Helmets

did anyone else see this ?

 

Government puts brake on MP's helmet compulsion campaign : Bike Biz

 

would seem to indicate the powers that be are moving away from the compulsory helmet...?

 

love hats, but hate helmets

Good.

 

These do-gooders keep trying to use the "thin edge of the wedge" approach by forcing youngsters to wear them.

 

There isn't a shred of evidence that cycle helmets are anything other than virtually useless and under some circumstances they are positively dangerous.

 

The most experienced in cycling circles who might be expected to be the most likely to encourage their use are almost universally condemnatory about helmets, and even the legislation happy Eurocrats haven't introduced helmet laws for normal bicycles.

.

I agree wholeheartedly. A well argued article showing some welcome common sense from the government.

 

If evidence were needed that 'helmets' and 'a healthy approach to cycling as a widespread form of transport for all ages' don't go together, look at the US, where everyone wears helmets and bikes are rarely used as a form of transport, vs countries like Denmark or the Netherlands, who know a bit about cycling and where no-one wears them.

 

Peter Bone's arguments are absurd. Taking them to their logical conclusion, why not make helmets compulsory for pedestrians? It would make as much sense as picking on cyclists.

 

Frank

Whilst I agree with you about their protective ability, I recall reading that car drivers that saw cyclists wearing helmets, treated them slightly differently, and that statistics suggested that you're less likely to be ignored by a car driver if you are wearing one.

 

Didnt A2B also do an article on something similar?

 

John

Yes, there was an A to B article on a study of cyclist/driver behaviours, which included some information on the effect of helmet wearing. The study wasn't anything like conclusive or rigorously enough conducted, as was admitted by the author of the study.

 

A to B editors, lifelong cyclists, are opposed to any helmet legislation and are convinced that cycle helmets have no benefits.

.

I lost the sight in one eye due to a blow to the head. A helmet would have saved my sight so I am acutely aware of how fragile a head is & in principle I think wearing a helmet is a sensible protective measure. I would certainly prefer my children to wear them on a bike though overall think it is best that helmets are not obligatory. I also lost several teeth in a bike accident which a helmet would not have saved. Go carefully out there!

I was quite suprised to read that people on here don't like / use helmets. I thought the large majority would be in favour. If I ever pop out on my bike without my helmet on I feel a lot more vulnerable.

Whilst I agree with you about their protective ability, I recall reading that car drivers that saw cyclists wearing helmets, treated them slightly differently, and that statistics suggested that you're less likely to be ignored by a car driver if you are wearing one.

I've not seen the A2B article, but there was a widely reported study by Dr Walker which more or less says the opposite: that cars pass closer if the cyclist is wearing a helmet. This would make sense in terms of risk compensation, especially if the driver also supposes that the helmet means the rider is more experienced. Even if the helmet does offer real protection in an accident (which is doubtful if a car is involved), the safety benefits could well be undone if it also makes accidents more likely.

I guess it depends what you ride. If I rode a conventional bike, where there was a risk that I could go over the handlebars and land head first, then I'd be inclined to wear a helmet (although most bike helmets seem to be wholly inadequate from what I've seen - I honestly doubt that they offer anything more than psychological comfort to their owners).

 

I ride a recumbent, where the risk of going over the front is non-existent. In my case I'd need the helmet on my backside, as that's the first bit of me that will contact the ground if I fall off............

 

The most vulnerable bit of my anatomy is my feet, as they are way out in front. I'm not sure that there's much that can be done about that though, except ride defensively and avoid heavy traffic.

 

Jeremy

I was quite suprised to read that people on here don't like / use helmets. I thought the large majority would be in favour. If I ever pop out on my bike without my helmet on I feel a lot more vulnerable.

 

No, you'll find the majority in most cycling organisations and websites don't approve.

 

I'm very happy for those who want them to have them available, but compulsion isn't acceptable, given the total of all the evidence.

 

Natural evolution has equipped all creatures bones and shock absorbing mechanisms to cope well with the speeds that they are naturally capable of. Fit humans can commonly run at 18 mph plus, athletes even faster, peaking at 26 mph for sprinters. Nearly all cycling is well within those speeds.

 

Given that, the only real reason for having helmets is for protection when in collision with other fast moving road users like cars and trucks etc, for which cycling helmets are hopelessly inadequate.

 

The "pimple on a haystack" with a chinstrap design of cycle helmets is also potentially more dangerous if catching on something than having a bare head.

.

I wear a helmet about 50% of the time. I find a lump of polystyrene foam is quite effective at reducing heat loss from the head in cold weather, quite important as I lost most of my natural insulation years ago.

 

One disadvantage of wearing a helmet is that at high speeds or in windy weather the sound of wind whistling through the straps reduces the ability to hear other traffic.

 

There have been occasions when I've been glad of the helmet, it's taken a few hits from branches with the excessive tree growth this summer and a couple of weeks ago I was showered with conkers one windy day.

 

There have been occasions when I've been glad of the helmet, it's taken a few hits from branches with the excessive tree growth this summer and a couple of weeks ago I was showered with conkers one windy day.

 

That's fine Ian, just don't tell Peter Bone.

 

He'll either redraft the bill or start a new one to have all conker trees cut down.

.

My understanding of cycling helmets is that they were really designed for off-road biking, where falling off at low speed is much more likely. I can believe that a polystyrene helmet can give some valuable protection from a 5mph fall, and if falls are quite likely on a rocky, bumpy, broken surface, it doesn't seem such a bad idea.

 

However if you fall off on the road you are likely to be going significantly faster so for genuine protection, you would need something like a motorbike helmet.

 

Frank

Im not so sure. It seems common sense to me that if there is a risk of banging your head, then you should wear a helmet. To make an analogy, if I trip up and scrape my knee in shorts vs jeans, then even though jeans are in no way regarded as safety clothing, the injury would be a lot less.

As an additional note, I would imagine if someone was going to go to the trouble of wearing a helmet, then they are more likely to also purchase some sort of HiViz clothing, making them much more noticable to other traffic.

Im not so sure. It seems common sense to me that if there is a risk of banging your head, then you should wear a helmet. To make an analogy, if I trip up and scrape my knee in shorts vs jeans, then even though jeans are in no way regarded as safety clothing, the injury would be a lot less.

 

Of course John, there can be no disagreement on that.

 

But where does it stop?

 

As Frank inferred earlier, any case for helmet on cyclists founded on such trivia is equally valid for pedestrians, especially if they ever run at speed, as kids often do, and occasionally adults.

 

Some weeks ago I was cycling at 15 mph along the approach road to home when two of the local 13 year olds came running up from an angle across a side road, two kerbs and a rough grass ridge, just to beg a try on my bike. They had to running much faster than I was cycling to catch up, and on the obstacle course they covered, were much more at risk of injury than I was on a smooth road surface.

 

So they should be wearing helmets?

 

Of course not, for what I illustrated is just another "what if" situation. It's a tactic beloved of the nanny state types who, not content with their own sad inadequate lives, wish to run others lives for them.

.

Edited October 28, 200718 yr by flecc

John, not sure I follow you:

 

"if I trip up and scrape my knee in shorts vs jeans, then even though jeans are in no way regarded as safety clothing, the injury would be a lot less."

 

On that basis, would you advocate banning shorts altogether and insisting that people wear heavyweight jeans at all times?

 

"if someone was going to go to the trouble of wearing a helmet, then they are more likely to also purchase some sort of HiViz clothing, making them much more noticable to other traffic"

 

I don't see why someone who doesn't wear a helmet can't do things that they genuinely think will make them safer. As it happens I do just that. I don't wear a helmet as i don't feel it makes me safer but i do wear a high viz vest to be seen by traffic.

 

Frank

Flecc, I completely agree on the ridiculousness of some of the rules that are now enforced upon us by our nanny state, and I would not wish any rule on wearing helmets becoming compulsory at all either.

 

So I can understand some of the, well, lets say derisionary reports published by groups opposing the nanny culture, as well as the opposite supporters from the helmet manufacturing world.

 

Personally, my helmet (which I wear every time I cycle) has the clip on rear view mirror, and a waterproof rain cover, as well as small level of protection it provides, and today I was attempting (but failed) to mount front and rear flashing leds to it (all in it makes it sound like something from a 1970's Tomorrows World episode feature ).

 

For me, I would need a waterproof hat in this part of the world, and I need a rear view mirror (and I like the helmet mounting as it increases you rear field of vision as you move your head). Putting all that together and saying, you can have some head protection too seems like a good idea to me.

 

John

 

fyi Metropolis Helmet and accessories

Frank - No I am not in favour of any compusory legislation at all. But as my wife recently learned after moving furniture with me whilst refusing to wear anything but flip flops despite my protests for her to even put on some trainers, even a small level of protection can make a big difference (she was without a big toe nail for 3 months, which is a very painful injury she told me repeatedly :o )

John, not sure I follow you:

 

"if I trip up and scrape my knee in shorts vs jeans, then even though jeans are in no way regarded as safety clothing, the injury would be a lot less."

 

On that basis, would you advocate banning shorts altogether and insisting that people wear heavyweight jeans at all times?

 

Don't tempt fate Frank, some do-gooder MP might see the vulnerable exposed knees of racing cyclists and want them covered up.

And as said previously John, I support your right to that free choice and only ask the same benefit.

 

I happen to dislike moving mirrors and prefer vehicle fixed mirrors, much safer for me as born out by my lifelong benefit of full no claims bonus and additional discounts.

 

Equally, being retired I choose not to ride in the rain, so waterproof covers have no attraction for me.

 

Ian mentioned being showered with conkers, but that's never happened to me. I have been painfully hit in the eye by a heavy beetle though, so by the nanny logic we should have compulsory goggles when riding, on the "what if" basis that it can happen to anyone.

 

This all highlights that as distinctly different individuals we should be treated as such, by allowing each of us self government in our own personal matters.

.

Hi,

 

I'm new today, I've been lurking for a few weeks but until now I've had nothing to contribute. I feel quite strongly about helmets, I'm in favour of the current system of strongly recommending their use.

 

My son was playing with his friends and one of them had got a new bike. As it had a disk brake they all had to have a go. One of them (his bike must have had some 'grotty' brakes) came down the hill, slammed on the front brake, went over the handlebars and hit his head hard on the kerb. Thanks to the helmet he was wearing, he 'only' ended up in hospital with concussion and a few cuts - without the helmet it could have been much worse.

 

I appreciate that, in traffic, and at speed, a polystyrene helmet is not going to offer much protection in the event of an accident but if they don't see us wearing one what chance is there of them taking any notice when we tell them they 'ought' to wear theirs?

 

I know I look daft wearing one (as my kids keep on telling me ) but so far it has had the desired effect and they still 'religiously' put theirs on

 

John

Hello and welcome John,

 

It was trying to set a good example to friends children that started me wearing a helmet although I'm not sure it's made any difference. The girls did and still do, the boys didn't and still don't so no change. Perhaps witnessing an accident of the type you describe is what really influences kids.

Nigel

 

I am glad its still a free choice on wearing a helmet i love speeding at 22mph with no helmet and yes i had a few scrapes but still its no helmet for me:)

last autumn my front wheel slid on wet leaves and I came off. My helmet was well damaged, three years ago I was knocked off the road by a motorist with similar results. (Two days in hospital). I have to say that after my experiences I would recommend it is well worth wearing a helmet. I agree with you Flecc in as much as I do not want a nanny state telling me what I can do can't do or have to do but I do think wearing a helmet is wise given the fact that it is only a small percentage of your body but the noggin controls all !!!!!

richard