Glasses - help or hindrance?

BentMikey

Always Tyred wrote:

BentMikey wrote:

Eye protection is much more important than wearing a helmet, that's for sure.

Oh dear. A Darwin Award candidate.

You might think that, and I used to think that way too, at least until I spent hundreds of hours reading up on helmet studies and the evidence for and against them. It turns out though, that helmets have very little significant effect on your safety cycling on the road, even if you fall into the camp that assumes they do work well.

If you want to improve your chances, you'd be much better off spending time and effort on cyclecraft as that has several orders of magnitude more effect on your safety than any protective gear can.

always_tyred

BentMikey wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

BentMikey wrote:

Eye protection is much more important than wearing a helmet, that's for sure.

Oh dear. A Darwin Award candidate.

You might think that, and I used to think that way too, at least until I spent hundreds of hours reading up on helmet studies and the evidence for and against them. It turns out though, that helmets have very little significant effect on your safety cycling on the road, even if you fall into the camp that assumes they do work well.

If you want to improve your chances, you'd be much better off spending time and effort on cyclecraft as that has several orders of magnitude more effect on your safety than any protective gear can.

I frankly think that you've furnished yourself with the evidence that you were predisposed to gather and that you have an unfounded belief that your innate skill as a cyclist in 21st century traffic can get you out of any pickle. You see, I am forced to wonder why anyone would spend "100's hours" researching this topic. Are we to believe that you did so with an open mind, or in an attempt to convince yourself that you were justified in cycling without a helmet because you don't really like wearing them?

Helmets and road craft aren't mutually exclusive. I don't wear a helmet because I think I'm going to fall off. I set off on every ride in the full belief that I will get home okay.

However, I KNOW that I will fall off eventually and, becuase my head is the most valuable part of my body (perhaps this is not the case with you) I wish to minimise the risk of damage WHEN something happens that is outwith my control and I fall and the 5kg mass on the end of my skinny neck encounters the tarmac as a result of the momentum gained in the approximately 2m fall.

Look - I get the point, but, realistically, how many of us can honestly say "I can avoid all incidents?" I ride 5-6k miles a year in all weathers in some ferrocious city traffic and I've done this on two continents for many years. I know what I'm doing. However, i've been hauled off my bike by the draught of a greyhound bus hammering past me at 12 inches and 60mph, I've been doored by a passenger getting out of a car that was still moving, I've been descending and cornering and had a tyre blow off the rim, had oddities get lodged in my spokes (such as other broken spokes) and just the other week I had a trained bus driver deliberately drive into me in a fit of pique (I know this becuase he stopped afterwards and told me why he'd done it - as luck would have it his vehicle was equipped with cctv for his own safety and I didn't fall off). None of these incidents, sparsely spread over my cycling lifetime, were avoidable for me. I think I know what I'm doing on a bike and I couldn't avoid these incidents. I'm glad I had a helmet in more than half.

How stupid would I feel with an avoidably torn scalp and blood all over my little cycling cap, or a concussion, and all for the sake of vanity? I wear gloves in the summer for pretty much the same reason - daft to have road rash on your palms for weeks because you decided that the picture of Robert Millar not wearing gloves looked cool.

You are as wrong about this issue as the 20 year old in his first car who believes he has the driving skills of Mika Hakkinnen.

Its dangerous for you, but its equally dangerous for the message to be circulated among other cyclists, especially people trying to get into commuting looking for advice, that all you have to do is be a bit savvy and you can simply avoid incidents.

Not everyone can have the road craft that you think you have.

StefanH

I've got some reasonably expensive spesh glasses (the ones that go dark in sunlight) and I wouldn't be without them.

Parts of my commute are 35+mph so the need to avoid debris is total.

If it's raining, it does not mean that the car in front can't flick up a half-inch length of steel wire and fire it, arrow-like, at my face. I've seen the results of this when the cyclist wasn't wearing specs. Not good.

Sure, it's difficult to see when it's raining heavily. It's a lot more difficult to see if that rain is hitting your eyeballs directly.

When it's raining, slow down!

secretsam

A help - I can't see without them

:twisted:

BentMikey

Always Tyred wrote:

I frankly think that you've furnished yourself with the evidence that you were predisposed to gather and that you have an unfounded belief that your innate skill as a cyclist in 21st century traffic can get you out of any pickle. You see, I am forced to wonder why anyone would spend "100's hours" researching this topic. Are we to believe that you did so with an open mind, or in an attempt to convince yourself that you were justified in cycling without a helmet because you don't really like wearing them?

No, I used to wear helmets religiously, and I was, frankly, horrified when I learned that they are, on average, ineffective in protecting against serious head injuries. That's why I read up so much, I didn't like what I was reading and tried to dispute the evidence showing that helmets don't work.

Always Tyred wrote:

Helmets and road craft aren't mutually exclusive. I don't wear a helmet because I think I'm going to fall off. I set off on every ride in the full belief that I will get home okay.

However, I KNOW that I will fall off eventually and, becuase my head is the most valuable part of my body (perhaps this is not the case with you) I wish to minimise the risk of damage WHEN something happens that is outwith my control and I fall and the 5kg mass on the end of my skinny neck encounters the tarmac as a result of the momentum gained in the approximately 2m fall.

Sure, I'd like to minimise the chances of a serious head injury too, and I recognise that we'll all have some sort of crash sooner or later. The whole population studies out there show that helmets don't do this, unfortunately.

Always Tyred wrote:

How stupid would I feel with an avoidably torn scalp and blood all over my little cycling cap, or a concussion, and all for the sake of vanity? I wear gloves in the summer for pretty much the same reason - daft to have road rash on your palms for weeks because you decided that the picture of Robert Millar not wearing gloves looked cool.

You are as wrong about this issue as the 20 year old in his first car who believes he has the driving skills of Mika Hakkinnen.

Its dangerous for you, but its equally dangerous for the message to be circulated among other cyclists, especially people trying to get into commuting looking for advice, that all you have to do is be a bit savvy and you can simply avoid incidents.

Not everyone can have the road craft that you think you have.

Your claim that helmets work is just an opinion. It's supported by some studies, and not by others. The fact remains that helmets have little real effect on serious head injuries over whole populations, so they are clearly not a good safety measure. The person with the closed mind here, sadly, seems to be you.

It's not me being offensive and using emotive and invalid arguments here. Logic and politeness would serve your debate rather better.

dirk_van_gently

Yawn, Yawn, yet another thread hijacked by the helmet argument.

Glasses: wear em if you want to keep crap out of your eyes, don't wear em if you want crap in your eyes.

BentMikey

Well it's not me who called someone an organ donor!! Can't expect anyone not to respond to that sort of ignorant insult, LOL!

dirk_van_gently

here's a thought for the forums sanity.
Have a "For - Against Helmet" thread, and make it a sticky, then those interested can go there and argue over the subject, whilst the rest of us can get on and use the forum.

secretsam

BentMikey wrote:

Eye protection is much more important than wearing a helmet, that's for sure.

Where would you put hand protection on that scale, Mike? No-one (apart from me) seems to wear anything on their hands unless it's cold

DavidTQ

SecretSam wrote:

BentMikey wrote:

Eye protection is much more important than wearing a helmet, that's for sure.

Where would you put hand protection on that scale, Mike? No-one (apart from me) seems to wear anything on their hands unless it's cold

I always wear gloves, Ive got 3 different pairs to cope with different weather

BentMikey

Depends on how you perceive the risk really. I think falling off a bicycle is fairly unlikely given how safe cycling is, so I'm not particularly worried about road rash. Unlike when skating, where the chances of grazed palms and other bits is a lot higher. On a cold day, gloves are probably essential, I don't think you can ride safely and properly control a bike with frozen hands.

Eyewear is of huge importance IMO, grazed palms will heal, but damaged eyes are more likely to result in permanent and life changing injury.

jonginge

I always wear gloves now. A crash one summer wrecked my palm for weeks, never again.

Loggerhead

So ... does anyone have any experience of using rain repellant products?

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/products/p ... lents.html

RufusA

Loggerhead wrote:

So ... does anyone have any experience of using rain repellant products?

No personal experience (too wimpy) but the following has some info on using products on lenses:

http://www.icebike.org/Clothing/eyewear.htm

In essence Rain-X et al may help with glass lenses. However the acid in the solution doesn't etch plastic or coated lenses so the silicon base is unlikely to adhere well.

In addition because you are increasing the surface tension of the water droplets you are more likely to have problems with misting.

Anti misting products will help with misting, work well with plastic and because they reduce the ability of water to bead should allow a thinish coating of rain to form without droplets interrupting your vision. The cheapest anti-misting is a little washing up liquid!

However the aboce site had problems with some of the proprietary anti-misting leaving a residue behind that affected vision.

YMMV - Rufus.

Loggerhead

Interesting article RufusA - thanks.
Since I wear cheap plastic DHB glasses - it sounds like the Rain-X water repellant won't be much use. I'll give the washing-up liquid a shot though - others have mentioned that already.

peter_andrew

I was given apair of top of the range adidas something or other Retails well over £130. With prescription inserts i wonder how i have managed all these years without. BUT, when it rains the inserts steam up something awful and i have to take the specs off completely.

Peter

BentMikey

A big one with rain is to wear a cycling cap, these keep most of the rain off your eyewear.

Unfortunately they don't work quite as well with the laid back head position and typically higher windspeed on my recumbent, but are still better than nothing.

Loggerhead

Tried the washing-up liquid today and it was a great success! No fogging for the whole hour of my morning commute despite the sub-zero temperatures. Thanks to everyone who suggested this.

magicroundabout

Yeah - me too! Great tip!

MR

Mark Alexander

I use glasses but it becomes hazardous when they steam up which they do for me

always_tyred

BentMikey wrote:

It's not me being offensive and using emotive and invalid arguments here. Logic and politeness would serve your debate rather better.

Okay - hijacking of forum almost over.

I've read a little also. I know where you opinion comes from, and its not arbitrary, however I believe that you are mistaken. My interpretation of the same range studies that you have no doubt read is that helmets are effective against some things (and I agree that they are NOT effective against serious head injuries) and that helmet safety is a fraction of what it ought to be based on lab safety standards. However I have never found anything written to indicate that helmets make cycling MORE dangerous. i.e. some studies day they make no statistical difference, some say they improve safety under some circumstances (e.g. with children or seniors) so on average, the balance of studies indicate that there is marginal positive benefit.

As I have suggested, my personal experience suggests that its a good idea to wear a helmet. Is that emotive or invalid? I certainly felt quite emotional when I was being taken to hospital and the scratches and crack on my helmet certainly seemed valid. Sir, I'm a research scientist. I am, quite literally, qualified to interpret data; its my job. However, my "professional" opinion is just that, an opinion. And so is yours.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I wear a helmet, however I don't go around ridiculing fellow non-helmet wearing cylists. I interpreted your intial post as infering a degree of folly upon helmet wearing cyclists. Hence, you caused mild offence.

Given that you are posting on a forum that includes some of the sub-groups that do (or may, it depends which studies you read) benefit from helmets I don't think its that unreasonable to point out that what works for you doesn't work for everyone.

As to logic - I'm not aware of studies of the safety benefits of glasses-wearing, or cycling glove wearing, however on these issues we appear to be content to rely on intuition. By your logic, we should question the use of these safety measures. If you've never fallen and hurt your palms, or you have never got grit in your eyes should you be ridiculed for wearing gloves and glasses?

My objection is not so much to your personal opinion on helmets, more that you feel an entitlement to share it with the rest of us because you feel you know best. What if you don't? If you have at all understood any of the studies on the subject, the best you can say is "I do not know", and then take an opinion, for yourself, one way or the other.

attica

BentMikey

I'm not surprised you have this opinion on helmets if you ride a recumbent, somewhat lower to the ground and liable to hit things feet first!

My wife fell of her bike on a trip to the shops after a "it's only a short ride" moment about wearing a helmet. She now has a 3 inch scar on her forehead and I have the enduring memory of seeing how the muscles inside her forehead work.All of which would've been avoided if she'd have had a helmet on

Not serious, not life threatening but a lasting reminder of the benefits of wearing a helmet for both of us.

I have to say that you're wrong, the serious head injuries might be a moot point but helmets still make sense.

BTW, I wear the BLOC glasses as well, they only steam up when I'm stationary - pushing them down my nose stops this and then I can push them back up as I pull away.

As for the rain, I just grin and bear it, it does become quite an issue on unlit roads though, that's about the point I take them off as the oncoming traffic blinds me then. Fine in and about town though.

Totalnewbie

Does anyone know if washing up liquid will affect the coating on ordinary prescription glasses? My glasses are very expensive (due to me needing a 'complex prescription') so I have to be really careful...

attica

Probably far less than road grime!

Worth checking with your optician first though.

BentMikey

Always Tyred wrote:

However I have never found anything written to indicate that helmets make cycling MORE dangerous. i.e. some studies day they make no statistical difference, some say they improve safety under some circumstances (e.g. with children or seniors) so on average, the balance of studies indicate that there is marginal positive benefit.

Well, it does seem we largely agree that helmets aren't effective on serious head injury then, and that they can be for some minor head injuries, so perhaps we aren't coming from viewpoints particularly far apart.

I take it you missed that study that found helmeted cyclists were 7 times more likely to hit their head, or that other study that found that helmeted cyclists tend to be passed more closely than non-helmet wearers. What about the population level study that found a slight overall increase to the risk of serious head injury?

Always Tyred wrote:

As to logic - I'm not aware of studies of the safety benefits of glasses-wearing, or cycling glove wearing, however on these issues we appear to be content to rely on intuition. By your logic, we should question the use of these safety measures. If you've never fallen and hurt your palms, or you have never got grit in your eyes should you be ridiculed for wearing gloves and glasses?

As you've probably gathered, I don't take grazed palms very seriously, so for me gloves are only a real issue with respect to frozen fingers and being able to control the bike. As for eyewear, that's a real risk that's far more likely than a head injury, and so worth protecting against. Head injury is about as likely to happen to you cycling as it is walking, hence my comment that glasses are far more important than helmets. It's not my fault you took offence there, as my intention was just to show comparative risk.

@Attica, I don't just ride a recumbent, I also use various upright bikes, and skate. I can't argue that a helmet might have prevented your wife's 3" scar, but that's not a life changing serious head injury like brain damage. I don't mean to belittle how horrifying and upsetting it must have been, so I hope you'll take this in the spirit of life balance I meant it. For many people the chance of preventing some road rash is plenty reason enough to wear a helmet and I'm fine with that. On the other hand though, there is also the chance that wearing a helmet could cause you a serious neck injury, as happened to Ravenbait of the old C+ forums.

On balance my own view is that helmets don't do much for overall safety, and do quite a lot to convince non-cyclists that cycling is dangerous enough not to do it, when it actually isn't very dangerous at all. Less cyclists around mean less safety for us all.

attica

Eloquently put Mikey

and I admit that the recumbent thing was a cheap shot.
You've obviously looked into this a great deal, what do the surveys say about the new breed of helmets like the Giro Ionos with the carbon inserts?

After my wife's little accident I've got pretty much Carte blanche to spend what I like on helmets for us both, if you're right about the neck injury thing then is it only a matter of time before we're all wearing F1 style HANS devices?

richardast

Helmets again? Cool! :roll:

Those studies generally tend to be published by psychologists who work at universities don't they? Must be great to just deal with theories.

I wonder what the real doctors think. The actual practitioners who work in the hospitals putting injured people back together.

Oh. Here it is...
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Cyclsafety++?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,cycle,helmets
I still think it should be a choice not a law though.

always_tyred

richardast wrote:

Helmets again? Cool! :roll:

Those studies generally tend to be published by psychologists who work at universities don't they? Must be great to just deal with theories.

I wonder what the real doctors think. The actual practitioners who work in the hospitals putting injured people back together.

Oh. Here it is...
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Cyclsafety++?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,cycle,helmets
I still think it should be a choice not a law though.

I think that sums it up perfectly.

I think Mike also refers to that bloke who put a dress on to cycle, put a helmet on to cycle and a sut, etc, etc, and measured mean lateral passing distance.

A better designed scientific study I have never before seen and such work is well worth government funding I feel. For example, there is not going to be any perturbation to this vast sample size from motorists being more likely to spot a cycling transvestite over a bloke in a suit.

I've not seen the 7 times more likely to hit your head study, no. I wonder if it is the study that completely contradicts the 1/6th as likely to hurt your head study (was that Iowa?.. I don't recall.. probably not valid anyway, because if it was conducted on US roads it doesn't apply, right?), or one of the numerous other contradictory studies that form the crux of the "its a matter of choice, because we don't really know" point.

Is it a wave.... is it a particle....? It all really depends on how you measure it, and you have to make up your mind before hand.

BentMikey

richardast wrote:

Helmets again? Cool! :roll:

Those studies generally tend to be published by psychologists who work at universities don't they? Must be great to just deal with theories.

I wonder what the real doctors think. The actual practitioners who work in the hospitals putting injured people back together.

Oh. Here it is...
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Cyclsafety++?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,cycle,helmets
I still think it should be a choice not a law though.

You do realise that stance was previously the opposite? The BMA used to be against helmet compulsion in a big way, and even this vote was by no means unanimous.

You might not like the opinion of a neurosurgeon much either when giving evidence in court then.
"Referring back to the Court case mentioned early, the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made."

"In a recent Court case, a respected materials specialist argued that a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from their cycle, without any real forward momentum, would not have had their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy potential of no more than 75 joules (his estimate, with which I was in full agreement). The court found in favour of his argument. So a High Court has decided that cycle helmets do not prevent injury even when falling from a cycle onto a flat surface, with little forward momentum. Cycle helmets will almost always perform much better against a flat surface than any other."

The point remains that if helmets were really effective for cyclist safety, the evidence for them would be unequivocable and very evident, both in case control studies and over whole population data. It isn't, hence the existence of the Great Helmet Debate.

It's clear other factors do have several orders of magnitude greater effect. One is cycle craft, and the other is the number of other cyclists out on the roads with you.

Eat My Dust

I like wearing my helmet. It' handy for attaching thing too and it matches my cycling outfit!!

I would agree that I bump my head more in general when wearing my helmet, but it's OK as I have my helmet on so I've never sustained any injuries!!!