No helmet

[cannondale boy]

A motor cycle helmet is strong enough to protect the head in a serious accident, but a cycle helmet is not. Hence cycle helmet are just about fashion, not protection. If you are really worried about protecting your head, then wear a motor cycle helmet... Good luck...

How serious do you want to get . I would say neither would give you great protection, depending on the occuring accident, then thats a different matter!

Imagine a cyclist wearing a motorcyclists helmet never seen one, and hopefully never will.

 

[col]

I'm afraid that you're at the other extreme.

It's accepted that cycle helmets offer some level of protection. Just because they won't help much if a bus wheel goes over your head does not mean that they offer no protection.

Iv seen an experiment where a raw egg was put inside a polystyrene box, and thrown from a great hieght,the egg was not cracked,i think that shows that having some of this on your head would indeed save your skull to some extent,i still dont understand the stance that it doesnt help?

 

[Jaded]

A helmet does help in some situations, may help in others and is totally useless in another group and in a fourth group may make the injuries more severe.

Wearing a helmet may make the rider take more risks
Wearing a helmet may affect hearing
Wearing a helmet may make other roads users act differently towards the wearer

 

[col]

A helmet does help in some situations, may help in others and is totally useless in another group and in a fourth group may make the injuries more severe.

Wearing a helmet may make the rider take more risks
Wearing a helmet may affect hearing
Wearing a helmet may make other roads users act differently towards the wearer

Mmm im afraid i find these reasons,well er bollix.

It is useless if you hit your chin,or nose or somewhere else the helmet is notJust like a seatbelt in a car is useless,if it stops them escaping a blazing crash.But it does do what its designed to.
The rest of the body can be broken/ crushed/ speared ect ect,so assuming helmet wearers take more risks?no,dont agree with that either.
Iv not seen one cycling helmet that covers ears yet,or doesnt have holes for them,so dissagree there too.
And im sure a driver who see s a helmet on a cyclist isnt going to think,ill not bother trying to drive safely,they either do or dont.
Sorry i cant see a real reason why a helmet is more dangerous to wear than not?

 

[piedwagtail91]

it's not the helmet covering the ears thats the problem .it's the wind noise generated by the helmet vents that makes it almost impossible to hold a conversation whilst riding at any reasonable speed. almost everyone i ride with says the same.
the shape of an egg has as much to do with it not breaking as anything wrapped around it.
there are loads of "tricks" demonstrating just how strong they are when weight is placed on them in a certain way.or when they are dropped .

 

[yenrod]

Not long after I threw my leg astride a bike a mate advised a helmet: and ive worn one ever since - though I never ride one when out shooting around to the shops and the likes..!

Doesnt make sense that though I have thought about it - most fo the latter riding is done on paths away from cars and people..

Still, its still hypocritical !!!

 

[col]

it's not the helmet covering the ears thats the problem .it's the wind noise generated by the helmet vents that makes it almost impossible to hold a conversation whilst riding at any reasonable speed. almost everyone i ride with says the same.
the shape of an egg has as much to do with it not breaking as anything wrapped around it.
there are loads of "tricks" demonstrating just how strong they are when weight is placed on them in a certain way.or when they are dropped .

They could be tricks,but one was thrown in the same box before the unbroken one,and broke.If i was going to hit my head on something hard,i would much prefer there to be an inch or two of plystyrene between my head and the hard place(im sure iv said that before)

 

[ufkacbln]

And im sure a driver who see s a helmet on a cyclist isnt going to think,ill not bother trying to drive safely,they either do or dont.

Sadly both the DfT and Bristol university have proven that this is the case.

The DfT dealt with driver perception of cyclists and showed that drivers considered helmet clad cyclists to be moe capable and experienced, so there was no need to slow down or give room when overtaking.

The Bristol report was more practical, measuring distances by which the vehicle passed the cyclist. The helmeted cyclist was consistently given less room than the same helmet when unhelmeted.

 

[Jaded]

Mmm im afraid i find these reasons,well er bollix.

It is useless if you hit your chin,or nose or somewhere else the helmet is notJust like a seatbelt in a car is useless,if it stops them escaping a blazing crash.But it does do what its designed to.
The rest of the body can be broken/ crushed/ speared ect ect,so assuming helmet wearers take more risks?no,dont agree with that either.
Iv not seen one cycling helmet that covers ears yet,or doesnt have holes for them,so dissagree there too.
And im sure a driver who see s a helmet on a cyclist isnt going to think,ill not bother trying to drive safely,they either do or dont.
Sorry i cant see a real reason why a helmet is more dangerous to wear than not?

Well, your bollix is your bollix.

Where helmets have been made compulsory the number of injuries has stayed the same even though the mileage ridden has dropped.

That's your magic helmet, that is.

Go figure.

 

[col]

Well, your bollix is your bollix.

Where helmets have been made compulsory the number of injuries has stayed the same even though the mileage ridden has dropped.

That's your magic helmet, that is.

Go figure.

It is amazing how protection can have the same effect as no protection isnt it?

 

[historyman]

It is very little trouble to wear a helmet, so why not?

It's very little trouble to tattoo your forehead with the words 'stubborn but not very logical'. Why not go ahead and do this?

 

[col]

It's very little trouble to tattoo your forehead with the words 'stubborn but not very logical'. Why not go ahead and do this?

Because its easier to put a helmet on

 

[historyman]

Because its easier to put a helmet on

More difficult than not putting one on?

 

[col]

More difficult than not putting one on?

yeah loads,thats why i dont put one on

 

[Danny]

Sadly both the DfT and Bristol university have proven that this is the case.

The DfT dealt with driver perception of cyclists and showed that drivers considered helmet clad cyclists to be moe capable and experienced, so there was no need to slow down or give room when overtaking.

The Bristol report was more practical, measuring distances by which the vehicle passed the cyclist. The helmeted cyclist was consistently given less room than the same helmet when unhelmeted.

When I looked into the the Bristol study it looked like pretty poor science to me. It used just one rider in one city (Bath from memory), and didn't run either test for long enough to start making sweeping generalisations about driver behavior towards helmeted cyclists.