Bike helmets

JP08

neilmcl wrote: »

For someone who's come off pretty bad after a head on with a car whilst not wearing a helmet I'd have to disagree strongly with you

The problem is that unless you are willing to undergo the same experience again but this time wearing a helmet you're never going to know whether it actually would have made a difference ...


... and unless you got hit VERY hard on the head I can't see you agreeing to that :O)

NBLondon

Retrogamer wrote: »

Traffic traveled much closer to cyclists when they were wearing helmets.

This puzzles me... I try to give any cyclist a decent amount of room. I can't see the logic of "they've got a helmet so I can cut in a bit faster". Unless a driver who takes time to think that is the type who is thinking "all cyclists are lycra louts" anyway. Mind you, if I see a cyclist with no helmet, hands in pockets and weaving about I will give them even more room in case they are about to do something stupid.

Retrogamer wrote: »

cyclists when wearing helmets went faster and took most risks, probably due to the more protective feeling.

That's believable - subconsciously thinking they are invulnerable. Others think that speed and manoeuvrability are the answer. (Yes - they can help in getting out of a dangerous situation - but not getting into it in the first place is a better idea...)

wongataa

Richard53 wrote: »

There is no recognised testing programme for cycle helmets,

Yes there is. All bicycle helmets sold in the UK have to meet the relevant British Standard. Helmets sold in the US have to meet the relevant ANSI standard which is more rigorous. Whether those standards are suitable is another question. They should probably be updated.

Johnmcl7

wongataa wrote: »

Yes there is. All bicycle helmets sold in the UK have to meet the relevant British Standard. Helmets sold in the US have to meet the relevant ANSI standard which is more rigorous. Whether those standards are suitable is another question. They should probably be updated.

I don't think it's another question because the issue is those standards are so basic and old that they're largely worthless and certainly not rigorous:

http://www.bicycling.com/sites/default/files/uploads/BI-June-13-Helmet.pdf

I don't think people appreciate just how basic the certification is and it's frustrating that when there's new technologies such as MIPS, there's nothing official to show whether it's better or not and little incentive for helmet manufacturers to improve their helmets.

John

Richard53

wongataa wrote: »

Yes there is. All bicycle helmets sold in the UK have to meet the relevant British Standard. Helmets sold in the US have to meet the relevant ANSI standard which is more rigorous. Whether those standards are suitable is another question. They should probably be updated.

I know they have to meet a basic standard (and, as johnmcl7 says, it's really basic), although I think it's a CE standard rather than BS. The words I used were a testing programme. There is massive research carried out into motorcycle helmet design, mainly funded by the manufacturers, which is both credible and rigorous. Helmets are dropped onto hard surfaces and edges, punctured with spikes, and the fastening systems are tested to destruction. With the SHARP scheme, they even give a star rating so that manufacturers can say that x helmet reaches a higher safety standard then y helmet. There is no equivalent in the cycle helmet industry.


A cycle helmet may be better than nothing, in some accidents, and it may make things worse. The point is that there is no evidence whatsoever to say that they improve safety (if there was don't you think the makers would be putting in in every advert?), and there is no basis at all for making their use compulsory on the grounds of 'but it's obvious'.

Richard53

NBLondon wrote: »

This puzzles me... I try to give any cyclist a decent amount of room. I can't see the logic of "they've got a helmet so I can cut in a bit faster".

I don't think logic comes into it. It's more a subconscious thing - a cyclist with a helmet looks less vulnerable, and so unconsciously the driver treats him/her with slightly less care.


The research others have referred to is (I think) Dr Ian Walker of Bath University in 2006. He fitted a bike with a distance sensor and measured how close cars were passing in various situations. When he wore a helmet, cars passed on average 8.5 cm closer than without. When he wore a long wig (to appear female), cars gave him on average 14 cm more room. Presumably no driver thought "it's a woman, I will be extra careful", more like some subconscious chivalry going on.


Have a read: http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html

fred246

I was once cycling along on a very quiet Saturday morning. Out of the silence I heard revving of an engine and a booming bass box. After some screeching of tyres the car moved to overtake me. Loads of room no-one about. Then it screeched to a stop next to me and the passenger wound down his window. "Get a effing helmet on!", he shouted and then they screeched off. I don't really understand why people who obviously hate cyclists love them to wear helmets.

NBLondon

Richard53 wrote: »

When he wore a long wig (to appear female), cars gave him on average 14 cm more room. Presumably no driver thought "it's a woman, I will be extra careful", more like some subconscious chivalry going on.

I wouldn't necessarily think that - but I can imagine some might think "Woman - probably going to wobble or do something stupid" - conscious or subconscious misogyny as much as chivalry. (Or pass slower to ogle - conscious or subconscious lechery even...)


Thanks for the link though!

David_Aston

Don't know if these views have been previously mentioned in this thread.
I feel that my rather garish helmet will make me more visible to other road users.
I would have thought that other road users would think that a helmet wearer was at least giving some thought to safety, and would approve, and consider more, such individuals?

spadoosh

David_Aston wrote: »

Don't know if these views have been previously mentioned in this thread.
I feel that my rather garish helmet will make me more visible to other road users.
I would have thought that other road users would think that a helmet wearer was at least giving some thought to safety, and would approve, and consider more, such individuals?

Youdve thought so but the studies suggest its the exact opposite. No research behind this but found the more i dress up as a cyclist the more likely i am to get animosity.

Just had a little girl and looking forward to the days i can take her out. Which has me wondering how agressive people will be then.

Only a couple of weeks ago i saw a family cycling. Dad and daughter where on the road cycling and there was a women walking on the pavement. The section of a road is a double humped bridge going at a slight curve. Solid white lines in the road. Now naturally they where going slow (uphill bit) and it was rush hour in a usually congested place. The driver at the front was being cautious and not overtaking at which point you start getting 2/3 horns going off. As soon as you get over the bridge, the road widens for easy overtakes. Naturally the person at the front felt pressured and went on to push their way through, everyone followed, it mustve been 12 inches between kids bike and wing mirrors but its ok the person in front made it.

That kind of stuff puts people off cycling for life. Just because people couldnt wait the very maximum of 1 minute (they all went onto wait at the lights for longer 300 yards down the road.

Sorry like rambling tales of people being silly around cyclists.