The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[mjr]

guess what I observed

Probably about the same? IIRC even the study using measurement devices only found a fairly small difference.

 

[benb]

Be careful of confirmation bias with such an experiment.
You could have been expecting to observe better passes without the helmet, so that might have been exactly what you did observe - doesn't automatically make it true.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

well I have done 2 weeks of Quasi scientific research

I rode one week with helmet on and noted close passes and aggro from vehicles, then repeated without helmet.

guess what I observed.

Get a Surly Big Dummy with u-bars. Fill its bags with rubbish. Cycle to the tip. Bluddy hell the cars give you a wide berth!

 

[ufkacbln]

Get a Surly Big Dummy with u-bars. Fill its bags with rubbish. Cycle to the tip. Bluddy hell the cars give you a wide berth!

This also works:

 

[mrandmrspoves]

This also works:

Is that a cycling specific bowler helmet he is wearing?

 

[Profpointy]

This also works:

No good - too wide to squeeze through small gaps......

.... oh, hang on, you're right, that won't be a problem !

 

[ufkacbln]

Is that a cycling specific bowler helmet he is wearing?

Bowler hats can hide many secrets:

 

[ufkacbln]

More seriously....

There is a company that makes a bowler helmet (albeit more for horse riding)

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

More evidence :-

http://road.cc/content/news/170525-...een-cycling-helmet-laws-and-head-injury-rates

 

[simongt]

As I said, it's my choice to wear a bash hat and maybe that's where it should stay. But I believe there have been instances of courts reducing compensation awards to cyclists who suffered head injuries when they weren't wearing bash hats. One of the reasons quoted against compulsory bash hats is that it would put off the number of folk using bikes. Didn't seem to reduce the number of motor cyclists on the road when they were obliged to wear bash hats back in the seventies.

 

[simongt]

My wife has come off her bike twice; first time car emerging from side road knocked her off and second her front wheel caught in a drain cover whilst negotiating a roundabout in heavy traffic. In both events, her bash hat was trashed, but apart from a small head bruise on the second occasion, no head injury in either event. You pays yer money and yer takes yer choice - !

 

[srw]

One of the reasons quoted against compulsory bash hats is that it would put off the number of folk using bikes. Didn't seem to reduce the number of motor cyclists on the road when they were obliged to wear bash hats back in the seventies.

That sounds like the sort of guess that's easily verifiable - or challengeable, but frustratingly I can't find the statistics. Of course, there is plenty of evidence that in Australia the number of cyclists fell after compulsory helmet laws were introduced.

 

[srw]

There is this case of Simon Reynolds

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/legal-update-autumn-2011.html

There's a decent summary of the uniqueness of the case at that link, and speculation that the helmet issue was only a relatively small part of the contributory negligence, as well as the inference that it was an odd decision which might sensibly be appealed. I don't know how big the compensation ordered was - if it hasn't been appealed it might simply be because the company or its insurers decided simply to cut their losses.

 

[mjr]

My wife has come off her bike twice; first time car emerging from side road knocked her off and […]

Cycle crash helmets are neither designed not tested for vehicular collisions. You may get lucky or the helmet may exacerbate the injury... and then there's the change in behaviour of motorists around helmeted cyclists and possible impaired hearing, vision and decision-making of the wearer.

 

[ufkacbln]

Not victim blaming at all, but IIRC the damages decrease in that case was because of "reckless behaviour"

It was decided that his actions at that point in the "race" had been the cause of the accident and injury

Wearing a helmet would not have changed that part of the decision