary if July 2014’s weather goes the way of previous years.

And as for this:

Allowing professionals to be seen without helmets will provide a 'roll model' and example to those for whom helmets appear alien and make cycling look more hazardous than it actually is.

Roll model? Surely that should be "bend-your-knees-and-roll model". But probably better not to be encouraging the riders to take a dive from their bikes in the first place.

Beasty

Can honestly say I've never worn a flat cap in my life - if they try and make them compulsory there will be hell to pay ...

galwaycyclist

Beasty wrote: »

I thought UCI rules, which require helmets, would prevail. You may also want to check the date of that article;)

Har reckon you might be right imagine a crowd of inebriated Jackie Healy Reas on carbon fibre frames waving their Kerry County Council drinking licences at the police.

doozerie

Beasty wrote: »

Can honestly say I've never worn a flat cap in my life - if they try and make them compulsory there will be hell to pay ...

I find their reference to the development of a "flatter" cap which retains the rain repelling peak, particularly ridiculous. Every cycling flat-cap wearer knows that you rely on the umbrella in your right hand to keep the rain off while on the bike.

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Har reckon you might be right imagine a crowd of inebriated Jackie Healy Reas on carbon fibre frames waving their Kerry County Council drinking licences at the police.

Too vivid! I immediately moved on to imagining him in a helmet and high-viz which wasn't much of a style improvement in that rather narrow spectrum that is fashion in Irish politics. Mick the pink beware, you're days at the top are numbered. Of course, If we're hoping to transition to something closer to the Amsterdam style, there's always Ming....

...and suddenly I don't feel quite so ridiculous in my own modest cycling gear. Yay!

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with this - I just happen to think that slowing down is the number one smartest way to "ride in a way that makes you less likely to have a fall".

Perhaps a fall, though sometimes being faster IMHO makes you less likely to be involved in an accident. Being at similar speed as the traffic around you when manoeuvring, e.g. changing lane coming up to a right hand turn, leaves cars less scope to make an inopportune overtaking move. I think being visibly predictable also play a huge part here; looking behind, signalling early, being decisive in your move, and not doing anything erratic. To my mind, much of the risk involved in urban cycling is in and around junctions, and slow isn't always best. (Nothing to back up this opinion BTW, just my perspective from watching the interaction between cyclists at junctions).

Trampas

Looking to get back into cycling and never worn a helmet but that will change.

Like everything there will be cheap and dear but I am wondering things I need to check for when buying a helmet.

Thanks

smacl

Trampas wrote: »

I am wondering things I need to check for when buying a helmet.

Everything except the mirror. I bought a cheapo helmet in LIDL, which is ugly as sin but cheap. Having read a number of these threads, the main advantages of more expensive helmets relate to aerodynamics and style, such as it is, rather than safety.

doozerie

Trampas wrote: »

Looking to get back into cycling and never worn a helmet but that will change.

Like everything there will be cheap and dear but I am wondering things I need to check for when buying a helmet.

Thanks

Helmets sold in europe are required to meet safety standard EN1078 but you should check that any helmet you are considering buying includes the relevant mark/statement. There remains the question of whether it really does meet that standard though, I'm not sure that independent tests are ever routinely carried out to verify this - last year Which? magazine tested a number of helmets and apparently some of them failed to meet the european standard.

Helmets sold in the US and Australia have to meet an arguably better safety standard (the helmet must be able to withstand an impact of greater force, for one thing), so a helmet meeting one of their standards might be a better choice than one meeting the lesser european standard.

Welcome to the (helmet) world of supposedly safer cycling.

In addition you'll want a helmet that fits right (size, shape, whether it fits with any glasses that you wear, etc.) and feels comfortable - not all helmets suit all heads - so try before you buy. And make sure that you wear it properly, I often see people wearing helmets incorrectly (too far forward on their head, too far back, straps too loose, straps in the wrong place, etc.), and in those cases it is extremely unlikely that the helmet will be able to offer any protection in an impact.

chakattack

@ Doozerie

That's quite interesting. I've noticed online stores like competitive cyclist in the states sell pretty much the same range that's available here.

If I buy a Giro Atmos (or whatever) from the states will it differ from the same model from a bike shop here?

smacl

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps a fall, though sometimes being faster IMHO makes you less likely to be involved in an accident. Being at similar speed as the traffic around you when manoeuvring, e.g. changing lane coming up to a right hand turn, leaves cars less scope to make an inopportune overtaking move. I think being visibly predictable also play a huge part here; looking behind, signalling early, being decisive in your move, and not doing anything erratic. To my mind, much of the risk involved in urban cycling is in and around junctions, and slow isn't always best. (Nothing to back up this opinion BTW, just my perspective from watching the interaction between cyclists at junctions).

I don't disagree with any of this, definitely true about being decisive and predictable.

Was also interested to read the account of cycling against one-way traffic in the merrion square / westland row area above. I cycled northwards along Merrion Square recently with a colleague on the way home. He was wearing a helmet and castigated me for going without.

When we reached the north-west corner he announced he was continuing straight on (against the traffic on a one way street around a blind corner). I said goodbye on the basis that I was intending to obey the law, turn left and go around the loop.

A nice example, IMHO, of the double-think some people engage in when it comes to helmets and safe cycling.

(for the record I think in many cases we should open up one-way streets for cyclists with contraflow cycle lanes, but that's another argument)

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

A nice example, IMHO, of the double-think some people engage in when it comes to helmets and safe cycling.

Yep, helmets wont keep you safe any more than health insurance will stop you getting sick. To me they're a tiny piece of the jigsaw and are afforded far too much attention. Worse still, I suspect they've become a distraction for many cycling advocates whose efforts would reap far better rewards in direct promotion of utilitarian cycling.

doozerie

chakattack wrote: »

@ Doozerie

That's quite interesting. I've noticed online stores like competitive cyclist in the states sell pretty much the same range that's available here.

If I buy a Giro Atmos (or whatever) from the states will it differ from the same model from a bike shop here?

I think the models for sale in the US are the same as the ones here, though I'm not entirely sure. A few years back I was looking at Giro helmets in Wheelworx and they had the helmet boxes on the shelves - if I remember rightly the box (for the Aeon, or whatever was their top model of helmet at the time) had both the EU safety standard and the US one listed on the outside. The standard(s) should be listed inside the helmet too, though maybe they don't bother adding a sticker listing anything other than the standard of the area they are being sold in.

My understanding is that a helmet that meets the US standard will meet the european one, but not necessarily the other way around. But undergoing the certification process is a requirement, at least I expect so. I read somewhere a while back that Catlike helmets, which were becoming very popular in europe at the time and which were being touted as using some kind of superior safety design (can't recall the details though, a lot of that claim might just have been marketing fluff), were not available in the US as they hadn't been certified to the US standard and so couldn't be legally sold there. I think they were subsequently certified, but it was interesting to see that the certification didn't seem to be just a formality.

monument

doozerie wrote: »

Anecdotally I can say that my experience of Dublinbikes users suggests that some of them at least are a real danger to themselves and others too in some cases.

My daily commute home brings me along Lombard Street East, Westland Row, and onto Merrion Square West. That particular part of my commute represents what for me are consistently the worst examples of cycling that I encounter in Dublin, and I see extreme examples there on an almost daily basis. I encounter people cycling against one-way traffic on Lombard Street East (towards traffic turning onto the road from both directions alongs City Quay), against me (and other traffic) on my side of the (2-way!) road on Westland Row, and against one-way traffic on the last bit towards Merrion Square West (including cycling against traffic on a blind corner). Basically people use the route as a stupidly dangerous shortcut between Merrion Square and City Quay.

Not all of the lunatic cyclists I see along there are on Dublinbikes but they do account for the majority. The only reason I can see for why I haven't seen any of these cyclists involved in a collision along those stretches is that other road users, me included, go to lengths to avoid a collision, by stopping, pulling further out into traffic to leave space for them, etc. So while one seemingly plausible explanation for the lack of incident (that I am aware of) on those bits of road is that cycling madly against traffic is safe, I think the more accurate explanation is that other road users are working hard to keeping these people from harming themselves, representing amongst other things some very considerate driving on the part of motorists despite the view of some that Dublin motorists are a murderous lot.

That particular example, and some other incidents I've observed involving Dublinbikes users, leaves me wondering exactly how safe Dublinbikes user are generally. At the very least it confirms for me that the safety of some cyclists is not due entirely to their own actions, in the worst cases they actually remain safe in spite of themselves. And that makes me question whether the Dublinbikes scheme itself is "safe" or whether Dublin is a much safer city to cycle in than public opinion would have you believe (because of considerate behaviour by motorists, other cyclists, and pedestrians). Because I don't consider cycling in Dublin inherently dangerous to start with, I tend towards the latter of those reasons.

As an aside, RTE Radio 1 spoke about road safety in Dublin this morning. They prefaced it with references to Dublin being, basically, an extremely dangerous city centre to travel in. Is it any wonder that so many people (mistakenly) believe cycling in Dublin to be dangerous when the national media so casually label it as such.

Not excusing the behavour but and this is more general anyway: Motorists (sometimes) adapt in the face of relatively large numbers of people walking or cycling, thus safety in numbers in Dublin city centre.

But where there's relatively low numbers of cyclists, motorist are slow to change their ways.

Chiparus

Not in favor of compulsory helmet laws, but this video shows some of the value.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ff_1367186005

doozerie

Chiparus wrote: »

Not in favor of compulsory helmet laws, but this video shows some of the value.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ff_1367186005

In fairness that video could be used to argue a number of things, including better enforcement of motorbike regulations to stop idiots like the one in that clip from riding a bike that they are apparently incapable of riding safely.

As to the specific question of bike helmets though, personally if I was wearing a helmet in a collision like that in the video I'd rather be wearing a helmet designed for the likes of skateboarding. From what I understand, an assumption in helmet design for skateboarding is that a fall backwards onto the back of the head is likely and the helmet design is supposed to take that into account. By contrast I don't think a fall backwards from a bicycle is considered common so cycling helmet design and manufacture probably reflects that. As an example, one of my helmets has a huge hole (for ventilation) at the back which makes me question how much protection it offers against an impact there.

Basically, not all helmets are the same in terms of what they aim to protect, and whatever about your views of the benefits or not of cycling helmets it's not a simple case of a particular helmet being good or bad in every situation - so whether a cycle helmet gives any decent protection to the back of the head at all is not clear to me.

Ray Palmer

It is interesting that people have mentioned broken helmets as indication of how it saved their head. My understanding is helmets are meant to compress. If they crack or break on impact they have expressly not worked and thus probably not saved your head from the trauma in any significant way.

Like crushing an egg on the dome once it gives way it has no extra protective quality it is broken.

Chiparus

doozerie wrote: »

In fairness that video could be used to argue a number of things, including better enforcement of motorbike regulations to stop idiots like the one in that clip from riding a bike that they are apparently incapable of riding safely.

As to the specific question of bike helmets though, personally if I was wearing a helmet in a collision like that in the video I'd rather be wearing a helmet designed for the likes of skateboarding. From what I understand, an assumption in helmet design for skateboarding is that a fall backwards onto the back of the head is likely and the helmet design is supposed to take that into account. By contrast I don't think a fall backwards from a bicycle is considered common so cycling helmet design and manufacture probably reflects that. As an example, one of my helmets has a huge hole (for ventilation) at the back which makes me question how much protection it offers against an impact there.

Basically, not all helmets are the same in terms of what they aim to protect, and whatever about your views of the benefits or not of cycling helmets it's not a simple case of a particular helmet being good or bad in every situation - so whether a cycle helmet gives any decent protection to the back of the head at all is not clear to me.

Yes, if you look at the video, while the helmet does protect the back of the head it also looks like it increases the lever action hyper flexing the neck.

Capt'n Midnight

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It is interesting that people have mentioned broken helmets as indication of how it saved their head. My understanding is helmets are meant to compress. If they crack or break on impact they have expressly not worked and thus probably not saved your head from the trauma in any significant way.

It takes energy to break/crack/compress a helmet, energy that would otherwise have to be adsorbed by your skull.

So a broken helmet is probably a sign that it has done it's job.

Or to look at it another way - why do you think hard shell helmets exist ?

And I'm going to keep saying it, a cycle helmet is not designed to take an impact at the speeds motorists travel at, even in a 30Kmph zone. For protection against that sort of impact you need a motorcycle helmet.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1182.html

LeftBlank

From the Guardian this morning:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/15/cycling-helmet-law-bmj-study-hospitals

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2674

Writing in the British Medical Journal, the authors noted a substantial fall in the rate of hospital admissions among young people, particularly in regions where helmet legislation was in place. But they said that the fall was not found to be statistically significant.

CramCycle

LeftBlank wrote: »

From the Guardian this morning:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/15/cycling-helmet-law-bmj-study-hospitals

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2674

In younger people, does it mention wether there was an associated decrease in cycling in general in this population? Only read the abstract which doesn't mention this. It also points out that injuries were on the decrease irregardless so the legislation if number s didn't go down may not mean anything at all.

galwaycyclist

CramCycle wrote: »

In younger people, does it mention wether there was an associated decrease in cycling in general in this population? Only read the abstract which doesn't mention this. It also points out that injuries were on the decrease irregardless so the legislation if number s didn't go down may not mean anything at all.

This is a key point. In general, changes in cycling injury rates over time tend to mirror changes in pedestrian injury rates.

If pedestrians experience a better increase in safety than cyclists in the helmet law states then it might suggest that cycling has become more risky than it might otherwise have been.

buffalo

Totes bumping the thread for one more letter to the Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/cycle-style-1.1397668

I was disappointed to come across the article on fashion for cyclists (Magazine, May 4th). Not one person wearing a helmet? Surely there are some fashionable options out there?

Has anyone seen a fashionable helmet? I've never noticed them on the catwalks... maybe there's a gap in the market here!

smacl

Did you read said fashion article?

Fiona Wall, nurse and her daughter Juliana, schoolgirl (Duchess Leaf Green Ladies and Dawes Little Duchess).

“I got my first bicycle with my strawberry money”, says Fiona. “I used to pick strawberries in Wexford and used to save up and buy bicycles. My husband does 100k at the weekend and last year we spent three days in New York and cycled all around Brooklyn, over the bridge and beyond and it was our favourite holiday! My work takes me all over the country, so I only cycle at weekends usually in skinny jeans, Converse and layers”.
Top 419, coat 651 both Ter Et Tantine, Style-ikon.com; jeans 69 Cos at BT2; bag 436 MO851, Costume; green sting ray bangle 60 MoMuse Bow. Juliana: Denim shirt 135 Dolce & Gabbana; gingham dress 75 Stella McCartney; cardigan 85 Catimini; all Brown Thomas, leggings 4.95 H & M

The poor woman has splashed out €1,635 on her outfit, and a further €300 on her daughters. I don't think she could reasonably be expected to afford the price of a helmet on top of that, her being on a nurses salary trying to make ends meet picking strawberries!

monument

LeftBlank wrote: »

From the Guardian this morning:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/15/cycling-helmet-law-bmj-study-hospitals

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2674

The fall was "substantial" yet somehow not "statistically significant"?!

And it's lovely how the researchers can just pop in lines like "helmets reduce head injuries and their use should be encouraged" when their work does not support this.

buffalo wrote: »

Totes bumping the thread for one more letter to the Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/cycle-style-1.1397668

Has anyone seen a fashionable helmet? I've never noticed them on the catwalks... maybe there's a gap in the market here!

There's lots of helmets helmets marketed as fashionable / normal / etc -- its big business in it's own right -- but I think they tend to look even more goofy than normal helmets do. But what would I know, I think a lot of fashion looks goofy.

smacl wrote: »

Did you read said fashion article?

The poor woman has splashed out €1,635 on her outfit, and a further €300 on her daughters. I don't think she could reasonably be expected to afford the price of a helmet on top of that, her being on a nurses salary trying to make ends meet picking strawberries!

Is that not a helmet in her basket? And possable the edge of one in her daughter's basket?

buffalo

monument wrote: »

Is that not a helmet in her basket? And possable the edge of one in her daughter's basket?

ooh, well spotted! To the letter-writing bureau!

kerry4sam

buffalo wrote: »

...

Has anyone seen a fashionable helmet? I've never noticed them on the catwalks... maybe there's a gap in the market here!

I dunno, maybe it's just me as an absolute novice who only cycles for pure enjoyment and exercise purposes; but is a helmet just a helmet and is there for safety purposes (imo) and not meant as a fashion statement?!

Their was a hairline crack in my original (that I received when purchasing my racer) last helmet after being thrown off my bike last November (my head & shoulders hit the road first) so I purchased another. I didn't go looking for a helmet based on its appearances/how it looked on me, but I am sure that some people would though.

Beasty

buffalo wrote: »

Has anyone seen a fashionable helmet? I've never noticed them on the catwalks... maybe there's a gap in the market here!

Yakkay



(not that I am one to comment in any way on "style";))

BofaDeezNuhtz

So.....given the enlightenment of people here about helmets and the surrounding
BS can someone tell me why when I've looked at approx 5 clubs websites/facebook
pages recently does the club rules state.....No Helmet No Ride.....Dafug????