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

AstraMonti

Nothing that we haven't already discussed in this thread but an interesting read anyway.

In any case, the current uncertainty about any benefit from helmet wearing or promotion is unlikely to be substantially reduced by further research. Equally, we can be certain that helmets will continue to be debated, and at length. The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk.

Tayto2000

Very interesting, first mention I've read about the reality of cyclist subpopulations. I think it's a factor that really needs to be accounted for when trying to come up with "one size fits all solutions" to a range of cycling issues, not just helmets.

du Maurier

I'm noticing recently that far more girls don't wear helmets. They usually happen to be the "boutique" type, fair-weather cyclists on a Dutch bike. They don't hit too high speeds on them and it seems to be style driven (complete with cute basket!) and somewhat showy, gliding along, but a lot cycle in a very carefree/erratic manner - no helmet for most of them.

dub_skav

du Maurier wrote: »

I'm noticing recently that far more girls don't wear helmets. They usually happen to be the "boutique" type, fair-weather cyclists on a Dutch bike. They don't hit too high speeds on them and it seems to be style driven (complete with cute basket!) and somewhat showy, gliding along, but a lot cycle in a very carefree/erratic manner - no helmet for most of them.

And? Any comment on safety, practicality, suitability. Or just lots of unnecessary digs?

du Maurier

dub_skav wrote: »

And? Any comment on safety, practicality, suitability. Or just lots of unnecessary digs?

Let it out, why don't you? A predictable angry retort. Nothing new there. My comment was to be posted in another thread that was since closed and was redirected to here.

My apologies if I didn't craft a concise reply outlining every facet you mentioned there. I try not to step out of line again for fear of you jumping in angrily at anything that displeases you. They weren't digs, for the record. Just what I have recently noticed/witnessed.

Cee-Jay-Cee

I have noticed recently that the more seasoned cyclists tend not wear helmets whereas the younger folk always do. I have noticed this particularly more so since the good weather graced us. Maybe it's down to temperature and being cooler without a helmet or maybe they started cycling in an era when helmets weren't so popular.

I've considered leaving mine off for a few spins particularly in the last week as it was so hot and clammy but I didn't want to risk it and felt it was better to be safe and a little warmer than cooler but sorry in the event of an accident. It's sort of like wearing seat belts in cars, it sort of feels wrong not to anymore, despite the fact that I started driving when seat belts weren't mandatory and it took me a while to get into the habit of wearing one.

Seweryn

Good idea for the next year Tour:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/helmets-not-required-for-tour-de-france-2014-grand-depart

Bigus

Seweryn wrote: »

Good idea for the next year Tour:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/helmets-not-required-for-tour-de-france-2014-grand-depart

Published on april 1st

dub_skav

du Maurier wrote: »

Let it out, why don't you? A predictable angry retort. Nothing new there. My comment was to be posted in another thread that was since closed and was redirected to here.

My apologies if I didn't craft a concise reply outlining every facet you mentioned there. I try not to step out of line again for fear of you jumping in angrily at anything that displeases you. They weren't digs, for the record. Just what I have recently noticed/witnessed.

If you were redirected from a different thread then that is unfortunate as context may have been lost (note, that is not an apology).

No digs? Boutique, fair weather, style driven, cute basket, somewhat showy, erratic manner.
It seemed to be one long dig to me.

As for my anger, I have reread my post and actually can't discern any anger in it. I think maybe you need more vents in your helmet.

Lumen

du Maurier wrote: »

I'm noticing recently that far more girls don't wear helmets. They usually happen to be the "boutique" type, fair-weather cyclists on a Dutch bike. They don't hit too high speeds on them and it seems to be style driven (complete with cute basket!) and somewhat showy, gliding along, but a lot cycle in a very carefree/erratic manner

Up with this sort of thing.

Well, maybe not the erratic bit. Still, they probably get given more room so maybe it's a case of strategic wobbles.

smacl

du Maurier wrote: »

I'm noticing recently that far more girls don't wear helmets.

My wife and daughters can't abide helmets. Wife doesn't wear one herself, but insists that daughters do, as a result of which the daughters don't cycle much. Not good.

They usually happen to be the "boutique" type, fair-weather cyclists on a Dutch bike. They don't hit too high speeds on them and it seems to be style driven (complete with cute basket!)

Hmmm, no dutch bikes here, but herself and my youngest have and use baskets, which believe it or not have a function. I use a large altura bag on the back of my bike for light shopping, but nothing wrong with baskets.

somewhat showy, gliding along, but a lot cycle in a very carefree/erratic manner - no helmet for most of them.

You were going fine up until the erratic bit; the combined sentence suggests women are more ditzy and hence dangerous on bikes than blokes, which I don't believe is the case. Nothing wrong with appearing carefree or even showy on a bike, a nice look in many ways, and it doesn't imply you're a bad road user. My wife and eldest (13) both look great on their bikes, but they're both careful and rather conservative road users. My youngest (10) is wildly erratic both on and off the bike, and ideally could do with a helmet complete with warning siren / beacon on top at all times, but that's just her.

As others have already said, that short hop low speed type of cycling doesn't require a helmet for most, and if the helmet is a blocking factor it should probably be ditched. IMHO, younger kids learning road skills is something else, and I think the helmet and high-viz do no harm. n.b. another use for the youngest's basket is a place to stash the helmet when not required.

tomasrojo

A friend of mine is so taken by baskets after using the dublinbikes that he wants to put a basket on his tourer. He hasn't found anything suitable yet, as far as I know.

Off-topic. We need a basket mega-thread for this controversial topic.

dub_skav

tomasrojo wrote: »

A friend of mine is so taken by baskets after using the dublinbikes that he wants to put a basket on his tourer. He hasn't found anything suitable yet, as far as I know.

Off-topic. We need a basket mega-thread for this controversial topic.

Baskets are not properly safety tested for their most used purpose (carrying crates of beer).
For this you really need the boot of a car.

I think you're right, this needs it's own sub-forum

TinyExplosions

dub_skav wrote: »

Baskets are not properly safety tested for their most used purpose (carrying crates of beer).
For this you really need the boot of a car.

I think you're right, this needs it's own sub-forum

Or a front rack...

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

A friend of mine is so taken by baskets after using the dublinbikes that he wants to put a basket on his tourer. He hasn't found anything suitable yet, as far as I know.

In my experience baskets tend to interfere with lighting, cabling and steering, or rather make those things more difficult to get right.

Nothing particularly insurmountable, but there are good reasons why people use rear racks.

tomasrojo

Lumen wrote: »

In my experience baskets tend to interfere with lighting, cabling and steering, or rather make those things more difficult to get right.

Nothing particularly insurmountable, but there are good reasons why people use rear racks.

Small-front-wheeled bikes are probably better suited for baskets, and not many people have them. Still, they are nice.

Capt'n Midnight

dub_skav wrote: »

Baskets are not properly safety tested for their most used purpose (carrying crates of beer).
For this you really need the boot of a car.

I think you're right, this needs it's own sub-forum

Big cable ties to hold it on to the rear carrier.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Small-front-wheeled bikes are probably better suited for baskets, and not many people have them. Still, they are nice.

Being able to have stuff to hand is great, but best if heavy weight is low down and only light stuff in handlebar bag or basket

dub_skav

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Big cable ties to hold it on to the rear carrier.

Maybe we could think of some way to reduce the weight of these crates of beer hmmmm

monument

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Or a front rack...

Or crates which hold more and are more stable/supported than your average basket:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindcaster-ezzolicious/3105280588/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindcaster-ezzolicious/3105551700/

Lumen wrote: »

Nothing particularly insurmountable, but there are good reasons why people use rear racks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1SK4b65nQo

CramCycle

monument wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1SK4b65nQo

Why did I sell my rear rack

du Maurier

dub_skav wrote: »

If you were redirected from a different thread then that is unfortunate as context may have been lost (note, that is not an apology).

No digs? Boutique, fair weather, style driven, cute basket, somewhat showy, erratic manner.
It seemed to be one long dig to me.

As for my anger, I have reread my post and actually can't discern any anger in it. I think maybe you need more vents in your helmet.

Hmm. It might seem that way. But true, in all I said. Certain adjectives you perceived as condescension perhaps, but that's your prerogative. I can't change that.

What I've noticed is what I've noticed. Just thought I'd mention it in the thread. Think I'll take a more tentative, well researched and more rounded approach in future.

Passive-aggressive so. Tantamount to an angry reply. I was just a bit sick of self righteous, pious know it alls looking to refute something a person states they have seen.

Let me know if you come across any of these helmetless female cyclists in the coming weeks..

BUBBLE WRAP

I'm not into cycling myself at the moment but trying to get back into it. Anyway a good friend of mine showed me these pics and I'd thought I'd share.

He works in a bike shop and two customers came in after buying two new helmets last week. The fell from there bike today and there alive, but accidents warn't even bad. Anyway, I'l let the pics do the talking.

Helmet one:


Helmet two:
No visual damage on the outside. Just a crack on the inside.



Only for the helmets, there would have been a visit to A&E. :eek:

galwaycyclist

BUBBLE WRAP wrote: »

I'm not into cycling myself at the moment but trying to get back into it. Anyway a good friend of mine showed me these pics and I'd thought I'd share.

He works in a bike shop and two customers came in after buying two new helmets last week. The fell from there bike today and there alive, but accidents warn't even bad. Anyway, I'l let the pics do the talking.

Helmet one

Helmet two:
No visual damage on the outside. Just a crack on the inside.


Only for the helmets, there would have been a visit to A&E. :eek:

Question 1. Would either individual have crashed at all, or hit their heads, if they hadnt been wearing helmets?

Question 2. Just because you have avoided a scalp or cranial injury it does not follow that you have avoided traumatic brain injury, or that the impact caused by increased head size (due to helmet) may not have resulted in brain injury. On what basis are you advising tha people who have suffered head impacts do not need to seek medical advice? Why would they not visit A & E?

AltAccount

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Question 1. Would either individual have crashed at all, or hit their heads, if they hadnt been wearing helmets?

That's a very strange question, what's the thinking behind it?

adamski8

AltAccount wrote: »

That's a very strange question, what's the thinking behind it?

The helmet isnt the person, maybe if they werent wearing a helmet their heads might not have hit whatever object their helmey hit.
Also if they werent wearing a helmet would they have been more cautious and not have ended up crashing.

We dont know of course but similiary we csnt say they avoided AandE becausr of the helmet.

ROK ON

I never really understood this thread until an incident last week. I mean I often wear a lid as I have to - cycling club and all that. But I am not bothered whether other people wear them or not. I couldn't ne bothered either if there was compulsory helmet wearing introduced as I think it would make any difference & be unenforceable.

I couldn't understand the strength of feeling on this thread.

This week in work I was involved in a small committe with Health & Safety. I must say that I was completely unprepared and taken aback by the approach of the H&S lobby. It blew my mind how OTT these guys were in regard to a certain issue where personal responsibility and common sense should come into play. I can see now how this approach would get up the noses of certain types of individuals who would then alsoeave behind all reason and come out fighting.

magicbastarder

BUBBLE WRAP wrote: »

He works in a bike shop and two customers came in after buying two new helmets last week. The fell from there bike today and there alive, but accidents warn't even bad. Anyway, I'l let the pics do the talking.

don't forget that the breakage in the polystyrene is not necessarily indicative of the impact; helmets are designed to work *by* breaking; that's one of the main ways they absorb the impact. still, looks like a bad enough scrape.

were they on a tandem?

AltAccount

adamski8 wrote: »

The helmet isnt the person, maybe if they werent wearing a helmet their heads might not have hit whatever object their helmey hit.
Also if they werent wearing a helmet would they have been more cautious and not have ended up crashing.

We dont know of course but similiary we csnt say they avoided AandE becausr of the helmet.

As rebuttals go, this line of argument is really scraping the bottom of the barrel IMHO.

may as well stop wearing seat belts in case they spontaneously strangle you or stop locking the bleach away from your toddler in case you have a disinfectant emergency and your whole family gets Ebola because you couldn't get to the cleaning products quickly enough.

I'm not pro-compulsory helmets, but this isn't a valid argument not to.

BUBBLE WRAP

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Question 1. Would either individual have crashed at all, or hit their heads, if they hadnt been wearing helmets?

Question 2. Just because you have avoided a scalp or cranial injury it does not follow that you have avoided traumatic brain injury, or that the impact caused by increased head size (due to helmet) may not have resulted in brain injury. On what basis are you advising tha people who have suffered head impacts do not need to seek medical advice? Why would they not visit A & E?

1. what are you trying to say? That they crashed because they were wearing helmets?

2. According to them, they were fine.

Your just nit picking if you ask me..

magicbastarder wrote: »

don't forget that the breakage in the polystyrene is not necessarily indicative of the impact; helmets are designed to work *by* breaking; that's one of the main ways they absorb the impact. still, looks like a bad enough scrape.

were they on a tandem?

Ah I know, but surely if he hadn't the helmet on his head would have taken the impact?? Do you not think??

No, these are too completely different people..

magicbastarder

adamski8 wrote: »

The helmet isnt the person, maybe if they werent wearing a helmet their heads might not have hit whatever object their helmey hit.
Also if they werent wearing a helmet would they have been more cautious and not have ended up crashing.

to echo the two above posts - what you're suggesting is that whatever object they hit was within reach of the helmet, but not their head? that's a specious argument, especially given the damage visible; you'd be looking at a difference at best of less than an inch. and neither photo would suggest a glancing blow. you're really just grasping at straws with that one.

also, if i drive without a seatbelt, i'd definitely be more cautious driving. maybe i should stop wearing a seatbelt.