FabSwingers.com forum: Helmet or not?

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Just seen a report on bbc breakfast about cycling and Chris Boardman didn't have a cycle helmet on, the presenter said he was asked why and his answer was he didn't need one, sorry but I always wear a helmet when on the bike, people say if you're hit by a car, the helmet ain't gunna help, but there has been a few times I've been forced off my bike and been glad I've had a helmet on, what are your thoughts, cycle with or without a helmet?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

Seems a no brainer.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Seems a no brainer.

Oh very good, and it's not even 7am

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *annykent69Man
over a year ago

Kent

Madness they said he didnt think it was worth it but didnt say why?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale

simply put -its personal choice.

Cycle helmets are rated to a maximum impact from vertical of 12mph. This is the testing equivalent of a sideways topple from your bike, helmets are not designed to save your head from injury in the event of a 30mph sideways impact from a vehicle. Cycle helmets are made from the same material that your TV came packed in, its not a wonder material.

Th insistence on cycle helmets is a diversion, its thrown up whenever road safety and cycling is mentioned.

Study after study shows the overwhelming majority (70%) of cycle/vehicle collisions are the sole fault of the driver of the vehicle - lets address the major cause of cycling KSI's before we tinker around the edges.

I DO wear helmets, but I'm under no illusions as to how much protection they can give me in the event a driver fails to look, or decides my safety is less important than his desire to get in front of me.

My commuting helmet is mainly there as somewhere to mount extra lights, my road helmet is hi-viz yellow, yet the most common refrain heard is "oh, I didn't see you".

In every country where helmets have been made compulsory the rates of cycling have roughly halved, with the knock-on effects of increasing societal obesity and associated illnesses, adding to the public health bill.

Look up the effects of compulsory helmets in Australia & New Zealand if you want the figures.

Wear a helmet. it 'can' help against minor bumps and scrapes, but better road positioning, better awareness from all road users & better infrastructure are of far more effectiveness than a polystyrene hat.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My standard answer for many of the more recent Health & Safety suggestions is "I grew up through the 80's and I am fine" but...

I think riding a bike without a helmet is stupid, you can reach some incredible speeds on a push bike, easily the same as a moped/small motorcycle and it's law that you wear one for those.

Ultimately it's his choice though...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale

"My standard answer for many of the more recent Health & Safety suggestions is "I grew up through the 80's and I am fine" but...

I think riding a bike without a helmet is stupid, you can reach some incredible speeds on a push bike, easily the same as a moped/small motorcycle and it's law that you wear one for those.

Ultimately it's his choice though..."

see above. Cycle helmets are vastly different to m/c helmets. Try cycling 5 miles in a motorcycle helmet then come back and tell us how it felt!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"My standard answer for many of the more recent Health & Safety suggestions is "I grew up through the 80's and I am fine" but...

I think riding a bike without a helmet is stupid, you can reach some incredible speeds on a push bike, easily the same as a moped/small motorcycle and it's law that you wear one for those.

Ultimately it's his choice though...

see above. Cycle helmets are vastly different to m/c helmets. Try cycling 5 miles in a motorcycle helmet then come back and tell us how it felt!"

I know they're different, I'm not stupid!

The fact is they're "something", they offer a level of protection above what you would normally have and that can only be a good thing even if they only save a couple of lives a year.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

That's as bad as saying you don't need a condom when fucking a new contact/stranger etc..... Mad!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale

"My standard answer for many of the more recent Health & Safety suggestions is "I grew up through the 80's and I am fine" but...

I think riding a bike without a helmet is stupid, you can reach some incredible speeds on a push bike, easily the same as a moped/small motorcycle and it's law that you wear one for those.

Ultimately it's his choice though...

see above. Cycle helmets are vastly different to m/c helmets. Try cycling 5 miles in a motorcycle helmet then come back and tell us how it felt!

I know they're different, I'm not stupid!

The fact is they're "something", they offer a level of protection above what you would normally have and that can only be a good thing even if they only save a couple of lives a year."

They do help - if you slide on a corner, hit your head on the kerb they can help - although some studies show they increase the risk of rotational injuries.

They aren't much use for anything above that though - a pro cyclist died the other year in a race after going over his bars at 50+mph - he was wearing a helmet.

Essentially they are good for protecting against cuts, grazes and small contusions - there is no evidence to show they have any outcome on injuries sustained in vehicle/cycle collisions.

That's what Boardman is about - addressing the major causes of KSI's, not focussing on the minor stuff.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I do wear a helmet, but the best cyclist I know is the only one one in his club that doesn't. I've tried to persuade him he should, but it's not against the law so it's his personal choice. We've had plenty of debate about it!

I see many out on the road that don't and I'm glad I do, even if if just provides a small level of protection, it's better than none!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't wear a helmet when on a bicycle and never will.

There are plenty of valid medical papers that evidence their complete lack of protection from heavier impacts.

They do give some limited protection from lesser impacts but give a false sense of security as risk compensation sets in. Here in the mountains I see cyclists with helmets and no other protection at all taking the most stupid risks at high speed...

For comparison, just cross the channel to the Netherlands - far more people ride cycles over there, and there is never a helmet in sight - they can't understand why we've got all fixated on them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Always wear a brain bucket

Had a couple of occasions when I've come off at a skatepark and it's saved a serious head injury

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *tloversCouple
over a year ago

Warrington

Currently sitting at home..off work with severe concussion from getting knocked off my bike at 25mmph. Ambulance, stitches, blacked out.

Hospital said if I hadn't had my helmet on I wouldn't be here.

Scared me to death and made me feel evangelical about helmets!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm a competitive cyclist at a pretty high level and I also teach road safety to kids. I've seen helmets that have been damaged in racing crashes and I'm 100% the impact would of resulted in serious injury in most cases had there been no helmet worn.

Google Ryan Smith, the poor lad had no helmet on as he didn't want to mess his hair up

Would you swing without protection?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Currently sitting at home..off work with severe concussion from getting knocked off my bike at 25mmph. Ambulance, stitches, blacked out.

Hospital said if I hadn't had my helmet on I wouldn't be here.

Scared me to death and made me feel evangelical about helmets! "

Exactly right, you are lucky because you are sensible, I never used to wear one until about 2 years ago and now it's second nature

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Absolutely helmet it might not help much but if it helps at all that's a good thing and as for people thinking they are hard ect don't need one I'll point out Gary Mason the former heavyweight boxer who thought that and ended up dead after a cycling accident

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Absolutely helmet it might not help much but if it helps at all that's a good thing and as for people thinking they are hard ect don't need one I'll point out Gary Mason the former heavyweight boxer who thought that and ended up dead after a cycling accident "

Jamie Cracknell is a prime example of why you should wear one

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I guess I'm a bit different as I use my bike for transport rather than pleasure but as I'm cycling to see to my horses I wear my riding hat, if it protects me from a fall from a horse I guessing it will protect me just as well as a cycle helmet. I wouldn't go without the speeds some people come past me is a little terrifying

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Surely boardman had achieved what he set out to by provoking conversations such as this. I cycle and I'm a driver. Helmets high vis vests etc are so insignificant to the Arrogant and selfish actions of motorists. Yes some cyclists are as bad but I'm a firm believer that there is a major difference between a cyclist and someone out for a ride on a bike. The latter are the problem.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

I recommend all cyclists wear full suits of armour.

Police and paramedics would need to add can openers to their kits.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I recommend all cyclists wear full suits of armour.

Police and paramedics would need to add can openers to their kits."

One of those zorb ball things would be perfect too

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *edangel_2013Woman
over a year ago

southend

I remember reading a report some time ago that suggests that people wearing a helmet were more likely to be involved in an accident because drivers took less care around them and more care around cyclists without one. There was also the added arrogance that wearing a helmet gave the rider.

However, this was a few years ago, and I think attitudes towards cyclists now have changed, possibly making this report void.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As with many things these days PPE can make the user feel that they can take more risks than usual. People would drive much slower if the airbag was replaced with a spike. would downhill mountain bikers go so fast with no helmet or armour? I think not.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

even a slight blow to the head can causing brain bleeds... then ya not in a very good positiin lol

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham

Unless the helmet conforms to the old standard of Snell B90, then it is optional as protection. The European standard will not protect you if you fall off the bike, it has been proven as well that most cycling helmets don't conform to a basic ce mark.

Specialised are the only make I have found that still make the snell B90 compliant helmets, sadly they are out of the price range most people will pay out for a helmet. In some online shops they start at £130.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

After dealing with him a few times when I was working for Cougar cycles building his bike frames, boardman is a bit of an idiot.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale

What evidence is there that cycle helmets reduce serious injury?

There have been many predictions that cycle helmets are effective in reducing serious injuries. Most of these predictions come from case-control studies, which are based on small research populations and have been criticised for methodological limitations.

On the other hand, large population data, from sources such as traffic casualty statistics and hospital treatment records, do not support these predictions. These sources show no improvement in serious injury trends as helmet use has become more common. Indeed, sometimes they suggest that the number or severity of injuries has increased.

In Great Britain, there was no detectable improvement in fatalities, serious injuries or the average severity of injuries to cyclists over the period 1985 to 2001, during which helmet use rose from close to zero to approx 22%. Injury severity increased as helmet use became more common (BHRF, 1071). A study of road traffic casualties has found no association between differing patterns of helmet wearing rates and casualty rates for adults and children. Similarly, boys and girls have identical percent head injury rates but markedly different levels of helmet use (Hewson, 2005; Hewson, 2005b).

In Greater London, cyclist injuries became more serious as helmet use increased in the mid 1990s (BHRF, 1072). In 2001, although about half of cyclists wore helmets, the severity of injuries was significantly higher than in 1981 and fatalities were highest since 1989. In Edinburgh, also with approx 50% helmet wearing, casualties have become more serious as helmet use has increased (BHRF, 1247). In the Lothian region (close to Edinburgh), wearing a helmet has made no significant difference to outcome in the case of the more serious head injuries measured by need of follow-up or hospital admission (Scottish Exec, 2005).

In the USA, cyclists suffered more head injuries in 2001 than in 1991 although helmet use had increased from 18% to 50%. There is no clear information that cycle use increased during this period and some evidence that it may have fallen. (BHRF, 1041)

In Australia, helmet laws caused head injuries to fall by 11% to 21%. But cycle use fell by 30% to 60%, suggesting that those who continued to cycle were more at risk (BHRF, 1096). In New Zealand, large increases in helmet use have not brought any reduction in the proportion of serious head injuries. Some reduction in mild concussions and lacerations has been balanced by an increase in neck injuries (##10017). An analysis of enforced helmet laws in Australia, New Zealand and Canada has found no clear evidence of benefit and increased risks for cyclists post-legislation (Robinson, 2006).

Analysis by Erke and Elvik, 2007 showed an increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand the increase was estimated to be around 14%.

In Germany, research found no significant difference in the level of head-trauma in cycling crashes between cyclists who wore a helmet and those who did not (Möllman, Rieger and Wassmann, 2004).

More generally, concerns have been expressed that helmets may increase the risk of the most serious types of head injury typical of road crashes and which involve rotational forces (BHRF, 1039).

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Push bike helmets are over priced (packing matiral) most cases no chin protection, no real testing Or rating.

And they want around £30, you can get a gold acu tested motorcycle helmet for that. And the box it comes in has more protection than a cycle Helmet. Go figer.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There was a court case a few years ago.

A woman got clipped by a car as she was starting away from a set of lights, she had just taken her foot off the ground. She fell sideways and hit her head on the kerb, as a result she suffered brain injuries.

It was found that her helmet was the ce mark ones, it offered very little protection from the impact she had when she fell.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale

"Push bike helmets are over priced (packing matiral) most cases no chin protection, no real testing Or rating.

And they want around £30, you can get a gold acu tested motorcycle helmet for that. And the box it comes in has more protection than a cycle Helmet. Go figer. "

I was surprised to find motorcycle helmets were only texted to the equivalent of a 19.05mph impact!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham

"Push bike helmets are over priced (packing matiral) most cases no chin protection, no real testing Or rating.

And they want around £30, you can get a gold acu tested motorcycle helmet for that. And the box it comes in has more protection than a cycle Helmet. Go figer. "

Rather you than me wearing that crash helmet.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes, helmets can provide some limited protection against minor head injuries. Yes, motorists need to be more aware of cyclists (I'm a biker, I know how bad it can be for me and I'm a damn sight bigger).

But cyclists do need to be more careful and comply with the highway code. I have been in situations of having to take evasive actions when cyclists have cut across lanes, come out of junctions without looking, ignored red lights, ridden against the traffic directions etc. Not all by any means are like this, but there are a large number who are!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale

"Yes, helmets can provide some limited protection against minor head injuries. Yes, motorists need to be more aware of cyclists (I'm a biker, I know how bad it can be for me and I'm a damn sight bigger).

TfL/DfT data shows motorists to be at sole fault in cycle/vehicle collisions - the helmet 'debate' is a smokescreen. Address the greatest risk first.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale

Sorry - to be at Sole Fault in 70% of cycle/vehicle collisions.

Apologies for the misposting.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Helmet. Its better than nothing!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Just seen a report on bbc breakfast about cycling and Chris Boardman didn't have a cycle helmet on, the presenter said he was asked why and his answer was he didn't need one, sorry but I always wear a helmet when on the bike, people say if you're hit by a car, the helmet ain't gunna help, but there has been a few times I've been forced off my bike and been glad I've had a helmet on, what are your thoughts, cycle with or without a helmet?"

Stupid question! You wear protective equipment for a reason.

Boardman deserves what's coming his way with an attitude like that, let alone the example he's setting.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Always wear a little rubber helmet.

It stops chaffing and babies.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I wear a helmet most of the time. That said I agree 100% with Chris Boardman. the helmet debate is a red herring and distracts from the true issue regarding road safety.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale

"I wear a helmet most of the time. That said I agree 100% with Chris Boardman. the helmet debate is a red herring and distracts from the true issue regarding road safety."

Agree 100%.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andybeachWoman
over a year ago

In the middle

I always wear a helmet when cycling

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't because I would look stupid . But my kids do

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My husband has a helmet for his bike but I dont think he wears it. bad wife I know

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale

Chris Boardman's statement :-

In the wilds of Scotland, where I am now, I have not yet seen the BBC Breakfast piece that went out this morning but I know it has got a lot of people fired up. The fact that the reaction to my riding a bicycle in normal clothing, looking like a normal person was greeted by some with cries of horror. It’s both understandable and unfortunate because it obscures what I believe are the real issues.

People get very passionate about helmet use - or the lack thereof - but most people don’t get to the next, critical steps to ask themselves, why? Why do I feel the need to wear a helmet and high visibility clothing? What is it that scares me so much that I feel the need to wear what amounts to body armour? And even more critically, is this the place I want to live?

People wear helmets and high vis as they feel it’s all they can do to keep themselves safe. It shows just how far away Britain is from embracing cycling as a normal and convenient form of transport.

For an insight into why I know helmets are not the answer to keeping people on bikes safe, I urge you to spend just two minutes (or even just 30 seconds) of your time watching this video.

This is Utrecht in the Netherlands, it’s just 250 miles from our capital, where helmet use is less than 0.5% and there isn’t a stitch of high vis in sight. They have an incredible safety record and some of the lowest casualty rate of anywhere in the world.

I’m willing to bet that even those that swear by helmets and high vis would feel comfortable discarding their body armour in such an environment. And that’s the point; in Utrecht they have addressed the real dangers to cyclists.

'But that’s over there and not here, we're different,' people will say. ‘That’s not the place we live in.’ Sadly, this is right yet still, advocating safety equipment for the vulnerable is not the answer. Countries that have tried to bring in compulsory helmet laws - such as Australia and New Zealand - have actually seen a 30 to 50% drop in the number of people cycling. When less than 2% of people in the UK cycle regularly, bringing in a law that would actually put more people off would be a serious step back.

If cycling looks and feels normal, more people will cycle (British Cycling research has shown that two thirds of people would cycle more if they felt safer). The more people cycle, the safer they are - the safety in numbers effect. The more people cycle, the more lives will be saved from amongst the 37,000 that die each year from obesity-related illnesses. Never mind the more than 27,000 that die annually from pollution-related illnesses.

In contrast, there are approximately 116 cyclists tragically killed in the UK each year, that’s one per every 1000 times around the planet. Cycling is statistically safer than gardening and yet it doesn't feel like it when you're cycling next to a lorry or car that gets too close at a busy junction.

So I understand exactly why people feel so passionately about helmets or high vis. I understand why people wish to use them. But these actions seek to deal with an effect. I want to focus the debate on the cause and campaign for things that will really make cycling safe.

That is why I won’t promote high vis and helmets; I won’t let the debate be drawn onto a topic that isn’t even in the top 10 things that will really keep people who want to cycle safe. I want cycling in the UK to be like it is in Utrecht or Copenhagen and more recently New York City - an everyday thing that people can do in everyday clothes whether you are eight or 80 years old. I want cycling to be a normal thing that normal people do in normal clothes. Is that wrong?

In February, British Cycling launched a 10-point action plan to get Britain Cycling. #ChooseCycling sets out what local and national government should be doing to get more people on bikes. We're at a crucial moment for cycling and the run up to the 2015 general election presents us with an unmissable opportunity to try to get some substantial commitments on cycling. I sincerely hope we can win the argument and get one step closer to getting a picture of rush hour in towns and cities across Britain looking a bit more like Utrecht

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The Netherlands is fucking flat.

Scotland has mountains.

Im driving.

Wear a crash helmet and make sure you can cycle without wobbling.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

TfL/DfT data shows motorists to be at sole fault in cycle/vehicle collisions - the helmet 'debate' is a smokescreen. Address the greatest risk first."

Not strictly true. There are a large number of accidents where the cyclists are at fault, but they are largely not reported to the police. In cases of cycle vs car/bus/truck/motorcycle, it is assumed to be the cyclist who is the innocent victim because they normally come off worst.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale

TfL/DfT data shows motorists to be at sole fault in cycle/vehicle collisions - the helmet 'debate' is a smokescreen. Address the greatest risk first.

TfL/DfT data shows drivers at sole fault 68-72%, shared fault 20%, cyclists at sole fault 8-12%.

This is freely available data, without peer reviewed evidence its merely anecdote.

There is no 'assumption', it is the result of collating data from police reports.

Anecdote is simply victim blaming & flying in the face of hard evidence.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I noticed this today also I mostly wear a helmet on my cycle but to be honest I doubt it would do much in a real accident. I also drive a motorcycle and wear the best helmet I can afford as well as leathers but to be honest I am more at risk on my cycle.

Living life to the max

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"simply put -its personal choice.

Th insistence on cycle helmets is a diversion, its thrown up whenever road safety and cycling is mentioned.

My commuting helmet is mainly there as somewhere to mount extra lights, my road helmet is hi-viz yellow, yet the most common refrain heard is "oh, I didn't see you".

Look up the effects of compulsory helmets in Australia & New Zealand if you want the figures.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale

Some more key points :-

Key facts about injury when cycling in perspective

•The road users most at risk from head injury are pedestrians and young drivers. (Morgan 1988; Ramet and Vallet, 1987)

•In Great Britain, 6 times more pedestrians and 18 times more motor vehicle occupants suffer lethal head injuries than cyclists. Pedestrians and motor vehicle occupants also suffer more lethal injuries to the abdomen and thorax. (Kennedy, 1996; DfT, 1)

•Children are 2.6 times more likely to suffer head injury through jumping and falling than by cycling. (O'Rourke, Costello, Yelland and Stuart, 1987)

•More than 99% of head injuries seen by UK hospitals do not involve road cyclists. (Derived from OPCS 1 and Thornhill et al, 2000)

•Helmets for motorists are much more effective than those for cyclists and more beneficial than seat belts, interior padding or air bags. Their potential for reducing injury is 17 times greater than that of cycle helmets. (McLean et al, 1998; Kennedy, 1996)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

All those statistics just mean that there aren't that many cyclists on the road.

And no wonder. Its too hilly, and cars are better.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale

"All those statistics just mean that there aren't that many cyclists on the road.

And no wonder. Its too hilly, and cars are better."

The key point is that if you want to reduce head injury fatalities in road collisions then make drivers wear helmets.

Apparently 51% of all UK head injury fatalities occur inside motor vehicles - but yeah, lets focus on making cyclists,wear polystyrene hats for 'safety reasons'.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You do realise that will never happen.

So, it a car, you have a crash, you're in a steel cage.

You're on a bike - what would help you if you fell off - your skull?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"All those statistics just mean that there aren't that many cyclists on the road.

And no wonder. Its too hilly, and cars are better."

Cars aren;t better, they are just different. And yes sometimes cars are more practical but the same is true of bikes too.

It;s rarely too hilly - tht's just an excuse and no hinderence to cycling.

Snd have you not noticed there are more and more cyclists on the roads, riding for leisure and commuting

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You do realise that will never happen.

So, it a car, you have a crash, you're in a steel cage.

You're on a bike - what would help you if you fell off - your skull?"

Yet you are far more likely to die in a car crash of head injuries than on a bike - what does that tell you?

That your steel cage gives you a very false sense of security

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You do realise that will never happen.

So, it a car, you have a crash, you're in a steel cage.

You're on a bike - what would help you if you fell off - your skull?

Yet you are far more likely to die in a car crash of head injuries than on a bike - what does that tell you?

That your steel cage gives you a very false sense of security"

No - that I can go faster in a car and that statistically there are more car users than cyclists.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heOwlMan
over a year ago

Altrincham

In all honesty I average 15 mph along the canal path (please note that is average, as I spend a lot of time slowing down for other path users). At that speed to truely protect my limited brain, I really should be wearing a motorcycle skid lid, except that would make breathing a tad interesting and my head would be a tiddly bit tooooo warm.

That said a bicycle lid is still better than nothing especially with all the low bridges along the canal.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I have never used one, I'm just really good at judging and sniffing danger

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heOwlMan
over a year ago

Altrincham

"You do realise that will never happen.

So, it a car, you have a crash, you're in a steel cage.

You're on a bike - what would help you if you fell off - your skull?

Yet you are far more likely to die in a car crash of head injuries than on a bike - what does that tell you?

That your steel cage gives you a very false sense of security

No - that I can go faster in a car and that statistically there are more car users than cyclists."

Correction, the car is 'capable' of going faster, however it takes me 35 minutes to cycle to work and 60 minutes to drive - think I'll stick to cycling to work thanks.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You do realise that will never happen.

So, it a car, you have a crash, you're in a steel cage.

You're on a bike - what would help you if you fell off - your skull?

Yet you are far more likely to die in a car crash of head injuries than on a bike - what does that tell you?

That your steel cage gives you a very false sense of security

No - that I can go faster in a car and that statistically there are more car users than cyclists.

Correction, the car is 'capable' of going faster, however it takes me 35 minutes to cycle to work and 60 minutes to drive - think I'll stick to cycling to work thanks."

Go for it, feel superior, but in a crash situation, basically a cyclist is even more vulnerable than a motorcyclist.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You do realise that will never happen.

So, it a car, you have a crash, you're in a steel cage.

You're on a bike - what would help you if you fell off - your skull?

Yet you are far more likely to die in a car crash of head injuries than on a bike - what does that tell you?

That your steel cage gives you a very false sense of security

No - that I can go faster in a car and that statistically there are more car users than cyclists.

Correction, the car is 'capable' of going faster, however it takes me 35 minutes to cycle to work and 60 minutes to drive - think I'll stick to cycling to work thanks.

Go for it, feel superior, but in a crash situation, basically a cyclist is even more vulnerable than a motorcyclist."

Which again flies in the face of statistical evidence

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You do realise that will never happen.

So, it a car, you have a crash, you're in a steel cage.

You're on a bike - what would help you if you fell off - your skull?

Yet you are far more likely to die in a car crash of head injuries than on a bike - what does that tell you?

That your steel cage gives you a very false sense of security

No - that I can go faster in a car and that statistically there are more car users than cyclists.

Correction, the car is 'capable' of going faster, however it takes me 35 minutes to cycle to work and 60 minutes to drive - think I'll stick to cycling to work thanks.

Go for it, feel superior, but in a crash situation, basically a cyclist is even more vulnerable than a motorcyclist.

Which again flies in the face of statistical evidence"

which is bunkum

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andemanMan
over a year ago

bedforshire

I do love this site. Discussions on the marits of cycle helmets and no one has made the joke about helmets and no cloths.

I would never climb on my 600 yamaha without a lid. They have saved me from serious injury more than once. I am shocked at cycle helmets only having a 12 mile per hour collision rating. Cevlar is so much higher than that. As a bald guy I am not worried about messing up my hair. I would ware a cycle helmet but frankly I would need convincing the one I was offered was up to the job. Some flimsy nonsense is not worth the effort.

Oh and riding a motercycle naked is asking for the gravel rash from hell!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If helmets are so useless, why do we see them worn in every professional cycling race on the planet?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heOwlMan
over a year ago

Altrincham

"You do realise that will never happen.

So, it a car, you have a crash, you're in a steel cage.

You're on a bike - what would help you if you fell off - your skull?

Yet you are far more likely to die in a car crash of head injuries than on a bike - what does that tell you?

That your steel cage gives you a very false sense of security

No - that I can go faster in a car and that statistically there are more car users than cyclists.

Correction, the car is 'capable' of going faster, however it takes me 35 minutes to cycle to work and 60 minutes to drive - think I'll stick to cycling to work thanks.

Go for it, feel superior, but in a crash situation, basically a cyclist is even more vulnerable than a motorcyclist."

Nothing superior about it, just the way it is. Yup as a cyclist I am way more culnerable than a motorcyclist (which also applies to me anyway) however you cannot drive a car on a canal towpath so my only risk is from bridges and myself - safe enough for me.

Something else to consider, and the primary reason for the time difference, there are far more cars on the road than there are bicycles on the towpath or cyclepaths. So there is far greater chances of a car being involved in an accident with another car, especially with so many people getting frustrated with stop start rush hour traffic.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"In all honesty I average 15 mph along the canal path (please note that is average, as I spend a lot of time slowing down for other path users). At that speed to truely protect my limited brain, I really should be wearing a motorcycle skid lid, except that would make breathing a tad interesting and my head would be a tiddly bit tooooo warm.

That said a bicycle lid is still better than nothing especially with all the low bridges along the canal."

If you wore a motorcycle helmet you may just drown a little more quickly?

ps note to vehicle drivers, other than the deliberately obtuse drillz, but cyclists going up hills cant help but wobble. More so near the top. So be more aware, more careful.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If helmets are so useless, why do we see them worn in every professional cycling race on the planet?"

Good point.

Except for one thing, Queen's "Bicycle Race" promo video.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inkxRabbitWoman
over a year ago

Mostly in GU24

"What evidence is there that cycle helmets reduce serious injury?

Analysis by Erke and Elvik, 2007 showed an increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand the increase was estimated to be around 14%.

In Germany, research found no significant difference in the level of head-trauma in cycling crashes between cyclists who wore a helmet and those who did not (Möllman, Rieger and Wassmann, 2004).

More generally, concerns have been expressed that helmets may increase the risk of the most serious types of head injury typical of road crashes and which involve rotational forces (BHRF, 1039).

I read this too and it's the reason why I don't insist my teenage son wears a helmet when he's on his BMX. This is despite him having severe concussion following a fall onto his face / side of his head. This required a stay in hospital. A year to the day later he did exactly the same but wasn't so badly injured.

I'm not neglecting him; when I read this report I couldn't decide whether forcing him to wear one would help. He's autistic and can't bear any sort of hat so a helmet is a very tall order.

Even if I bought the trendiest most expensive helmet for him he'd do what he's done with all the others: "lose" it on day one.

In actual fact, In his first head injury a helmet wouldn't have helped because it wouldn't have protected the part of his head which was injured.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Last time i fell off, my fault entirely, i landed on my helmet. Couldn't wank for a week.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Last time i fell off, my fault entirely, i landed on my helmet. Couldn't wank for a week. "
lol

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Push bike helmets are over priced (packing matiral) most cases no chin protection, no real testing Or rating.

And they want around £30, you can get a gold acu tested motorcycle helmet for that. And the box it comes in has more protection than a cycle Helmet. Go figer.

Rather you than me wearing that crash helmet."
I pesonaly don't buy cheap helmets, and I have had personal experience of effectiveness. They work. Not so sure about cycle helmets with about 35 % coverage with all the holes in them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale

"If helmets are so useless, why do we see them worn in every professional cycling race on the planet?"

Because they aren't 'useless' - rather that their effectiveness is much overstated by pro-helmet campaigners, many of whom have a vested interest in moving the discussion into the area of PPE and avoiding the real risk on the roads.

This discussion is a case in point - no one wants to address the real problem, the attitudes of the majority of road users, the dangerously designed infrastructure and the complete lack of training/understanding of what is actually correct cycling in the non-cycling masses.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ittykate84Woman
over a year ago

CHESTER

How about you just wear them so when you do mush your head over the road we dont all have to see your brains everywhere... Ta

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale

"If helmets are so useless, why do we see them worn in every professional cycling race on the planet?

Also - can you spot the vital difference between a pro road race and cycling on public roads?

VEHICLES - vehicles driven by people too busy doing other things (phones/kids/doing makeup/eating etc) to be fully aware of the road around them.

Will a helmet help if you go over the bars racing downhill at 50+mph? No.

Will a helmet help if you collide with fellow racers at 20mph? Probably.

Will a helmet help if Joe bloggs is too impatient to wait & left hooks you, driving his car over your prone body? Definitely not.

THAT is the difference, & THAT is why the helmet debate is a deliberate distraction from addressing the real dangers to cyclists on our roads.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If helmets are so useless, why do we see them worn in every professional cycling race on the planet?

Also - can you spot the vital difference between a pro road race and cycling on public roads?

VEHICLES - vehicles driven by people too busy doing other things (phones/kids/doing makeup/eating etc) to be fully aware of the road around them.

Will a helmet help if you go over the bars racing downhill at 50+mph? No.

Will a helmet help if you collide with fellow racers at 20mph? Probably.

Will a helmet help if Joe bloggs is too impatient to wait & left hooks you, driving his car over your prone body? Definitely not.

THAT is the difference, & THAT is why the helmet debate is a deliberate distraction from addressing the real dangers to cyclists on our roads."

Wow you really care about cyclists

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ok, I get the argument about the helmet debate distracting from the greater issues, and I'm pretty sure that most people understand that helmets offer limited protection.

To return to the ops point. In my opinion, by not wearing a helmet and higher vis clothing on a major tv broadcast, Boardman now looks very foolish. Regardless of the bigger issues, he should have had the nous to play the game and keep the media on-side. Now he's going to struggle to be taken seriously on the big cycling safety issues, which is a real shame.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ethnmelvCouple
over a year ago

Cardiff

As with everything involving cycling, this is stirring up the passions. Firstly, I have to admit to being a cyclist and also a car driver. I only really took cycling up again a year ago and decided that I would do what I could in passive safety by wearing a helmet and a hi viz jacket and having proper front and rear lights on my bike. My observation of other cyclists is that far too many assume they can be seen, and that if they are not seen then it must be the fault of someone else. It is a feature of the activity that you are going fast, sharing space with large, hard and unforgiving vehicles, so we have to recognise this and give vehicles space.

I know that I have become more aware as a driver of cyclists now as I also cycle, but I am also more frustrated by my fellow cyclists than car users - most car drivers have been very courteous, whilst a large number of testosterone fuelled road bikers have been rude and also dangerous.

We have to face the facts that we share the roads, I think cyclists cannot just blame car, van, lorry, bus drivers for everything - we have to be visible and take the right precautions to avoid being in a dangerous situation.

I think this debate is one that will never end as we have to share the space, so nobody will be totally happy - we just need to be aware of the challenges all other vehicles/cycles face on the road and actively avoid potential incidents. The usual argument is to train car, van, bus, lorry drivers better - but the same can also be applied to cyclists...., maybe the answer is air bags on bikes, abs braking on bikes, seatbelts for bikes, insurance for bikes, reinforced beams for safety, bumpers, etc - clearly we would all hope not, but all other vehicles are being designed to mitigate injury to others - cyclists have to take responsibility themselves to be visible and avoid being in dangerous situations - the last thing I want is for legislation to demand full motorcycle skid lids and biking leathers, but if we ask for action, then some of it will come back to stifle the activity we enjoy - we already live in a nannie state, lets not keep asking for someone else to take responsibility for us all the time.

Final point - I enjoy cycling and love the freedom it brings

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Ok, I get the argument about the helmet debate distracting from the greater issues, and I'm pretty sure that most people understand that helmets offer limited protection.

Boardman is yaken seriously and is a well respected voice.

Why should he be a hypocrite? How would have any credibility as a campaigbet by not practicing what he preaches?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Wack a lid on. If ya that bothered, get a DH mtb one. Even the road lids offer some protection. Boardman is and always has been a nob. Bad advert , especialy from that tit.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Ok, I get the argument about the helmet debate distracting from the greater issues, and I'm pretty sure that most people understand that helmets offer limited protection.

Boardman is yaken seriously and is a well respected voice.

Why should he be a hypocrite? How would have any credibility as a campaigbet by not practicing what he preaches? "

It remains to be seen whether he'll ride out the storm and retain his respected voice. I hope he does. As for credibility, he just damaged that by setting himself up as an easy target for the media. A schoolboy error.

Hypocrite? I don't understand your point here? How would he have been a hypocrite by wearing a helmet? There's half a dozen Boardman branded helmets at Halfords he could have chosen from

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Helmets are only made out of plastercine and plastic, there's fuck all protection, you might as well as have a motorbike helmet on

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham

"You do realise that will never happen.

So, it a car, you have a crash, you're in a steel cage.

You're on a bike - what would help you if you fell off - your skull?

Yet you are far more likely to die in a car crash of head injuries than on a bike - what does that tell you?

That your steel cage gives you a very false sense of security"

This has bee proven I several programmes on TV, the more safety gadgets a car has the cocooned the driver will become.

I have a mate who is a fireman most of the car crashes he attends the driver has hit the windscreen, luckily most of the drivers get away with a very bad headache and a few cuts.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Cyclists on the footpath.. Menace to society, if you can injure your brain at 15mph on a pushbike what about a pedestrian getting hit my the bike and a moron breaking the law.

I say big fines and confiscation for those fools who put lives in danger.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham

What about pedestrians on a cycle path then, do we flog them for it?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What about horses, don't get me started on horses!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Cyclists on the footpath.. Menace to society, if you can injure your brain at 15mph on a pushbike what about a pedestrian getting hit my the bike and a moron breaking the law.

I say big fines and confiscation for those fools who put lives in danger."

I agree. But of course the same rules should apply to motorists. So speeding, no MOT, using a mobile and countless other indescretions all put lives at danger so let's do away with 3 points and confiscate cars in those scenarios. Or is that not the same?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham

"Cyclists on the footpath.. Menace to society, if you can injure your brain at 15mph on a pushbike what about a pedestrian getting hit my the bike and a moron breaking the law.

I say big fines and confiscation for those fools who put lives in danger.

Crush the cars, make the driver pay for the privilege. That punishment can be doled out to car driver who stop in the cyclist box at traffic lights.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Cyclists on the footpath.. Menace to society, if you can injure your brain at 15mph on a pushbike what about a pedestrian getting hit my the bike and a moron breaking the law.

I say big fines and confiscation for those fools who put lives in danger."

Would you rather see a kid cycling on a footpath or on a really busy road through town?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The Netherlands is fucking flat.

Scotland has mountains.

Im driving.

Wear a crash helmet and make sure you can cycle without wobbling."

Make sure when passing a cyclist you leave a 3 foot gap, as per highway code states.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It isn't so flat in the Valkenberg area of Holland!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My ex came off his mountain bike at speed and landed on his head. Helmet split in two. He fractured his back but the helmet saved his life

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't feel right unless im wearing protection

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I recommend all cyclists wear full suits of armour.

Police and paramedics would need to add can openers to their kits."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread