The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[ufkacbln]

Well, it has finally happened. A fellow rider considered it his business that I wasn't wearing a magic hat. I think he was slightly annoyed that once he caught me on a hill, (not a difficult task these days) I was able to turn it up sufficiently to get on his wheel.

There I was happily nattering about the unseasonably hot weather and how far was he out for when he opened his part of the conversation with, "No helmet then?"

Restraining myself from saying, "Mum, is that you? Wow you have really let yourself go!" I settled instead for, "No and I don't wear on driving or walking either."

He then invited me to listen to a story where a helmet had saved his life. Thankfully I was able to swing off left without having to hear his story. I wasn't sitting comfortably and didn't give him a chance to begin.

If you are reading this, I thank you for your concern. Actually, no I don't. Next time keep your opinions and shaggy dog stories to yourself.

Last time I was on one of the trikes....

I explained that "as with motorcycle helmets - trikes are safer and therefore exempt"

They looked at me, and cycled off

 

[Racing roadkill]

It's been tried and precedent established IIRC. I'll update this post with the link when I have time unless someone has time to search around on www.bailii.org before I do.

Well that was easy: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/53.html

That was all going well, right up until the very last bit. I can summarise the last bit as " yes, you've ( admittedly ) taken the opinion of a non medical doctor, to form a critical judgement, which you yourself have just stated can't be used to form such an opinion, MASSIVE WTAF WIGGY". If the bloody judges behave like that, there's no hope. A case of "yeah, and if my auntie had balls, she'd be my bloody uncle" if ever I've seen it. And the worst thing about that, is that that load of old manure, is ( presumably ) going to be used as precedence in any future cases.

 

[jefmcg]

i just want to say (again) that I participated in a thread with RR, where he said unequivocally that EN helmets didn't work, and thus he wore one more like an old skool motorcycle helmet. Someone else on the thread said they had stopped wearing a helmet, and RR called him an idiot. I was confused by this, why is someone an idiot for not wearing a helmet that didn't work? I questioned RR, who did that big "oh, jefmcg, you are stupid, and I am putting you on ignore" I still don't understand the logic, but I see it again here.

 

[srw]

It's been tried and precedent established IIRC. I'll update this post with the link when I have time unless someone has time to search around on www.bailii.org before I do.

Well that was easy: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/53.html

Well no.
"The Defendant has not discharged the burden of proving contributory negligence on the part of the Claimant for another, more fundamental reason – the Defendant has failed to persuade me that an approved helmet would have prevented or made less severe the head injuries sustained by the Claimant"

Essentially the judge says that he thinks it's sensible to wear a bike helmet, but that in the case (which, remember, is very similar to most cases where "a helmet saved my life") the lack of a helmet didn't do anything.

There's a case review at http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org....ing-cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence which makes it clear that the opinion of their lawyer is that the case doesn't set legal precedent.

 

[Mugshot]

i just want to say (again) that I participated in a thread with RR, where he said unequivocally that EN helmets didn't work, and thus he wore one more like an old skool motorcycle helmet. Someone else on the thread said they had stopped wearing a helmet, and RR called him an idiot. I was confused by this, why is someone an idiot for not wearing a helmet that didn't work? I questioned RR, who did that big "oh, jefmcg, you are stupid, and I am putting you on ignore" I still don't understand the logic, but I see it again here.

Yes the thread which shall not be named, anybody and everybody that showed even the remotest inclination of not agreeing whole heartedly with RR was put on ignore. Non helmet wearers were variously called fools, trolls and members of the Darwin club and basically told they were an accident waiting to happen and that he wouldn't shed any tears when they were injured. In fariness this does seem to have been tempered considerably as we can see up thread with claims that choice is nice and now not wearing a helmet for all rides too apparently, where previously there were calls for compulsion and the claims that the only thing that bugged him with regards to cycling was people not wearing helmets. I assume it's the positive effects of threads like this that have caused such an about turn.
The helmet was a £249 Casco Speed Time Trial helmet, tested to, as you quite rightly say, EN1078. That was ok though because that was all the manufacturers felt was necessary apparently.
On the plus side though;
no helmet delivers better times on short and long distance Ironman races.

 

[mjr]

Essentially the judge says that he thinks it's sensible to wear a bike helmet, but that in the case (which, remember, is very similar to most cases where "a helmet saved my life") the lack of a helmet didn't do anything.

So it's likely to be the same for most cases.

There's a case review at http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org....ing-cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence which makes it clear that the opinion of their lawyer is that the case doesn't set legal precedent.

Rather, it applied existing precedent to helmets. It's interesting that CDF article suggests that you're only risking 15% by not wearing a helmet if they ever make it stick. What price safer cycling, eh?

 

[mjr]

The helmet was a £249 Casco Speed Time Trial helmet, tested to, as you quite rightly say, EN1078. That was ok though because that was all the manufacturers felt was necessary apparently.
On the plus side though;
no helmet delivers better times on short and long distance Ironman races.

How's that work? Did it have electrodes on the inside to stimulate the brain to ignore fatigue?

 

[Mugshot]

How's that work? Did it have electrodes on the inside to stimulate the brain to ignore fatigue?

It's a possibility, it does after all have all these other super dooper functions and features;

• Adaptive aerodynamics: The aerodynamics adjust to the rider's body position and head posture delivering outstanding performance in any position
• Patented air guidelines that ensure to optimise air flow
• Dual density liner
• Flip-up SPEEDmask: Patented mask design which prevents swirling air around the ear pieces
• Ventilation: Sealable front inlet for short or long distances, with break-away edge spoiler
• Double-Shell: The complex double-shell construction enables compact helmet shape with extra safety
• Fresh Air Ventilation 2: 26 ventilation holes with aluminum insect netting
• CASCO-Loc: Patented quick release fastener that is astoundingly easy to open with just one hand
• Disk-fit Vario: Horizontal and vertical adjustment options for an ergonomically perfect fit
• Monocoque Ultra: A robust, safe, and heat resistant helmet

 

[EnPassant]

It's a possibility, it does after all have all these other super dooper functions and features;

• Double-Shell: The complex double-shell construction enables compact helmet shape with extra safety
• Monocoque Ultra: A robust, safe, and heat resistant helmet

The extra safety feature being should you ever crash into a bonfire you'll keep more hair?*


*A: Of increasingly limited use to me personally
B: Sorry, serious as this subject ultimately may be I just cannot help myself on occasion.

 

[Mugshot]

Tiny, please, this is a serious helmet for serious people.

 

[mjr]

Tiny, please, this is a serious helmet for serious people.

Serious self-gratification artists who enjoy their monocoque a bit too much?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

no helmet delivers better times on short and long distance Ironman races.

So they're saying that you'll get better times without a helmet?

GC

 

[doog]

Not at all OT. Roadkill was using a spurious point about insurance claims as a justification for wearing a helmet. It needed countering by someone who knows about insurance because he works in that industry.

However srw isn't a lawyer....however much he plays at it. This isnt a dig more a point of interest when we get down to the nitty gritty of evidence, something most Insurance companies like to avoid like the plague.

 

[srw]

However srw isn't a lawyer....however much he plays at it. This isnt a dig more a point of interest when we get down to the nitty gritty of evidence, something most Insurance companies like to avoid like the plague.

 

[doog]

My pleasure