# Why are UK cyclists fixated on helmets



## steveindenmark (16 Mar 2014)

As well as using this forum, I also use cycling forums in Denmark, Germany, Holland, France and Spain.

I am not being flippant or funny, I am genuinely curious about this topic.

How did the UK cyclists become so obsessed with the subject of cycle helmets, when most of the commuting cyclists in the rest of Europe dont wear them and dont talk about them on their forums.

I accept that cyclists who race wear them all over Europe. But to see cycle commuters wearing helmets in the rest of Europe is rare. Look at any Youtube clip of cyclists in Holland or Denmark. To see what I mean.

On this forum the subject of cycle helmets is often raised, even if the original post has nothing to do with helmets. They are defended and derided vehmently, but they seem to sneak into every topic.

Personally, I think they are a personal choice and I have several. I sometimes wear them I sometimes dont, as is my choice.

So why is the UK the only country, probably in the World, that is so adamant about helmets. Is it media or advertising pressure? What is it?

Steve


----------



## summerdays (16 Mar 2014)

I think helmets are a good way of avoiding the real topic of cycle safety, so that we focus on the fact a cyclist was or wasn't wearing one rather than looking at whether we give cyclists respect on the road and look out for them.


----------



## Brandane (16 Mar 2014)

Clever marketing by the helmet companies? They have become a bit of a fashion statement IMO.. If you don't wear one, then you can't possibly be a PROPER cyclist (whatever that is). I very rarely wear one despite owning two of the dust collectors, yet somehow manage to cover about 3500 miles per year without sustaining a head injury. Knees, hands, legs, hips, elbows, - yes; but not head.

If "proper" cyclists want to look down their noses at me because I'm not wearing a helmet (and it does happen), then the problem is theirs. I don't like them and I won't be nagged into wearing one! Phew, glad I got that off my chest .


----------



## gavroche (16 Mar 2014)

because of media power, brainwashing and a good business opportunity.


----------



## nazzurro19 (16 Mar 2014)

most clubs round here dont accept or let you ride without one , i wear one cause on the off chance i do hit my head at 30mph i may not survive lol


----------



## zizou (16 Mar 2014)

Most cyclists are not fixated by the subject

A vocal minority of cyclists on social media / internet forums with too much time on their hands to get involved in endless circular debates on the subject might be though!


----------



## gavroche (16 Mar 2014)

nazzurro19 said:


> most clubs round here dont accept or let you ride without one , i wear one cause on the off chance i do hit my head at 30mph i may not survive lol


At 30mph, I don't think the helmet will be much good anyway.


----------



## srw (16 Mar 2014)

The whole helmet issue is becoming much less heated as the evidence fails to rack up for their effectiveness and as more and more people go without.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (16 Mar 2014)

All of the above and a fundamental belief amongst primarily non cyclists, but some cyclists too IMO, that they are an effective safety feature in some way comparable to the benefits offered by helmets for motorcycling or car racing. They have a place (mainly as a high level winter light mount or in the shed for me nowadays) and I wouldn't decry anyone for wearing one but they are the reddest of red herrings in countries that are unenlightened in cycling terms and have regressive or infantile views on what contributes to road safety and sensible & equitable infrastructure for more vulnerable road users.

MTBing may be different, I'm sticking to the road debate here.


----------



## PeteXXX (16 Mar 2014)

Lots of events won't allow you to participate unless you wear a helmet. It should always remain a personal choice IMHO. My choice is to wear one most of the time I'm riding, but if others don't want to, it should be up to them.


----------



## buggi (16 Mar 2014)

they are good for covering your bad hair do on the way to work


----------



## Doyleyburger (16 Mar 2014)

Iv found it extremely hard to look away from this thread.......
Normally if I think someone is wrong about a certain topic then ill try and avoid rocking the boat and move on across the forum. 
Helmets on a bicycle is a personal choice but I cannot see a reason NOT to wear one. Being knocked off your bike at 30mph without a lid will definitely cause severe damage to your head and although cycling helmets are very lightweight and some people say they're not protective enough, let's face it ......its going to protect you a lot more than if you wasn't wearing one. 
Huge cycling community where I live and it's great to see the likes of 5 and 6 year old children out on their bikes wearing a helmet.
Helmets can be a fashion statement too, which is even better, as it make it cool to be safe !!!


----------



## Dave 123 (16 Mar 2014)

I think I have stated this before but here goes...

If you wear one, what have you got to lose? Nothing. It doesn't matter. Might it just give you that protection if your head does come into contact with something.

With my kayaking helmet on (see what I did there?) I was paddling in Slovenia on the river Soca. The Abseil section is grade 4 white water at the bottom of a fairly inaccessible canyon. The second time I paddled it I capsized on a rapid early on, and to say I hit the back of my head would be a massive understatement. I managed to roll up and get into an eddy. We stayed in the eddy until I could see straight. To paddle out of this section took us another 3 hours due to sporting water levels. I felt like crap for a couple of weeks after.
It is a big no no to paddle ww without a helmet. That day it may just have saved my life, or a ride in a helicopter.

Helmets are necessary in that split second that you want it there. Other than that, they're not.

I'll restate the point that it isn't detrimental to ride with one.


----------



## midliferider (16 Mar 2014)

gavroche said:


> At 30mph, I don't think the helmet will be much good anyway.


It is. Personal experience.
I tumbled over going down a hill at 30 miles an hour. I survived with minor bruises. Later discovered that my helmet is badly cracked. If I were not wearing a helmet, it is my head which would have cracked.
But I learned my lesson and does not depend on my helmet.


----------



## summerdays (16 Mar 2014)

zizou said:


> Most cyclists are not fixated by the subject


That might be the case but is there a cyclist in the UK who hasn't heard a non cyclist bend their ear about cyclists not wearing helmets!!!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Mar 2014)

Is is just an UK fixation though? A look at the wider ''Anglo-Saxon'' world would suggest that this attitude is not limited to the UK. I'm thinking mostly about the US, Canada, Aus and NZ here.

One UK factor (and I've no idea how it applies in other such countries) IMO has got to be a completely skewed sense of responsibility for safety, which has seen great gains in car protection but also a comprehensive ''exporting'' of danger to the outside. I'm safe, so make yourself safe. (Alongside a 'my mistake or inattention is your look out' attitude.) The lack of presumed liability, which would partly reduce that imbalance were it in force, has an amplifying effect on that transfer of danger to the other. It very probably leads to a conscience-easing emphasis in the general motoring public on protect-yourself helmets.

Because of the parlous state of cycling a couple of decades ago the resurgence of cycling has given UK cycling a particularly ''athletic'' feel. The image of the pro cyclist with de rigueur helmet will also help to reinforce that.


----------



## numbnuts (16 Mar 2014)

I wear one and if I stopped sods law would prevail


----------



## Haitch (16 Mar 2014)

I think it might partly be because cycling in the UK is a bit of a subcult and conforming to the rules is very, very important in a subcult. The helmet debate is just one way to thrash out the rules. In other countries cycling is just something you do, like wearing socks or eating sandwiches, and conformism doesn't need debating.


----------



## nazzurro19 (16 Mar 2014)

buggi said:


> they are good for covering your bad hair do on the way to work


i have no hair


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Mar 2014)

Alan H said:


> I thnik it might partly be because cycling in the UK is a bit of a subcult and comforming to the rules is very, very important in a subcult. The helmet debate is just one way to thrash out the rules. In other countries cycling is just something you do, like wearing socks or eating sandwiches, and conformism doesn't need debating.


It may be a factor and I mentioned the normative effect of helmets in pro cycling on our own version of athletic cycling. But, to the best of my recollection, I've never experienced pressure about wearing a helmet from cyclists. It's much more imposed from the outside, that is, by non-cyclists.


----------



## srw (16 Mar 2014)

User13710 said:


> I wish that was true, but it's not my experience.


I know it's anecdotal evidence, but it's what I see on my commutes. More and more people, especially relatively young people, riding around London in ordinary clothes and without a helmet. And one day last week (I forget which) I was riding through Guildford and was passed by about half a dozen other cyclists, all of whom were bare-headed. When I first started spending time in Guildford, about 18 months ago, I would often be the only cyclist. That's not the case now.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (16 Mar 2014)

Alan H said:


> I think it might partly be because cycling in the UK is a bit of a subcult and conforming to the rules is very, very important in a subcult. The helmet debate is just one way to thrash out the rules. In other countries cycling is just something you do, like wearing socks or eating sandwiches, and conformism doesn't need debating.


 Hmmmm. 'serious' cycling maybe, the sort where you need the right kit and will be blanked for wearing a replica rainbow jersey because you haven't earned the right to the stripes. But that is a small, vocal on the internet, clique within the single type bicycling community that the non cyclists see us as. We differentiate ourselves to the n'th degree, the 98% of the population that don't cycle regularly see us all as one amorphous mass of POB's


----------



## cyberknight (16 Mar 2014)

Beacuse the 1st thing the solicitor asked me when a pot hole caused a bunch crash on a club run causing me to fall on my hip was
"were you wearing a helmet "
That and it has been known for them to try and use not wearing a helmet as contributory negligence in a collsion.

http://www.kennedys-law.com/casereview/contributorynegligencecycle/
http://www.fentons.co.uk/newsroom/latest-news/cycle-helmets-debate-continues/
http://www.forbessolicitors.co.uk/blog/2012/08/cycling-helmets-and-contributory-negligence/


----------



## vickster (16 Mar 2014)

Makes me feel safer and having hit my head in my recent accident I was glad to be wearing one

Personal choice...don't really care what other cyclists think or do

Every medic I have seen since (probably 10 or more) plus the police and the solicitors have asked me if I was wearing one, so it is obviously a consideration be it medical, legal. In the legal paperwork from British Cycling's solicitors, there was a specific head injury questionnaire too

Interestingly, the nurse at St George's A&E said a helmet can be the difference between arriving in an ambulance or helicopter which I thought was interesting, as he would know being the main SW London trauma centre!


----------



## Markymark (16 Mar 2014)

People like to feel they have control in an environment full of things outside their control.

Whether is gives them any real control is an entirely different matter.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (16 Mar 2014)

cyberknight said:


> Beacuse the 1st thing the solicitor asked me when a pot hole caused a bunch crash on a club run causing me to fall on my hip was
> "were you wearing a helmet "
> That and it has been known for them to try and use not wearing a helmet as contributory negligence in a collsion.
> 
> ...


 yes, we've all seen these type of reports and with headphones too. Did you contribute to the wider problem with your solicitor by playing along with the question or point out that no cycling helmet would quite reach your hip where the impact was and why was s/he fixated on protecting an undamaged part of your body but not asking why you weren't in full motorcycle leathers on your cycle or using some form of body armour that could be relevant to the area of impact you mention?


----------



## snorri (16 Mar 2014)

In answer to the OP.
In the UK the bicycle is seen by the vast majority of the population including many cyclists as a sporting or leisure machine, whereas in mainland Europe it is seen first and foremost as a viable mode of transport. The different attitude to the bicycle results in different attitudes to the clothing required to be worn for the cycle journey.
People involved in sport cycling consider crashes to be a part of their cycle experience and wear protective clothing in an attempt to minimise damage. The rest of the UK population who are unable to discriminate between the various disciplines of cycling, and see so many sporting cyclists wearing protctive gear start to believe that protective gear should be worn by all cyclists.
The "obsession" with the helmet topic is due to the very real fear that helmet wear may become compulsory for cyclists in the UK.


----------



## MarkF (16 Mar 2014)

User13710 said:


> Some of us are concerned that they are becoming the norm here. Then not wearing one could become a contributory negligence factor in any insurance claim. Then wearing a helmet could become compulsory. It's the thin end of a worrying wedge.



Agree with all that, the issue makes me vocal because I am scared of possible compulsion.



Doyleyburger said:


> .
> Helmets on a bicycle is a personal choice but I cannot see a reason NOT to wear one.



Scary post.


----------



## Accy cyclist (16 Mar 2014)

I've worn a helmet for 14 years since a work mate at the time told me of her brother not surviving a low speed collision with a car on the A59. According to her the "specialist" told her he's have survived but been brain damaged if he'd have worn a helmet.I came off my bike at around 13mph 2 years ago,the impact eventually lost me my sight in my right eye. Yes being hit full on at 30mph will probably see you off whether with or without a helmet but a fall from a bike or a low speed collision, in my opinion you're safer with a helmet! If you don't want to wear one fine it doesn't affect me or annoy me and there's no way i'd want compulsory helmet use as i want to wear a helmet through choice not because i've been told to do so!


----------



## BrynCP (16 Mar 2014)

Those I know who cycle don't really talk about helmets at all, but they are all wearing them. What does happen though, is I can tell a stranger or acquaintance that I did some cycling just in general conversation, and the first thing they'll ask is do I wear one then proceed to tell me how happy they are that I do (even though they don't really know me!). I can only assume the media or marketing has made them think this.

I wear a helmet, there is no significant disadvantage to me and it keeps my family happy, but I am not under any illusion that I could ultimately still die out there.


----------



## Brandane (16 Mar 2014)

Accy cyclist said:


> I've worn a helmet for 14 years since a work mate at the time told me of her brother not surviving a low speed collision with a car on the A59. According to her the "specialist" told her he's have survived but been brain damaged if he'd have worn a helmet.


Just my personal opinion here of course, but I would rather NOT survive, than end up brain damaged. Depending on the extent of the damage of course, but I wouldn't like to think I was going to end up a burden on someone else, with no ability to live my life as I would like to.


----------



## ComedyPilot (16 Mar 2014)

OP - Not all UK cyclists are helmet obsessed.

Like @User13710 @Brandane and a fair few others, I ride a few thousand miles a year with nothing between me and the elements other than a nice cloth cap/bandana (if anything)

The lack of a pudding bowl does not detract from my enjoyment of the ride, moreover it actually enhances it. 

I am an adult that makes his own decisions, and takes responsibility for his own safety. I ride in a safe, assertive, predictable manner, and watch where I am going by looking well up the road. I don't go hell for leather down hills to see how fast i can go, because I'm not 13 anymore. I anticipate road hazards/conditions that could have me off - gravel on corners, overbanding, potholes, white lines when wet. 

Having toured outside the UK, I can assure the OP and others that the UK is a wierd place to cycle compared to the NL or Germany. There seems to be an 'All the gear, no idea' mindset about the British. We (them not me) seem to be very image-conscious, and worried about what people make think of us if we don't comply to societal/media promoted 'norms'. Thus someone started saying cyclists have to wear helmets and the rot set in. 

I liken it very much to the implementation of health and safety, but whereas PPE would normally be the last consideration, with cycling for some people in the media/interweb/non-cyclists PPE, helmets/gloves/hi-viz (bleurgh ) seems to be the magical cure all.

It's not. 

It is a shameful abdication of responsibility onto the most vulnerable of road users. 

If we hit you and you get hurt, it's your fault for not wearing a helmet???? I must have missed that lesson....

I am not responsible for leaving swaithes of gravel on the corner, I am not responsible for the road surface that would make the cratered moon surface look like a snooker table. I don't buy into the latest must-have 150psi lightweight racing tyre that blows out when it so much as touches a flint. I aren't the person driving a car whilst trying to check the twitter status of my followers. I aren't the one LOL'ing on FB to my buddies instead of concentrating on my driving. I aren't the one saddled with a 3 year £400.00 per month bank loan for the latest 'must-have' crotch rocket that the advertisers promised would be driven on deserted streets only to find myself stuck nose to tail in traffic - getting increasingly frustrated at free-loading cyclists. 

As well as the above there are a myriad of causes to bike crashes/road safety incidents, and a 'grown-up' and experienced approach to riding will eliminate most if not all of them.

The more miles I ride without helmet in safety, the more it adds to my experience and ability, and the more it shows that I have no need for a helmet.

It's like the whole country has gone risk-averse in its attitude to life, and that is a totally alien concept to me. Life is an adventure. Get out there and grab it by the balls.

Starting to waffle......


----------



## ComedyPilot (16 Mar 2014)

Spot the difference?






We (them again, not me) have got it so wrong.


----------



## Accy cyclist (16 Mar 2014)

Brandane said:


> Just my personal opinion here of course, but I would rather NOT survive, than end up brain damaged. Depending on the extent of the damage of course, but I wouldn't like to think I was going to end up a burden on someone else, with no ability to live my life as I would like too.


 I don't know? When they say brain damaged i think people automatically think of to put it crudely,someone slavering in a wheelchair unaware of their surroundings,but doesn't losing say your memory or your sense of smell for example come under the "brain damaged"category?


----------



## Sara_H (16 Mar 2014)

PeteXXX said:


> Lots of events won't allow you to participate unless you wear a helmet. It should always remain a personal choice IMHO. My choice is to wear one most of the time I'm riding, but if others don't want to, it should be up to them.


This is true. I was looking at joining a local womens only group ride, but rule no 1 was "No helmet, no ride". Fack off then was my thought.


----------



## MarkF (16 Mar 2014)

Sara_H said:


> This is true. I was looking at joining a local womens only group ride, but rule no 1 was "No helmet, no ride". Fack off then was my thought.



Yeah, I won't go through the whole ridiculous story again, but, my daughter was banned from her school cycling day activities for refusing to wear a helmet. She is the only girl in the entire school to cycle to it, before, or after, cycling day.


----------



## Sara_H (16 Mar 2014)

vickster said:


> Interestingly, the nurse at St George's A&E said a helmet can be the difference between arriving in an ambulance or helicopter which I thought was interesting, as he would know being the main SW London trauma centre!



I've worked as an ICU nurse in the main paediatric trauma centre in my region for 15 years. I can assure you that medics generally have no more clue about helmet efficacy than the man in the street. I've known colleagues make comments to patients families based entirely on the misinformation that the public at large base their opinions on.
I'd take with a very large pinch of salt any comments any nurse/doctor/paramedic/radiographer/neurosurgeon makes about helmet efficacy, unless they can also wax lyrical about where they get their stats from.

I've often asked colleagues to think for a minute about where the vast majority of serious head injuries we treat are sustained, and then ask them if they'll be wearing a helmet in the car on the way home. This is usually followed by the stunned silence of someone who's just been subjected to a revelation!


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Mar 2014)

Comedy Pilot. I stand corrected. Not All but an awful lot of them.

Why would a solicitor need to know if you were wearing a helmet if there is no legal requirement to do so? It looks like the legal system has been sucked in as well. The same goes for insurance companies. How can they refuse a claim if you are complying with all the requirements of the law? But we all know they will try anything.

I can see a couple of the hard core helmet people joined in with this, and thats good. But reading between the Lines it looks like this helmet fetish could be coming to an end.

It was good to see that this topic can be talked about at length without someone throwing the teddy off the bike.

It is interesting to see on the internet that you can find just as much information to refute the use of helmets as you can to support the good they do. You cant see that when it comes to motorbike helmets. Why is that?

Steve


----------



## Sara_H (16 Mar 2014)

Anyway, whenever I've fallen off my bike, I've landed on my bum. And I've never seen a helmet big enough to protect my arse!


----------



## jefmcg (16 Mar 2014)

I'm currently somewhere where helmets are compulsory, and at the end of 106km ride was pretty close to heat exhaustion. I stopped, removed my helmet and illegally cycled the last km home safely but illegally.


----------



## vickster (16 Mar 2014)

Sara_H said:


> I've worked as an ICU nurse in the main paediatric trauma centre in my region for 15 years. I can assure you that medics generally have no more clue about helmet efficacy than the man in the street. I've known colleagues make comments to patients families based entirely on the misinformation that the public at large base their opinions on.
> I'd take with a very large pinch of salt any comments any nurse/doctor/paramedic/radiographer/neurosurgeon makes about helmet efficacy, unless they can also wax lyrical about where they get their stats from.
> 
> I've often asked colleagues to think for a minute about where the vast majority of serious head injuries we treat are sustained, and then ask them if they'll be wearing a helmet in the car on the way home. This is usually followed by the stunned silence of someone who's just been subjected to a revelation!



All I can say is that when my head hit the A24, I was very glad there was something else between my skull and the road other than my hair..as I said I don't particularly care what other cyclists do or think


----------



## Sara_H (16 Mar 2014)

vickster said:


> All I can say is that when my head hit the A24, I was very glad there was something else between my skull and the road other than my hair..as I said I don't particularly care what other cyclists do or think


Which is as it should be, I was just making the observation that comments from medics about helmet efficacy are generally no more well informed than those of the the public at large, not commenting in any way on your views or choices.


----------



## Spoked Wheels (16 Mar 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> As well as using this forum, I also use cycling forums in Denmark, Germany, Holland, France and Spain.
> 
> I am not being flippant or funny, I am genuinely curious about this topic.
> 
> ...



I don't know the answer but the two countries you mentioned, Holland and Denmark, have an infinitely better cycling infrastructure than here in the UK. There is a real respect from vehicle drivers towards cyclists which makes a huge difference. I don't think cyclists have to worry too much about being run over by the next motor vehicle.

Yesterday I went out for a ride that I had to cut short cause a near collision with a car. I was going round a blind bend when a car came from the opposite direction and taking more than half of my lane. Fortunately I was riding close to the kerb otherwise I wouldn't be telling the story. 
Had I been in a car then that would have been a serious accident for sure.

It's my choice to wear a helmet and I respect those ones that choose not to do so.


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Mar 2014)

I used to work for a national online florist... people would ring up and ask to buy a bunch of flowers, and part of the job of those taking the calls was to try to upsell them either a bigger bunch of flowers, as well as a box of chocolates, bottle of wine or champers, a nice vase or maybe even a teddy bear. 

Walk into any electronics shop to buy a DVD or BluRay player and chances are they'll try to sell you an over priced gold plated diamond tipped HDMI cable for some ridiculous sum of money.

When people walk in to a cycle shop to buy a bike, the salespeeps are briefed to upsell them a pump, puncture repair kit, a set of lights, a hi-vis vest and yes... a helmet. 

Upselling with emotive statistics has got to be a factor.


----------



## summerdays (16 Mar 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> I used to work for a national online florist... people would ring up and ask to buy a bunch of flowers, and part of the job of those taking the calls was to try to upsell them either a bigger bunch of flowers, as well as a box of chocolates, bottle of wine or champers, a nice vase or maybe even a teddy bear.
> 
> Walk into any electronics shop to buy a DVD or BluRay player and chances are they'll try to sell you an over priced gold plated diamond tipped HDMI cable for some ridiculous sum of money.
> 
> ...


But then why aren't they upsold with a car or a coat and umbrella?


----------



## Globalti (16 Mar 2014)

My son, my cycling buddy and I have all had a bang on the head while wearing helmets. In each case the helmet broke and the texture of the road was imprinted in the outer shell. That all three of us survived (son was unconscious for a couple of minutes) is enough to convince me that a helmet can swing the outcome of an accident in favour of surviving.

The OP is being disingenuous; surely he knows that on the continent far more people commute on slow sedate town bikes in separate cycle lanes, whereas in the UK we are forced to share the roads with incompetent drivers, meaning fewer cyclist and a higher accident rate?


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Mar 2014)

summerdays said:


> But then why aren't they upsold with a car or a coat and umbrella?


That's not the point... the thread is about why are UK cyclists fixated on helmets.. I reckon one of the main reasons is because '_the bloke in the bike shop said i needed one_', before spouting a few emotive statistics about how dangerous cycling is without one. The same way lots of people walk out of a home electronics shop with a £100 HDMI lead because the bloke said the picture quality of their new BluRay player would be crap if they'd only spent £50 on a HDMI lead, or heaven forbid, a fiver!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Mar 2014)

If TLH catches me leaving the house bike in hand without a lid on she fixes me with a gimlet eye and says "Gregry!" and I put on mine. So I wear one for her piece of mind not mine. If she doesn't see me leaving I don't wear one.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Mar 2014)

User said:


> And if she sees you coming back, what then eh?


She says "Gregy!" in a (very) different tone of voice.


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Mar 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> If TLH catches me leaving the house bike in hand without a lid on she fixes me with a gimlet eye and says "Gregry!" and I put on mine. So I wear one for her piece of mind not mine. If she doesn't see me leaving I don't wear one.


you're not alone there.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Helmet broke? Did you read the link I posted back up there?


Catastrophic helmet failure. 

With the emphasis on FAIL. 

It didn't do what its designers intended because its designers designed it to pass the lame safety certification tests not protect your noggin in an off above jogging speed.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Mar 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> you're not alone there.


That said I think she has hidden all my caps!


----------



## NorvernRob (16 Mar 2014)

Two things from me.

Firstly, comparing cycling in the UK to Holland is ridiculous. There's no need to wear a helmet in holland, due to the fantastic cycle infastructure and massively high bike usage there's very little chance of an RTA compared to the UK. Plus the vast majority of bikes are steel jobbies that potter about at 10mph.

I'm also at a loss as to how anyone can say wearing a helmet doesn't protect you in any way. Even if it's a small amount then it's better to wear one surely? It takes seconds to put one on and take off and makes no difference to a ride.

Maybe someone wants to try simulating an impact test? Put a helmet on and give it a crack with a house brick. Then take it off and do the the same, and come back and say which hurt the most.

If that's not a good enough test, try running into a wall head first both with and without.

I don't care if somebody else doesn't want to wear a helmet, it's none of my business. But don't call people 'sheep' or 'brainwashed' when common sense tells you they must offer at least some protection.


----------



## theclaud (16 Mar 2014)

NorvernRob said:


> Two things from me.
> 
> Firstly, comparing cycling in the UK to Holland is ridiculous. There's no need to wear a helmet in holland, due to the fantastic cycle infastructure and massively high bike usage there's very little chance of an RTA compared to the UK. Plus the vast majority of bikes are steel jobbies that potter about at 10mph.
> 
> ...



Ah! "Common sense". Stands to reason.

It it melon time?


----------



## Dave 123 (16 Mar 2014)

User said:


> I can see that this is a tempting point of view. What you are loosing is your ability to portray cycling as an ordinary everyday activity.




It is an every day activity. By wearing a protective hat I loose nothing.
AND as a short haired old fart it keeps the sun off me bonce....


----------



## Profpointy (16 Mar 2014)

NorvernRob said:


> Two things from me.
> 
> Firstly, comparing cycling in the UK to Holland is ridiculous. There's no need to wear a helmet in holland, due to the fantastic cycle infastructure and massively high bike usage there's very little chance of an RTA compared to the UK. Plus the vast majority of bikes are steel jobbies that potter about at 10mph.
> 
> ...



Ok, I'll answer....

if helmets are "bound to help" - and I don't think I'm misrepresenting you here, why have they not helped in Australia, and Ontario - both places which have introduced compulsion, which has seen helmet wearing rates gone up from 10% to 90% (or whatever it is), have see cycling rates go down, and paradoxically killed and seriously injured RATES - wait for it_ GONE UP !

There's something going on here - so the "it's obvious innit?" argument doesn't seem to be enough.

Regarding the "hitting with a brick" thought experement - lets try another one - swing the bring to just miss your head by 10mm - then try again wearing a helment - I think you'll find it hurts a lot more with the helmet on !

And if it's "bound to help" - do you also wear one whilst walking, riding in a car, climbing stairs - and above all if going out drinking beer ? This is a serious question worthy of an answer by the way.

And we haven't even covered risk compensation by cyclilsts, by drivers - the going closer to helmeted cyclists paper by a recent researcher, never mind the strangled children in Scandinavia - think of the children after all!

For the record, I used to wear a cycle helmet, and thought those who did not were obviously stupid so I understand where you're coming from, but once you look into it, it may be obvious, but not necessarily true


----------



## Dave 123 (16 Mar 2014)

I see perfectly well. I loose nothing. Neither do you if I wear one. I loose nothing if you don't.

Bandannas are the headwear choice of Emperor Nobbers- FACT!


----------



## NorvernRob (16 Mar 2014)

User13710 said:


> Show me where people have called you brainwashed, or a sheep.





gavroche said:


> because of media power, brainwashing and a good business opportunity.





Alan H said:


> I think it might partly be because cycling in the UK is a bit of a subcult and conforming to the rules is very, very important in a subcult. The helmet debate is just one way to thrash out the rules. In other countries cycling is just something you do, like wearing socks or eating sandwiches, and conformism doesn't need debating.



I don't wear a helmet to conform or because I'm brainwashed. I wear one because I'd rather have one between my head and the road should I fall off.




User13710 said:


> I'd like to pop in again and ask a serious question. Helmet believers/wearers always end their posts with 'But I don't care at all whether other people wear helmets or not', or similar.
> 
> Why don't they just *shut up about it* then? In the creep towards possible compulsion they have nothing to lose - but we have.



Because this is a thread about helmet use? Who do you care if others want to wear one, why does it offend you so much?

Why do you think the 90%+ of helmet wearers are wrong and you're right? Why does there even have to be a wrong and a right?


----------



## NorvernRob (16 Mar 2014)

Profpointy said:


> Ok, I'll answer....
> 
> if helmets are "bound to help" - and I don't think I'm misrepresenting you here, why have they not helped in Australia, and Ontario - both places which have introduced compulsion, which has seen helmet wearing rates gone up from 10% to 90% (or whatever it is), have see cycling rates go down, and paradoxically killed and seriously injured RATES - wait for it_ GONE UP !
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone is stupid for not wearing a helmet - it's their choice and I don't care. I just take offence to being accused of being brainwashed because I choose to.

I walk at 3-4mph, and can't remember ever falling down and banging my head.

I drive a car every day and wear a seatbelt, as well as being surrounded by a ton of metal.

I've never fallen and banged my head whilst climbing stairs.

I've fallen and banged my head whilst drunk once yes. I'm pretty sure it would have hurt less with a helmet on, but I don't think I really need to explain why I nor anyone else wears one to go out drinking.

However, over the years I spent cycling when younger I have fallen off plenty of times and banged my head several times - one in particular was a nasty crack on the back of my head and I felt sick for hours. That's why I choose to wear a helmet whilst cycling - I've banged my head more times falling off bikes than I ever have or will doing all other activities put together.

I'm older now, and more sensible, and maybe I'll never fall off and bang my head again. But maybe I will, or maybe someone in a vehicle will do it for me.

I'll never accept that cycling without a helmet on is safer, it's that simple. I'm free to make my choice and others are free to make theirs, that's how I would prefer it to stay.


----------



## DefBref (16 Mar 2014)

My take on it is that its the Health and Safety culture of the UK that is moving towards that if you see a hazard then you must do something to reduce that hazard, whether or not there is actual evidence that it does. Where I work has the same attitude, they do risk assement but do actually not understanding what risk actually is. Risk takes into account the hazard and the likelyhood of it happening and the severity of injury, however the UK in general and my place of work especially seems to confuse risk with hazard only and so if there is a hazard then you must reduce it no matter how likely or effective your chosen method is. So I have to wear a plethora of PPE for hazards which have a very minor chance of occurence and if did occur would only result in minor injury, where in fact if risk assement was correctly undertaken, you would not have to wear the PPE as the probability of the hazard occuring and injury occuring is so low to not make it worth the effort.


----------



## DefBref (16 Mar 2014)

I'm sorry Adrian, I don't understand your question. Could you elaborate?


----------



## jarlrmai (16 Mar 2014)

Why do I wear a helmet?

1. My girlfriend makes me.
2. I just know if I get squashed by a truck it will be bought up even though it doesn't matter a jot, I feel the pressure from society "to have done all I could have done" it's wrong but it's there and we see it bought up every time a cyclist is hit.
3. My hat cracked in my accident, I like to think it absorbed some of the energy that might have gone into my head, I feel that if I have a small clipless moment or something I might prevent a gash on my head.
4. Handy vents to put my sunglasses in.
5. Rain visor helps in the rain.
6. The camera fits nicely on.


----------



## MarkF (16 Mar 2014)

Dave 123 said:


> AND as a short haired old fart it keeps the sun off me bonce....



I love the sun on my head, who wants a bonce like a Sunderland shirt? 



NorvernRob said:


> I've banged my head more times falling off bikes than I ever have or will doing all other activities put together..



Take up bowls or something, I am 51 and haven't even fallen off a bike yet.


----------



## raindog (16 Mar 2014)

I thought these helmet threads were banned in here these days? 

When I was a kid we were constantly falling off bikes, falling out of trees and falling off home made trolleys (remember them?) in massed crashes. We would be covered in cuts, bruises and scabs, especially on knees and elbows, but I can't remember anyone ever having even a light head injury.
When I see little kids out pootling about on little bikes wearing helmets I find it so feckin sad and depressing.


----------



## DefBref (16 Mar 2014)

@User I agree and not sure of the answer.

The point I was making, and it is not specifically about helmets, but risk assessment is not applied correctly or consistently anywhere. As per your example of cycling being singled out.


----------



## mickle (16 Mar 2014)

NorvernRob said:


> Two things from me.
> 
> Firstly, comparing cycling in the UK to Holland is ridiculous. There's no need to wear a helmet in holland, due to the fantastic cycle infastructure and massively high bike usage there's very little chance of an RTA compared to the UK. Plus the vast majority of bikes are steel jobbies that potter about at 10mph.
> 
> ...


Common sense! Yay!


----------



## cyberknight (16 Mar 2014)

shouldbeinbed said:


> yes, we've all seen these type of reports and with headphones too. Did you contribute to the wider problem with your solicitor by playing along with the question or point out that no cycling helmet would quite reach your hip where the impact was and why was s/he fixated on protecting an undamaged part of your body but not asking why you weren't in full motorcycle leathers on your cycle or using some form of body armour that could be relevant to the area of impact you mention?


I pointed it out and the claim fell short of what they would consider pursuing , the main fact that makes me wear a helmet is i would get more of a ear bashing off swmbo than i would smacking into a vehicle if i didnt .


----------



## Colin B (16 Mar 2014)

raindog said:


> I thought these helmet threads were banned in here these days?
> 
> When I was a kid we were constantly falling off bikes, falling out of trees and falling off home made trolleys (remember them?) in massed crashes. We would be covered in cuts, bruises and scabs, especially on knees and elbows, but I can't remember anyone ever having even a light head injury.
> When I see little kids out pootling about on little bikes wearing helmets I find it so feckin sad and depressing.


I don't wear one all the time but on the road yes I do and the reason is not only for safety its because if some numpty knocks me off my bike and we end up in court the first thing some parasite solicitor will say is "so Mr B at the time of the accident were you wearing a safety helmet" and it'll go downhill from there .
Personally I don't get involved in the should you shouldn't you debate its your choice wear one don't wear one the choice is a personal one


----------



## byegad (16 Mar 2014)

There is a very, as in VERY, determined helmet lobby in the UK.

I've posted this before but it's worth a re-post.

I was working in my shed when I pulled a pair of pedals from a hook under the shelf. They were tied together and the second one snagged and then sprung free, catching me above the eyebrow. It beld profusely and within seconds I was blinded by blood running into both eyes.
I felt my way into the house and found the phoned my wife, who was out shopping, and she came home and ran me to the hospital.
The A&E nurse treated me, super-gluing the gash above my eyes and washing off the blood, then
filled in an accident form.

Q. How did it happen?
A. I hit my head with a cycle pedal.

Q. Were you wearing a helmet?
A. No! I was in my shed and pulled it onto my head!

Nurse fills in form with 'Cycling accident-No helmet.'
Me. Hang on it wasn't a cycling accident, the pedal wasn't on a bike, I was in my shed and why the **** should I wear a cycling helmet in the shed?

The row escalates and the A&E Sister turns up in the cubicle.

Sister. What's the problem?
Nurse. He hit his head with a bike pedal.
Sister, That's a cycling accident, was he wearing a helmet?
Me. I was in my shed why should I wear a helmet???
etc. etc. etc.

End result? They put it down as a head injury due to cycling and I was not wearing a helmet!

Does anyone think that if I'd pulled a carburettor onto my head it would have been a motoring accident, with no seatbelt? Or pulling an aircraft radar unit onto my head it would have been an air accident?

Theory.
The statistics are being fiddled and the helmet lobby are part of it.
Conclusion.
That's something that my experience reinforces and the net result has been that I no longer wear a helmet. What's more, I'm quite prepared to ignore any future law mandating helmets. If they want to cheat the statistics, I'm up for challenging the law.


----------



## cyberknight (16 Mar 2014)

Given fabio casartelli`s death i doubt the uci will repeal the ruling they made regarding helmets and arent the new helmet more aero than caps these days so i doubt the pro teams will drop them given the marginal gains that seem to be in lately.


----------



## cyberknight (16 Mar 2014)

User said:


> It wasn't Fabio Casartelli's death in 1995, it was Andrey Kivilev's in 2003 that prompted the UCI to mandate helmets.


Fair enough wise old elf .


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Mar 2014)

cyberknight said:


> Given fabio casartelli`s death i doubt the uci will repeal the ruling they made regarding helmets and arent the new helmet more aero than caps these days so i doubt the pro teams will drop them given the marginal gains that seem to be in lately.


The helmets the pros wear are hideously non aero. They have highly aero alternatives but are fiercly conservative.


----------



## Big Nick (16 Mar 2014)

Isn't the recommendation in most pastimes that involve a modicum of speed that wearing a helmet is desirable to protect your head. I've been off road motorcycling, paragliding, skiing, go karting, and probably a few other things that you could crash fairly heavily doing and always been given a helmet to wear and been glad of it despite legally not needing one.

A similar argument was no doubt raised when the idea of compulsory motorcycle helmet wearing was mooted re freedom not to wear one etc ( I'm not suggesting cycle helmets are made compulsory btw!)

I will always wear a helmet cycling as I've crashed heavily and concussed myself with one on so wouldn't like to think of that impact on my unprotected head.

Its nothing to do with being brainwashed rather fear of being brain damaged and how I can minimise that possibility however small the chance of it may be

Most day to day activities carry an element of risk, it's largely up to the individual how they perceive and mitigate that risk. I respect the decision of those who choose not to wear one as their perception is clearly different from mine, it's doesn't make either of us wrong just different.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Mar 2014)

Can I just say...

"Would you prefer to be shot in the head whilst wearing a cycling helmet or whilst not wearing one?"

Please feel free to explain your answers using maths and physics, referencing the transfer of kinetic energy and the effect of rapid deceleration on the human brain rather than anecdata.


----------



## RedRider (16 Mar 2014)

buggi said:


> they are good for covering your bad hair do on the way to work


A cap does the job nicely. Sometimes I take one off and my hair looks way better than before the ride!


----------



## RedRider (16 Mar 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Can I just say...
> 
> "Would you prefer to be shot in the head whilst wearing a cycling helmet or whilst not wearing one?"
> 
> Please feel free to explain your answers using maths and physics, referencing the transfer of kinetic energy and the effect of rapid deceleration on the human brain rather than anecdata.


I give this thread three more pages at which point either option will do, ta.


----------



## snorri (16 Mar 2014)

Big Nick said:


> Isn't the recommendation in most pastimes that involve a modicum of speed that wearing a helmet is desirable to protect your head. I've been off road motorcycling, paragliding, skiing, go karting, and probably a few other things that you could crash fairly heavily doing and always been given a helmet to wear and been glad of it despite legally not needing one.
> 
> A similar argument was no doubt raised when the idea of compulsory motorcycle helmet wearing was mooted re freedom not to wear one etc ( I'm not suggesting cycle helmets are made compulsory btw!)
> 
> ...


Well, that's all very well but you've skillfully avoided addressing the issues raised in the OP.


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Imagine what it would be worth to make driving helmets mainstream.



millions... maybe more! 

All they need is the right angle to spout their emotive facts and stats from, and people will wake up and feel the need. 
Unfortunately at present, people just laugh when one suggests it might be a good idea to wear a helmet whilst driving to work... which is odd given the number of head injuries drivers sustain every year. I guess in a way, the metal and glass shell of the car is one big helmet.


----------



## NorvernRob (16 Mar 2014)

MarkF said:


> I love the sun on my head, who wants a bonce like a Sunderland shirt?
> 
> 
> 
> Take up bowls or something, I am 51 and haven't even fallen off a bike yet.



You didn't have a proper childhood then!


----------



## Jon George (16 Mar 2014)

In answer to the OP: if someone does anything twice in this country, it becomes a tradition.  

Oh, and just to be a tease - I'm not going to tell you if I wear one or not.


----------



## bianchi1 (16 Mar 2014)

The OP wondered why UK cyclists are fixated with helmets, and as has already been pointed out, not all are.

From what I see opinions are split 4 ways.

There are those who think that helmets should be made compulsory and those who don't wear one will die a horrible death. These people are quite vocal and spend their rides tutting at those who dare to go bareheaded. 

There are a group that wear a helmet (for reasons that they believe in ) but don't care what any one else does. This group don't say much..and just get on with enjoying cycling.

Then there are those that don't wear a helmet ( for reasons they believe in ) but don't care what anyone else does. This group also stay out of the argument and enjoy cycling.

The last group don't wear helmets and believe those that do are not only stupid, but ruining cycling for them, to the point that seeing a cycling child wearing a helmet makes them sad. This group are also extremely vocal and like to plan militant actions.

Thankfully there are a lot more of the two middle groups getting on with each other, although the vocal nature of the strong pro and negative often makes it seem otherwise.


----------



## NorvernRob (16 Mar 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Can I just say...
> 
> "Would you prefer to be shot in the head whilst wearing a cycling helmet or whilst not wearing one?"
> 
> Please feel free to explain your answers using maths and physics, referencing the transfer of kinetic energy and the effect of rapid deceleration on the human brain rather than anecdata.



Bit of a silly post. If you come off a bike at 40mph and land on your head then it probably won't matter whether you are wearing a helmet or not, the outcome would still be the same.

It's at lower speeds where it becomes a grey area IMO, but at the very least a helmet protects you from cuts, grazes, the side of your head scraping along the road etc and that's good enough for me even if it doesn't make any difference in an impact situation.

However, I still stand by my post from earlier whereby if you hit a wall or fell at slow speed it would hurt a whole lot less with a helmet on. And a point impact would at least spread the force somewhat - imagine a flattened out helmet on a table, hit the table with a ball hammer and you'd damage the table at that point. Hit the helmet with the hammer and whilst the same overall impact may be applied to the table (if the helmet material didn't compress, if it did then the energy transfer would be reduced) the load would be spread instead of being concentrated at that point.

ps: Good post above bianchi. There is no right or wrong, just personal choice and nobody should be derided for making theirs.


----------



## cyberknight (16 Mar 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> The helmets the pros wear are hideously non aero. They have highly aero alternatives but are fiercly conservative.


Seems that spesh, giro, poc etc are making serious inroads with the aero stuff if the one day classics and adriactico are anything to go by.


----------



## Big Nick (16 Mar 2014)

snorri said:


> Well, that's all very well but you've skillfully avoided addressing the issues raised in the OP.


Probably because the question from the OP is unanswerable with any certainty as to the validity of the answer


----------



## steveindenmark (16 Mar 2014)

I am the original poster and did not compare cycling in the UK to cycling in Holland. I was only comparing the attitude towards helmets. The idea that riders in Denmark and Holland pootle to work on Grannie bikes is a myth. We have miles of open road and cycle paths to ride our road bikes along.

I am 55 years old now and cycle helmets are a relatively new thing in UK cycling. We all managed without them for years until this fad came along that we should all have one. The way I rode as a kid a motorbike helmet would have been my best choice. Its a fad that doesnt seemed to have gripped the rest of Europe in the same way.

Those staunch supporters of helmets are far more outspoken than those who dont wear helmets. Its like a new religion to some people. It is well known that helmets are only designed for minor drops. Well anyone with safer roads than the UK can have minor drops, on a cycle path for instance. So it still doesnt explain why they are not worn in most of Europe.

Big Nick, i am not looking for answers, only opinions. But I can feel people getting anti now.

Steve


----------



## Colin B (16 Mar 2014)

Does polishing your helmet cause it too crack


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Mar 2014)

Big Nick said:


> Probably because the question from the OP is unanswerable with any certainty as to the validity of the answer


The OP's question was about the specificities of UK attitudes to helmet wearing. Possible factors have already been mentioned, some of which have been recurrent, and, as far as I can see, anybody who has experience of cycling in the UK (and preferably in other countries too) has a valid opinion to give. Valid because it's a social question that relates to a number of factors acting at the same time, not because it's the kind of valid (or true) conclusion that comes out of pure logical syllogisms.


----------



## simon1 (16 Mar 2014)

I have not read all of this thread but here are my thoughts. Helmets are a personal choice but I choose to wear one on cycle journeys longer than a trip into town. I hate to think about an off on the open road but it might give me edge. In an urban area a helmet may actually do more good, lots of hard kerbs etc to bang your head on. Again its a personal choice and should stay that way.


----------



## NorvernRob (16 Mar 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> I am the original poster and did not compare cycling in the UK to cycling in Holland. I was only comparing the attitude towards helmets. The idea that riders in Denmark and Holland pootle to work on Grannie bikes is a myth. We have miles of open road and cycle paths to ride our road bikes along.
> 
> I am 55 years old now and cycle helmets are a relatively new thing in UK cycling. We all managed without them for years until this fad came along that we should all have one. The way I rode as a kid a motorbike helmet would have been my best choice. Its a fad that doesnt seemed to have gripped the rest of Europe in the same way.
> 
> ...



How come everytime I've been to Holland there has been thousands of people pootling along on granny bikes then? Didn't look like a myth to me.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (16 Mar 2014)

In this country wearing a helmet is trotted out as the standard answer to all road problems involving a cyclist. It's my guess that even if every single pedaller in the country wore one, and the accident stats didn't change, the new 'must have' would be the pedal reflector or a 10,000 lumen dayglo bodysuit.
We're asked to accept that all the ills of the road are contributed to solely by us, not by the people that feel it's too much to expect for them to wait a short while, and have to go around us as they storm about driving one handed, mobile to their ears in the life or death struggle to get to Tescos.

So I think helmet compulsion theory is just easier than confronting a wider problem.
Perhaps European cyclists aren't treated as badly?


----------



## Big Nick (16 Mar 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> The OP's question was about the specificities of UK attitudes to helmet wearing. Possible factors have already been mentioned, some of which have been recurrent, and, as far as I can see, anybody who has experience of cycling in the UK (and preferably in other countries too) has a valid opinion to give. Valid because it's a social question that relates to a number of factors acting at the same time, not because it's the kind of valid (or true) conclusion that comes out of pure logical syllogisms.


Errrrr.........ok


----------



## Big Nick (16 Mar 2014)

simon1 said:


> I have not read all of this thread but here are my thoughts. Helmets are a personal choice but I choose to wear one on cycle journeys longer than a trip into town. I hate to think about an off on the open road but it might give me edge. In an urban area a helmet may actually do more good, lots of hard kerbs etc to bang your head on. Again its a personal choice and should stay that way.


Apparently you're not allowed to give that sort of response!!


----------



## middleagecyclist (16 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Casualty nurse looking at wounded elbow and offering statistics on head injuries that are completely implausible. That sort of stuff is common. Fellow cyclists not so.


Not when I'm triaging it's not. We also don't use the title Casualty anymore. The BBC have a lot to answer for!


----------



## Dave 123 (16 Mar 2014)

MarkF said:


> I love the sun on my head, who wants a bonce like a Sunderland shirt?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Shut Up Legs (16 Mar 2014)

summerdays said:


> I think helmets are a good way of avoiding the real topic of cycle safety, so that we focus on the fact a cyclist was or wasn't wearing one rather than looking at whether we give cyclists respect on the road and look out for them.


That's exactly what's occuring here in Australia.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (16 Mar 2014)

Globalti said:


> My son, my cycling buddy and I have all had a bang on the head while wearing helmets. In each case the helmet broke and the texture of the road was imprinted in the outer shell. That all three of us survived (son was unconscious for a couple of minutes) is enough to convince me that a helmet can swing the outcome of an accident in favour of surviving.
> 
> The OP is being disingenuous; surely he knows that on the continent far more people commute on slow sedate town bikes in separate cycle lanes, whereas in the UK we are forced to share the roads with incompetent drivers, meaning fewer cyclist and a higher accident rate?


I have to agree with that. I suspect that if Australia ever repealed its mandatory helmet law (in some bizarre alternate universe), I'd continue wearing my helmet, because I have absolutely NO trust of Australian motorists.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (16 Mar 2014)

DefBref said:


> My take on it is that its the Health and Safety culture of the UK that is moving towards that if you see a hazard then you must do something to reduce that hazard, whether or not there is actual evidence that it does. Where I work has the same attitude, they do risk assement but do actually not understanding what risk actually is. Risk takes into account the hazard and the likelyhood of it happening and the severity of injury, however the UK in general and my place of work especially seems to confuse risk with hazard only and so if there is a hazard then you must reduce it no matter how likely or effective your chosen method is. So I have to wear a plethora of PPE for hazards which have a very minor chance of occurence and if did occur would only result in minor injury, where in fact if risk assement was correctly undertaken, you would not have to wear the PPE as the probability of the hazard occuring and injury occuring is so low to not make it worth the effort.


Exactly. If this risk assessment was properly performed in Australia, it would be the motorists and pedestrians who would need helmets more than the cyclists.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (16 Mar 2014)

byegad said:


> There is a very, as in VERY, determined helmet lobby in the UK.
> 
> I've posted this before but it's worth a re-post.
> 
> ...


 I love it! It's like something out of Douglas Adam's "_The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy_".


----------



## buggi (16 Mar 2014)

RedRider said:


> A cap does the job nicely. Sometimes I take one off and my hair looks way better than before the ride!


 hmmm i have quite big ears. They are not that big really for every day life, i don't trip over them or anything but too big to suit a cap!


----------



## Crackle (16 Mar 2014)

Colin B said:


> Does polishing your helmet cause it too crack


I think the heat makes it expand...


----------



## srw (16 Mar 2014)

Dave 123 said:


> It is an every day activity. By wearing a protective hat I loose nothing.
> AND as a short haired old fart it keeps the sun off me bonce....


You've never met Adrian, have you?


----------



## buggi (16 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Big enough that you have to sculpt ear recesses in the polystyrene of a helmet?


i just tape em down. Otherwise they act like a sail. Brill when I've got a tail wind... Which of course never happens


----------



## buggi (16 Mar 2014)

User said:


> I am starting to imagine one of the elves in LOTR.


 LOL not quite that bad but i don't suit caps. Give me a beanie and I'm ok.


----------



## buggi (16 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Bad?


 they are not pointed!


----------



## snorri (16 Mar 2014)

simon1 said:


> I have not read all of this thread but here are my thoughts. .


----------



## Dave 123 (16 Mar 2014)

srw said:


> You've never met Adrian, have you?




Why?


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Mar 2014)

...
[QUOTE 2980869, member: 45"]UK cyclists aren't fixated on helmets, you lot are.[/QUOTE]
it has been a while since we've had a helmet debate though.

I'm often asked when the subject of cycling is brought up "Do you wear a helmet?". I'd prefer to be asked "Where do you cycle too?", "what kind of bike have you got?", "Do you wear lycra or are you 'normal'?", but the helmet question does come up first and foremost quite often.

When in the states a couple of years ago, my cousin mentioned that she doesn't ride her bike any more because "we're supposed to wear a helmet these days" so I guess it's not just a UK thing.


----------



## Dave 123 (16 Mar 2014)

That's internet bullying that is. If you wear a helmet it will deflect the blows,


----------



## vickster (16 Mar 2014)

@MontyVeda There's a whole section of them

http://www.cyclechat.net/forums/helmet-headphone-debates.19/


----------



## Crackle (16 Mar 2014)

Helmets, there is no argument, I mean, everyone should have one







Sorry if you've seen it before but then again, I've read all this before so who gives a shoot. Why isn't this in the 'stupid section that I ignore' part of the forum.

And by the way: I've told him if he goes over 12mph it's not going to save him but does he listen....


----------



## Wobblers (16 Mar 2014)

Colin B said:


> Does polishing your helmet cause it too crack



Paging @Fnaar. Fnaar to the thread, please!


----------



## MontyVeda (16 Mar 2014)

vickster said:


> @MontyVeda There's a whole section of them
> 
> http://www.cyclechat.net/forums/helmet-headphone-debates.19/


yes i know... but it's been a while.

A week is a long time on the interweb


----------



## Wobblers (16 Mar 2014)

If I may use this opportunity to spoil this spiffing thread with SCIENCE...

I've noticed there's been quite a few people who've said "My helmet cracked, so it must have saved me". That's unlikely to be true. A material can absorb impact energy in two ways. It can bend in a ductile fashion, as metals do. That's how a car's crumple zone functions - there's a lot of metal that bends and deforms in a collision. Or it can crack. A crack absorbs energy because it creates a new surface area - and surfaces always energy associated with them. Think of the surface tension of water, and how surface tension maintains a soap bubble. Helmets are made from expanded polystyrene, a brittle material that cracks in impact. You want it form many small cracks which create many new surfaces - that'll absorb the most energy. If it has visibly cracked, then it has failed - as that crack will have absorbed very little energy... leaving the majority to be transferred straight to your head...

There is remarkably little evidence to support the idea that helmets provide a meaningful protective role: the very best studies we have show no benefit at all. The plural of "anecdote" is *not *"data". If you want, I can demonstrate how not wearing a helmet saved my life - I've even got the actual maths to prove it...


----------



## Wobblers (16 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Did you read the link I posted back up there?



No.

I just can't take you elves seriously. Shouldn't you be fighting balrogs or something?


----------



## ianrauk (16 Mar 2014)

McWobble said:


> No.
> 
> I just can't take you elves seriously. Shouldn't you be fighting balrogs or something?




He's a wise old elf... usually found winding up Nanny Plumb and running the toy factory,


----------



## Wobblers (16 Mar 2014)

ianrauk said:


> He's a wise old elf... usually found winding up Nanny Plumb and running the toy factory,



Well, I agree with the "old" bit...


----------



## ianrauk (16 Mar 2014)

McWobble said:


> Well, I agree with the "old" bit...




Elf's not far off either


----------



## Wobblers (16 Mar 2014)

User said:


> You and everyone else. Still, I shall have one TMN for that.



Disqualified. You didn't talk about the SCIENCY bit, and linking to some poxy website doesn't count either (and I've read it before, anyway.. )

Shouldn't you be getting the harp out and singing about Elvandar about now?


----------



## Wobblers (16 Mar 2014)

User said:


> You call this old? I am planning on decades more, and getting worse.



Getting _worse_? I admit that I'm not sure I really want to know the answer, but how are you going to manage that? You're going to need more than a bmx and a hoodie for that trick, you know....


----------



## fossyant (16 Mar 2014)

So as I post this, we are at over 8 pages.

Simple answer is cyclists are gutter scum.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (16 Mar 2014)

fossyant said:


> So as I post this, we are at over 8 pages.
> 
> Simple answer is cyclists are gutter scum.



...with a helmet fixation


----------



## Wobblers (16 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Just imagine slightly more exaggerated in every way and more irascible.



What, is this the same trick as trying to imagine infinity, then adding one?


----------



## Mugshot (17 Mar 2014)

I have two friends that used to offer me their wisdom concerning the wearing of helmets. One doesn't cycle the other does occasionally, though generally canal paths not too much on the roads. Unfortunately they both adopt the same debating technique of metaphorically sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting "LA, LA, LA, not listening to you!" after they've had their say.
The most recent conversation with my non cyclist friend was when he told me that he was very proud that his son, aged 8ish, automatically puts his helmet on when he goes out on his bike to play with his friends. (They live in a cul de sac) I took the bait and asked what he was hoping the helmet would protect his son from.
"In case he falls off"
"And protect him from what?"
"From hurting himself."
"Does he wear gloves?"
"No."
"Does he wear elbow pads?"
"No."
"Does he wear knee pads?"
"No."
" Has he ever fallen off and hurt his hands, knees or elbows?"
"Yes, but if he falls off and hits his head that will be much worse."
"I see. Does he wear his helmet when he's on his scooter, you've said he can go really fast on that now and bumps up and down the kerbs on it."
"No he doesn't."
"But don't you think that there is a chance he could fall off his scooter and bang his head?"
"Oh, I can't be bothered talking to you about this."
My occasional cyclist friend is also an occasional jogger, he recently tripped whilst jogging and scraped his faced up a bit, I asked him whether he would be wearing a helmet from now on incase he tripped and bumped his head, I was told not to be so stupid, or words to that effect. He was more recently clipped from behind whilst on his bike at a roundabout, he came off and suffered a grazed elbow. I told him I was pleased he was wearing a helmet as it looked like it had saved his life, I received the same reply that followed his spill whilst jogging.
I haven't seen any shift towards less people wearing helmets, I see very, very few that don't, no matter where or what they're riding. There is in my experience, limited though it is, an absolute belief that a helmet can and quite possibly will save your life. So deep seated is this belief that any argument or evidence put forward from the other side is treated with disdain and then ignored. The link posted by Adrian will mostly go unread by the helmet activists and will be ignored by those that do read it. I don't think it's UK cyclists that are fixated with helmets, I think it's the UK generally, I've had people beeping their horn and gesticulating from their car that I should be wearing a helmet, the irony is not lost on me.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Mar 2014)

Why are UK cyclists fixated on wearing lycra?
Why are UK cyclists fixated on wearing space lemon over-garments (which offend mine eye and give me a headache even when I'm wearing sunglasses)?

THESE are the questions we should be asking

along with

Why do UK 'sports' cyclists wear long sleeves and long leggings when it is sunny?


----------



## summerdays (17 Mar 2014)

Is that partly because .... every one else does? In winter I join the bright brigade, but come summertime (when not wearing a coat that has multi-function of keeping me dry, warmer, and brighter coloured), then I'm wearing a variety of things of no particular colour. I do notice that most I meet in winter time on my comute seem to be wearing the same sort of gear whereas in summer there is more diversity, either due to the change in weather or an influx of summer cyclists who don't feel the need to conform?


----------



## Dan B (17 Mar 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Why are UK cyclists fixated on wearing lycra?


There aren't many other opportunities to do so where it won't get funny looks. Especially out of doors


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Mar 2014)

Dan B said:


> There aren't many other opportunities to do so where it won't get funny looks. Especially out of doors


Easy for you to say. with my (lack of) body shape I get funny looks whenever and wherever I wear it.


----------



## steveindenmark (17 Mar 2014)

Guys,

I really appreciate all the replies and for keeping the humour throughout the post. Its the most entertaining helmet thread I have seen in a long time.


Steve


----------



## MontyVeda (17 Mar 2014)

Mugshot said:


> ...
> The link posted by Adrian will mostly go unread by the helmet activists and will be ignored by those that do read it.
> ...



Adrian posted a link? What is this linky thing??


----------



## Mugshot (17 Mar 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> Adrian posted a link? What is this linky thing??


Here you go 


User said:


> Please read this


----------



## MontyVeda (17 Mar 2014)

Mugshot said:


> Here you go


Thanks. 
if only he'd drawn more attention to it throughout the thread.. i wouldn't have had to ask


----------



## Dogtrousers (17 Mar 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Why are UK cyclists fixated on wearing lycra?


And not just any old lycra ... full racing kit with bibs and braces and all that jazz. One of the anti-helmet arguments is that it makes cycling out as something special for special people with special gear. The same applies to racing kit, and those great big trianglar road cleats. I think the anti-helmet, anti hi-vis grumblers should add this to their arsenal. Cyclists end up looking not just like the Mekon, but a pudgy Mekon with an enormous arse and duck's feet.


----------



## Mugshot (17 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Apologies, it was such an unimportant thing compared to people's various anecdotes and third hand wisdom, that I didn't want to overdo it.


Hmmm, now I posted a couple of anecdotes, a mention of your link and a link to your link, is that bingo or a full house?


----------



## Mugshot (17 Mar 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> Thanks.
> if only he'd drawn more attention to it throughout the thread.. i wouldn't have had to ask


I had an inclination you may have spotted it.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (17 Mar 2014)

Dogtrousers said:


> And not just any old lycra ... full racing kit with bibs and braces and all that jazz. One of the anti-helmet arguments is that it makes cycling out as something special for special people with special gear. The same applies to racing kit, and those great big trianglar road cleats. I think the anti-helmet, anti hi-vis grumblers should add this to their arsenal. Cyclists end up looking not just like the Mekon, but a pudgy Mekon with an enormous arse and duck's feet.



Damn! Didn't think anyone had spotted me


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (17 Mar 2014)

I'm gonna patent my idea now for dancing helmets. Surely all that jumping about while half drunk and trying to impress others is dangerous


----------



## lip03 (17 Mar 2014)

Shumi hit his noggin at 12 mph in the slopes, the helmet he was wearing saved his life.... different scenario but thats the reason I wear mine and the reason I think they are a good idea, but its up to the individual I supoose, as for media and clever advertising I have never seen a marketing campaign for a cycle helmet...


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Mar 2014)

middleagecyclist said:


> Not when I'm triaging it's not. We also don't use the title Casualty anymore. The BBC have a lot to answer for!



On a serious note....

Our Trust published a leaflet on resuscitation some years ago explaining that the expectations from Casualty and such were unrealistic and that whilst we would do our best the miracles that happened on TV were rare in real life

Less seriously..
I have never been more impressed than the occasion where a broken neck was missed and then discovered at the last minute from the X-Ray of a foot

If only the NHS had such
skilled criticisms


----------



## Leodis (17 Mar 2014)

Lycra and helmets turn women on, FACT!


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Mar 2014)

This is one of the reasons why I love the Thudguard

It is a tongue in cheek reference that
mirrors the helmet debate exactly

Everything is there from the pseudo-Science through the same testimonials through the Thudguard saved my child's life to the wear a Thudguard or your child will become a vegetable

Questioning the rationale by offering an identical situation is one way of showing the problems within the debate


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Mar 2014)

Leodis said:


> Lycra and helmets turn women on, FACT!




Allegedly.....


----------



## snorri (17 Mar 2014)

Dogtrousers said:


> Cyclists end up looking not just like the Mekon, but a pudgy Mekon with an enormous arse and duck's feet.


Indeed, I wonder at times if they are from another planet.


----------



## Sara_H (17 Mar 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> On a serious note....
> 
> Our Trust published a leaflet on resuscitation some years ago explaining that the expectations from Casualty and such were unrealistic and that whilst we would do our best the miracles that happened on TV were rare in real life
> 
> ...


Actually, I remember from a dim and distant acute spinal injuries course I did that there is a particular kind of fracture in the bone of the heel that often accompanies a spinal fracture. It happens when someone falls from height and lands on their feet. So not so silly as it would seem.

Anyway, we digress!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Mar 2014)

Dogtrousers said:


> And not just any old lycra ... full racing kit with bibs and braces and all that jazz. One of the anti-helmet arguments is that it makes cycling out as something special for special people with special gear. The same applies to racing kit, and those great big trianglar road cleats. I think the anti-helmet, anti hi-vis grumblers should add this to their arsenal. Cyclists end up looking not just like the Mekon, but a pudgy Mekon with an enormous arse and duck's feet.


Nobber. I now need a new keyboard.


----------



## roadrash (17 Mar 2014)

Colin B said:


> Does polishing your helmet cause it too crack


 better ask @Fnaar


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Mar 2014)

lip03 said:


> Shumi hit his noggin at 12 mph in the slopes, the helmet he was wearing saved his life.... different scenario but thats the reason I wear mine and the reason I think they are a good idea,


????

the investigator is on record as having reviewed the footage from the helmet cam and as having said "completely normal behaviour by a good skier on this terrain". Good skiers tend to be fast skiers.

If he had a sub 80 joule impact on a rock then a Snell certified helmet might have helped but a CE one? Well who knows. European helmets don't have to be Snell certified and the CE test standard is a waste of space.


----------



## middleagecyclist (17 Mar 2014)

Sara_H said:


> Actually, I remember from a dim and distant acute spinal injuries course I did that there is a particular kind of fracture in the bone of the heel that often accompanies a spinal fracture. It happens when someone falls from height and lands on their feet. So not so silly as it would seem.


Fracture of the Calcaneum (heel bone). Would suggest possible spinal injury but usually not of the Cervical spine (neck) unless other injuries were sustained.


----------



## anothersam (17 Mar 2014)

User13710 said:


> I'd like to pop in again and ask a serious question. Helmet believers/wearers always end their posts with 'But I don't care at all whether other people wear helmets or not', or similar.
> 
> Why don't they just shut up about it then? *In the creep towards possible compulsion they have nothing to lose - but we have.* [my bold]



This is the only thing that makes me even slightly "anti-helmet", much as I dislike that description, as it usually seems to be a twisting of the pro-choice stance which further polarises debate. I think most of us who go bare headed just want to be left alone, and are happy to return the favour unless provoked.



MontyVeda said:


> When in the states a couple of years ago, my cousin mentioned that she doesn't ride her bike any more because "we're supposed to wear a helmet these days" so I guess it's not just a UK thing.



This interested me enough to look up the laws state by state [source]. There is no compulsion by any of the states for an adult to wear a helmet. However, in a fair number of states minors have to. Legalities aside, I agree the US is, by and large, pro-helmet.


> Don't even think about pedalling down your driveway without a helmet... Don't even think about being friends with someone who would cycle without a helmet.


Spotted in a book I picked up in a shop across the pond



Crackle said:


> Helmets, there is no argument, I mean, everyone should have one



Nothing to add, I just got a kick out of this pic.


----------



## MontyVeda (17 Mar 2014)

I should have been a little clearer @anothersam .... my cousin's stance was that since people in general seem to think cyclists are supposed to wear helmets these days, the idea of going out for a bike ride is a little less attractive to her. Whether this is because she doesn't want to wear a lid, or because she simply hasn't got round to buying a lid yet, I don't know.


----------



## anothersam (17 Mar 2014)

Thanks for the clarification, though I figured something like that. Looking up the laws (assuming that site is accurate) was just to satisfy my own curiosity.

---
Forgot to add to my post above: some municipalities within states may have helmet laws affecting adults. I'd be interested to learn if anybody has run into this.
---

When I was growing up in smalltown Ohio and riding all over the damn place in the 70s/80s, a helmet would've looked distinctly odd. Now, alas, the fact that anyone is on a bike at all is the thing that's odd. Shame, as it's a great place to cycle.


----------



## Kookas (17 Mar 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> Comedy Pilot. I stand corrected. Not All but an awful lot of them.
> 
> Why would a solicitor need to know if you were wearing a helmet if there is no legal requirement to do so? It looks like the legal system has been sucked in as well. The same goes for insurance companies. How can they refuse a claim if you are complying with all the requirements of the law? But we all know they will try anything.
> 
> ...



Motorbike helmets are nearly pure safety equipment. Cycle helmets are safety equipment, diluted by reasonable breathability, low weight and good aerodynamic performance - three things that don't matter nearly as much when you're not the one pushing the back wheel.


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Mar 2014)

Sara_H said:


> Actually, I remember from a dim and distant acute spinal injuries course I did that there is a particular kind of fracture in the bone of the heel that often accompanies a spinal fracture. It happens when someone falls from height and lands on their feet. So not so silly as it would seem.
> 
> Anyway, we digress!



Yep.... basically (a bit like a helmet?) the leg fails to absorb the pressure and the calcaneum cracks!

Often a difficult one for the patient as they tend to crack both heels at the same time making mobility and issue.

However in the Casualty episode, they were quite happily pointing out a Cervical spine fracture whilst placing their finger on a metatarsal bone in the foot.


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Mar 2014)

Kookas said:


> Motorbike helmets are nearly pure safety equipment. Cycle helmets are safety equipment, diluted by reasonable breathability, low weight and good aerodynamic performance - three things that don't matter nearly as much when you're not the one pushing the back wheel.



Also why we need to question what cycle helmets actually are and their function!

The EN1078 required for sale in the UK is laughably weak and ineffective. It is not acepted in teh US, and not accepted by some UK organisers for their events

Also unlike the motorcycle helmet, cycle helmets have become less and less effective over the years and less likely to protect than a helmet of 15 years ago.

Now add the comments by Headway who support the British Dental Association's demands for greater facial coverage and we have to ask where we are going

Are we happy for the helmet to continue to decrease in effectiveness as it becomes more and more driven by fashion and hysteria as opposed to fact, or should we really be looking at something that when needed will do the job?


----------



## ianrauk (17 Mar 2014)

Helmets are sh!t.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Mar 2014)

Helmets doth offend mine head.


----------



## ComedyPilot (17 Mar 2014)

Women I meet when out on my bike have sex with me, and turn down my helmet-wearing chums.....


----------



## snorri (17 Mar 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> my helmet-wearing chums.....


 
It's time you were a litle more selective regarding your choice of "chums".


----------



## srw (17 Mar 2014)

[QUOTE 2982305, member: 45"]It's ok folks, there's no creep towards compulsion. It'll never happen.

You can quote me on that in 5,10,20 years.[/QUOTE]

I've postulated before that the success of Boris Bikes as a tourist attraction in London, especially around Westminster, has set helmet compulsion back years - probably permanently. I did notice this morning on my way round Hyde Park that the proportion of non-helmet wearers is probably up around 1 in 8 or 1 in 10 - often combined with working clothes and a traditional bike. That was before any self-respecting tourist was out of bed.


----------



## Markymark (17 Mar 2014)

Then should we be pushing for more effective helmets?


----------



## MontyVeda (17 Mar 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Then should we be pushing for more effective helmets?


there's all sorts of different helmets available, just choose one that suits your requirements.... you shouldn't have to 'push' for anything.

ps. it doesn't have to say 'cycling' on the box.


----------



## Markymark (17 Mar 2014)

What I mean is that there's plenty of posts here about the ineffectiveness of cycling helmets. If people choose to wear them should they then at least do a better job?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Mar 2014)

they mostly do a fine job for the narrow range of circumstances in which they are designed to perform adequately.

very few of us ride our bikes within the performance envelope of our helmets.


----------



## Markymark (17 Mar 2014)

Would it then not be a good idea for the design to better accommodate the greater range of requirements from cyclists if large numbers of people are already wearing them?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Mar 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Would it then not be a good idea for the design to better accommodate the greater range of requirements from cyclists if large numbers of people are already wearing them?


Large numbers of people would not be prepared to wear a helmet that could accommodate the range of performance required by a typical UK cyclist...

...think about what sort of helmet that would be needed to dissipate the forces involved in a 30mph off over the handlebars onto the side of skull with the head/body rotating...

...you simply could not cycle in it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Mar 2014)

User said:


> We need force-fields.


If we had force-fields I suspect the technology used could meet our transport needs rendering our bikes redundant.


oh. 



hang on. 



you were joking. 



weren't you?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Mar 2014)

We need force.

Or we need fields.

I see.


----------



## Wobblers (17 Mar 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Would it then not be a good idea for the design to better accommodate the greater range of requirements from cyclists if large numbers of people are already wearing them?



Superficially, yes. But the overwhelming majority of serious injuries and deaths of cyclists are as a result of collisions with motorised vehicles. Fault in 70% of those collisions are solely down to the motorist. To concentrate on improving helmets is to ignore the _badly driven _two ton elephant in the room.

Not incidentally, a helmet designed to offer good protection in a 30 mph impact would, roughly speaking, require ten times the volume of the best helmets currently available (and would still transfer very high acceleration forces to the skull). That is simply not feasible. To reduce this problem, you'd need to use a stiffer foam - which would increase the forces transferred yet further, thus substantially negating the desired protective benefits. And this is _before _we consider such things as ventilation, comfort, weight, aerodynamics, rider fatigue...


----------



## snorri (17 Mar 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> If people choose to wear them should they then at least do a better job?


The people who wear them are obviously convinced of their effectiveness, so why change anything?


----------



## steveindenmark (17 Mar 2014)

lip03 said:


> Shumi hit his noggin at 12 mph in the slopes, the helmet he was wearing saved his life.... different scenario but thats the reason I wear mine and the reason I think they are a good idea, but its up to the individual I supoose, as for media and clever advertising I have never seen a marketing campaign for a cycle helmet...



I would like positive proof that it was the helmet and not the HD Hero that allegedly saved him. Maybe we should all be wearing head cams.

Why did I start this post? 

Steve


----------



## slowmotion (17 Mar 2014)

I wear a helmet sometimes, and I'm totally unconcerned if it offers no protection. I don't mean to send out any messages at all. It's just a habit, except in hot weather or in Holland. I don't wear one in British Columbia either, for the sole reason that it's compulsory. The RCMP are far more interested in busting teenagers for their weed than harrassing an old git on a bike anyway.


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Mar 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Large numbers of people would not be prepared to wear a helmet that could accommodate the range of performance required by a typical UK cyclist...
> 
> ...think about what sort of helmet that would be needed to dissipate the forces involved in a 30mph off over the handlebars onto the side of skull with the head/body rotating...
> 
> ...you simply could not cycle in it.



..... or as Meier Hillman (and others) have pointed out:

We would be far better off if the energy, time, money and enthusiasm put into trying to enforce helmets was diverted to training road users, and suggests that a far greater benefit would be gained


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Mar 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> I would like positive proof that it was the helmet and not the HD Hero that allegedly saved him. Maybe we should all be wearing head cams.
> 
> Why did I start this post?
> 
> Steve




Actually there is a panicked fight at the moment over this case.

There is increasing evidence that the helmet failed in it's purpose.

The helmet cam is being blamed by the helmet company as the cause for this failure, and the camera company is trying to prove that this is not the case and the helmet was simply not up to the job


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Mar 2014)

It isn't a rational universe. I blame the invisible gorillas.


----------



## Markymark (18 Mar 2014)

snorri said:


> The people who wear them are obviously convinced of their effectiveness, so why change anything?


I'm afraid I find this attitude a little odd. I'm not suggesting that anyone be made to wear helmets. I think most would agree that most people who do wear them do so in the belief that they will do some good. If they are as ineffective as those that delve deeper suggest, surely wanting them to be improved would be a good thing?

If someone chooses not to wear a helmet, then that's up to them. But if someone wants to wear one, surely nobody would want to prevent them from being as effective as they could?


----------



## jowwy (18 Mar 2014)

I'm not one for arguing over the wear a helmet, don't wear a helmet debate - because we all have a right to choose

BUT

are there any drivers on here that were a neck brace when they drive - 

WHY you may ask

Because it _*might*_ stop you getting whiplash _*IF*_ you get involved in a rear end shunt.

the same as a helmet _*might*_ help you _*IF*_ you get hit or fall of you bike while riding.


I think we've seen more whiplash claims after car accidents then any other claim, so why don't they make all drivers wear neck braces 

Just saying like


----------



## Markymark (18 Mar 2014)

I've also read about a standard for helmets (I forget the code) that most don't apply to. What about ensuring that all meets those standards at the very least?


----------



## snorri (18 Mar 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> If they are as ineffective as those that delve deeper suggest, surely wanting them to be improved would be a good thing?


On the surface yes, but most manufacturers know what they are doing and I would imagine do a tricky balancing act with components costs/cash for R&D/observing market share etc. and will believe they have got things about right.
The product is marketed in order to make profit for the manufacturer, and not out of any wish to enhance the safety and wellbeing of cyclists.


----------



## raindog (18 Mar 2014)

The Culture Of Fear


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AwLg32ZMqA


----------



## Dogtrousers (18 Mar 2014)

At the end of a ride, a helmet can act as a convenient basket in which to carry lights, GPS, gloves and hat. This is not necessary in Holland where every bike is, by law, required to have an enormous wicker basket.


----------



## MontyVeda (18 Mar 2014)




----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Mar 2014)

Dogtrousers said:


> At the end of a ride, a helmet can act as a convenient basket in which to carry lights, GPS, gloves and hat. This is not necessary in Holland where every bike is, by law, required to have an enormous wicker basket.


Good point.

I do wish the helmet designers would recognise this crucial function and provide helmets with a flat crest. Every time I fill mine up as described and put it down it topples over and spills everything. Basket case.


----------



## classic33 (18 Mar 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> I would like positive proof that it was the helmet and not the HD Hero that allegedly saved him. Maybe we should all be wearing head cams.
> 
> Why did I start this post?
> 
> Steve


With the best of intentions on what, on the face of it, was a very simple observation.


----------



## classic33 (18 Mar 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Actually there is a panicked fight at the moment over this case.
> 
> There is increasing evidence that the helmet failed in it's purpose.
> 
> The helmet cam is being blamed by the helmet company as the cause for this failure, and the camera company is trying to prove that this is not the case and the helmet was simply not up to the job


Which was part of the reason for the starting of the thread referring to the camera.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Mar 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Good point.
> 
> I do wish the helmet designers would recognise this crucial function and provide helmets with a flat crest. Every time I fill mine up as described and put it down it topples over and spills everything. Basket case.


Put the spuds in first. The weight at the bottom will keep it upright*.

*Or upside down.


----------



## GuardTwin (18 Mar 2014)

Well I commute and use the road as part of my training and the reason I wear them is other road users, today I had a white van pulling out on me as I was hitting the hill going around 15mph I had to hit my break but if I did not hit my break at the second I did or if he was over to the right more I would of gone into the van and my head would too, with a helmet it reduces the RISK of injury but does not prevent 100% Any chance of reduce injury on the road we take it.


----------



## Profpointy (18 Mar 2014)

GuardTwin said:


> Well I commute and use the road as part of my training and the reason I wear them is other road users, today I had a white van pulling out on me as I was hitting the hill going around 15mph I had to hit my break but if I did not hit my break at the second I did or if he was over to the right more I would of gone into the van and my head would too, with a helmet it reduces the RISK of injury but does not prevent 100% Any chance of reduce injury on the road we take it.



whilst superficially what you say sounds sensible - but actually you've simply stated that helmets reduce the risk of injury - but the evidence from (say) Australia & Ontario does not back this up. 

"it's obvious innit" is often a good common sense starting point but when the solid evidence says something else, then you need to look again.


----------



## GuardTwin (18 Mar 2014)

Profpointy said:


> whilst superficially what you say sounds sensible - but actually you've simply stated that helmets reduce the risk of injury - but the evidence from (say) Australia & Ontario does not back this up.
> 
> "it's obvious innit" is often a good common sense starting point but when the solid evidence says something else, then you need to look again.


 I should of stated the word "Should reduce risk" which would not left me open. Do you have a link to the "evidence" ? I would love to read it and see how they conducted their research as being a sport science guy


----------



## PK99 (18 Mar 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> ????
> 
> the investigator is on record as having reviewed the footage from the helmet cam and as having said* "completely normal behaviour by a good skier on this terrain". Good skiers tend to be fast skiers.*
> 
> If he had a sub 80 joule impact on a rock then a Snell certified helmet might have helped but a CE one? Well who knows. European helmets don't have to be Snell certified and the CE test standard is a waste of space.



I skiied the next valley over at the time of his accident and posted here to the effect that snow cover was sparse in many areas and that the between the piste areas were in many cases rocky and dangerous with exposed rocks that would be covered later in the season: Skiing those areas at speed was at best foolish.

Last week I skied the 3 Valleys and specifically on the pistes beside the accident spot. The various TV and press pictures and footage do not give a good impression of the area. Both the Red and Blue slopes bounding the gulley are easy for their Class ie fast for good skiers, a bit like cycling a long straight steady hill as opposed to a steep and twisty descent. the Gulley itself is deep and steep sided from each piste, ie a skier entering is is likely to be accelerating, plus even after a full season's snow rocks were clearly visible. My opinion of skiing at speed into that gulley is unchanged.

*Good skiers tend to be fast skiers.*

I'm a moderately good skier, from reports Schumacher is a far better skier than I am, and certainly has more adrenaline tolerance!, most skiing days my maximum speed (as logged by skitracks) is between 50 and 80kph - always achieved on empty Blue (ie easy) slopes. On red or occupied pistes of any colour, i am much more cautious.


----------



## Profpointy (18 Mar 2014)

GuardTwin said:


> I should of stated the word "Should reduce risk" which would not left me open. Do you have a link to the "evidence" ? I would love to read it and see how they conducted their research as being a sport science guy



try www.cyclehelmets.org

Though it is very much " helmet sceptic" I do get the impression it's healthy scepticism rather than "helmet denial" as it were. Has lots of links to seemingly real research. One surprising one was on child strangulations from wearing cycle helmets whilst climbing trees and the like - which common sense (to me as well) would have suggested to be a wise precaution.
Previously a cyclist posted that wearing a cycle helmet whilst doing something else was "abusing" it - so the "bound to help" seemingly only applied to cycling rather than other activities which might lead to a head injury.

For the record, I used to wear one, but no longer do so. In my heart I still find it hard to shake off "it's bound to help" but force myself to accept the evidence. I had an "off" not so long ago landing on my shoulder - missing my head by (presumably) less than the width of a helmet. If I'd been wearing one, and mashed up my hat, presumably I'd have been convinced it had "saved my life".

Also these days,with the threat of compulsion, and the fact that (some of) the pro-helmet lobby are ready to lie to make their case I'm increasingly seeing not wearing one as a political act.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Mar 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Put the spuds in first. The weight at the bottom will keep it upright*.
> 
> *Or upside down.


No way can I get my spds in my helmet!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Mar 2014)

GuardTwin said:


> Well I commute and use the road as part of my training and the reason I wear them is other road users, today I had a white van pulling out on me as I was hitting the hill going around 15mph I had to hit my break but if I did not hit my break at the second I did or if he was over to the right more I would of gone into the van and my head would too, with a helmet it reduces the RISK of injury but does not prevent 100% Any chance of reduce injury on the road we take it.


Same reason as why I wear a St Christopher medal then.


----------



## 4F (18 Mar 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Same reason as why I wear a St Christopher medal then.



For me its a lucky rabbits foot, however I am not sure the rabbit shares the same sentiment.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Mar 2014)

I have decided that instead of helmets I will become fixated on the lovely, former spice girl, Mel C's new tattoo.

I suspect this will tip the odds in my favour in the event of an off.


----------



## User169 (18 Mar 2014)

Profpointy said:


> try cyclehelmets.org
> 
> though it is very much " helmet sceptic" I do get the impression One surprising one was on child strangulations from wearing cycle helmets whilst climbing trees and the like - which common sense (to me as well) would have suggest was a wise precaution.



Anecdata alert...

A colleague of mine had his windpipe destroyed by his helmet strap. It was in the context of a crash, but I wonder if the outcome might have been less serious had he not been strangled by his safety device.


----------



## Damaged Hero (18 Mar 2014)

Well I am glad I was wearing mine on Sunday !

I rode The Shropshire Devil 85 Mile Sportive and fell off about 60 miles into the ride. I came down hard on my right side,hit my Hand, Elbow, Shoulder, Knee.
My head hit the floor last, but hit hard, I think in trying to stop my head hitting the floor I pulled the muscles in my neck.

I would not like to think how I could have ended up if I had not been wearing it.


----------



## summerdays (18 Mar 2014)

Damaged Hero said:


> My head hit the floor last, but hit hard, I think in trying to stop my head hitting the floor I pulled the muscles in my neck.
> 
> I would not like to think how I could have ended up if I had not been wearing it.


 or.... Alternatively?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Elbow and knee pads? Spine protector? Gum shield?


I recommend snowboarding armoured undershorts. Very good for preventing the black bottom.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Mar 2014)

Damaged Hero said:


> Well I am glad I was wearing mine on Sunday !
> 
> I rode The Shropshire Devil 85 Mile Sportive and fell off about 60 miles into the ride. I came down hard on my right side,hit my Hand, Elbow, Shoulder, Knee.
> My head hit the floor last, but hit hard, I think in trying to stop my head hitting the floor I pulled the muscles in my neck.
> ...


Why were you not wearing elbow, shoulder and knee pads?


----------



## ComedyPilot (18 Mar 2014)

Damaged Hero said:


> Well I am glad I was wearing mine on Sunday !
> 
> I rode The Shropshire Devil 85 Mile Sportive and fell off about 60 miles into the ride. I came down hard on my right side,hit my Hand, Elbow, Shoulder, Knee.
> My head hit the floor last, but hit hard, I think in trying to stop my head hitting the floor I pulled the muscles in my neck.
> ...



I prefer to look at the cause of the crash, and look into how that could have been foreseen/prevented in the first place, rather than placing trust in a glorified pudding bowl.


----------



## .stu (18 Mar 2014)

A few years ago I was cycling home and a bee flew in between my ear and the strap of my helmet. I do not react well to bee stings so immediately tried to get it out, and ended up hitting the kerb and landing in a huge patch of stingers. I was wearing shorts and a tshirt, and was stung all the way down the one side of my body. This has never happened when I haven't been wearing a helmet.


----------



## totallyfixed (18 Mar 2014)

Wonder how many would wear a helmet if the pros didn't?


----------



## ianrauk (18 Mar 2014)

.stu said:


> A few years ago I was cycling home and a bee flew in between my ear and the strap of my helmet. I do not react well to bee stings so immediately tried to get it out, and ended up hitting the kerb and landing in a huge patch of stingers. I was wearing shorts and a tshirt, and was stung all the way down the one side of my body. This has never happened when I haven't been wearing a helmet.




This was one of the reasons I gave up on wearing a helmet. Bee got stuck in and started drilling into my barnet.. gave me a headache for 2 days.
And yes helmet people, the helmet did have a mesh.


----------



## TheDoctor (18 Mar 2014)

My last big crash, if I'd been wearing a helmet I'd still have broken my collarbone...


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Mar 2014)

totallyfixed said:


> Wonder how many would wear a helmet if the pros didn't?



Hasn't had any effect on drivers where the pros all wear helmets


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Mar 2014)

TheDoctor said:


> My last big crash, if I'd been wearing a helmet I'd still have broken my collarbone...


In my last big crash if I had been wearing a helmet I would have most likely suffered a severe rotational neck injury.

According to the doctors who treated me. But what do they know?

The nurse who cleaned me up just went on and on about how i should have been wearing a helmet and irresponsible i was and about how she always wears a hard hat when riding her horse. I tried explaining my bike doesn't try to kick me in the head. She remained unimpressed.

I always wear one off-road btw. Being a big unit i'm forever thwacking my bonce on overhanging branches at speed.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Mar 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Hasn't had any effect on drivers where the pros all wear helmets


Not too many round here driving race cars thobut.

Lots of 'race' bikes on the road of a weekend.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Mar 2014)

Round 're lots of people THINK they are driving racing cars


----------



## srw (19 Mar 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> In my last big crash if I had been wearing a helmet I would have most likely suffered a severe rotational neck injury.


Was that before or after the one where you left a pint of blood on the roads of Buckinghamshire? You won't remember, but the ambulance man also gave you a lecture.


----------



## Colin B (19 Mar 2014)

On a rather random chat with my wife we were trying to figure out if custard could be used as shock absorption in a helmet because it does absorb impact , so I did some checking and someone's using it as bullet proof armour who would have ever thought of bullet proof custard


----------



## roadrash (19 Mar 2014)

Colin B said:


> On a rather random chat with my wife we were trying to figure out if custard could be used as shock absorption in a helmet because it does absorb impact , so I did some checking and someone's using it as bullet proof armour who would have ever thought of bullet proof custard


 
you havnt tried mrs roadrash,s custard have you


----------



## Pat "5mph" (19 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Just imagine slightly more exaggerated in every way and more irascible.


More grumpy?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Mar 2014)

srw said:


> Was that before or after the one where you left a pint of blood on the roads of Buckinghamshire? You won't remember, but the ambulance man also gave you a lecture.


It was. All I can remember of him at the scene was being grilled as to the identity of the Prime Minister and the Government of the day. Like I gave a toss.

We had a nice chat later at the hospital though. I don't rate his judgement on helmets but I was profoundly glad he turned out for me.


----------



## Colin B (19 Mar 2014)

roadrash said:


> you havnt tried mrs roadrash,s custard have you


Maybe I should copyright the custard helmet in case someone steals my idea


----------



## JonUK4 (20 Mar 2014)

Only read the first page and the last couple but I don't think I've seen such a consistent demonstration of poor logic and reasoning.

I really want to launch into a torrent of arguments but I think my keyboard would break under the hammering I'd give it so I'll summarise:

Natural selection.


----------



## snorri (20 Mar 2014)

JonUK4 said:


> I really want to launch into a torrent of arguments but I think my keyboard would break under the hammering I'd give it


Oh you are a tease, go on, let it flow, most of us are open to anything new on the H topic. .


----------



## slowmotion (20 Mar 2014)

Two hundred and seventy one posts, and you still don't understand, do you?


----------



## classic33 (20 Mar 2014)

Colin B said:


> On a rather random chat with my wife we were trying to figure out if custard could be used as shock absorption in a helmet because it does absorb impact , so I did some checking and someone's using it as bullet proof armour who would have ever thought of bullet proof custard


Non Newtonian fluid.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Mar 2014)

classic33 said:


> Non Newtonian fluid.



Somehow Rhubarb and Non Newtonian fluid, does not sound appetising


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (20 Mar 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Somehow Rhubarb and Non Newtonian fluid, does not sound appetising


And Newton's fluids do it for you?


----------



## JonUK4 (20 Mar 2014)

Because it's a forum. But I'll let flow a little. I wear a helmet. I don't like head injuries - they don't repair very well versus other parts of the body that do repair, or can be repaired, very well.

We can rebuild limbs from a crushed and managled mess, internal organs can be repaired or replaced. If I damage my brain, I'm farked - it's that simple to me. And as much as I try not to put myself in harms way, I can't account for everyone around me. It's a tiny little thing that "might" make a difference, but I'd rather have it than not.


----------



## Markymark (20 Mar 2014)

But what if it was more likely for you to be knocked off because of wearing it as research has shown drivers give helmet wearers less space?


----------



## snorri (20 Mar 2014)

JonUK4 said:


> It's a tiny little thing that "might" make a difference, but I'd rather have it than not.


A perfectly reasonable view, IMO .


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Mar 2014)

Up until now... my skull has done a very good job of protecting my brain... a bit of polystyrene isn't going to make my skull any stronger. A bit of polystyrene may well stop the skin around my skull from being ripped open, but that's just cosmetic damage. With an impact big enough to compromise my skull, I'm going to need a lot more than polystyrene... something closer to a motorbike helmet would help in that scenario, maybe.


----------



## JonUK4 (20 Mar 2014)

If you're basing your road safety on being given space I think you're already at risk. Take the space you need to be safe, as you would do when driving.


----------



## Dan B (20 Mar 2014)

JonUK4 said:


> We can rebuild limbs from a crushed and managled mess, internal organs can be repaired or replaced. If I damage my brain, I'm ****ed - it's that simple to me


This is exactly the reason I always wear a shower helmet


----------



## JonUK4 (20 Mar 2014)

So Monty - when you crash you only crash at extreme speeds. You go from stationary to full bore immediately and stop as fast? very impressive acceleration and braking demonstrated there.


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Mar 2014)

JonUK4 said:


> So Monty - when you crash you only crash at extreme speeds. You go from stationary to full bore immediately and stop as fast? very impressive acceleration and braking demonstrated there.


dunno where you got that from... but i admire your imagination.


----------



## JonUK4 (20 Mar 2014)

Why I made the assumption based on your statement that only full motorbike helmets would help, maybe. It implies there is no grey area in crashes. There is either a light graze or skull smasher in your world. In mine there's the time I hit a series of potholes which I badly avoided and stared at the traitorous floor as it rushed up toward me.

It's a crumple zone for the brain. To stop the crumple happening in the brain sack. I can understand not wanting to wear one for personal enjoyment, but I can't understand the argument that it's safer to be without. If it's because road user would swing around you more then yes, assuming they are the 95% percentile that made up that survey. In fact if you think that helps, you might as well ride butt naked, smeared in faeces to make sure people stay as far away as possible


----------



## Markymark (20 Mar 2014)

JonUK4 said:


> If you're basing your road safety on being given space I think you're already at risk. Take the space you need to be safe, as you would do when driving.


I take plenty of space, but it's been shows cars pass with less space if you're wearing a helmet. Very little you can do about it if a car decides to fly past you closer than they should.


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Mar 2014)

JonUK4 said:


> Why I made the assumption based on your statement that only full motorbike helmets would help, maybe. ...



I clearly stated "with an impact big enough to compromise my skull". Please read posts properly and reply accordingly.


----------



## Profpointy (20 Mar 2014)

JonUK4 said:


> Why I made the assumption based on your statement that only full motorbike helmets would help, maybe. It implies there is no grey area in crashes. There is either a light graze or skull smasher in your world. In mine there's the time I hit a series of potholes which I badly avoided and stared at the traitorous floor as it rushed up toward me.
> 
> It's a crumple zone for the brain. To stop the crumple happening in the brain sack. I can understand not wanting to wear one for personal enjoyment, but I can't understand the argument that it's safer to be without. If it's because road user would swing around you more then yes, assuming they are the 95% percentile that made up that survey. In fact if you think that helps, you might as well ride butt naked, smeared in faeces to make sure people stay as far away as possible




yebbutt.... the point is you are assuming what you are trying to prove. As a first guess it's fine to say "helmets are bound to help - it's obvious innit" - which was my starting point - but the evidence from Australia, Ontario, New Zealand etc does not seem to back it up. so even if we accept they help sometimes - the must make things worse other times - else they would help overall - which they seem not to. There is something going on here. Maybe it's as simple as making your head bigger means you hit it more often - about twice as often presumably - which would by itself negate a halving injury in the event of a hit - quite apart from anything else


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

JonUK4 said:


> Why I made the assumption based on your statement that only full motorbike helmets would help, maybe. It implies there is no grey area in crashes. There is either a light graze or skull smasher in your world. In mine there's the time I hit a series of potholes which I badly avoided and stared at the traitorous floor as it rushed up toward me.
> 
> It's a crumple zone for the brain. To stop the crumple happening in the brain sack. I can understand not wanting to wear one for personal enjoyment, but I can't understand the argument that it's safer to be without. If it's because road user would swing around you more then yes, assuming they are the 95% percentile that made up that survey. In fact if you think that helps, you might as well ride butt naked, smeared in faeces to make sure people stay as far away as possible


I don't know if you've read the whole thread or not, but I will repeat what has been stated on numerous occasions.
Nobody is saying that it is not possible for a helmet to offer some protection in certain circumstances, but the fact is that you are just as likely to find yourself in a position where a helmet may offer some protection in many other walks of life, in actual fact, just about all of them. If you trip and fall in your home or in the street a helmet may help prevent an injury if you hit your head, if you stand up in your kitchen too quickly and someone has left the wall unit door open a helmet may help in those circumstances, if you are driving or are a passenger in a car which is involved in a collision it is possible that a helmet.....I think you get the idea.
Now go and look up the statistics to see how much more or less likely you are to hit your head whilst riding your bike than in other common everyday activities, then ask yourself whether you should be wearing one more regularly or not.


----------



## Scoosh (20 Mar 2014)

MOD NOTE:
We (OK - you lot ) are in danger of straying into the Helmet Debate section, as opposed to this thread, which has thus far been a very civilised, useful, informative and - dare one say it - humourous  _Helmet Discussion, _which was very much the OP intention.

Please do not get into the arguments about the pros and cons of wearing or not wearing a helmet (or helmets ) or this thread will be Closed.

Thank you.


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Mar 2014)

Mugshot said:


> ...
> if you stand up in your kitchen too quickly and someone has left the wall unit door open
> ...



now this I do quite often... I'm blonde. I haven't yet broken the skin, but it's only a matter of time. 

Some people claim I'm an idiot because i don't wear a helmet when riding my bike. I'd bet 50p that the same people would call me 'stark raving bonkers' if i did wear a helmet in my kitchen.

edited by Monty


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> now this I do quite often... I'm blonde. I haven't yet broken the skin, but it's only a matter of time.
> 
> Some people claim I'm an idiot because i don't wear a helmet when riding my bike. I'd bet 50p that the same people would call me 'stark raving bonkers' in i did wear a helmet in my kitchen.


Bloody hurts doesn't it!!!
It's a shame you didn't quote my whole post so it was saved for posterity, as it's been deleted.


----------



## JonUK4 (20 Mar 2014)

Ha! will do Mod man. Will lay my keyboard down. 

Toodles all


----------



## Scoosh (20 Mar 2014)

Mugshot said:


> .....
> It's a shame you didn't quote my whole post so it was saved for posterity, as it's been deleted.


There were 2 of them, so I Deleted the Duplicate ... but there's nothing there now, so I've re-instated the erroneously Deleted post. 

My apologies - it wasn't the content, just the duplication. 

Honest !


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Mar 2014)

this is going to get tricky... aside from my initial thoughts about the _up-sell_ being a driving force for helmet use in the UK... the only other factor I can see is the perceived 'pros' of what a helmet will do in the event of an accident.


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

Scoosh said:


> There were 2 of them, so I Deleted the Duplicate ... but there's nothing there now, so I've re-instated the erroneously Deleted post.
> 
> My apologies - it wasn't the content, just the duplication.
> 
> Honest !


Oooo, thank you, I didn't think it was that naughty.
I believe you.

Honest!


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Mar 2014)

Mugshot said:


> Oooo, thank you, I didn't think it was that naughty.
> I believe you.
> 
> Honest!


i think it was Jon and I being naughty. 

Sorry mods... best behaviour from now on... well, maybe for a minute or two.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Mar 2014)

JonUK4 said:


> It's a tiny little thing that "might" make a difference, but I'd rather have it than not.


err mate, wanna buy a medal?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Mar 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> Up until now... my skull has done a very good job of protecting my brain... a bit of polystyrene isn't going to make my skull any stronger. A bit of polystyrene may well stop the skin around my skull from being ripped open, but that's just cosmetic damage. With an impact big enough to compromise my skull, I'm going to need a lot more than polystyrene... something closer to a motorbike helmet would help in that scenario, maybe.


"Chicks dig scars." TLH has made me grow my hair long to cover mine up in case other chicks dig it too much.


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> this is going to get tricky... aside from my initial thoughts about the _up-sell_ being a driving force for helmet use in the UK... the only other factor I can see is the perceived 'pros' of what a helmet will do in the event of an accident.


I do understand the initial fixation. It's a helmet, a helmet protects your head, therefore if I wear one and am involved in an accident I am better protected, it's obvious really. Generally this perception goes absolutely unchallenged and people appear to have a reluctance to look a little deeper into the facts. The perceived merits are so ingrained that parents don't even feel able to allow their children to ride around a park on a bike with stabilisers unless they're wearing a helmet and so a new generation grows up believing that cycling is inherently dangerous, is rather sad really


----------



## snorri (20 Mar 2014)

Mugshot said:


> . The perceived merits are so ingrained that parents don't even feel able to allow their children to ride around a park on a bike with stabilisers unless they're wearing a helmet and so a new generation grows up believing that cycling is inherently dangerous, is rather sad really


 
Yes, but the question is why are these views so common in the UK but not in mainland Europe?


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Mar 2014)

snorri said:


> Yes, but the question is why are these views so common in the UK but not in mainland Europe?


I recall years and years ago... a TV programme about how the UK is fixated on cleaning products and we'll buy kitchen sink cleaner, bathroom sink cleaner, kitchen table cleaner, worktop cleaner, banister cleaner and so on... all in different bottles. Whilst in Europe, they're happy to buy just one 'cleaner' and use it in the bathroom, kitchen and throughout the home.

I think on the whole... we're just gullible.

edit... and now i think about it... the discussion/argument i once had about using shampoo to wash the whole body. 
Me: if it cleans hair and scalp, surely it'll do for the rest of me. 
Them: it's shampoo... its for hair... not your body. 
Me: but my body is covered in hair... very fine hair, but hair none the less
Them: you're an idiot!


----------



## JonUK4 (20 Mar 2014)

I wouldnt make the leap that wearing a helmet means it's dangerous, just more likely to be fun. It's true I'm reluctant to look into facts and perhaps it's my own lazyiness which means I'll not see the scentifically conducted tests which can prove otherwise. But I'm paranoid at heart so I have a certain disbelief of research unless they divulge their methodologies.

And we should also state that most of our views should be taken with a pinch of salt as we're obvioulsy the empassioned few as evidenced by our presence on a forum devoted to a hobby/method of transport.

(and greggy, no medals for me please).


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (20 Mar 2014)

Colin B said:


> Maybe I should copyright the custard helmet in case someone steals my idea



In an emergency can the custard be extracted onto an apple pie?


----------



## Colin B (20 Mar 2014)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> In an emergency can the custard be extracted onto an apple pie?


Only if its warm


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (20 Mar 2014)

Colin B said:


> Only if its warm



The helmet or the pie?


----------



## Colin B (20 Mar 2014)

Lol the pie , but on a serious ish note Google bullet proof custard they're thinking of using it in kevlar jackets as an impact absorber so it does have logic and would feel all squishy and not hard like polystyrene 
My wife does think I've lost the plot btw


----------



## User6179 (20 Mar 2014)

User said:


> If you are fact adverse, your opinions here have no worth whatsoever. Please at the very least read the link I posted back up there.



Was your link not mostly opinion rather than facts?


----------



## User6179 (20 Mar 2014)

User said:


> No


It's not surprising that people who've been through a crash on their bike and escaped serious consequences but found helmet damage often believe strongly that the helmet has “saved their life”. However, the number of helmet users with this experience SEEMS very much greater than the number of bare-headed cyclists who ever suffer a head injury. This suggests that the reality might not be so straightforward.

This is an opinion as it uses no statistics , as soon as they wrote this made up statement you then know the writer has an agenda!


----------



## goo_mason (20 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Scoosh this became a helmet debate within 36 minutes of the OP on Sunday morning. Doyleyburger, Dave123, and Midliferider made it so with their assertions. I flagged it as such and tagged you to draw your attention to the fact.
> Why not just do the sensible thing and move it rather than the offer of locking?



I dunno - in between those posts where people veer off and try and make it a helmet debate, others are still trying to discuss the OP's question - so the thread still has validity.

And for what it's worth, my belief is that we're so fixated on helmets in the UK because we're too scared to tackle the bad driving & woeful cycling 'infrastructure' so instead we lay the blame for being hit by a speeding idiot on a mobile squarely on the victims. "The deserved to have his legs severed after being run over by a drunk driver - the reckless idiot wasn't wearing a helmet!"


----------



## Scoosh (20 Mar 2014)

MOD NOTE:
For the thread to remain Open - and some people not to get thread-banned, please keep the discussion to the OP's point and don't get into the Helmet Debate ... there are plenty of threads for that over here.


----------



## JonUK4 (20 Mar 2014)

The custard must always be cold with warm pie surely.

Not sure why the helmet thing is so ingrained in me. My parents pushed me to wear it like crazy when I was little and I remember leaving it hanging in nearby trees for collection later. 

As an adult it now seems like the least I can do to stop the Mrs worrying especially when I come back with tales from wolverhampton's ring road. I just feel safer wearing one. Other peoples observed behaviour isnt going to change that, because any conclusion from a study would state a generalisation. I dont want to be safe generally, I want to be safe as much as I can (with whats in my control at least) even when those exceptions happen.


----------



## User6179 (20 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Why not just have a look at their website and policies?



I have , am just pointing out that they have an agenda and they are then looking for facts to prove that agenda .

Am sure pro helmet sites are out there with data saying the opposite .


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

snorri said:


> Yes, but the question is why are these views so common in the UK but not in mainland Europe?


You're quite right, I was straying.
I'm sure someone will let me know if I'm wrong, but hasn't cycling in the UK grown enormously in recent years, whereas on the mainland it's been more universally regarded as a viable form of transport for far longer. Perhaps we need to look at what has caused the growth in the UK. Is it the relatively recent success that has been enjoyed by GB pro cyclists, on the track and more recently in the tours. Greater success means greater tv coverage, means more exposure to the general population, so what does a successful/real/fit cyclist look like? They wear lycra and a helmet and ride a drop handlebar bike. People want to emulate their heroes and dress as they do, or people want to get fit/lose weight, what does a real super fit cyclist look like, they wear lycra and a helmet. Did the rise in bike use in the UK start with its use as a form of exercise rather than a form of transport? If it did, did we breed a generation of cyclists that saw it as a more competitive activity, the rise of smart phones and the apps available has certainly put the ability to compete against both yourself and others within the reach of everybody, and we already know what a real cyclist wears when competing. 
Then you have a trickle down effect, more cyclists on the road, more exposure, majority wearing helmets, it must be the right thing to do. More cyclists almost certainly means more people fall off and before you know it a helmet has saved their life. 
The fact is that an anecdote on facebook with a picture of a cracked helmet is far more effective and far easier to process than a list of statistics.
Probably nonsense but there we go.

BTW, I know that a "real" cyclist rides a bike.


----------



## JonUK4 (20 Mar 2014)

I'd agree that idolism is probably a strong factor coming from the media. Making assumptions here but perhaps Europeans see the cyclist as the commuter, the bike is just a car alternative. For me it's a hobby, I want to be that image to some extent.

(and it still makes me feel safer!)


----------



## Scoosh (20 Mar 2014)

MOD NOTE:
@User, @Eddy - over here please ...


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

JonUK4 said:


> I'd agree that idolism is probably a strong factor coming from the media. Making assumptions here but perhaps Europeans see the cyclist as the commuter, the bike is just a car alternative. *For me it's a hobby, I want to be that image to some extent.*
> 
> (and it still makes me feel safer!)


If you mean emulating the pros then that's a very honest statement, thank you


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

[QUOTE 2987068, member: 259"]I have two neighbours who also commute to work, and I've never once seen them wearing a helmet on the way to work.

They also go out with a club, and they do wear helmets then, along with all the club/team kit. I guess they're going a lot faster, but looking the part is a big factor too. I'll have to interrogate them!

(I live in Belgium, by the way).[/QUOTE]
Do they have to wear a helmet?


----------



## User6179 (20 Mar 2014)

User said:


> The only agenda I see is to provide an objective resource.



Objective-not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

BTW am not saying they are right or wrong on whether helmets save lives , most of the experts would say the same that the data is inconclusive , what am saying is the article is bias and is far removed from being objective.


----------



## SteveH - Reading (20 Mar 2014)

The schools here teach it !!! My daughter came home and was in tears because i rode without one, and the teachers had told them that i was risking my life !!

Not sure how likely it is that my life would be saved by being hit by a 4-wheel drive monster pulling out of a side road without looking properly, but I now wear one all the time .... to stop my daughter getting upset.


----------



## Markymark (20 Mar 2014)

It's now self-perpetuating in the UK. For some reason ago in the past, more cyclists wore helmets than not. As the new wave of cyclists join in, more follow the consensus of wearing one so the ratio increases as the number increases, particularly as those new to cycling think wearing a helmet is erring on the side of caution.

The fixation comes from non-wearers who see Europe's lower rates and, (I'm guessing here as I always wear one) annoyed being told to wear one from everyone else and worry about compulsory.


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> The fixation comes from non-wearers who see Europe's lower rates and, (I'm guessing here as I always wear one) annoyed being told to wear one from everyone else and worry about compulsory.


Surely the fixation in your statement comes from the wearers telling the non-wearers that they should be wearing one?


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Mar 2014)

Mugshot said:


> Surely the fixation in your statement comes from the wearers telling the non-wearers that they should be wearing one?


i think more non-cyclists have told me i should wear a helmet than cyclists.


----------



## Markymark (20 Mar 2014)

Mugshot said:


> Surely the fixation in your statement comes from the wearers telling the non-wearers that they should be wearing one?


That's what I said. People who don't wear one being told they should.


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

[QUOTE 2987095, member: 259"]Almost certainly not for club runs, but yes for races.[/QUOTE]
I get the impression that there's probably quite a lot of peer pressure on club runs, I'm not a member of a club but did join a local one through facebook, it's much more social than competitive. I've not been for a ride with them as they always go on a Saturday morning when I'm working which I didn't realise initially, however one of the other members recently posted;

"What do you call a cyclist that doesn't wear a helmet?"

"An organ donor."

So I don't think I'd be too welcome on one of their rides if I did show up.


----------



## ianrauk (20 Mar 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> i think more non-cyclists have told me i should wear a helmet than cyclists.




Well this seem's to be the norm.
I had a conversation with a rep of one of my customers yesterday, a car driver. Commuting to work came up in the conversation. She came out with the 'I hope you wear a helmet'. I just said don't even go there.


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> That's what I said. People who don't wear one being told they should.


I could be wrong but I thought you said the fixation comes from non-wearers. If non-wearers are getting annoyed at being told to wear one then surely the fixation is coming from the wearers?


----------



## totallyfixed (20 Mar 2014)

[QUOTE 2987068, member: 259"]I have two neighbours who also commute to work, and I've never once seen them wearing a helmet on the way to work.

They also go out with a club, and they do wear helmets then, along with all the club/team kit. I guess they're going a lot faster, but looking the part is a big factor too. I'll have to interrogate them!

(I live in Belgium, by the way).[/QUOTE]
This.
On a recent tour of the Netherlands with a foray into Germany, the only cyclists we saw who wore helmets were those out riding with a club, not all but most. Now this is interesting because you would expect club cyclists to be more experienced, ride in a disciplined way, be more skillful generally and therefore less likely to fall off. The only conclusion I can reach is that no matter where people cycle, if you want to look cool you must dress like a pro, and in the UK we do like to idolise and emulate professionals and celebs.
Maybe in Europe they have stats that are readily available to the public showing helmets as being ineffective. Having lived and cycled in Europe I always felt safer there, when I moved back here the last thing I thought about was wearing a helmet after a close family member was killed wearing one and in which the helmet was the factor that caused the injury.


----------



## Colin B (20 Mar 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> As well as using this forum, I also use cycling forums in Denmark, Germany, Holland, France and Spain.
> 
> I am not being flippant or funny, I am genuinely curious about this topic.
> 
> ...


OK I did what the original post suggested and watched Danish cycling and I have to admit to a bloke years out of the saddle its a beautiful vision , but here's the difference between the Danes and the Brits . The Danes have embrassed cycling and as such have an infrastructure dedicated to cyclist , but not only is it dedicated cyclists take priority over motorists with early light systems , buses blocking traffic not bikes I assume is a bus lane in traffic not bikes with buses . Denmark also encourages cycling in fact some could say forces it and I like it , petrol is expensive , 200% car tax to name a couple .
What I'm getting at here is the Danes mentality to cycling , the place is called rightly the city of cycling its a place where cyclists are king and other motorised vehicles take second place and I dare say per head Denmark invests more in its cyclists .
Now to Britain and this is just my observation , in the country the car is king and motorist see cyclists as an inconvenience our infrastructure is poor at best and our population consists of families who own more than one car , our roads are full to capacity with car driving commuters stressed to get to work taking risks everyday . The small minority of people who commute to work using a bicycle are literally taking their lives in their hands every day and some rightly or wrongly feel there's a need to wear one . I wear one because I feel safer and it stops the wife moaning , but if our Infrastructure goes like Denmark then no I wouldn't wear one .
There should be no debate on do you don't you , all there should be is choice so for me do it don't do it its your choice , but better use of debate would be how to get Britain's cycling infrastructure even close to the Danes 

Sorry for waffling


----------



## Markymark (20 Mar 2014)

Mugshot said:


> I could be wrong but I thought you said the fixation comes from non-wearers. If non-wearers are getting annoyed at being told to wear one then surely the fixation is coming from the wearers?


Ah, I see. I see the fixation on all sides but mostly stemming from more non wearers being told to do so.But the debate has just as often been started by non wearers!


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

Colin B said:


> OK I did what the original post suggested and watched Danish cycling and I have to admit to a bloke years out of the saddle its a beautiful vision , but here's the difference between the Danes and the Brits . The Danes have embrassed cycling and as such have an infrastructure dedicated to cyclist , but not only is it dedicated cyclists take priority over motorists with early light systems , buses blocking traffic not bikes I assume is a bus lane in traffic not bikes with buses . Denmark also encourages cycling in fact some could say forces it and I like it , petrol is expensive , 200% car tax to name a couple .
> What I'm getting at here is the Danes mentality to cycling , the place is called rightly the city of cycling its a place where cyclists are king and other motorised vehicles take second place and I dare say per head Denmark invests more in its cyclists .
> Now to Britain and this is just my observation , in the country the car is king and motorist see cyclists as an inconvenience our infrastructure is poor at best and our population consists of families who own more than one car , our roads are full to capacity with car driving commuters stressed to get to work taking risks everyday . The small minority of people who commute to work using a bicycle are literally taking their lives in their hands every day and some rightly or wrongly feel there's a need to wear one . I wear one because I feel safer and it stops the wife moaning , but if our Infrastructure goes like Denmark then no I wouldn't wear one .
> There should be no debate on do you don't you , all there should be is choice so for me do it don't do it its your choice , but better use of debate would be how to get Britain's cycling infrastructure even close to the Danes
> ...


I feel that your statement "people who commute to work using a bicycle are literally taking their lives in their hands every day" is rather emotive, however even if all you've said is true concerning road riding, it doesn't explain the cyclist that will insist on wearing a helmet when they never ride anywhere near a road, that only ever ride on cycle lanes and canal paths. 
I don't mean cycle lanes by the side of the road by the way, I mean dedicated shared use paths without a road in sight.


----------



## Colin B (20 Mar 2014)

Mugshot said:


> I feel that your statement "people who commute to work using a bicycle are literally taking their lives in their hands every day" is rather emotive, however even if all you've said is true concerning road riding, it doesn't explain the cyclist that will insist on wearing a helmet when they never ride anywhere near a road, that only ever ride on cycle lanes and canal paths.
> I don't mean cycle lanes by the side of the road by the way, I mean dedicated shared use paths without a road in sight.


Yeah it was a bit of a waffle but I don't think we can compare say Denmark to Britain and because and this is my opinion I feel Britain traffic wise is busier some cyclists feel the need to wear a helmet . As for cyclists taking their lives in their hands out driving I see em every day swerving to avoid some idiot trying to save 10 second in a queue mate . I think our pitiful infrastructure almost forces people to wear helmets just incase . I have no idea of stats but I wear one on main roads


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Ah, I see. I see the fixation on all sides but mostly stemming from more non wearers being told to do so.But the debate has just as often been started by non wearers!


I don't know whether that's true or not, I don't know many cyclists and those I do know wear a helmet. If by debate you mean raise the subject then in my experience it is always someone that either doesn't ride or does but wears a helmet that brings it up, if you mean debate as in discuss the issue then I will hold my hands up and admit to being guilty as charged if someone suggests I should wear one. The problem is they never want to debate back, I get a literal or figurative "You're really stupid and selfish", and that's where the debate will end.


----------



## Markymark (20 Mar 2014)

When I fell off my bike, the only ones who asked if I was wearing a helmet are those that don't. I don't many many cyclists (no club and never joined any ride) so my sample is unrepresentative.


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

Colin B said:


> Yeah it was a bit of a waffle but I don't think we can compare say Denmark to Britain and because and this is my opinion I feel Britain traffic wise is busier some cyclists feel the need to wear a helmet . As for cyclists taking their lives in their hands out driving I see em every day swerving to avoid some idiot trying to save 10 second in a queue mate . I think our pitiful infrastructure almost forces people to wear helmets just incase . I have no idea of stats but I wear one on main roads


I understood that bit, what I was asking was why do you think cyclists that do not use the roads feel the need to wear a helmet?
Here are some pictures of my local stretch of NCN4, its about 12 miles long looking like this without a car in sight, so why the helmets?


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> When I fell off my bike, the only ones who asked if I was wearing a helmet are those that don't. I don't many many cyclists (no club and never joined any ride) so my sample is unrepresentative.


Would I be right in guessing they didn't cycle either?


----------



## Colin B (20 Mar 2014)

Mugshot said:


> I understood that bit, what I was asking was why do you think cyclists that do not use the roads feel the need to wear a helmet?
> Here are some pictures of my local stretch of NCN4, its about 12 miles long looking like this without a car in sight, so why the helmets?
> View attachment 40351
> 
> ...


Would it be better if I said some cyclist using major road networks are taking their lives etc . Nice commute to work by the way . YouTube wilmslow road commute that's a fun relaxed bike ride for mancuniun cyclists


----------



## JonUK4 (20 Mar 2014)

Colin B - i like your waffle and I agree with the idea that infrastructure implies confidence and safety for the user.

And mugshot - does explain it - It makes them feel safe.


----------



## MarkF (20 Mar 2014)

Mugshot said:


> I understood that bit, what I was asking was why do you think cyclists that do not use the roads feel the need to wear a helmet?
> Here are some pictures of my local stretch of NCN4, its about 12 miles long looking like this without a car in sight, so why the helmets?
> View attachment 40351
> 
> ...



Same on the canal, Leeds to Skipton on a Sunday has whole families in hi-viz and wearing helmets, it's just silly.


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

Colin B said:


> Would it be better if I said some cyclist using major road networks are taking their lives etc . Nice commute to work by the way . YouTube wilmslow road commute that's a fun relaxed bike ride for mancuniun cyclists


I'm sorry Colin, maybe I'm not explaining myself very well. You seemed to be arguing that cyclists in the UK wear helmets due to poor infrastructure when compared to some of our European neighbours. Because they perceive the road network in the UK as being dangerous they wear a helmet to protect themselves. I understand though disagree with your opinion, in order to demonstrate this I wanted to know why you thought cyclists that never use the roads felt the need to wear helmets, if it's dangerous roads that are the problem why do people that are not on the road wear a helmet?


----------



## morrisman (20 Mar 2014)

MarkF said:


> Same on the canal, Leeds to Skipton on a Sunday has whole families in hi-viz and wearing helmets, it's just silly.


My experience of towpath riding would lead me to wear a life jacket rather than a helmet as I've never hit my head, but I have ended up up to my waist in the canal whilst still sat on my bike.


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

Colin B said:


> YouTube wilmslow road commute that's a fun relaxed bike ride for mancuniun cyclists


I had a look and found some footage somebody had shot from the top deck of the bus, I enjoyed the chap riding his bike without a helmet on 
Of course it's ugly and dirty and horrible and not cycle friendly but I would disagree with you that wearing a helmet makes you safer, however if wearing a helmet which makes you _feel_ safer is the difference between you riding and not, then you should of course wear one.


----------



## Colin B (20 Mar 2014)

Mugshot said:


> I'm sorry Colin, maybe I'm not explaining myself very well. You seemed to be arguing that cyclists in the UK wear helmets due to poor infrastructure when compared to some of our European neighbours. Because they perceive the road network in the UK as being dangerous they wear a helmet to protect themselves. I understand though disagree with your opinion, in order to demonstrate this I wanted to know why you thought cyclists that never use the roads felt the need to wear helmets, if it's dangerous roads that are the problem why do people that are not on the road wear a helmet?


Sorry didn't think I'd suggested pedaling up the canal was dangerous , which I don't think btw . I'm meaning on the road situations where riders may feel safer . I went out the other day rode down the canal in a beanie cos I shave my head and wanted to stay warm , but when I exited at Manchester city centre and returned home via then road network I put on my helmet . So in short NCN not really needed at all main road yer takes yer choice do it t don't do it


----------



## mobi (20 Mar 2014)

I have not read the whole thread....

But I understand that in other European countries, there are separate lanes for cyclists. In UK, this is few and far between and cyclists often share road with cars. So, a helmet makes sense.

Personally, I don't even have a helmet and I am a leisure cyclists.


----------



## Colin B (20 Mar 2014)

Mugshot said:


> I had a look and found some footage somebody had shot from the top deck of the bus, I enjoyed the chap riding his bike without a helmet on
> Of course it's ugle and dirty and horrible and not cycle friendly but I would disagree with you that wearing a helmet makes you safer, however if wearing a helmet which makes you _feel_ safer is the difference between you riding and not, then you should of course wear one.


Not the place to take the kids riding on a Saturday but on the + side fallowfield loops just down the road


----------



## snorri (20 Mar 2014)

From my own observations I think there is little difference in the percentage of sporting cyclists wearing helmets in UK and mainland Europe, the big difference is in the utility/ leisure/recreational sectors.
I think it's understandable that a high proportion of cycle sport enthusiasts wear helmets, as they appear to regard occasional crashes as part of the game.
Perhaps many leisure and recreational cyclists in the UK see themselves as racing wannabes


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

Colin B said:


> Nice commute to work by the way .


It's very very nice and generally well maintained too is nice to just pop on and off it as needed for a bit of a respite or to shorten or lengthen your journey.


----------



## Colin B (20 Mar 2014)

snorri said:


> From my own observations I think there is little difference in the percentage of sporting cyclists wearing helmets in UK and mainland Europe, the big difference is in the utility/ leisure/recreational sectors.
> I think it's understandable that a high proportion of cycle sport enthusiasts wear helmets, it would scare me rigid to be flying along in close formation, I'd want a suit of armour!
> Perhaps many leisure and recreational cyclists in the UK see themselves as racing wannabes


Lol racing I hit 17 mph and thought wow between gasps


----------



## Markymark (20 Mar 2014)

Mugshot said:


> Would I be right in guessing they didn't cycle either?


Both serious cyclists but never wear helmets unless forced.


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

mobi said:


> *I have not read the whole thread....*
> 
> But I understand that in other European countries, there are separate lanes for cyclists. In UK, this is few and far between and cyclists often share road with cars. So, a helmet makes sense.
> 
> Personally, I don't even have a helmet and I am a leisure cyclists.


Maybe you should


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Both serious cyclists but never wear helmets unless forced.


Odd thing for them to ask about then


----------



## MarkF (20 Mar 2014)

morrisman said:


> My experience of towpath riding would lead me to wear a life jacket rather than a helmet as I've never hit my head, but I have ended up up to my waist in the canal whilst still sat on my bike.



I see that every summer, it always gives me much pleasure. Not as much as the newbie boaters who get their boats snagged on the lock gates, seeing those go up 45 degrees is better than seeing 10 wet cyclists. Now, they need helmets.


----------



## rebelpeter (20 Mar 2014)

MOD EDIT: There is no need to use bold font.

I think its a bit mad not to wear a helmet they are life savers, one crack on the head can give u the rest of your life brain damaged, gotta be worth it as got knocked off a few years ago a car tried to get between me and a car from theopposite Way smashed into the back of me i went up and fell my helmet hit one of those yellow posts the gas board often have they stick up a few feet my head hit it. The copper who came said you would have been probably dead or brain damaged had you not had a helmet, its crazy not to wear one motor bikes wear them cyclist can come off just as easy, i would not go out the door without one when im biking.


----------



## uclown2002 (20 Mar 2014)

rebelpeter said:


> I think its a bit mad not to wear a helmet they are life savers, one crack on the head can give u the rest of your life brain damaged, gotta be worth it as got knocked off a few years ago a car tried to get between me and a car from theopposite Way smashed into the back of me i went up and fell my helmet hit one of those yellow posts the gas board often have they stick up a few feet my head hit it. The copper who came said you would have been probably dead or brain damaged had you not had a helmet, its crazy not to wear one motor bikes wear them cyclist can come off just as easy, i would not go out the door without one when im biking.


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Mar 2014)

rebelpeter said:


> I think its a bit mad not to wear a helmet they are life savers, one crack on the head can give u the rest of your life brain damaged, gotta be worth it as got knocked off a few years ago a car tried to get between me and a car from theopposite Way smashed into the back of me i went up and fell my helmet hit one of those yellow posts the gas board often have they stick up a few feet my head hit it. The copper who came said you would have been probably dead or brain damaged had you not had a helmet, its crazy not to wear one motor bikes wear them cyclist can come off just as easy, i would not go out the door without one when im biking.


if i had a pound for each error in this post... I'd have a fair few quid in my pocket.


----------



## steveindenmark (20 Mar 2014)

Rebelpeter, you dont need to shout.

I find it hard to take advice from someone who thinks he can take medical advice from a police officer. There is no comparison between a cycle helmet and a motorbike helmet. I have been riding bikes without a helmet for 50 years and I am still Ok .


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Mar 2014)

User said:


> If we are going to get picky, it would be number of errors.


i always edit after posting... see my edit


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

User said:


> C-LC


?


----------



## uclown2002 (20 Mar 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> Rebelpeter, you dont need to shout.


It seems he does. I've mentioned this annoying bold font previously.


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Mar 2014)

uclown2002 said:


> It seems he does. I've mentioned this annoying bold font previously.


and once that's sorted out... we'll raise the punctuation issue.


----------



## 4F (20 Mar 2014)

rebelpeter said:


> I think its a bit mad not to wear a helmet they are life savers, one crack on the head can give u the rest of your life brain damaged, gotta be worth it as got knocked off a few years ago a car tried to get between me and a car from theopposite Way smashed into the back of me i went up and fell my helmet hit one of those yellow posts the gas board often have they stick up a few feet my head hit it. The copper who came said you would have been probably dead or brain damaged had you not had a helmet, its crazy not to wear one motor bikes wear them cyclist can come off just as easy, i would not go out the door without one when im biking.



The point of this thread is to discuss why there seems to be a fixation in the UK of helmet compared to the continent where they have a higher cycle percentage usage. 

Any opinions you may have on whether "a helmet saved your life" really should be in the helmet sub forum and this is not the place for it.


----------



## 4F (20 Mar 2014)

The only times I have ever got into a helmet discussion is with non cyclists who seem to already have pre conceived ideas on usage. I normally find after 10 minutes they wished they had never asked


----------



## Mugshot (20 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Chaise Longue, cheroot.


Thank you


----------



## summerdays (20 Mar 2014)

SteveH - Reading said:


> The schools here teach it !!! My daughter came home and was in tears because i rode without one, and the teachers had told them that i was risking my life !!
> 
> Not sure how likely it is that my life would be saved by being hit by a 4-wheel drive monster pulling out of a side road without looking properly, but I now wear one all the time .... to stop my daughter getting upset.


Is it the school or the teacher passing on their view. I think often teachers in schools do pass on the message that you should wear a helmet, but most aren't cyclists, and I guess see wearing a helmet as something that might help. I wonder how many of them also tell children that their parents shouldn't jump red lights, wearing a seat-belt, not using their phone and how big a space they should give a cyclist when passing. So it's not really a thorough attempt at keeping the children safe. All of those things I've seen near school gates by the parents dropping their kids off.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Mar 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> And Newton's fluids do it for you?



The fluids from the Newton Brewery in Middlewich do!


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Mar 2014)

JonUK4 said:


> Because it's a forum. But I'll let flow a little. I wear a helmet. I don't like head injuries - they don't repair very well versus other parts of the body that do repair, or can be repaired, very well.
> 
> We can rebuild limbs from a crushed and managled mess, internal organs can be repaired or replaced. If I damage my brain, I'm ****ed - it's that simple to me. And as much as I try not to put myself in harms way, I can't account for everyone around me. It's a tiny little thing that "might" make a difference, but I'd rather have it than not.






rebelpeter said:


> I think its a bit mad not to wear a helmet they are life savers, one crack on the head can give u the rest of your life brain damaged, gotta be worth it as got knocked off a few years ago a car tried to get between me and a car from theopposite Way smashed into the back of me i went up and fell my helmet hit one of those yellow posts the gas board often have they stick up a few feet my head hit it. The copper who came said you would have been probably dead or brain damaged had you not had a helmet, its crazy not to wear one motor bikes wear them cyclist can come off just as easy, i would not go out the door without one when im biking.




So tomorrow it is icy, you have to walk 200 yards across a frozen pavement coated in black ice......

Does the same logic apply, and if not, why not?


----------



## JonUK4 (20 Mar 2014)

ok. We're moaning about font choices now. This is the internet, there is no body language or tone of voice to be read - and emoticons don't cut it. Posts are thoughts - lets just assume they are all made with the best of intentions otherwise it'll be like being back in the school yard.


----------



## JonUK4 (20 Mar 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> So tomorrow it is icy, you have to walk 200 yards across a frozen pavement coated in black ice......
> 
> Does the same logic apply, and if not, why not?



yes - if ice of that severity occured over the same distant that I ride, with the same frequency that I ride. Which it does not in Wolverhampton.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (20 Mar 2014)

Mugshot said:


> You're quite right, I was straying.
> I'm sure someone will let me know if I'm wrong, but hasn't cycling in the UK grown enormously in recent years, whereas on the mainland it's been more universally regarded as a viable form of transport for far longer. Perhaps we need to look at what has caused the growth in the UK. Is it the relatively recent success that has been enjoyed by GB pro cyclists, on the track and more recently in the tours. Greater success means greater tv coverage, means more exposure to the general population, so what does a successful/real/fit cyclist look like? They wear lycra and a helmet and ride a drop handlebar bike. People want to emulate their heroes and dress as they do, or people want to get fit/lose weight, what does a real super fit cyclist look like, they wear lycra and a helmet. Did the rise in bike use in the UK start with its use as a form of exercise rather than a form of transport? If it did, did we breed a generation of cyclists that saw it as a more competitive activity, the rise of smart phones and the apps available has certainly put the ability to compete against both yourself and others within the reach of everybody, and we already know what a real cyclist wears when competing.
> Then you have a trickle down effect, more cyclists on the road, more exposure, majority wearing helmets, it must be the right thing to do. More cyclists almost certainly means more people fall off and before you know it a helmet has saved their life.
> The fact is that an anecdote on facebook with a picture of a cracked helmet is far more effective and far easier to process than a list of statistics.
> ...



I'm sure that the pro model has no doubt had a big influence on our own British hyperhelmetry but I think that also there's probably another thing going on. The resurgence of UK cycling actually seemed to be under way before there were any of those big UK cycling successes so I don't think it is all down to these successes. Looking back on the London experience, the crucial moment of ''rebirth'' was very close to when they introduced bus lanes. These had a double effect of slowing down traffic speeds for private motor transport because they reduced capacity and indirectly creating a largely clear corridor for cyclists. (Ironically, one of the most cycle friendly innovations on our roads doesn't appear to have been intended as such.) 

It seems very possible that the new generation of cyclists always had time saving as a motivating factor, and this includes the bonus of getting exercise during travelling time. But, crucially, these new and returning cyclists have little continuity with the earlier cycling generations. They don't come from a tradition of cycling to school with a helmetless mother because the UK's roads had been given over almost exclusively to motorised transport. 

So, a new generation, new bikes and gears, computers, a new uniform from helmetted top to lycraed bottom? We probably took our cues not from mum and dad going off to work on their bikes but from contemporary images of cycling and these would have been largely images of competitive cycling.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Mar 2014)

JonUK4 said:


> yes - if ice of that severity occured over the same distant that I ride, with the same frequency that I ride. Which it does not in Wolverhampton.




So on an icy morning we should follow the logic of the two posts and all pedestrians should wear helmets?


----------



## Scoosh (20 Mar 2014)

MOD NOTE:
There have been 3 posts in this thread advising contributors NOT to 'stray' into Helmet Debate territory and to keep to the OP's point (also re-iterated a few times by members in the thread).

Answer the OP question; DON'T go down the helmet debate route.

Failure to comply _will_ lead to a thread ban and possible probable thread closure.


----------



## Dogtrousers (20 Mar 2014)

Not only has "sport" cycling taken off massively in the UK starting with, say, Obree and Boardman but it started from a low base - especially compared with the continent. When I was a bike-mad teenager in the 70s, my hero was Richard Ballantine, but racing cyclists? I couldn't name one. Eddy Merricks (I definitely couldn't spell it or pronounce it) and Reg Harris maybe I knew the names of. Racing cyclists were weirdos who belonged to exclusive clubs and (giggle) shaved their legs. Not something to aspire to. Sport? That was football, rugby or cricket.

What that has to do with differing attitudes to helmets, I'm not sure. I think the "sportiication" of cycling is just one of many contributory factors. Possibly also the fact that we are more closely aligned with the USA and their suing/blame culture. And once the ball has started rolling it gathers momentum. I'm sure that the many cyclists wear hlmets not because "it might save my life" but just because ... well, that's what you do. It's a meme - zeitgeist - call it what you will.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (20 Mar 2014)

Dogtrousers said:


> Not only has "sport" cycling taken off massively in the UK starting with, say, Obree and Boardman but it started from a low base - especially compared with the continent. When I was a bike-mad teenager in the 70s, my hero was Richard Ballantine, but racing cyclists? I couldn't name one. Eddy Merricks (I definitely couldn't spell it or pronounce it) and Reg Harris maybe I knew the names of. Racing cyclists were weirdos who belonged to exclusive clubs and (giggle) shaved their legs. Not something to aspire to. Sport? That was football, rugby or cricket.
> 
> What that has to do with differing attitudes to helmets, I'm not sure. I think the "sportiication" of cycling is just one of many contributory factors. Possibly also the fact that we are more closely aligned with the USA and their suing/blame culture. And once the ball has started rolling it gathers momentum. I'm sure that the many cyclists wear hlmets not because "it might save my life" but just because ... well, that's what you do. It's a meme - zeitgeist - call it what you will.


It's that ''new start'' for cycling, IMO. Continuity almost zero. Helmets appear on the market just in time for the UK rebirth. It's part and parcel of cycling's rebirth.


----------



## mickle (20 Mar 2014)

Please scoosh, seriously, calm the feck down.


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Mar 2014)

I guess there's a lot of over protective parenting going on these days too. When i was lad I used to go all over the place from about the age of seven... either with friends the same sort of age or alone, either on foot or on my Tomahawk. At a guess, my folks seemed to think anywhere within a half mile radius was OK, so long as we took care crossing that busy road. 

These days some parents seem to think seven is far too young for their kids to be going off on their own, and if their kids do go out alone, they're restricted to the close proximity of their home.. any further seems to require adult supervision. So maybe over protective parenting and a concept of '_the world is too dangerous_' is another factor in the fixation with protective head wear when the kids want to play on their bikes.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (20 Mar 2014)

I think here in the UK the general non cycling public has an impression that helmets while cycling are required by law, like on a motorbike.
The other day I had forgotten my helmet in the staff room. On getting to the bike park I mentioned this to a colleague, telling her I could not be bothered going back, would just ride home without.
She told me "you better go back and get it, in case the police stops you". She does not cycle.
I find there is a perception from the non cycling public (not necessarily car drivers) that cycling in build up areas should be regulated like motor vehicle driving is. They look at helmets like at seat belts in cars, a safety feature required by law.


----------



## MontyVeda (20 Mar 2014)

mickle said:


> Please scoosh, seriously, calm the feck down.


i think Scoosh has a point... every other helmet discussion ends up going down the same route within a couple of pages... this one however is mostly staying away from the usual arguments... which is a nice change.


----------



## ianrauk (20 Mar 2014)

Pat "5mph" said:


> I think here in the UK the general non cycling public has an impression that helmets while cycling are required by law, like on a motorbike.




Convo I had not even an hour ago on FB with an old (non cycling) friend

what about the helmet ? do u hv to hv a special one too

i don't wear a helmet

isn't that illegal?

no lol

oh i thought it was lol but isn't it dangerous?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (20 Mar 2014)

When I got my first new bike  from the now retired LBS a couple of years ago, I went to pick it up helmetless. Now, the route home (just over a mile) I was planning to take was through the local park, then a bit of pavement - I was not a confident cyclist then, so I thought a helmet would be an overkill for the trip.
LBS owner, an enthusiastic racer in his 60's, told me I needed a helmet.
He said in his days no club racer did wear a helmet, neither did he, but nowadays the levels of traffic had increased so much that cycling became more hazardous.
When his shop was open, I used to take a detour away from it on a sunny day in case he rumbled me 
When I cycle in an environment I consider low risk, if the day is hot the helmet dangles from the handlebars 
So, yes, risk perception from the cyclist and from people the cyclist considers experts is a factor in the helmet fixation here.


----------



## snorri (20 Mar 2014)

Pat "5mph" said:


> LBS owner, an enthusiastic racer in his 60's, told me I needed a helmet.
> He said in his days no club racer did wear a helmet,.


Maybe that was a Glasgow thing, but in my locality the only people who wore helmets in the 60s were club racers. They wore a type of helmet resembling a bunch of leather bananas, no expanded foam and few plastics in these days .


----------



## Pat "5mph" (20 Mar 2014)

snorri said:


> Maybe that was a Glasgow thing, but in my locality the only people who wore helmets in the 60s were club racers. They wore a type of helmet resembling a bunch of leather bananas, no expanded foam and few plastics in these days .


I wrote the guy is in *his* 60's, not he was a racer in the 60's 
Mind, if he is 60+ today, he might have been a very young racer then


----------



## Wobblers (20 Mar 2014)

Scoosh said:


> MOD NOTE:
> There have been 3 posts in this thread advising contributors NOT to 'stray' into Helmet Debate territory and to keep to the OP's point (also re-iterated a few times by members in the thread).
> 
> Answer the OP question; DON'T go down the helmet debate route.
> ...



To be honest, I think this does belong in the helmet sub-forum. Moving it there is a far better solution that closing it - after all, there still is some very useful and interesting debate. Closing the thread would stop all that, please don't!


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (20 Mar 2014)

Perhaps the need for helmet compulsion in some is more about having something to feel in control of relating to cyclists.
We can't be told where we can and cannot go , except by law and highway code (if they're ever enforced). So rattling on about plastic hats is the control mechanism.
Look at the reaction to us by many on the roads. Impatience, anger, frustration. We're a random element in a world of people who need control of that road in front of them. Insisting we wear helmets is a good means of putting us in our place - "Look we made them do that! We feel better now".


----------



## Wobblers (21 Mar 2014)

I suspect that this pressure over helmet wearing comes from a number of different sources.

We've had quite a few people say that they feel safer wearing a helmet due to the fear over high traffic densities. More have said that they wear one to allay the fears of their loved ones about cycling on busy roads. This is not something that can be condemned in any way: if a helmet means that someone gets on a bike rather than in a car, that's unreservedly a good thing. Of course, that cycling is not at all dangerous is a topic that has been done to death many times before and will doubtless come up again. But the fact remains that, rightly or wrongly, cycling is seen as a risky occupation.

It therefore seems logical to reduce that perceived risk by wearing a helmet. It seems like common sense, doesn't it? It's a logical step that's reinforced by the unceasing campaigning by Headway, the BMA and others over helmet use. They're doctors, so surely they must know... But this is highly one sided: the actual science is very much more ambivalent over the benefits of helmets in cycling: this is a message that simply does not get through. When bold statements from authority figures supporting helmet use go unchallenged, it is no wonder that the idea that helmet = safe is so widespread. There simply is no debate whatsoever in public circles over whether helmets are beneficial, specialist interest sites like this excepted. (And @Eddy if you read @User's link, you'll find that it refers to actual research papers. They are an objective report of the science done, they have to be otherwise they are unlikely to be published - and any biases in the methodology or interpretations are deeply damaging to the authors. Most scientists are extremely keen to avoid such controversy, if they wish to keep their positions). 

There is also the fact that, unlike Europe, few UK cyclists are utility cyclists. It is not regarded as a means of transport, but as a sport instead. Indeed, most club cyclists will be found to be clad in the full helmet and lycra regalia. Until recently, there have been very few utility cyclists so this image of the helmet and lycra clad sportsman has been the only available one to new cyclists. I find it interesting to find that sports cyclists on the continent follow the same pattern. Since the perception of cycling is derived from sport, it is little wonder that most new cyclists don a helmet - and little wonder over the expectation that cyclists must wear helmets in society in general.

Anyway, enough of my babbling...


----------



## classic33 (21 Mar 2014)

goo_mason said:


> I dunno - in between those posts where people veer off and try and make it a helmet debate, others are still trying to discuss the OP's question - so the thread still has validity.
> 
> And for what it's worth, my belief is that we're so fixated on helmets in the UK because we're too scared to tackle the bad driving & woeful cycling 'infrastructure' so instead we lay the blame for being hit by a speeding idiot on a mobile squarely on the victims. "The deserved to have his legs severed after being run over by a drunk driver - the reckless idiot wasn't wearing a helmet!"


Speaking as someone who was hit by a car driven bt a drunk driver and wearing a helmet at the time, why did I deserve to be hit?

Going back to the thread, two things have become engrained over the years, each feeding the other.
If your serious about cycling, you aquire all the gear. Part of this gear is the helmet. 
Helmet required, there must be some danger involved. Danger involved means something needs to be done to make it seem safer.
One feeds the other.


----------



## srw (21 Mar 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> It's that ''new start'' for cycling, IMO. Continuity almost zero. Helmets appear on the market just in time for the UK rebirth. It's part and parcel of cycling's rebirth.


And there's now a second rebirth, particularly in London after Boris bikes, whereby a bike is just a cheap means of getting from A to B. That means ordinary clothes and no special equipment.

Anecdote alert - earlier in the thread I anecdoted 1 in 8 on an early commute through Hyde Park. Yesterday I walked, slightly later, from Barbican north-eastwards. This time I'd put the number of bare-headed riders at about 1 in 6 - again, mostly in ordinary clothes.


----------



## srw (21 Mar 2014)

Another anecdote - the reason I was walking from Barbican was to do some training for some newly-qualified professionals working in risk. Asked what the riskiest thing I'd ever done was I pointed out that it wasn't cycling. One of the other trainers launched into an anecdote about someone who'd come on a previous edition of the course with a broken arm and a black eye because he'd gone out on his wife's bike without a helmet, and come off.

I pointed out that the helmet wouldn't have mitigated the broken arm or black eye, and in any case helmets were unproven, and invited anyone who wanted to to discuss it later. Oddly, none of them did, but I did get the compliment from the other lecturer that I was clearly applying risk assessment to real life.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Mar 2014)

srw said:


> And there's now a second rebirth, particularly in London after Boris bikes, whereby a bike is just a cheap means of getting from A to B. That means ordinary clothes and no special equipment.
> 
> Anecdote alert - earlier in the thread I anecdoted 1 in 8 on an early commute through Hyde Park. Yesterday I walked, slightly later, from Barbican north-eastwards. This time I'd put the number of bare-headed riders at about 1 in 6 - again, mostly in ordinary clothes.


Yes, I'd agree with that. The hire bikes bring things back to utility cycling. And normalises non-helmet wearing.


----------



## .stu (21 Mar 2014)

I think part of the reason we are fixated on helmets is because we now tell our kids that they must wear helmets and ride on the pavement because riding on the road is dangerous. They grow up with this believe, and continue to ride on the pavement. They then get a job, car, family etc and drive round telling cyclists to get off the road and wear helmets, and generally bullying cyclists because they have been brought up to believe that cyclists do not belong on the roads because it is dangerous.

If the parents hadn't drummed this into them in the first place, they would have grown up cycling on the roads, and would better understand that roads are a shared space and drive more considerately.


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Mar 2014)

classic33 said:


> ...
> *If you're serious about cycling, you acquire all the gear*. Part of this gear is the helmet.
> ...



Really? Don't you mean, if you're serious about _competitive_ cycling?

I consider myself to be serious about cycling... it's a mode of transport that I take seriously. I don't need Lycra to take it seriously, or the rest of 'the gear'... saying that, I _might_ pull on a pair of padded undershorts for a 45+ mile ride.


----------



## classic33 (21 Mar 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> Really? Don't you mean, if you're serious about _competitive_ cycling?
> 
> I consider myself to be serious about cycling... it's a mode of transport that I take seriously. I don't need Lycra to take it seriously, or the rest of 'the gear'... saying that, I _might_ pull on a pair of padded undershorts for a 45+ mile ride.


 No, but that is meant as from the standpoint of someone taking up cycling.
Better choice of wording would have been, if you want to be seen as serious about cycling. One side still feeds the other though!


----------



## Pat "5mph" (21 Mar 2014)

I think the helmet /hi-viz look is associated with "safe cycling" in the UK.
A safe cyclist is regarded a serious cyclist, as in somebody that cycles with his safety and the safety of others in mind.


----------



## John the Canuck (21 Mar 2014)

...and don't even ask about high heels..................


----------



## Pat "5mph" (21 Mar 2014)

User13710 said:


> I find that a bit insulting I'm afraid.


Not my opinion. People tend to talk to me about cycling


----------



## Pat "5mph" (21 Mar 2014)

User13710 said:


> Whoever's opinion it is, it's still insulting.


Why? Maybe misguided, but why insulting? Anyway, the OP is asking about possible reasons for the UK's helmet obsession.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (21 Mar 2014)

User13710 said:


> It's insulting because it implies that people who don't wear polystyrene on their heads and bright yellow tunics don't care about their own or other people's safety. I would have thought that was blindingly obvious.


Not obvious, I'm not easily insulted


----------



## snorri (21 Mar 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> It's that ''new start'' for cycling, IMO. Continuity almost zero. Helmets appear on the market just in time for the UK rebirth. It's part and parcel of cycling's rebirth.


 Yes, I think you are on to something there.
Apart from helmets, "everyone" seemed to get a mountain bike for the new start regardless of the fact that only a tiny minority ever went near a mountain. The mountain bike, for general purpose road usage, was/is another peculiarly British thing not replicated on mainland Euroland, I believe.


----------



## DavidD (21 Mar 2014)

Pat was putting a point across which probably has some merit if you find it insulting I would say you are maybe being a tad over sensitive


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Mar 2014)

snorri said:


> Yes, I think you are on to something there.
> Apart from helmets, "everyone" seemed to get a mountain bike for the new start regardless of the fact that only a tiny minority ever went near a mountain. The mountain bike, for general purpose road usage, was/is another peculiarly British thing not replicated on mainland Euroland, I believe.


It's the cyclist's equivalent of the _Chelsea Tractor_ innit


----------



## snorri (21 Mar 2014)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Not obvious, I'm not easily insulted


 
Some people don't realise you're not a serious cyclist Pat "35mph", others know you're way past that, you're hard core.


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Mar 2014)

Pat "5mph" said:


> I think the helmet /hi-viz look is associated with "safe cycling" in the UK.
> A safe cyclist is regarded a serious cyclist, as in somebody that cycles with his safety and the safety of others in mind.





User13710 said:


> I find that a bit insulting I'm afraid.



I don't find the way Pat said what she said insulting... but flipping it to "_Someone who doesn't wear a lid and/or hi-vis has no regard for their own or the safety of others_" is insulting... but that's not what Pat said.


----------



## vickster (21 Mar 2014)

Why?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (21 Mar 2014)

snorri said:


> Some people don't realise you're not a serious cyclist Pat "35mph", others know you're way past that, you're hard core.


35mph?  
.... Not even when I've got to get down the massive hills the CC Ecosse folks drag me up!
Seriously, how can I be offended by what folks think about "cyclists"?
I just smile and invite them to join me on a ride, hard to convince them a 30 miler is good exercise


----------



## Pat "5mph" (21 Mar 2014)

User13710 said:


> The point has no merit at all. What we wear to cycle in has no bearing on how much we care about each other's safety.


Well, try to convince the ordinary non cycling folks. It's just one opinion they have, akin to "the menace of the red light jumping cyclists" and the "cyclist should ride in the cycling lanes where they exist" the latter was said to me by a colleague, a car driver that has done bikability in her youth - that's what she said, anyway.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (21 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Because it is my near universal observation that people who have the brakes detached because they can't true a wheel, or ride without lights, have an unswerving faith in Hi-viz and helmets


Well, this is nobody's fault. Truly, when the ordinary person that has last ridden a bike as a child decides to "get fit", cycle to work, do their bit for the environment, save money on fuel or bus fares, who the heck shows him/her how to true a wheel?
There is practically no support for the beginner commuter/utilitarian cyclist, the one that needs to rely on the bike for transport.
Easy as to jump on a bike ... not! I have been at it for 2 years now, learning slowly about mechanicals, takes time to be non reliant from your LBS, that is if you can find one bothered to do small jobs and if you have money to pay for the repairs, another bike to use in the meantime.
Easy to know what to wear though, just look at other cyclists: they got helmet and hi-viz, you get them too.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Mar 2014)

User13710 said:


> None of which says anything about their capacity to care about their own and others' safety. You made the connection yourself, in your first post on this subject.



I think Pat was describing the association made by others, not expressing her personal opinion.

GC


----------



## Pat "5mph" (21 Mar 2014)

User13710 said:


> None of which says anything about their capacity to care about their own and others' safety. You made the connection yourself, in your first post on this subject.


I told you that was NOT what I think, it is what others non cycling folks think of cyclists.
As I said, could be one reason why in the UK there is a helmet fixation.


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Mar 2014)

User13710 said:


> Do you understand what 'implies' means?


not sure... is it like putting words in to someone's mouth?


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Mar 2014)

User13710 said:


> You all need to go back and actually read what I wrote before you start insulting me as well.


calm down TMN. I think you're over reacting to Pat's post... and I'm being my usual teasing (or maybe slightly trolling) self.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (21 Mar 2014)

User said:


> It is just part of that guilt and blame transference thing drivers do.


It might surprise you that some (don't have statistics, just chat a lot) non drivers think this too. Twice in recent months friends that never took a driving lesson in their lives mentioned helmets and hi-viz as something necessary for riding a bike.
Again, not my opinion, the opinion of pedestrians/public transport users.
Now, what I think is that in the UK (as asked about by the op) the lack of natural light plus the lack of cycling infrastructures makes folks think "wait a minute, it's dark, I need to mix with motorized traffic, what could make me more visible, what could protect me a bit if I fall off?"
All reasonable imo, until of course you cycle for a bit, fall off a couple of times (ermm...) read CC a bit more, discover different.
Can't blame people that blame me for going sometimes without helmet, never mind getting offended by them. When more people take cycling to places as a matter of fact, not an exception, perception of risk will alter.


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Mar 2014)

out of interest... what do you think Pat's post implies?


----------



## Brandane (21 Mar 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I think Pat was describing the association made by others, not expressing her personal opinion.
> 
> GC


"Blindingly obvious", in the words of another .


----------



## Big Nick (21 Mar 2014)

Wow the above is all the proof you need never to mention helmets in any of your threads !!

I tried it once but didn't get away with it either !!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Mar 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I think Pat was describing the association made by others, not expressing her personal opinion.
> 
> GC


I've got Pat down as the messenger in this one too.


----------



## Wobblers (21 Mar 2014)

Big Nick said:


> Wow the above is all the proof you need never to mention helmets in any of your threads !!
> 
> I tried it once but didn't get away with it either !!



But did you mention The War?


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (22 Mar 2014)

I saw a government infomercial (or whatever they're called) tonight telling drivers not to act like dicks around horses.
So things like this can still be made. We're just not important enough I suppose


----------



## Wobblers (22 Mar 2014)

I've had the pleasure of meeting both TMN and Pat "more than 5mph" and can safely say that they are both splendid people.

I can appreciate @Pat "5mph"'s point that there is a perception that cyclists who don't dress up in the helmeted radioactive lemon uniform are less cautious with their, and other's safety - and that this isn't her own opinion! But I also certainly understand @User13710's point that this is a deeply offensive attitude. Understand and agree with, because this assumption that those who don't wear the hi-vis are willfully negligent _is _insulting. In fact, it's worse than that: it's a particularly odious form of victim blaming. It is this sort of pernicious reasoning which all too often leads to the attitude: "it's only a cyclist, it got what it deserved" that not merely infests that cesspit which is the Daily Mail but all too often informs police indifference to bullying - or worse - by motorists. Sadly, you don't need to look far on this forum for examples of the latter.

This, I think, has been a side effect of helmet promotion. It is the inevitable consequence of shifting the duty of care from motorist to cyclist. Once you have accepted the idea that it is the _cyclist _who must bear the burden of risk mitigation it is a very small step to shifting the _blame _onto the weaker party. Put simply, promotion of hi-vis and helmet wearing is promotion of the concept of the car as king. Picture a fume-filled gridlocked road going nowhere- forever.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Mar 2014)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> I saw a government infomercial (or whatever they're called) tonight telling drivers not to act like dicks around horses.
> So things like this can still be made. We're just not important enough I suppose



Nope - they get banned by the ASA because one the several cyclists is not wearing a helmet!



The ASA ruled that although there was no legal requirement to wear a helmet, they supported a complaint on the grounds that is was "socially irresponsible" to show a cyclist without one!

It is not the first time an advert has been banned on the grounds that a cyclist did not wear a helmet

(The ban was later withdrawn and is under review)


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Mar 2014)

Supermarket car park........

Tesco, Asda, Lidl, Aldi, Waitrose, and all of their peers have safety assessments that state HiViz MUST be worn when working in the car park as there is a danger of not being seen.

Surely customers should be equally difficult to see and therefore need HiViz when crossing a parking area?


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Mar 2014)

Three posts in a row - does that make me a Troll?
(Don't answer that!)

At least we have some way to go before this:


----------



## Colin B (22 Mar 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Three posts in a row - does that make me a Troll?
> (Don't answer that!)
> 
> At least we have some way to go before this:



But you get coupons so thats got to be a good thing . Are those flags hi vis and regulation flag size only in america eh


----------



## Colin B (22 Mar 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> Nope - they get banned by the ASA because one the several cyclists is not wearing a helmet!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This ad couldn't be used in France they'd shoot you and serve you with garlic potatoes


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Mar 2014)

I was in Iceland recently and Horse is very nice!


----------



## Dark46 (23 Mar 2014)

I've never wore a helmet cycling but it's going to be weird


----------



## Dark46 (23 Mar 2014)

The feeling of having one on! Obviously that wasn't clear sorry


----------



## theclaud (23 Mar 2014)

Dark46 said:


> The feeling of having one on! Obviously that wasn't clear sorry


If you find it weird, don't put one on.


----------



## slowmotion (23 Mar 2014)

McWobble said:


> I've had the pleasure of meeting both TMN and Pat "more than 5mph" and can safely say that they are both splendid people.
> 
> I can appreciate @Pat "5mph"'s point that there is a perception that cyclists who don't dress up in the helmeted radioactive lemon uniform are less cautious with their, and other's safety - and that this isn't her own opinion! But I also certainly understand @User13710's point that this is a deeply offensive attitude. Understand and agree with, because this assumption that those who don't wear the hi-vis are willfully negligent _is _insulting. In fact, it's worse than that: it's a particularly odious form of victim blaming. It is this sort of pernicious reasoning which all too often leads to the attitude: "it's only a cyclist, it got what it deserved" that not merely infests that cesspit which is the Daily Mail but all too often informs police indifference to bullying - or worse - by motorists. Sadly, you don't need to look far on this forum for examples of the latter.
> 
> This, I think, has been a side effect of helmet promotion. It is the inevitable consequence of shifting the duty of care from motorist to cyclist. Once you have accepted the idea that it is the _cyclist _who must bear the burden of risk mitigation it is a very small step to shifting the _blame _onto the weaker party. Put simply, promotion of hi-vis and helmet wearing is promotion of the concept of the car as king. Picture a fume-filled gridlocked road going nowhere- forever.


 Thank you. Well put. But how about this......." I drive very carefully. I am never going to wear a seat belt because I don't need to. If I wear a seatbelt it sends off the message that I approve of other people driving recklessly"????


----------



## uclown2002 (23 Mar 2014)

slowmotion said:


> Thank you. Well put. But how about this......." I drive very carefully. I am never going to wear a seat belt because I don't need to. If I wear a seatbelt it sends off the message that I approve of other people driving recklessly"????


Not a good analogy given that there is a legal requirement to wear a seat belt!


----------



## theclaud (23 Mar 2014)

slowmotion said:


> Thank you. Well put. But how about this......." I drive very carefully. I am never going to wear a seat belt because I don't need to. If I wear a seatbelt it sends off the message that I approve of other people driving recklessly"????



Front seat belt laws are largely paternalistic, but quite apart from uclown's point, there is no comparison to be drawn, because there is no right to drive a car on the public highway in the first place, so whatever reasonable restrictions we choose to place on it are fair enough, especially restrictions which can be demonstrated to reduce deaths and serious injuries.


----------



## slowmotion (23 Mar 2014)

theclaud said:


> Front seat belt laws are largely paternalistic, but quite apart from uclown's point, there is no comparison to be drawn, because there is no right to drive a car on the public highway in the first place, so whatever reasonable restrictions we choose to place on it are fair enough, especially restrictions which can be demonstrated to reduce deaths and serious injuries.


 
OK, try this! If I wear a suit of armour when walking to the shops because I value my toes, does it send out the message that all and sundry should stamp on my feet and those of more normal pedestrians?


----------



## theclaud (23 Mar 2014)

slowmotion said:


> OK, try this! If I wear a suit of armour when walking to the shops because I value my toes, does it send out the message that all and sundry should stamp on my feet and those of more normal pedestrians?


It sends out a message that you've finally lost it.


----------



## slowmotion (23 Mar 2014)

Moi?


----------



## theclaud (23 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Is that not just too obvious?


One would hope so, but (as ever) I'm going out of my way to be helpful.


----------



## snorri (23 Mar 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> At least we have some way to go before this:




Flags? One might think, being the USA, instead of putting flags in the bucket they would have filled them with guns, now that would bring a bit of order to the place.


----------



## mcshroom (23 Mar 2014)

Just catching up on this after coming home from tour (Newcastle-Aberdeen, 374 miles, no incidents, wonderful scenery, two dolphins, no lid ).

I think there is a deeper issue in the perceived responsibility for risks between the UK and mainland Europe. There is a mentality that we are personally responsible for preventing other people doing things to us here (and in places like the USA and Australia where we sent people). This is far more than just in cycling. Look, for example at far too many people's attitudes to rape victims (they should have stayed at home/worn less revealing clothing/got a taxi), or opinions I've seen on here that people who don't lock their possessions down 'deserved' to be robbed (I'm thinking of the man in Manchester who had a £2k+ bike nicked while popping into the shop to buy milk). In a different sphere look at the way people on benefits are regarded as scroungers by many. The mantra of 'personal responsibility' (I prefer the term 'victim blaming') means that we are more happy to blame victims for the ills of society.

Cycle helmets are a good example of victim blaming. There is a perceived risk to cyclists, mainly from motor vehicles. In most other European countries this is met by enforcing rules on the motorists (eg: presumed liability), and in many places providing a secure and joined up structure to allow the vulnerable users to travel ok. Those are societal responses. In the UK the answer seems to be to put an expanded polystyrene shell on your head and dress up like a banana. 

Perhaps if we were more like social democratic europe and less like individualistic countries such as the USA then cycling wouldn't be seen as this dangerous activity on the fringe of society.


----------



## theclaud (23 Mar 2014)

mcshroom said:


> In the UK [the] answer seems to be to put an expanded polystyrene shell on your head and dress up like a banana.



I expected to see this pop up in the "Weird Habits" thread, TBH.


----------



## slowmotion (23 Mar 2014)

theclaud said:


> I expected to see this pop up in the "Weird Habits" thread, TBH.


 Well, it suits me.


----------



## mcshroom (23 Mar 2014)

SMIDSY that


----------



## classic33 (23 Mar 2014)

Given that there is growing support, in medical circles, for body armour to be worn whilst cycling, who'd be willing to wear it?


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Mar 2014)

A few years ago there was a faired Kingcycle on the Isle of Wight 

Short wheelbase recumbent with bright yellow front and rear fairing

He had the opposite problem when cited as the cause s e of an accident because the Kingcyle had diverted the drivers attention


----------



## Wobblers (23 Mar 2014)

Cunobelin said:


> A few years ago there was a faired Kingcycle on the Isle of Wight
> 
> Short wheelbase recumbent with bright yellow front and rear fairing
> 
> He had the opposite problem when cited as the cause s e of an accident because the Kingcyle had diverted the drivers attention



Which brings us neatly to (yet) another issue: the readiness for people to blame anything - and anyone - other than themselves. Which, when it comes right down to it, is what is behind this drive to the radioactive lemon look (and not just for cyclists - have you seen the school parties all bedecked in luminous hi-vis?). "It isn't my fault, my (excess) speed had nothing to do with it, I didn't see her". "He came out of nowhere". "The sun was in my eyes". How many times have we heard all these same tired excuses trotted out? They're all wrong: *you didn't see the cyclist/pedestrian because you WEREN'T LOOKING*. Anything to avoid admitting culpability, or responsibility for one's own actions. So vulnerable road users are expected to don the banana look and polystyrene hat because motorists expect to be absolved of their responsibilities - yet still get the blame, as well as the consequences. The depressing thing is, the frequency with which these feeble cliched excuses are accepted in court. As I've said before, this fixation on PPE for the vulnerable party is to ignore the badly driven elephant in the room.It won't be polystyrene hats that change this. It'll be the courts treating those pathetic excuses with the contempt they deserve, and dishing out appropriate sentences. If only...


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Mar 2014)

classic33 said:


> Given that there is growing support, in medical circles, for body armour to be worn whilst cycling, who'd be willing to wear it?



This is why the Thudguard is such an excellent illustration.

It is endorsed by the same groups and medical experts as cycle helmets, yet there is no public or medical outcry when child goes in with a head injury in fact RoSPA goes as far as to state they could make a similar contribution to child safety

Why the hysteria about one, but not the other?

I have never seen a Doctor or Nurse ask......"Was your child wearing a Thudguard?"

Would the ASA ever ban an advert because the children were not wearing Thudguards?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2014)

McWobble said:


> Which brings us neatly to (yet) another issue: the readiness for people to blame anything - and anyone - other than themselves. Which, when it comes right down to it, is what is behind this drive to the radioactive lemon look (and not just for cyclists - have you seen the school parties all bedecked in luminous hi-vis?). "It isn't my fault, my (excess) speed had nothing to do with it, I didn't see her". "He came out of nowhere". "The sun was in my eyes". How many times have we heard all these same tired excuses trotted out? They're all wrong: *you didn't see the cyclist/pedestrian because you WEREN'T LOOKING*. Anything to avoid admitting culpability, or responsibility for one's own actions. So vulnerable road users are expected to don the banana look and polystyrene hat because motorists expect to be absolved of their responsibilities - yet still get the blame, as well as the consequences. The depressing thing is, the frequency with which these feeble cliched excuses are accepted in court. As I've said before, this fixation on PPE for the vulnerable party is to ignore the badly driven elephant in the room.It won't be polystyrene hats that change this. It'll be the courts treating those pathetic excuses with the contempt they deserve, and dishing out appropriate sentences. If only...


I beg to differ. 

I've been reading up.

Voraciously.

1/3rd of team SMIDSY doesn't see the cyclist/pedestrian DESPITE looking. The illusion of attention all to often has tragic consequences. Until the courts and legislators start to realise that, as a species, too many of us are unfit to drive due to a biological inability to process the huge sensory overload that occurs behind the wheel meaning we are physically unable to see what we don't expect to see, nothing is going to change.

It's an uncertain world; I blame the invisible gorillas.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2014)

User said:


> And then there is the psychologically unsuited group.


Audi drivers?


----------



## Wobblers (24 Mar 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I beg to differ.
> 
> I've been reading up.
> 
> ...



I beg to differ over your begging to differ.

I believe it's called "looked, but failed to see". You referred to, obliquely, that video clip where you count the number of times a ball is passed between people - yet fail to see the gorilla walking across the screen. What you're forgetting is that the viewers are _primed _to watch the ball. It's the same with motorists: they're looking for other vehicles - not other vehicles and cyclists. _This is a conscious, or at least subconscious, decision._ They know that there is the possibility of there being a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter - yet give the junction a cursory glance before pulling out, because they _just have to _get stuck behind the next traffic queue a couple of seconds sooner. This in no way is a valid excuse: failing to observe properly is falling below the minimum standard of competence that all other road users have every right to expect.

You know what? Every time I see someone waiting to pull out in front of me, I have this in mind, that they haven't bothered to look properly. You know what else? I'm quite aware of how I may not see things I ought to the first time round - that's why I always look twice. Because making a mistake will hurt. A lot. I've got every reason to observe properly - or at least make the attempt. But the motorist, cocooned in their nice warm steel box feels safe and doesn't quite have the same motivation.

And there is still the other two thirds who do look properly - what about them?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2014)

McWobble said:


> I beg to differ over your begging to differ.
> 
> I believe it's called "looked, but failed to see". You referred to, obliquely, that video clip where you count the number of times a ball is passed between people - yet fail to see the gorilla walking across the screen. What you're forgetting is that the viewers are _primed _to watch the ball. It's the same with motorists: they're looking for other vehicles - not other vehicles and cyclists. _This is a conscious, or at least subconscious, decision._ They know that there is the possibility of there being a cyclist or pedestrian for that matter - yet give the junction a cursory glance before pulling out, because they _just have to _get stuck behind the next traffic queue a couple of seconds sooner. This in no way is a valid excuse: failing to observe properly is falling below the minimum standard of competence that all other road users have every right to expect.
> 
> ...


No external priming is needed. None whatsoever. If anything our own minds prime themselves. Our minds prime themselves as to what to expect and look for, and thus then only see the expected. And fail, completely, to see the unexpected. http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/ is fascinating stuff, as was the recent documentary on the BEEB about Kahneman which reconstructed Chabris' unprimed "illusion of attention" experiment. I mean, you couldn't run right past people having a fight and not see them, could you?

the other 2/3rds aren't SMIDSY's btw.

If failing to observe properly is actually a hard wired problem for some then we need to start radically changing our transport infrastructure and training programmes to address, and police, that reality.


----------



## Wobblers (24 Mar 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> No external priming is needed. None whatsoever. *If anything our own minds prime themselves. Our minds prime themselves as to what to expect and look for, and thus then only see the expected. *And fail, completely, to see the unexpected. http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/ is fascinating stuff, as was the recent documentary on the BEEB about Kahneman which reconstructed Chabris' unprimed "illusion of attention" experiment. I mean, you couldn't run right past people having a fight and not see them, could you?
> 
> the other 2/3rds aren't SMIDSY's btw.
> 
> If failing to observe properly is actually a hard wired problem for some then we need to start radically changing our transport infrastructure and training programmes to address, and police, that reality.



Yeap. That's my point. Motorists expect to see other cars, so don't look for anything else. But if they expect to see cyclists, they'll look for cyclists. A problem that can be fixed by a change of attitude or training, perhaps? Anyway, we're straying rather far from the OP. A major problem is that this fixation on helmets, and hi-vis merely serve as a distraction from issues such as this - and that is to the detriment of all road users, because genuine opporunitities to make the roads safer are being ignored for populist sticking plasters such as lids.


----------



## theclaud (24 Mar 2014)

McWobble said:


> Anyway, we're straying rather far from the OP.



Naughty!


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (24 Mar 2014)

We're not fixated on helmets! This thread has only got a measley 483 posts so far!!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2014)

McWobble said:


> Yeap. That's my point. Motorists expect to see other cars, so don't look for anything else. But if they expect to see cyclists, they'll look for cyclists. A problem that can be fixed by a change of attitude or training, perhaps? Anyway, we're straying rather far from the OP. A major problem is that this fixation on helmets, and hi-vis merely serve as a distraction from issues such as this - and that is to the detriment of all road users, because genuine opporunitities to make the roads safer are being ignored for populist sticking plasters such as lids.


Safety in numbers is what may fix it by conditioning nobber-drivers to expect to see cyclists. Not training. Not attitude modification.


----------



## mcshroom (24 Mar 2014)

Or victim blaming and the promotion of 'safety' equipment that's only proven effect is to reduce the numbers of cyclists where it has been mandated.


----------



## slowmotion (24 Mar 2014)

I don't think that the vast majority of drivers look down on cyclists or wish them any harm. I suspect that they just have no appreciation of how their driving affects us, or how grave the consequences are when they ( or dare I say, we?) make even a small mistake. It's not just a minor scrape on the bodywork and a letter to the insurance company. Its bruises, bones and death.
Education is all.


----------



## Wobblers (25 Mar 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Safety in numbers is what may fix it by conditioning nobber-drivers to expect to see cyclists. Not training. Not attitude modification.





McWobble said:


> Yeap. That's my point. Motorists expect to see other cars, so don't look for anything else. *But if they expect to see cyclists, they'll look for cyclists*.



One TMN to me!


----------



## benb (25 Mar 2014)

slowmotion said:


> I don't think that the vast majority of drivers look down on cyclists or wish them any harm. I suspect that they just have no appreciation of how their driving affects us, or how grave the consequences are when they ( or dare I say, we?) make even a small mistake. It's not just a minor scrape on the bodywork and a letter to the insurance company. Its bruises, bones and death.
> Education is all.



I reckon about 50% are OK. Not brilliant, but probably pass a bit closer than you'd like and don't pay attention as much as they ought.
10% are fantastic (probably cyclists themselves!) courteous, patient, observant, calm, and safe
35% are quite crap, but incompetent rather than malicious. Close passes, overtaking through pinch point, impatient tail-gating, that sort of thing.
5% are criminally dangerous, and either deliberately or because they don't give a stuff will drive in a terrifyingly appalling manner.

Figures plucked out of the air to an extent - I haven't actually tried quantifying the types.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Mar 2014)

66.6% drive on auto pilot but can nonetheless cope with the unexpected.

33.3%* drive under the illusion of attention but cannot cope with the unexpected.

.1% actually mean to harm others.

evidence base is experiments conducted by Chris Chabris.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Mar 2014)

McWobble said:


> One TMN to me!


Fraid not. They still won't look for cyclists. Nonetheless they will see them. Having been conditioned to expect their presence they will see them without looking for them.


----------



## oldstrath (25 Mar 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Safety in numbers is what may fix it by conditioning nobber-drivers to expect to see cyclists. Not training. Not attitude modification.


Wish I had your optimism. I suspect the problem drivers are such because they haven't internalised any consequences, to them, of hitting a cyclist. Sure, if they do so and hurt someone they will suffer remorse, probably quite genuine remorse, but they lack the wiring to make the imaginative leap before the event, so they look for threats, fail to see a threat, and go.

Maybe seeing more cyclists wil help, but I suspect that vfor some only the apprehension of real, personal, fear-inducing, consequnces will change their behaviour early enough to matter. In a half civilised society this presumably means a real fear of getting caught, and a level of punishment that will cause them personal problems. This, after all, is what really did for drink driving.


----------



## benb (25 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Evidence based?


Touché.

It's a subjective opinion, so doesn't need evidence per se, but I guess I could try and count interactions that fall into each category.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (25 Mar 2014)

It pains me to say it on here but I almost took out a cyclist while behind the wheel today. When you're cycling there's no frontal blind spot. When you're behind the wheel, there are several. I'm a competent driver and have never caused an accident or even got a single point on my licence. And I'm very aware of cyclists. But the pillar - is it called the A-pillar? - between windscreen and side windows is a genuine blind spot, and that's where the cyclist was. But considerations of driver and passenger security allow for frontal blind spots at the expense of other, more vulnerable road users. I did see him but I saw him late and braked in time. I simply couldn't see him early. In my view, that's driver safety elevated above others safety. And it frightens me.


----------



## DavidD (25 Mar 2014)

How big is the A post on your car?


----------



## MontyVeda (25 Mar 2014)

User13710 said:


> ... In the gorilla study the participants were primed to count the number of passes of the ball
> ...



this is why i believe the gorilla video is a red herring... if the instruction was "watch this video and note what happens" then a lot more people would see a bunch of people passing a white ball around, a person in a gorilla suit, a person wonders off, a red curtain, a wooden floor, and so on. It says nothing about ones observational awareness.

And @deptfordmarmoset, a checked blind spot is not a blind spot... that why you're told to check your blind spots... all you have to do is move your skull a bit, and use the brain inside it


----------



## Wobblers (26 Mar 2014)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Fraid not. They still won't look for cyclists. Nonetheless they will see them. Having been conditioned to expect their presence they will see them without looking for them.



Pah. I think Adrian put it the most succinctly:


User said:


> Bollocks


----------



## snorri (26 Mar 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> And @deptfordmarmoset, a checked blind spot is not a blind spot... that why you're told to check your blind spots... all you have to do is move your skull a bit, and use the brain inside it


.
It is interesting that since the introduction of this "safety feature" the driver is required to perform an additional operation, ie moving skull, in order to ensure the safety of road users outwith the vehicle.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (26 Mar 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> this is why i believe the gorilla video is a red herring... if the instruction was "watch this video and note what happens" then a lot more people would see a bunch of people passing a white ball around, a person in a gorilla suit, a person wonders off, a red curtain, a wooden floor, and so on. It says nothing about ones observational awareness.
> 
> And @deptfordmarmoset, a checked blind spot is not a blind spot... that why you're told to check your blind spots... all you have to do is move your skull a bit, and use the brain inside it


Monty, I'm perfectly aware that I made an error, particularly galling for me having already written on this thread about the hierarchy of safety measures in vehicle design. And rest assured that I will make a redoubled effort to learn from my mistake; hitting anybody would destroy me and I'll do my best to prevent it happening.

Others though will not be as aware of cyclists and not necessarily as mindful of the consequences as I am. Indeed, if you look at the NCAP test results, it's not even on their safety map. Take a look at the Nissan Qashqai results, awarded 5 stars for safety at the top of their home page (http://www.euroncap.com/results/nissan/qashqai/544.aspx). NCAP don't look at dangers to cyclists, lumping them together with a list of vulnerable road users, ignoring them, and concentrating on pedestrians. Scroll down to their pedestrian results and look at the danger points for pedestrians. And then remember this car has a 5 point safety rating. All round visibility of the road does not get a mention.

@DavidD - the A-pillars are not particularly big - perhaps proportionately larger than they would be on a bigger car. This was a Honda Jazz.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (26 Mar 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> It pains me to say it on here but I almost took out a cyclist while behind the wheel today. When you're cycling there's no frontal blind spot. When you're behind the wheel, there are several. I'm a competent driver and have never caused an accident or even got a single point on my licence. And I'm very aware of cyclists. But the pillar - is it called the A-pillar? - between windscreen and side windows is a genuine blind spot, and that's where the cyclist was. But considerations of driver and passenger security allow for frontal blind spots at the expense of other, more vulnerable road users. I did see him but I saw him late and braked in time. I simply couldn't see him early. In my view, that's driver safety elevated above others safety. And it frightens me.


 
I made the exact same mistake a while back, emerging from a side road and failing to spot the cyclist (blocked by my A-pillar) waiting to turn right into my road. A shout from my passenger as I was about to pull out had me on the brakes and prevented a collision. I apologised profusely to the cyclist who seemed more perturbed by my repeated apologies than the incident itself. Nonetheless, it left me feeling sick at the mere thought of what might have happened.

As Montyveda rightly points out, the duty to check all blind spots is mine and I now move my head around a lot more, even saying out loud "Where's the cyclist?".

GC


----------



## MarkF (26 Mar 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> But the pillar - is it called the A-pillar? - between windscreen and side windows is a genuine blind spot, and that's where the cyclist was. But considerations of driver and passenger security allow for frontal blind spots at the expense of other, more vulnerable road users. I did see him but I saw him late and braked in time. I simply couldn't see him early. In my view, that's driver safety elevated above others safety. And it frightens me.



OT a bit............I drive a '98 Jeep, but it's a 1970's design. It's like sitting in a greenhouse, it has great visibility with slim pillars all around. When I drive a modern car which is not often, say, my mothers 2012 Suzuki Swift or I hire one, I find the blind spots scary, the A pillars being the worst culprit. I hired a Citroen Picasso in Spain and had to take it back, I found it too dangerous to drive, unless you had eyes like a hammerhead shark.............


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (26 Mar 2014)

@MarkF , I think it is probably a bit off topic and it was mostly my fault for raising the subject of ''dangerous safety'' in car design on here. While the way we deal with danger is relevant to the OP's topic, it's too big for a sub-topic and I should really have started a new thread.


----------



## Stu9 (26 Mar 2014)

Very interesting debate.....I too think it's up the person if they wear one or not and not up to organisations ect to tell you


----------



## Misusawa (26 Mar 2014)

It's likely because unlike in most of Europe, Our motorists are homicidal maniacs intent on killing us, so we need head protection !


----------



## mcshroom (26 Mar 2014)

Misusawa said:


> It's likely because unlike in most of Europe, Our motorists are homicidal maniacs intent on killing us, so we need head protection !



Sums up my earlier point about victim blaming and placing responsibility on the vulnerable party quite well I think. The underlying attitude is that you personally have to make a token effort because others are unsafe.


----------



## MarkF (26 Mar 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> @MarkF , I think it is probably a bit off topic and it was mostly my fault for raising the subject of ''dangerous safety'' in car design on here. While the way we deal with danger is relevant to the OP's topic, it's too big for a sub-topic and I should really have started a new thread.



Sorry, got A pillar-mania at the mo'.............. 

Just ridden from Saltaire to home, 1.5 miles along the canal. I saw 6 riders, all were wearing helmets, 3 with hi-viz too.


----------



## classic33 (26 Mar 2014)

MarkF said:


> Sorry, got A pillar-mania at the mo'..............
> 
> Just ridden from Saltaire to home, 1.5 miles along the canal. I saw 6 riders, all were wearing helmets, 3 with hi-viz too.


One was headed for Leeds!


----------



## steveindenmark (26 Mar 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> @MarkF , I think it is probably a bit off topic and it was mostly my fault for raising the subject of ''dangerous safety'' in car design on here. While the way we deal with danger is relevant to the OP's topic, it's too big for a sub-topic and I should really have started a new thread.



I started this post and your comments are fine by me.

Steve


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Mar 2014)

It has always amused me the way that the insurance companies work

If you are hit by a car and fail to protect yourself then the fault is yours and your compensation can be reduced because of YOUR decision

Yet a driver who chooses a car that has a low pedestrian safety rating and knowingly chooses to inflict greater injury is not liable in the same way


----------



## Stu9 (27 Mar 2014)

Insurance is just legalised criminals and scamming


----------



## slowmotion (27 Mar 2014)

Stu9 said:


> Insurance is just legalised criminals and scamming


 Insurance is just a bet, isn't it?. The bookies are the usual ragged spivs really. What I never quite understood is why I can't place a number of bets for the same insurance risk. Does anyone know why?


----------



## classic33 (27 Mar 2014)

slowmotion said:


> Insurance is just a bet, isn't it?. The bookies are the usual ragged spivs really. What I never quite understood is why I can't place a number of bets for the same insurance risk. Does anyone know why?


Have you tried to place such a bet?


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Mar 2014)

slowmotion said:


> Insurance is just a bet, isn't it?. The bookies are the usual ragged spivs really. What I never quite understood is why I can't place a number of bets for the same insurance risk. Does anyone know why?



Not to start anything racist....

I heard it used as a defence against driving without insurance, that under Sharia Law Insurance is "haram" or unlawful

Apparently the modern insurance policy is strictly seen as constituting payment for something that is not definite (gambling) and should you receive a payment then it is a profit from gambling and interest on the payment

It can be taken out in the UK as it is a legal requirement, and complying with local law is not seen as sinful........ however any claim should only be equal to the payments made into the company


----------



## ComedyPilot (30 Mar 2014)

I wonder who in the Google company decided on today's daily theme picture?

I wonder how many miles they actually ride?

I wonder how many MILLION people in the UK alone see that web page and unconsciously accept the message without question?







The above is indicative of the lazy, ill-informed attitude around cycling. They wouldn't have put such a page on the NL Google site for NL Mother's day, because they would have (rightly) been laughed at. But here in the UK? 

Yeah, we're idiots that won't question it.........


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (30 Mar 2014)

ComedyPilot said:


> I wonder who in the Google company decided on today's daily theme picture?
> 
> I wonder how many miles they actually ride?
> 
> ...


I'll keep my eye out for caped cyclists


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Mar 2014)

Perhaps we should apply to the ASA for a ban on the grounds that loose clothing could get caught up with a passing vehicle and is dangerous/


----------



## ComedyPilot (30 Mar 2014)

Isn't it the passing vehicle that presents the danger?


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Mar 2014)

Going back to vehicle "safety"

One of the main industry 'Gurus' behind the SUV boom in the states was Clotaire Rapaille, and his whole concept was based on the fact that the people who bought SUVs were:



> People who realised that they were poor drivers and highly likely to have an accident. The Idea of the SUV is that when you do have that accident the other guy will come off worst


----------



## Nicola10 (30 Mar 2014)

I had my first fall off the bike this morning, i was on a quiet winding country road and I moved into the side to let a wide vehicle pass me, silly me went too close to the edge and skidded in the mud and promptly somehow landed head first onto the road, I was wearing a helmet and I am so glad I was as the thump of my head off the road was very bad. Its a personal choice, Im not obsessed by helmets but I am obsessed with living a longer life than my mid 30's. Thank god is all I can say otherwise I was a hospital case today. Some nice drivers stopped and made sure I was ok, offered assistance, thankfully only my pride was damaged!!!


----------



## srw (30 Mar 2014)

Nicola10 said:


> Thank god is all I can say otherwise I was a hospital case today


How do you know?


----------



## MontyVeda (30 Mar 2014)

common sense innit... I stubbed my toe earlier today... Thank god i had my shoes on, otherwise I'd have broke my foot


----------



## Nicola10 (30 Mar 2014)

srw said:


> How do you know?


Because of the way my head smacked onto the Tarmac that's why, no helmet then I know there would have been some damage to my head,oh an I was there and experienced so that's why I know


----------



## Nicola10 (30 Mar 2014)

User said:


> Glad you are OK. Could you do us a favour? Could you post some photos of the damage to the helmet and then cut the helmet in half to show us a photo of the compressed foam?


 Adrian I will post you a picture later, there is a crack on the helmet, I will go fish it out the bin and send you a pic.


----------



## summerdays (30 Mar 2014)

Remember to keep this on topic, no personal claims of what a helmet can or can't do for you. This thread is too good to get thrown in with the other bickering.


----------



## Cycleops (30 Mar 2014)

srw said:


> How do you know?


She didn't but I am sure she would not have liked to have found out the hard way , or perhaps you'd care to volunteer.


summerdays said:


> Remember to keep this on topic, no personal claims of what a helmet can or can't do for you.


IMO no debate on helmets cannot be complete without this aspect, real or perceived. It's all part and parcel of why are/are not fixated with helmet use.


----------



## morrisman (30 Mar 2014)

Maybe if every time we all went on a ride and didn't have an accident, or had one and no head contact with anything happened we could all post to say that, it would help to put the 'my helmet saved my life' posts into context against the rest of riding?


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Mar 2014)

Actually this anecdote is a useful adjunct to this thread as it shows another aspect of how helmets are ingrained

When someone comes off, it is immediately the helmet that is the focus of attention and not the other causes.

Over the years we have seen lots of "helmet saved my life" posts, but very few go further.... A few "poor maintenance almost killed me", or "inexperience compromised my life" would be refreshing

Too much emphasis is spent on the helmet preventing an injury _*when the accident occurs*_ whereas the greater learning process would be how the accident _*could have been prevented*_.

This is reflected in training. 

RoSPA did research that took two groups of children, and showed that the ones who had NOT had cycle training were twice as likely to experience an accident than the group that had been trained.

Yet children are repeatedly refused training unless they wear a helmet........ a policy that _*increases*_ the child's likelihood of an accident with a measure to reduce injury when it happens

In what other aspect of life would you refuse to train people to operate safely on the grounds that PPE to reduce the effect of that fauilure?

Its a bit like refusing to train a chainsaw operator on the grounds that protective trousers and boots will reduce an injury resulting from improper use!


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Mar 2014)

A few pearls from Yehuda Moon....


----------



## screenman (30 Mar 2014)

It is odd how popular Majorca is for cyclists, according to some it is a surprise bikes exist out there.


----------

