The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[lazybloke]

So apparently there's an article in the Times later (Fri 24/11/17) about a consultation on compulsory cycle helmets and hi-viz.
How could helmets be compulsory for Boris bikes? Exemptions for short-term hire maybe.

 

[srw]

So apparently there's an article in the Times later (Fri 24/11/17) about a consultation on compulsory cycle helmets and hi-viz.
How could helmets be compulsory for Boris bikes? Exemptions for short-term hire maybe.

The Times has got it wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...-helmets-compulsory-in-safety-review-minister

(It's a rule of life - if it's in the Times or the Telegraph, check it elsewhere. If it's in the Mail, don't believe it.)

 

[lazybloke]

The Times has got it wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...-helmets-compulsory-in-safety-review-minister
(It's a rule of life - if it's in the Times or the Telegraph, check it elsewhere. If it's in the Mail, don't believe it.)

No government plan for compulsion - that's all very well, but the matter will come up during any safety review.
And given a logical argument against helmets and an emotional appeal for helmets from Headway (to stop children being killed) , which option do you think a well-meaning majority of the general public would side with? The compulsion argument could quickly gain favour- just look at anticyclist stories and comments in the media to see which way the wind is blowing.

Given that road congestion is now blamed for poor uk productivity, and given the poor state of health of a typical UK adult, you would think HMG would be encouraging as many out of cars as possible and onto bikes. Compulsion (to wear bits of shiny plastic) can only have the opposite effect.

Hopefully sense will prevail.

 

[MountainSide]

I haven't read many posts here and don't intend too but I have to say all this talk of compulsory this that and the other just pees me off big time. I saw a report on tv recently that almost totally implied that helmets AND hi-vis jackets WILL be made compulsory for all riders in the new year. (Fortunately I since realized this is not yet true)

If people want to wear a helmet great, I sometime even choose to wear one myself. I've been cycling more than four decades and never banged my head or collided or even made any contact with another vehicle or pedestrian or anything else. Sure, I've had a few "near misses" and pulled off some avoidance maneuvers and personally I find not having a helmet has helped by giving me that slight advantage in terms of balance, hearing and spacial awareness. People making up these laws need to consider that not everyone cycles in central London
and we don't all ride around at 30/40 mph all the time either. If I want to cycle down my quiet cycle lane in tshirt and shorts on a nice sunny day, to post some letters or pick up some items at the local shop or just enjoy some fresh air, what do they want to do, fine me no doubt and lock me up as a repeat offender, confiscate my bike???? My bike will be at the local dump before then. I was considering a new bike but this is now on hold until this threat is over. Personally I think this is partly about autonomous driving cars/lorries as they know cyclists will be a nuisance for computers driving and they haven't worked out what to do about that but again that only really concerns big cities like central London. I personally think it will put a lot of people off cycling and more people will therefore die from obesity and heart failure etc, rather than "saving" anyone. Like I said I'm not against helmets at all (although as I sweat a lot, I find the straps stay wet and get manky which is unpleasant and uncomfortable and then they go moldy if not aired correctly and as I said above, they can slightly impair my riding IMO) and they have their place but If I just want to go out for a casual ride, then it should be up to me. What would be next - knee pads, elbow pads, gloves, eye protection, foot protection, protection for pedestrians crossing the road???? To me, strapping a bit of foam on top of my head has no comparison to seat-belts or motorbike helmets, for the casual rider.

 

[benb]

Even the Daily Mail has an article pointing out that helmet compulsion will cost more lives than it could possibly save.
And Chris Boardman talking sense as usual.

 

[Mugshot]

Mr R has asked me to consider wearing a helmet...


...but only when I am off-roading, where it may actually have some use in a relatively low speed off, particularly if where I am riding is muddy/icy over winter. I've told him I will think about it.

What does Mr R do if you don't mind me asking Reg?

 

[mjr]

Mr R has asked me to consider wearing a helmet...


...but only when I am off-roading, where it may actually have some use in a relatively low speed off, particularly if where I am riding is muddy/icy over winter. I've told him I will think about it.

Only Snell-standard helmets are currently tested against anything like a rock shape and even that is only an idealised hemisphere, not the sharp pointy stones, jagged ice or coarse gravel which I fear falling onto. The flat tarmac and kerb edge test shapes seem largely irrelevant to off-road ground IMO so I'm sticking with my thick fleecy hat.

 

[mjr]

I think now that I'm doing more off-roading on 'off the beaten track' parts of Cambridgeshire he just worried in case something happens and no-one's around.

GPS tracking is my preferred solution to that sort of worry. S can send a certain message to my phone and it replies with my location, thanks to the "Find My Phone" app - if I'm going somewhere with very patchy signal (so I could too easily be crashed somewhere with no signal), I can tell it to live-update a website, but that uses much more battery, so a top-up battery pack and the dynamo USB output or solar panel is also useful.

 

[jefmcg]

and we don't all ride around at 30/40 mph

Have you read the standards for helmets? The EU standard is testing it's performance of a drop of (about?) 2 metres. The standard assumes your only motion is falling. No helmet sold to cyclists is designed for 30 or 40 mph.

 

[mjr]

Have you read the standards for helmets? The EU standard is testing it's performance of a drop of (about?) 2 metres. The standard assumes your only motion is falling. No helmet sold to cyclists is designed for 30 or 40 mph.

Oooh, you'll probably get complaints about 40mph being the horizontal speed not the vertical speed, so you may want to refer to https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/paper-helmets.147263/ or consider that travelling at 40mph considerably increases the risk of an impact into a kerb edge (which is tested) having a significant horizontal component (which isn't tested).

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Don't know whether this has been posted, but well worth reading again.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1081.html

 

[benb]

Malta to scrap mandatory helmet law, as it hinders people from cycling.

Good.

 

[the snail]

a significant horizontal component (which isn't tested).

Not much point imo, if you bang your head into something at any significant speed your neck will probably snap anyway, helmet or not.

 

[Thomson]

Talk about cycle helmets or not. I drove to the local shop before about half six driving back down the high street. Saw a cyclist dark clothes with no lights at all on bike. No helmet on. An when I drove past I noticed they had headphones in. You just can't help some people.

 

[Profpointy]

Talk about cycle helmets or not. I drove to the local shop before about half six driving back down the high street. Saw a cyclist dark clothes with no lights at all on bike. No helmet on. An when I drove past I noticed they had headphones in. You just can't help some people.

Yes, and even more astonishing is some car drivers drive with the windows shut and the radio on