Are helmets now compulsory?

Headhuunter

If they make wearing helmets on bikes compulsory it'll the death knell to bike hire schemes in cities like London, Barcelona and Velib in Paris. No one is going to cart a helmet around with them all day on the off chance that they may use a Velib bike for a 5 minute journey. In fact once the London Velib scheme is opened there will surely be a lot more helmetless riders on the streets.

fnegroni

If I accidentally drop my £60 helmet while fuffing about with locks and bags, should my helmet be replaced?

cyberknight

My helmets compulsory ...............

The wife would give me a lot of earache if she saw me without it

In my youth i never wore a helmet and never felt the need for one in my twenties either.

They make good mountings for cameras and extra lights but most of the time i just find it a sweat box .The fact that a case...


http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/s ... negligence

citing not wearing a helmet as contributory negligence does not help either.

Tom Butcher

Abacus123 wrote:

DVV wrote:

Try dropping a melon on the floor, then try dropping another in a helmet

I would also like to know, have you actually done this or not?

My wife is a senior school science teacher and conducts a lesson based around this, pretty compelling really.

I agree that everyone should have the choice, just not sure why you wouldn't use a helmet if its available could save your life!

I was teaching an school cycle club a few years ago and a pupil appeared asking to borrow one of the school cycle helmets so his science teacher could conduct just such a session. I told him to go back to the teacher with a message that when he could produce a pupil with a melon for a head I'd lend him a helmet.

bicyclepirate

fnegroni, i'll admit i havent read any online literature and absolutley do not intend to. As i said before helmets aren't perfect and don't make you indestructable. if you dont like or dont want to wear one thats fine..

All structures, including helmets are simply force transfer mechanisms, any thickness of material allows the impact force to spread out, even a small spread reduces the impact pressure on the head. Think of your GF standing on you toe in flat shoes and the think of it in stiletto heels...

I absolutley agree there is no proof that wearing a helmet makes you any safer except under a very specifc set of conditions, but equally there is no proof that it makes you less safe.

it would be nice if it wasn't so hot underneath it though.....

desweller

bicyclepirate wrote:

All structures, including helmets are simply force transfer mechanisms,

Not strictly accurate, helmets are designed to plastically deform under impact, preventing the energy from being transferred to your noggin (like a car crumple zone).

gabriel959

The reasoning behind "its my choice" is a pretty poor one IMO as well. Why wear a seat belt when you are on your own in the car, at the end of the day if you have an accident it will only affect you but we should avoid these situations.

People speak about Denmark and the Netherlands as an example, and I agree, it should be like there but look at their cycling infrastructure, its fantastic, cyling 1st, cars 2nd (do you imagine that in Essex?!?!)

Of the 3 crashes I've had, the first one I hit my head really badly but I feel, fortunately the helmet was there and it saved me from a very sore head and probably loss of skin.

The same about mitts and gloves. They are not necessary, but if you come off, wouldn't you want to be wearing them?

Tom Butcher

I think most people that don't wear one feel that any increase in safety isn't sufficient to merit the extra heat or discomfort, the lack of wind in the hair, the aggro of having to carry it around if you get off your bike etc.

As others have said - any argument for wearing them would also apply when going to the pub or hill walking - head injury doesn't just happen crashing a bike - but I've yet to see any advocates of cycle helmets wearing theirs for either activity.

You could also make a safety argument for wearing hiviz vests - yet I don't see all helmet advocates wearing hiviz at all times on the bike. And as for using lightweight carbon and aluminium components and lightweight tyres when good old heavy steel and thick tyres filled with sealant would be far safer....

mikeyboy12345

Threads like this amuse me no end! Neither side is right, and neither is wrong. I wear a helmet when I visit my Mum (just to avoid the earache!), but not to the pub. My mate who reckons it crazy to not wear a lid AT ALL TIMES on the basis that they MIGHT work is also the same person who refuses to wear Nomex overalls and a 6pt FIA-approved race harness for the drive to Sainsbury's. What a fool! The fire extinguisher in my car's cockpit has saved me more often than a cycling helmet has (1-0 to the extinguisher). It keeps me awake at night thinking how many kids there are on the school run being driven in cars that could catch fire at any time!

The real issue is the lack of research and the lack of decent info made available to the buying public, hence the helmets-must-be-safer-or-they-wouldn't-sell-them attitude. A bit of digging reveals that my £3.99 cheapo helmet bought in Tesco 18mths ago actually PASSES the Snell B95 standard, when it's easy to pay 20x as much in a LBS for a helmet that doesn't. I'd like to see the industry justify that. :x

Just been to Tesco and the helmets are now on offer at £5.99. Slightly different make/model, so haven't bothered to look it up on the Snell Foundation website. I also paid a visit to the fruit aisle. Got home, put a helmet on the melon and dropped it from an upstairs window. Both parts of the helmet are now in the bin and the rest of the mess I had to hose off my driveway.

fnegroni

gabriel959 wrote:

The reasoning behind "its my choice" is a pretty poor one IMO as well. Why wear a seat belt when you are on your own in the car, at the end of the day if you have an accident it will only affect you but we should avoid these situations.

What have seat belts got to do with cycling helmets?

fnegroni

mikeyboy12345 wrote:

Just been to Tesco and the helmets are now on offer at £5.99. Slightly different make/model, so haven't bothered to look it up on the Snell Foundation website. I also paid a visit to the fruit aisle. Got home, put a helmet on the melon and dropped it from an upstairs window. Both parts of the helmet are now in the bin and the rest of the mess I had to hose off my driveway.

:shock:

But wouldn't that have made the speed of impact roughly 20 mph? That's way above the 12mph helmets are tested at (assuming your window is at roughly 4 metres of height...)

A more accurate test would have been to test it from roughly half the height, while stationary... that's what helmets are designed for after all.

Isn't that how all cycling accidents happen? while stationary?...

desweller

mikeyboy12345 it's mostly down to holes, getting helmets to pass the tests without also making your head sweat like a fat bloke running up a hill is the tricky bit.

Although, there's also a premium to be paid for style, you only have to look at the Catlike Whisper to see that.

dondare

mikeyboy12345 wrote:

Threads like this amuse me no end! Neither side is right, and neither is wrong. I wear a helmet when I visit my Mum (just to avoid the earache!), but not to the pub. ...

Very few serious head injuries are bike related. More than half are drink related. Hardly any at all are mum related.

dondare

DVV wrote:

But what about the gene pool?

I for one think that no one should wear helmets. Then primarily the stupid, and/or dangerous/incautious riders will be at greater risk of injury.

This post contains three contentious assumptions; one that cycling is dangerous; two that helmets are effective and three that the main danger to cyclists is their own stupidity rather than someone else's.

dondare

Mark Elvin wrote:

WesternWay wrote:

Bikes should be quick, easy things, free of faff. Having a helmet is faff.

I

Not as much of a faff as having to be fed/changed/bathed if you end up with brain damage.

So pedestrians and car passengers should wear them as well; the risks of head injury are about the same.

Mark Elvin wrote:

Perhaps I'm looking at it the wrong way, maybe it's natural selection. The "less clever" ones who opt not to wear helmets are less likely to survive, therefore less likely to reproduce, therby stregthening the gene pool.

See my previous answer.

dondare

robz400 wrote:

I've quized him as to how he feels a skull hitting a pavement unprotected can be as safe as a skull protected by a helmet, but he simply refuses to justify his actions.

People like you really wind me up. Why the hell should we be forced to wear a helmet?

Its nanny state lovers like you that mean eventually we'll all be banned from leaving our special little safety houses incase we hurt ourselves and try to blame someone.

But most accidents happen in the home.

itsbruce

gabriel959 wrote:

The reasoning behind "its my choice" is a pretty poor one IMO as well. Why wear a seat belt when you are on your own in the car, at the end of the day if you have an accident it will only affect you but we should avoid these situations.

Doesn't compare. There are situations where the wearing or not of a seatbelt will determine whether you retain or regain control of your car. That affects others.

dondare

Try this test:
Take a melon. Let it decide whether it want's to wear a helmet or not. Then don't drop it.

(BTW, the BBC were wrong and have apologized.)

davis

mikeyboy12345 wrote:

It keeps me awake at night thinking how many kids there are on the school run being driven in cars that could catch fire at any time!

You probably don't need to worry: when you're in bed at night, there won't be many kids being driven to school :P




Yes, yes, I know. There are apparently other countries too. I want to hear none of it.


Edit:

mikeyboy12345 wrote:

Just been to Tesco and the helmets are now on offer at £5.99. Slightly different make/model, so haven't bothered to look it up on the Snell Foundation website. I also paid a visit to the fruit aisle. Got home, put a helmet on the melon and dropped it from an upstairs window. Both parts of the helmet are now in the bin and the rest of the mess I had to hose off my driveway. Very Happy

You know the rules: pics, or it didn't happen

MrChuck

Abacus123 wrote:

DVV wrote:

Try dropping a melon on the floor, then try dropping another in a helmet

I would also like to know, have you actually done this or not?

My wife is a senior school science teacher and conducts a lesson based around this, pretty compelling really.

Well, I'm not sure it is that compeliing without any consideration of the likelihood of that impact happening.

KiwiMike

Hah. Haven't joined a helmet thread for years. Interesting to see the same ol' stuff again and again and again...

Coming from NZ, I can speak with first-hand experience of a 100% compliance regime of helmet wearing.

It makes no difference whatsoever to the KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) rate. At all. What it did do is overnight drastically reduce the numbers of people riding, particularly among teenagers and for trips to the shops etc. Exactly the sort of trip the gummint needs to be promoting by bike. Weekend long rides are good for our overall health as a nation but do nothing to reduce traffic, carbon emissions or balance of payments to oil-producing nations.

But explaining 20 years of evidence with a 3M+ size statistical survey pales into nothing compared to anecdote. "My mate had a crash and his head would have been ripped clean orf if not for his £100 Giro" is much easier to sell down the pub than the evidence-based fact that KSI rates per million km cycled across 3m people did not change at all following 100% helmet uptake.

Risk transferance, rotational brain injury, reduction of Safety In Numbers all have some part to play in making helmets a bad idea when viewed at a population level. Anecdote is a bitch to argue against because it's so personal.

What is absolutely not an argument is comparison with M/C helmets. MC helmets are rock-hard, so they deflect and slide on the road. Modern bike helmets are full of holes for cooling, are very soft (you can dent them with your thumb) and don't slide at all. When you hit tarmac they grip the surface and twist. Hello rotational brain / neck injury. BMX lids are hard-shell, because they don't need the cooling and thus are acceptable to riders, and therefore do a good job in a very risky sport. 20 years ago all bike helmets were like BMX lids, but consumers didn't buy them. So Bell/Giro et al lobbied to have the standards lowered to the point where 200gm of Swiss cheese foam gets an ANSI/CE mark as being 'safe'. But 'safe' means adequately decelerating a 5KG mass dropped from 2m onto a flat smooth surface. The idea that a 6' cyclist weighing 80kg going over the bars at 30MPH equates to 5kg dropped from 2m is so laughable as to be, er, laughable. THAT is why so many helmets break in very minor crashes - because the standard is a joke tailored by manufacturers to fit what consumers will spend £80 on.

I've destroyed 4 helmets MTB riding. One road-riding going OTB at 70kph (smashed *every* component on my bike + clavicle too). I wear a helmet off-road more for the sun/rain protection than for a fall, also it's a handy spot for lights and my mojo (Wyle. E. Coyote). But no way do I bother on the road, or on my Brompton in London.

I'll wear a helmet for a trip to the shops or the 2km to work when I start wearing one in the shower or at the swimming pool. Or in the car. Those should be the rebuttal to anyone who thinks helmets on bikes are A Good Thing. Straight back atcha: Do you wear it in the bath too? In a taxi? when it's a bit snowy outside?

Cheers

Mike

rjsterry

That pretty much explains why a government should look at the issue differently than an individual. The government is only really interested in the population as a whole, whereas, aside from family and friends, the individual couldn't give a stuff what happens to the population, but is swayed by pub anecdotes. Personally, I can't have anything other than a minute effect on the KSI rate, whether I wear a helmet or not, but I might make a difference to me.

The last time I trashed a helmet (thankfully a long time ago now), it saved me from a broken nose at least, and that alone, is good enough for me (I like my face the way it is, and I have enough problems with my nose, without smashing it up). I'm well aware it might not save my life, but as I wear a face mask as well, the whole it's-too-sweaty thing is a moot point.

Kieran_Burns

Now THERE'S a grand 1st post! 8)

SmellTheGlove

MrChuck wrote:

Abacus123 wrote:

DVV wrote:

Try dropping a melon on the floor, then try dropping another in a helmet

I would also like to know, have you actually done this or not?

My wife is a senior school science teacher and conducts a lesson based around this, pretty compelling really.

Well, I'm not sure it is that compeliing without any consideration of the likelihood of that impact happening.

I want to do this experiment - can anyone tell me where I can buy a 70kg melon please?

Kieran_Burns

SmellTheGlove wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

Abacus123 wrote:

DVV wrote:

Try dropping a melon on the floor, then try dropping another in a helmet

I would also like to know, have you actually done this or not?

My wife is a senior school science teacher and conducts a lesson based around this, pretty compelling really.

Well, I'm not sure it is that compeliing without any consideration of the likelihood of that impact happening.

I want to do this experiment - can anyone tell me where I can buy a 70kg melon please?

We employ several. Would you like to borrow one?

Runoutofgears

Save the Melon, compulsory helmets for melons

always_tyred

KiwiMike wrote:

Hah. Haven't joined a helmet thread for years. Interesting to see the same ol' stuff again and again and again...

Coming from NZ, I can speak with first-hand experience of a 100% compliance regime of helmet wearing.

Is what you say about NZ quite true? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adult ... ealand.svg

Btw - wearing a helmet for mtb but not road cycling is illogical. You are on both sides of the argument, employing contradictory reasoning, for substantially equivalent activities (depending on the lunacy with which you mtb)

NGale

I had a great call in work, cyclist fallen off his bike, not hit by anyone or anything, just had a clipless moment and fractured his ankle in the fall (He's ok, just very sore and embarssed) the caller was complaining bitterly that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet and insisted we call the police. I pointed out that wearing a helmet is not compulsory and is a choice, he still insisted on us calling the police. I then asked him how wearing a helmet would have prevented him from breaking an ankle. He went very quite.

Oh and the police, they laughed and said it wasn't worth them attending but would record the incident just in case they recieved any calls from our informant.

itsbruce

KiwiMike wrote:

But explaining 20 years of evidence with a 3M+ size statistical survey pales into nothing compared to anecdote.

This. I so wish that more human beings could understand this. All the people in this thread parroting "I can't understand how anybody can think-", "Common sense tells us-", despite the fact that statistical evidence has been cited and rational reactions to that evidence has been explained... gods, that depresses me. Personally, the truth about helmet safety is much less important to me than the display of wilful antipathy to statistics, evidence-based analysis, probability and rational inquiry. I can entirely understand why a rational person would consider the evidence and choose to wear a helmet, or choose not to; both are valid choices given the state of the evidence. Cycling helmet fundamentalism based on anecdote, on the other hand, becomes no less stupid and unsympathetic for being loudly repeated.

So I'm very grateful to KiwiMike, CIB, diplomacy and others who have argued for rationality with such good humour. Really cheered me up (made me laugh aloud, at points).

davmaggs

And your informant is allowed to vote!

Somebody above mentioned that a helmet is a bit like gloves for them. Won't stop a severe break, but certainly takes the edge off and saves skin and pain.

I agree with that sentiment. I won't survive the headon 30mph crash with an Acme steam roller or a turning tipper, but you know what on my commute its filtering (door zone), clipless moments, people walking out, slippery road surfaces and car bonnets that will take me down. Nearly all low speed stuff that I'd technically survive, but gloves and a lid cover the bits that are likely to get a good scraping and a hard knock.