Bike stuff in Lidl

Johnmcl7

missile wrote: »

and would you rely solely on that as the basis for choosing your cycle helmet? What price do you put on your safety?

I think you're missing the point of the link I provided - even most of the more expensive helmets are still only tested to the same basic safety standard so you're not actually get anything safer for the money as you may think. Although the evidence for the rotational layers is questioned by some, the rest of that article isn't in that more expensive helmets aren't safer.

It's a sorry state of affairs but people shouldn't be fooling themselves into thinking expensive helmets are going to be giving them better protection.

Personally I use a MIPS equipped helmet even though the evidence for it is debated as there's no harm in doing so.

John

peachyprice

I bought the womens jacket in the minty green, good quality and comfortable with handy back pockets.

Tobster86

Echo the sentiment on helmets ref cost; the required standards of all them are so pathetic (something vague about falling off at 12mph) I wouldn't dwell too much on the cost.

I personally don't use one, although am now in two minds over it given how much faster I'm going now compared to when I started commuting by bike again.

Marco_Panettone

The 12mph thing is often misunderstood. It has nothing to do with how fast you are going forwards, and everything to do with the speed you fall from a height of about 1.5m to the ground. This is governed by gravity, and 12mph is above the speed your head would fall at. It's the same speed to the ground if you're riding at 10mph or 30mph. A £10 helmet is likely to protect you just as much as a £150 one - but it'll be heavier and bulkier, and not look as nice.


Please don't read this as helmet advocacy - it isn't. As Chris Boardman said, helmets are not even in the top 10 of things that are needed to make cycling safer. I still wear one for some of my riding, but sometimes not. Each to their own.

Tobster86

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

Please don't read this as helmet advocacy - it isn't. As Chris Boardman said, helmets are not even in the top 10 of things that are needed to make cycling safer. I still wear one for some of my riding, but sometimes not. Each to their own.

No problem and well understood.

Helmets have become largely a statement of political correctness and thus are wrongly placed in the order of safety priorities. I see so many kids whose parents have insisted they wear a helmet, but have done nothing about making them properly lit and visible.

brat

My view on helmets is that, for my type of riding on winding rural roads, a helmet is never going to make you less safe, so I always wear one.
I'm as likely* to hit a dry stone wall horizontally at 30mph as I am to hit the ground vertically at 10mph, so potential impact speeds are always likely to be high.

But a well fitted helmet is always going to spread the force and reduce the impulse of any impact, and mine looks cool :cool:. So I would find it hard to justify not wearing one...

...especially given the unnecessary amount of extra cash I spent on mine!

*Not literally as likely, but the risk is ever present.

rdr

Tobster86 wrote: »

No problem and well understood.

Helmets have become largely a statement of political correctness and thus are wrongly placed in the order of safety priorities. I see so many kids whose parents have insisted they wear a helmet, but have done nothing about making them properly lit and visible.

Not to mention that a large proportion of helmets are so badly fitted and/or adjusted the they actually increase risk.

Or people do a Cameron and hang it on their handlebars - what's that about?

SerialRenter

I bought a few bits and bobs a couple weeks back, so i might as well review them.

Heart rate monitor.
comfortable to wear, the strap does seem to be designed for someone wider though, so i have to use it done up to its tightest. I'd say i'm very average in build, so this'll effect most people.
I've had a few rides where it's not collected information correctly, but i put that down to evaporation or not getting the contacts wet enough before i set off.

Weatherproof jacket.
very good at keeping the wind and water out. Probably saved my phone in a downpour.
I wouldn't wear it if the temperature is over 10c as you'll overheat.
Main problem is that its waterproof BOTH WAYS, i.e. sweat doesn't escape. Once you're home be sure to turn it inside out and hang to dry, if you don't you'll find it's still wet in the arm sleeves a couple of days later *shudder*

Jersey
No complains, wicks well, has handy pockets and fits pretty well, if not slightly big for a medium.

Kendall80

Tobster86 wrote: »

Echo the sentiment on helmets ref cost; the required standards of all them are so pathetic (something vague about falling off at 12mph) I wouldn't dwell too much on the cost.

I personally don't use one, although am now in two minds over it given how much faster I'm going now compared to when I started commuting by bike again.

I agree re cost. The more expensive ones may look better but its doubtful/debatable as to whether they possess greater impact resistance.

Regarding your decision not to use one... i'd quite possibly be dead right now if I had made that choice. I ride mtb and on 2 separate occasions i'm quite certain helmets have saved my life. The first time the helmet actually split in 2 like a coconut after I hit a rock head first at speed. I was a little dazed but didn't have a scratch... not on my head anyway.

brat

For me there's little doubt that a well fitted helmet will protect and help you survive a crash.

I could cite numerous accidents I've attended where the rider is sat on a wall with their mates examining a battered cracked helmet, more distraught about their damaged bike, helmet and the gravel rash they can see through their ripped clothes than the fact that they would have been hospitalised or worse had s/he not been wearing the helmet.

On the other side of the coin, there is an argument that car drivers are more cautious and aware around a cyclist who has no helmet, not because the cyclist is more prone to injury, but because he is seen as a non-conformist, an opportunist who is less predictable. That could work in favour of the non helmet wearer, making them less likely to be involved in a collision.

I also wonder if the idea of risk homeostasis plays a part too. If a cyclist feels more protected because he's wearing a helmet, he may take more risks by pushing the envelope a bit on a downhill.

I also cannot recall attending a fatal cycling accident where the rider wasn't wearing a helmet, and I've attended at least ten. There was one about 7 years ago where the rider was negotiating a roundabout and was hit by a motorist emerging onto the roundabout. She didn't have a helmet on, but I can't recall if she survived. I think she did.