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

Chuchote

CramCycle wrote: »

TBF I would happily wear that is it were made in my size

Me too :P

Idleater

CramCycle wrote: »

I also remember it being common practice if you had a question to undo your seat belt and scoot between the seats so you were closer to the driver.

I also remember no seat belts and loving the occasional sitting backwards in the boot when the seat was down (hatchback) like when going on holiday.

I also recently ish had the pleasure of being given a spin in a '57 Chevy Bel Air in the states. No seat belts, bench front seat, bench rear seat. Driver and passengers nicely sliding left and right on the occasion of a corner.

tomasrojo

The USA remains somewhat resistant to seat belts, compared to, say, the EU. When they tried to harmonise safety standards between the USA and the EU, they couldn't get the Germans to agree to adding the extra air bags that the American manufacturers include to take into account all the people who don't wear seat belts.

Well, so I heard on a podcast. That's the only way I learn anything now.

Chuchote

I also remember - or at least remember hearing about - people paying more on trains for a seat with its back to the engine.

CramCycle

Chuchote wrote: »

I also remember - or at least remember hearing about - people paying more on trains for a seat with its back to the engine.

Something similar, hearing about a difference in price between forward and rear facing seats

Chuchote

CramCycle wrote: »

Something similar, hearing about a difference in price between forward and rear facing seats

Same thing, yeah - facing backwards was reckoned to be more comfortable, less joggly and safer in case of sudden stop or crash.
Perhaps we should design backwards-facing bicycles with mirrors?

magicbastarder

it's an old chestnut that airplanes would supposedly be safer if the seats were rearward facing, but that airlines don't think passengers would like it.

I love Sean nos

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's an old chestnut that airplanes would supposedly be safer if the seats were rearward facing, but that airlines don't think passengers would like it.

I certainly wouldn't like it if the pilots were facing the back of the cockpit.

I love Sean nos

A nice report here from Mikael Colville-Andersen on an radio segment that he participated in on helmets. According to him, it went just as well as one would expect for a BBC radio interview, but a lot worse than expected for a Copenhagen radio interview. I would set the bar higher for them.

Read elsewhere today that the majority of Danes surveyed want bike helmets to be mandatory, yet only 11% of Danish cyclists wears one.

tomasrojo

I love Sean nos wrote: »

A nice report here from Mikael Colville-Andersen on an radio segment that he participated in on helmets. According to him, it went just as well as one would expect for a BBC radio interview, but a lot worse than expected for a Copenhagen radio interview. I would set the bar higher for them.

I have an Irish friend who lives in Aarhus. He was under the impression that children were legally obliged to wear helmets. There's certainly a lot of societal pressure to conform on this issue. Nordic countries generally are quite keen on helmets (and the Danish cycling lobby is, as MCA says, "the only national bicycle NGO in Europe that actively promotes helmets"). There's no particular sign that helmet laws such as in Sweden (children only) or Finland (everyone, but no penalty imposed) have improved safety.

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Read elsewhere today that the majority of Danes surveyed want bike helmets to be mandatory, yet only 11% of Danish cyclists wears one.

http://road.cc/content/news/219939-half-danes-say-cycle-helmets-should-be-mandatory-new-survey-finds

Reductio ad seatbelts ahoy.

I love Sean nos

I suppose the nordics are already familiar with the concept of wearing helmets when travelling.

tomasrojo wrote: »

http://road.cc/content/news/219939-half-danes-say-cycle-helmets-should-be-mandatory-new-survey-finds

Reductio ad seatbelts ahoy.

That's it all right.

What confuses me about it is if the majority of cyclists want to wear helmets, then they can do that right now without any law being required. The results are being polluted by non-cyclists trying to force a behaviour change on others.

tomasrojo

Over half of the Danish population doesn't cycle frequently. They might be a lot of the MHL supporters. But the cycling lobby in Denmark strongly promotes helmets, which is unusual in Europe now, and especially unusual in a country with a high rate of cycling.

The other thing is that there is a tendency to conflate "is a good idea" and "should be legally obligatory". Once you point out some unintended consequences of the latter, you find support drifting away a bit. Which is why there is a lot of academic work in the last few years to undermine the case that MHLs reduce cycling participation, and some of the other counterarguments.

Chips Lovell

I liked this one:

Chuchote

http://www.thejournal.ie/cyclists-poll-hi-vis-3338278-Apr2017/

Get yer vote in!

monument

Look at the media, the transport committee and now the Gardai... mandatory high-vs and helmets will make it into law if this push isn't stopped. I hope people will be doing more than just voting in a poll!

Skrynesaver

DON'T LOOK AT THE COMMENTS

Tenzor07

Skrynesaver wrote: »

DON'T LOOK AT THE COMMENTS

Just pay Road tax, get insurance and a licence plate ya freeloader cyclist ya!

Wishbone Ash

I'd prefer if they separated the helmets and hi viz in the poll. I personally don't have a problem with wearing a helmet but I'd draw the line at hi viz.

Leroy42

I just find it ironic that on one hand we have the garda claiming that every cyclists should wear hi-vis and helmets and on the other we have a TD claiming that people with a drinks on them should be let drive as otherwise....

Leroy42

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I'd prefer if they separated the helmets and hi viz in the poll. I personally don't have a problem with wearing a helmet but I'd draw the line at hi viz.

You could go with a hi-vis helmet!

smacl

Skrynesaver wrote: »

DON'T LOOK AT THE COMMENTS

Feck, if you hadn't said that I probably wouldn't have. Dammit!!!

Leroy42

And what so they think constitutes hi-vis anyway. It is a yellow jacket, or a reflective jacket?

What about trousers, surely some hi-vis on the bottom half would be appropriate too?

And the bike. What about painting the bikes fluorescent yellow or orange.

Lemming

Skrynesaver wrote: »

DON'T LOOK AT THE COMMENTS

Too late.

Still though, a lot of the comments that I've read thus far are getting stuck in and pointing out the fallacy of the child-like simpleton equation "helmet + hi-viz = not hit by car". One of the comments so aptly pointed out that all those cycling deaths to-date this year were wearing helmets & hi-viz.

daragh_

I looked at the comments. Then I added my own.

Now I just feel grubby and ashamed. :rolleyes:

Chips Lovell

Threads merged

Korvanica

The comment section there is loads of fun. Honestly, facebook integration making it so easy for general public retards to argue with each other is an excellent idea.

I love Sean nos

Was walking past a local playground when I saw something that summed up the hysteria around helmets and especially children for me. Mother and young son approach slowly. Child is on a small bicycle with stabilisers. Bike also has one of those handle sticking up from somewhere behind the seat post, so the mother can push him along or restrain his progress. In other words, he has no chance of falling off unless he jumps, is pushed, or runs over a landmine.

Of course, he's got a helmet on.

Both stop at the gate to the playground. He abandons the bike, takes off the helmet and gives it to the mother. He then hops on a swing and proceeds to swing as high as he could manage. Mother parks bike and joins him, pushing him higher and higher.

The path loops round so I was able to continue watching for a few minutes. Young lad also climbs some bars and has a go on the slide.

No helmet required for any of those activities of course.




Note to mods: if you're going to have megathreads, why not set them as stickies so that posters don't have to scroll through several pages of threads to find them.

CramCycle

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Note to mods: if you're going to have megathreads, why not set them as stickies so that posters don't have to scroll through several pages of threads to find them.

Unfortunately doing this takes up half the front page, we do include notes on them in the charter, which as we all know, all posters have read before they post.

Chuchote

CramCycle wrote: »

Unfortunately doing this takes up half the front page, we do include notes on them in the charter, which as we all know, all posters have read before they post.

Would it be technically possible to have a stickies folder where non-major stickies were corralled?

McTigs

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Was walking past a local playground when I saw something that summed up the hysteria around helmets and especially children for me. Mother and young son approach slowly. Child is on a small bicycle with stabilisers. Bike also has one of those handle sticking up from somewhere behind the seat post, so the mother can push him along or restrain his progress. In other words, he has no chance of falling off unless he jumps, is pushed, or runs over a landmine.

Of course, he's got a helmet on.

Both stop at the gate to the playground. He abandons the bike, takes off the helmet and gives it to the mother. He then hops on a swing and proceeds to swing as high as he could manage. Mother parks bike and joins him, pushing him higher and higher.

The path loops round so I was able to continue watching for a few minutes. Young lad also climbs some bars and has a go on the slide.

No helmet required for any of those activities of course.

This gets me everytime!

My parents were giving out to me for not making my kids wear helmets and I made the playground comparrisson and they "but but but.... *nothing*"

Everyone is convinced cycling is deadly (not good deadly, bad deadly)