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

Iwannahurl

Operation Transformation buys into helmetophilia and hivisteria:

All riders must wear a helmet and Hi Vis vest.

http://www.rte.ie/ot/events/cycle-day/

CramCycle

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Operation Transformation buys into helmetophilia and hivisteria:

Don't forget the ****ty lights he is promoting.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

Don't forget the ****ty lights he is promoting.

Whose lights?

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

Whose lights?

Karl who is in the video, giving tips on safe cycling.

Basically if you don't wear a helmet and you fall, you will die.
If you don't wear a bright yellow jacket, cars won't see you, and you will die.
As for lights, well, these ones I picked up from Tesco for 6euro, mounted the rear one upside down so it will come off if I hit a bump and the front one, mounted to reduce visibility from the side, that is really only suitable for reading a book at night when your OH/one night stand/roommate is asleep.

tomasrojo

Ah, I didn't watch the video. I was afraid of what I'd see.

Deedsie

I have a giro monza helmet. Grand helmet, happy with it but the mechanism at the back were you can tighten or loosen the helmet has broken. Is there anyway to fix this? I will put up a pic later of the exact problem.

CatFromHue

tomasrojo wrote: »

Ah, I didn't watch the video. I was afraid of what I'd see.

You were right to be afraid!

Those lights he had on his bike, I'd say the light on my 20euro watch is brighter!

Uno my Uno.

Many years ago, when I was a kid I fell of my Bike at a pretty reasonable speed, I was wearing a helmet at the time and it saved me from a serious head injury. I recognise that a bike helmet will not protect me if I am hit by car travelling at high speed but I also recognise that I am much more likely to fall of my bike all on my own or at low speed than with the help of a high speed car and for that reason I wear my Helmet when cycling. Simply because it does not offer total protection does not mean that it does not offer a useful level of effectiveness.

I also wear a high Viz vest when commuting by bike because I know from my own experience as a motorist that it is much easier to see (and thus avoid) a cyclist who is wearing a high viz vest with reflective strips. I want to give all motorists the best chance at avoiding me and so I wear my high viz vest.

CramCycle

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Many years ago, when I was a kid I fell of my Bike at a pretty reasonable speed, I was wearing a helmet at the time and it saved me from a serious head injury. I recognise that a bike helmet will not protect me if I am hit by car travelling at high speed but I also recognise that I am much more likely to fall of my bike all on my own or at low speed than with the help of a high speed car and for that reason I wear my Helmet when cycling. Simply because it does not offer total protection does not mean that it does not offer a useful level of effectiveness.

Maybe it did, but maybe, and you will never know, maybe it didn't do anything at all. As a child I came off my bike loads of times doing stupid things (my favourite was racing around a quarry). Did you stop lifting your arms to brace your head in the crash? Would you have taken the risk that led to the crash if you weren't wearing the helmet? Did you have neck pain after, could the increased weight of the helmet have increased the force on your neck?

There are situations where a helmet is useful, there are situations where it is not, there are situations where it is both.

The statistics don't seem to sway me one way or the other, Ben Goldacres audio above articulates quite nicely my current view, do what you want, just don't annoy me about it.

Uno my Uno.

CramCycle wrote: »

Maybe it did, but maybe, and you will never know, maybe it didn't do anything at all. As a child I came off my bike loads of times doing stupid things (my favourite was racing around a quarry). Did you stop lifting your arms to brace your head in the crash? Would you have taken the risk that led to the crash if you weren't wearing the helmet? Did you have neck pain after, could the increased weight of the helmet have increased the force on your neck?

There are situations where a helmet is useful, there are situations where it is not, there are situations where it is both.

The statistics don't seem to sway me one way or the other, Ben Goldacres audio above articulates quite nicely my current view, do what you want, just don't annoy me about it.

Trust me it did, I too fell of my bike many times but noting like this, I hit oil at speed, completely failed to break my fall and landed head first, blacked out, saw stars, ambulance called, cranial x-rays, the works. By some miracle I didn't have a concussion, I'm certain that had I not been wearing the helmet I would have been concussed or possibly fractured my skull. I was 12 and risk assessment wasn't a strength of mine, I had taken bigger risks without the helmet

Hey everyone is free to make their own choice and I support that, but to me the argument which I have seen espoused more then once, that because a typical bicycle helmet is of a rating that many riders often exceed said helmet is therefore of no use whatsoever, doesn't hold water in my opinion.

galwaycyclist

CatFromHue wrote: »

You were right to be afraid!

Those lights he had on his bike, I'd say the light on my 20euro watch is brighter!

I would also say he'll have a bit of trouble negotiating the roads if thats what he thinks passes for hand signals. Might have been of some benefit if he had sought advice from someone who had some basic cycling roadcraft skills first.

CatFromHue

Well for me I wear a helmet but my annoyance at the helmet debate is that it takes over when other more important things like lights and proper cycling rules are neglected.

A helmet only works when I come off the bike but lights and proper cycling rules will help stop me coming off the bike in the first place.

One of the biggest killers of cyclist is going up the inside of a left turning HGV, I think it accounts for around 50% of fatalities, and it doesn't matter if you have or have not a helmet on you're done if a 20 tonne vehicle runs over your upper body. So when I think about it 50% of the fatalities will not be stopped in any way if you wear a helmet yet helmets get so much coverage.

tomasrojo

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Hey everyone is free to make their own choice and I support that, but to me the argument which I have seen espoused more then once, that because a typical bicycle helmet is of a rating that many riders often exceed said helmet is therefore of no use whatsoever, doesn't hold water in my opinion.

That's not the only argument though. The epidemiological data suggest that there isn't much benefit. The BMJ article that Goldacre co-authored suggested that "direct benefit" had proven "too modest to measure". So it's not just people quibbling about helmet rating.

Incidentally, I know Goldacre is the more famous of the two, but the other author, Spiegelhalter, is the real heavyweight in epidemiology.

(Also, to be fair, epidemiology says nothing about whether a helmet helped in your case.)

Uno my Uno.

tomasrojo wrote: »

That's not the only argument though. The epidemiological data suggest that there isn't much benefit. The BMJ article that Goldacre co-authored suggested that "direct benefit" had proven "too modest to measure". So it's not just people quibbling about helmet rating.

Incidentally, I know Goldacre is the more famous of the two, but the other author, Spiegelhalter, is the .

(Also, to be fair, epidemiology says nothing about whether a helmet helped in your case.)

Its not so much that people are quibbling about ratings but rather the position of some that because a helmet doesn't have a benefit at a certain speed or in a certain circumstance, its benefits at other speeds and other circumstances may be disregarded, despite the relative likelihood of those circumstances coming about.

As I said, its a personal choice and I don't support mandatory helmet laws, I myself occasionally ride with my head au natural. Despite that I know that if I fall off my bike at any speed I want my head to be as protected as reasonably possible and that means wearing a bicycle helmet.

tomasrojo

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Its not so much that people are quibbling about ratings but rather the position of some that because a helmet doesn't have a benefit at a certain speed or in a certain circumstance, its benefits at other speeds and other circumstances may be disregarded, despite the relative likelihood of those circumstances coming about.

Having read a lot of the literature, it's still not clear to me exactly when a helmet is helpful and when it's of zero benefit, or even when it's harmful.

If you look at enough people it averages to about zero either way.

Iwannahurl

CramCycle wrote: »

Karl who is in the video, giving tips on safe cycling.

Basically if you don't wear a helmet and you fall, you will die.
If you don't wear a bright yellow jacket, cars won't see you, and you will die.
As for lights, well, these ones I picked up from Tesco for 6euro, mounted the rear one upside down so it will come off if I hit a bump and the front one, mounted to reduce visibility from the side, that is really only suitable for reading a book at night when your OH/one night stand/roommate is asleep.

"The front one helps you see where you're going, the rear one makes you visible to other road users."

FFS.

Has this video been posted previously, by the way? If yes, I'll delete.

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

Iwannahurl

Film crew standing in back of jeep makes video about cycle safety, Wexford, September 2014.









The road was closed for the shoot. More photos here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/130166439@N05/

In fairness to the project, organised by Wexford County Council's cycling officer, the first video in the series is about safer overtaking.

beardybrewer

Hey guys so my son has grown out of his Ben 10 helmet and my wife wants to pick up a new one from Smyths. Now that he's a bit older I want to make sure his helmet is up to whatever safety certification necessary as he'll be doing more cycling on the road. I'm a little concerned that helmet purchased from a toy store may not cut mustard.

Doing some quick reading this morning and I can see the minimum cert is CE EN1078 which I believe even his old helmet was. Is that all I need to look for? Am I better off getting a brand like Bell or MET? Or are the helmets from Smyths and Argos as good?

Beasty

Everything that's for sale will meet the stipulated safety standard. Very few will be far ahead of that standard. The most important thing is to make sure whatever you gets fits properly. Having one which is easily adjustable (often via a little dial at the back) does make fitting a lot more straightforward

tomasrojo

All items sold as bicycle helmets, for adults or children, have to meet the 1078 standard, even ones sold in toy shops.

There are more stringent standards, such as the Snell standards, which I think Specialized helmets meet. (The standards aren't really all that exacting in either case, but bicycle helmets can't be like motorcycle helmets anyway.)

check_six

beardybrewer wrote: »

Hey guys so my son has grown out of his Ben 10 helmet and my wife wants to pick up a new one from Smyths. Now that he's a bit older I want to make sure his helmet is up to whatever safety certification necessary as he'll be doing more cycling on the road. I'm a little concerned that helmet purchased from a toy store may not cut mustard.

As has been pointed out, the helmets are all much of a muchness safety-wise. If you'd like your son to wear a bike helmet pick out one that looks good. I have bought a couple of ABUS brand helmets previously in junior sizes. They have a good range to suit all tastes. The ones I got had a dial to adjust the size. They also had a built in rear light which is handy if there is little space to include a light in a visible location on a small bike. I suppose the most important thing is that they looked the business and my young fellow was happy to wear them (until they got left behind somewhere!).

McDonald Cycles on Wexford St and 2 Wheels on South William St in Dublin both stock Abus junior helmets. Everest Cycles in Bray do them too, I think.

CatFromHue

Just noticed a few PhD's into the area of helmets (horse racing and cycling) and cycle accidents between UCD and a Belgian Uni.

Just from reading the proposals it sounds like there may be new standards being devised/hope to be devised in this area.

smacl

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

Wow. What a long thread.

Having a helmet is better than not having one.

It's not rocket science.

That was very much my take on things when I started cycling regularly again a couple of years ago, and thought it very much a no-brainer. Trying to encourage my kids to cycle now has led me to revise my position. Basically, my girls (11 & 16) dislike helmets to the extent that they simply don't cycle at all. Their mum insists they wear a helmet when cycling, but doesn't wear one herself. Growing up in the 70s and 80s, most kids who were the same age as my kids are now cycled as a form of transport, and helmets didn't exist. These days only a small fraction of the number of kids cycle as did in my day, and helmets are a blocking factor. Many of those who do cycle, don't wear helmets.

This begs the question is the damage caused to children not wearing helmets involved in accidents greater than the damage caused by them not cycling and getting driven everywhere? I don't think so, and I really would like to see more kids on bikes on our streets. I also suspect the behaviour of motorists towards cyclists would be very different in the cycling population included their own nearest and dearest.

FWIW, I use a helmet all them time, but have said to the eldest she is fine to cycle without one. The trips she's currently taking are short on suburban streets with reasonable cycling infrastructure. Good lights on her bike, and reflective armbands over her regular clothes.

I'd be interested in hearing other peoples take on the helmet/high-vis thing when it comes to their own kids cycling.

CramCycle

smacl wrote: »

I'd be interested in hearing other peoples take on the helmet/high-vis thing when it comes to their own kids cycling.

I have my little fella in a child seat at the minute, a helmet was bought by my OH but he won't wear it. I don't make him, I still pick him up from creche in it. According to some I am Satan. He loves it, I'll be damned if I am ruining a bit of fun for him, as he sits in a mounded seat that goes up over his head just to appease anyone.

On a slightly related story, on the way up to creche yesterday, I passed by a house, in an estate, where the parents had locked the gates for the childrens safety (presumably), probably due to speeders in the area. The kid was on a skateboard, covered in safety gear, big skaters helmet. He was using the slope in the drive to build speed, to ram the gates, perfectly safe as he had a helmet I imagine :pac:

CatFromHue

CramCycle wrote: »

On a slightly related story, on the way up to creche yesterday, I passed by a house, in an estate, where the parents had locked the gates for the childrens safety (presumably), probably due to speeders in the area. The kid was on a skateboard, covered in safety gear, big skaters helmet. He was using the slope in the drive to build speed, to ram the gates, perfectly safe as he had a helmet I imagine :pac:

Kids: Wrecking stuff since time began!

Though if he was doing that with the gates closed I'd imagine he'd end up shooting out onto the road if they were open.

galwaycyclist

Swedish review suggests that child helmet law had no effect on head injuries but may have reduced cycling to school.

http://www.ecf.com/news/what-happens-when-you-mandate-helmet-wearing-among-young-swedish-cyclists/

tomasrojo

Don't think this has been posted already.

http://irishcycle.com/2015/03/28/compulsory-bicycle-helmets-raised-in-dail-and-seanad-most-years-in-last-15/

Compulsory bicycle helmets were raised as an issue using parliamentary questions or in speeches in the Oireachtas in all but two years in the last 15 years. In one year bicycle helmets were mentioned five times.

tomasrojo

This sort of belongs on both the Helmet and the Hi Viz megathreads, so I'll post twice, if that's ok.

In a victory for bicycle advocates, a state senator has dropped a proposal that would have made California the first state in the country to require every adult who rides a bicycle to wear a helmet.

The amended bill also removes a requirement that would have required bicyclists to wear “retroreflective high-visibility safety apparel” at night.

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/04/10/state-senator-drops-mandatory-helmet-proposal-for-bicyclists

magicbastarder

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/03/motorcyclist-dies-helmet-protest_n_889427.html

not intended as any sort of commentary or otherwise.

tomasrojo

Some interesting stuff in this study.

http://rachelaldred.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Perceptions-of-Safety-Stuff-website.pdf


More about attitudes to safety gear than outcomes of wearing or not wearing.

This notion (here called co-accumulation) has come up in this thread and the hi-viz thread:

Some people who did begin acquiring safety-related items referred to the co-accumulation of multiple safety items. This suggests the potential operation of a dynamic whereby the expected level of safety gear continues to increase. If one function of safety gear is, as suggested above, a visual demonstration that a cyclist is not a risk-taker, then it might not be surprising that once an item (e.g. helmets) becomes widespread, other items take its place as signalling one’s distance from the ‘typical’ dangerous cyclist (c.f. Aldred 2013)

Robotic exoskeleton, here we come.