Helmets

JCP

To wear a helmet or not to wear one is always an interesting question.

I think if you come off the bike by yourself, you are more likely to roll, in which case I don't think a helmet would help, and I suspect is more likely to hurt (the rotational injuries mentioned earlier).

If you come off because of 3rd party interference, you are more likely to get dumped in which case wearing a helmet is helpful.

I've evaluated the risk/reward and have chosen to wear one when riding on the road as I don't ride in a manner that I'm likely to come off without external input. In fact the only time I've come off recently was 18mos ago in a classic SMIDSY, and whilst my head hit the road hard, and the helmet split, my head didn't.

This is my choice however and not one I'd wish to be imposed on anyone else - it is nothing more than anecodotal despite being my personal experience. There really does need to be some proper evidence based research on this topic before trying to introduce legal requirements rather than the hearsay we've currently got.

kerby_crawler

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Why should cars be allowed on roads that were developed for cyclists, you mean? Maybe you need to spend more time on the bike

If only we could go back to the days of men with red flags, then it would be safe for motorists to share the pavement with pedestrians, and the whole of the North Circular Road could be taken over by Londoners on penny-farthings!

I would consider wearing a helmet if I could get one with mirrors on it like those big overhanging ones that luxury coaches have. Not being blessed with a revolving head, the biggest problem I had when biking along the Marylebone Road was keeping tabs on what was happening behind me.

Mrs_Arcanum

Wear mine in the rain to stop the hood of my raincoat obscuring my vision.

custardy

kerby_crawler wrote: »

If only we could go back to the days of men with red flags, then it would be safe for motorists to share the pavement with pedestrians, and the whole of the North Circular Road could be taken over by Londoners on penny-farthings!

I would consider wearing a helmet if I could get one with mirrors on it like those big overhanging ones that luxury coaches have. Not being blessed with a revolving head, the biggest problem I had when biking along the Marylebone Road was keeping tabs on what was happening behind me.

bike helmet mirrors have been around for yonks
many designs available

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/blackburn-helmet-mirror/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Dynamic+Search+Ads+Cycle&referid=googwig&gclid=CLneyNrR6rMCFW3MtAodXWQAhQ

Altarf

cinderfella wrote: »

In London I have watched with horror at the way many people on two wheels seem to play russian roulette with the traffic. Having said that it is also a very dangerous place for pedestrians.
...
Not forgetting of course that we also need to protect the plain stupid who would rather not wear a helmet for their own obscure reasons.

So since it London is dangerous for pedestrians, do you think that walking helmets should be mandatory? And what about driving helmets, or riding on the bus helmets?

At the end of the day most if not all the deaths of cyclists in London have been caused by lorry or bus drivers driving over the squishy middle of the cyclists body. Could you explain how a helmet helps when a 40 ton truck drives over your stomach.

Buellguy

Altarf wrote: »

So since it London is dangerous for pedestrians, do you think that walking helmets should be mandatory? And what about driving helmets, or riding on the bus helmets?

At the end of the day most if not all the deaths of cyclists in London have been caused by lorry or bus drivers driving over the squishy middle of the cyclists body. Could you explain how a helmet helps when a 40 ton truck drives over your stomach.

It doesn't, BUT (and I genuinely don't know) how many of those same accidents have been after the wagon/bus has overtaken a cyclist and made a left turn and how many because a cyclist has undertaken a wagon/bus that is indicating left (would like to know the figures, if it's a large percentage of the former, prosecute, the latter, re-education for the other cyclists)

Idiophreak

JCP wrote: »

I've evaluated the risk/reward and have chosen to wear one when riding on the road as I don't ride in a manner that I'm likely to come off without external input. In fact the only time I've come off recently was 18mos ago in a classic SMIDSY, and whilst my head hit the road hard, and the helmet split, my head didn't.

You needn't have worried...I mean it isn't like your head's just going to split open like a helmet, is it?

custardy

Buellguy wrote: »

It doesn't, BUT (and I genuinely don't know) how many of those same accidents have been after the wagon/bus has overtaken a cyclist and made a left turn and how many because a cyclist has undertaken a wagon/bus that is indicating left (would like to know the figures, if it's a large percentage of the former, prosecute, the latter, re-education for the other cyclists)

but that has nothing to do with wearing a helmet.
Unless you have a correlation between those who do/do not and those who get killed by lorries etc?

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/carlisle-death-crash-bus-driver-cleared-of-charges-1.967743?referrerPath=news

perhaps more cyclists lives could be saved by enforcing the use of sunglasses on drivers?

brat

custardy wrote: »

but that has nothing to do with wearing a helmet.
Unless you have a correlation between those who do/do not and those who get killed by lorries etc?

Some research has been done in London on the groups of cyclists who die as a consequence of being squashed by the left turning HGV, and most of them are cautious 'guarded' cyclists. When these cyclists are killed, the forces involved would smash through a helmet like jumping on a snail shell, so the helmet is going to be either irrelevent or useless.
I reckon a higher proportion of such 'guarded' cyclists will be helmeted, which may skew the figures to show helmets in a less good light than otherwise.
Similarly, I've not attended any cycle fatal accidents where the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, but most who cycle in our county without helmets don't cycle on open roads which is where most of our cycling accidents happen.

So a simple analysis of cycling accidents over the last 10 years in our county (and probably in London too) might suggest it's safer not to wear a helmet. But the data need to be looked at more closely.

My default is to wear my helmet, but if I'm popping into town to shop, I'll not bother. Awareness and visibility are much greater protectors.

Marco_Panettone

brat wrote: »

Some research has been done in London on the groups of cyclists who die as a consequence of being squashed by the left turning HGV, and most of them are cautious 'guarded' cyclists. When these cyclists are killed, the forces involved would smash through a helmet like jumping on a snail shell, so the helmet is going to be either irrelevent or useless.
I reckon a higher proportion of such 'guarded' cyclists will be helmeted, which may skew the figures to show helmets in a less good light than otherwise.
Similarly, I've not attended any cycle fatal accidents where the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet, but most who cycle in our county without helmets don't cycle on open roads which is where most of our cycling accidents happen.

So a simple analysis of cycling accidents over the last 10 years in our county (and probably in London too) might suggest it's safer not to wear a helmet. But the data need to be looked at more closely.

No, it might suggest that those that wear helmets are involved in more accidents. Correlation is not causation. To say it's safer not to wear a helmet suggests that they were involved in accidents BECAUSE they were wearing a helmet.

brat wrote: »

My default is to wear my helmet, but if I'm popping into town to shop, I'll not bother. Awareness and visibility are much greater protectors.

Absolutely agree. This is the case when wearing a helmet too.