Boopop
Guru
That's not where it showed up when I left my post, weird.
Stopped wearing a helmet?
- Thread starter slow horse
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
The terrible local hedge/tree cutting is the main reason why I still wear a hat (patrol cap in summer, beanie/bennie/toque in winter) but not a helmet. A couple of times, I've had my hat pulled off by a branch, but it's never tried to pull me off the bike by the head like a branch stuck in a helmet vent did!
I also hope it would save me from some gravel if I did fall, but I've crashed less and not hit my head since giving up helmet use. I can't entirely explain that, so think there's some significance to Ian Walker's research like https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797615620784
OP
OP
slow horse
Well-Known Member
I honestly don't remember, it's been so long. Wish I did - I'd like to know too! For whatever reason, one day I didn't put it on, and it just became a new habit.
mickle
innit
- Location
- 53.933606, -1.076131
I threw mine away about 15 years ago for all of the reasons aforementioned. I do intend to do some solo touring miles at some point in the future - which will inevitably, unavoidably include some 60mph roads. So i recently purchased a bargain Endura helmet, mostly for Her Indoors's peace of mind. I wont wear it on my little pootles to the shops tho.
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
oldwheels
Legendary Member
- Location
- Isle of Mull
Shall i start a third, never started wearing one thread?
I have never worn a helmet in over 80 years cycling tho’ the last three years have been on three wheels rather than two.
I did get a cheapy from one of the German supermarkets in case I wanted it for an event I thought I might enter which stipulated one to take part but in the end never did take part so it still lies around somewhere.
I bought one and did wear it occasionally when I started cycling again in my late twenties but gradually got out of the habit. I haven't worn it in years and it resides somewhere on a shelf in my parents' garage.
I do wish I had been wearing one when I got t-boned by a car, not because I hit my head (I didn't), but because I've had to explain why I wasn't wearing one to the driver's insurance about a billion times and my solicitor thinks it will probably lead to reduced compensation.
I do wish I had been wearing one when I got t-boned by a car, not because I hit my head (I didn't), but because I've had to explain why I wasn't wearing one to the driver's insurance about a billion times and my solicitor thinks it will probably lead to reduced compensation.
All uphill
Still rolling along
- Location
- Somerset
Maybe the very interesting research referred to above by @mjr might be useful in explaining why you do not wear a helmet?
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Your solicitor sounds a bit rubbish if they can't argue that a helmet is irrelevant to a collision that cycle helmets are not designed for, where you didn't even hit your head! I feel they should be demanding the driver (or their lawyer) explain how a helmet would have reduced injury or damage.
But that's easy for me to say. Driver didn't stop or report hitting me and I didn't get the registration, plus it was only minor bike damage, so I've never had the pleasure.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Indeed. Having mopped up the aftermath of hundreds of collisions I'd be looking for a different solicitor if they're allowing a complete and utter irrelevance to be become a factor in a negotiation.
I think you misread. His solicitor stated that the insurance company will seek to make a lower offer as he wasn't wearing a helmet. It's not the Solicitor's choice what the insurance company offers. The insurance company will make an offer. The client then has to choose whether to accept or go to court. At both stages the solicitor can argue that it is irrelevant, whilst the insurance company brief will argue the opposite. If it goes before a Judge, he or she will decide.
The solicitor is warning that whether you like it or not, and whether or not you think it is relevant, it *will* likely make a difference in the negotiation and offer. The Judge won't give a fig that someone on a cycle forum has found a study that shows its safer not to wear a helmet. They will be more likely to be swayed by government guidance - which is to wear a helmet.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
I think judges have generally (but not always, granted) shown they prefer evidence to politicians' BS unsupported by evidence.
But for safety, the highway code should be made evidence-based. Unsurprisingly, the politicians ignored that argument in the last major revision consultation!
Rusty Nails
We remember
- Location
- Living in the slow lane
If the insurance company raises it then it already is a factor in negotiation and the solicitor has to address it. If there was no head injury then the solicitor has to argue the not wearing of a helmet did not contribute to the cause of the accident and is irrelevant to the level of compensation.
If there was a head injury then the insurance company are bound to try for a reduction in compensation and it will become a battle between the various studies/reports carried out into effectiveness or otherwise of helmets.
Or they could just read the views of the experts on CC.
