The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Mugshot]

Oh and Mugshot a word of advice the louder you shout the less you get heard

Pardon?

 

[SavageHoutkop]

You should be focusing on something we can all agree on non wearers and wearers alike. I ll leave you to work that one out.

The more time I spend around other people who ride bikes the less I think there is any such thing...

 

[mjr]

We're not campaigning against them ...

I admit I'm borderline on that. I think most non-racing riding would be better off without them and possibly helmet-wearing should be banned, just like many racing cars aren't street-legal, because it would reduce the amount of nobbers who treat sportive and similar events as races and take foolish risks copying the pros without learning basic racecraft. I know as children, my friends and I used to imitate racers even without helmets, but we soon learned where the limit was (IYSWIM ), without thinking it was safe to play near that limit because we had helmets that would save our lives in a crash.

But I do already campaign against those campaigning for them, though. It's rather frustrating to spend effort counteracting the harm that others are trying to do to cycling, including some co-opted cyclists, but what's the alternative?

Do you have to wear a helmet if you use strava?

Not as far as I know. There are helmet-forcing groups on Strava, but the company itself doesn't seem particularly vocal about them.

What's more, if you're over 18, you still don't have to wear a helmet in most official UK time trials, which seems entirely reasonable to me because most TT courses are rural roads open to other users and the limited impact protection is probably outweighed by the hearing (wind noise over straps) and sight (restricted head movement, especially with TT helmets in an aero tuck) impairment.

 

[Fab Foodie]

I appreciate what you say, however logic is not at play here emotion is.

Correct. The logic and the science is unfortunately working for the non-wearers not the compulshionists.

 

[Fab Foodie]

What problem ?

If you are that interested I will PM you would you like a full resume ?

No need to PM. If it's that secret I'm better off not knowing.

The Strava thing? Well I doubt we'll agree on this, but I'll try to explain ....

Cycling is booming, that's a good thing. It's also being marketed hard which is also a good thing, but unfortunately only a certain kind of cycling is being promoted and for want of a better stereotype, it's the MAMIL type that is being targeted. I meet a lot of people new to cycling, who have read the magazines, the websites like Roadcc, Cycling Weakly etc that heavily promotes a very singular type of cycling, the Wanna-be racer; Carbon Fibre bikes, team kit, Sportives, Strava, Training rides, Gels yadda yadda of which wearing a helmet is de-rigeur as being part of the tribe. Most buy this stuff because the media tells them too. And then they tell everyone else that this is how cycling is, you need to wear a helmet because it's dangerous. I overheard such a discussion last week on the plane, being dangerous seemed to be part of the attraction, the machismo.
I've sat next to a recent convert to cycling in the pub (all the kit and no experience) after a ride berating one of the younger riders for not wearing a helmet with all the usual nonsense. The fact is that the kid in question cycled out of his mothers womb, as his mother had cycled out of her mothers, his whole family lived on 2 wheels, they knew about cycling, roadcraft, safety.... they hadn't read it in a magazine or bought it from Wiggle.
So now we have wanna be racers preaching the gospel of the unproven. and tearing around like Bradley Wiggins with little experience collecting segments or going 'training' coming unstuck and thanking their helmets for saving their lives - again completely unfounded.
So yes, in a roundabout way and only in my weird opinion, Strava is part of the problem.

 

[steveindenmark]

Up until last summer I was an occasional helmet wearer. I picked it up if I could be bothered. I think helmets are a personal thing that are forced on people attending any organised cycling event.

Then I had a big off and slid down the road face down. I dont know if cycle helmets save lives, i have no idea. What I do know for certain is that it prevented me from having awful gravel rash to my head and face. The peak and front of the helmet was destroyed by the gravel road.

For that reason alone, I wear a helmet every trip now.

Im not advocating helmets. I am just relating a side of helmet wearing that people may not have thought of.

 

[mjr]

The fact is that the kid in question cycled out of his mothers womb, as his mother had cycled out of her mothers, his whole family lived on 2 wheels, they knew about cycling, roadcraft, safety.... they hadn't read it in a magazine or bought it from Wiggle.

Trouble is that such people are rare now. Even my family was definitely basically motorist IMO but I never stopped cycling (partly because my father cycled to work) and even that's fairly rare.

Im not advocating helmets. I am just relating a side of helmet wearing that people may not have thought of.

I think we know they prevent gravel rash, just as many hats do, but they seem to make people more crash-prone (the exploding-armour point I made earlier) which would mean you're more likely to need saving from road rash... and how is posting such "I wear a helmet every trip" for such odd reasons not advocating helmets?

 

[Mugshot]

No need to PM. If it's that secret I'm better off not knowing.

The Strava thing? Well I doubt we'll agree on this, but I'll try to explain ....

Cycling is booming, that's a good thing. It's also being marketed hard which is also a good thing, but unfortunately only a certain kind of cycling is being promoted and for want of a better stereotype, it's the MAMIL type that is being targeted. I meet a lot of people new to cycling, who have read the magazines, the websites like Roadcc, Cycling Weakly etc that heavily promotes a very singular type of cycling, the Wanna-be racer; Carbon Fibre bikes, team kit, Sportives, Strava, Training rides, Gels yadda yadda of which wearing a helmet is de-rigeur as being part of the tribe. Most buy this stuff because the media tells them too. And then they tell everyone else that this is how cycling is, you need to wear a helmet because it's dangerous. I overheard such a discussion last week on the plane, being dangerous seemed to be part of the attraction, the machismo.
I've sat next to a recent convert to cycling in the pub (all the kit and no experience) after a ride berating one of the younger riders for not wearing a helmet with all the usual nonsense. The fact is that the kid in question cycled out of his mothers womb, as his mother had cycled out of her mothers, his whole family lived on 2 wheels, they knew about cycling, roadcraft, safety.... they hadn't read it in a magazine or bought it from Wiggle.
So now we have wanna be racers preaching the gospel of the unproven. and tearing around like Bradley Wiggins with little experience collecting segments or going 'training' coming unstuck and thanking their helmets for saving their lives - again completely unfounded.
So yes, in a roundabout way and only in my weird opinion, Strava is part of the problem.

Whilst I'm quite confident that I don't tick that many of those boxes I'm pretty sure i would be described as a mamil, so despite being part of the subject matter I think this is absolutely spot on

Edited: it just made no sense before, maybe it does a little now.

 

[Shut Up Legs]

... possibly helmet-wearing should be banned, ...

I think that would be just as bad as forcing people to wear them. I'd prefer that we all have a choice whether or not to wear them, rather than the nanny-state approach by well-meaning*** but ignorant governments.

*** On my cynical days, I'm not even sure about the "well-meaning" part, and wonder if the Australian government deliberately introduced the mandatory helmet law to stifle cycling.

 

[RichK]

...
What's more, if you're over 18, you still don't have to wear a helmet in most official UK time trials, ....

a compulsory helmet SC is not allowed now

 

[martint235]

I think that would be just as bad as forcing people to wear them. I'd prefer that we all have a choice whether or not to wear them, rather than the nanny-state approach by well-meaning*** but ignorant governments.

*** On my cynical days, I'm not even sure about the "well-meaning" part, and wonder if the Australian government deliberately introduced the mandatory helmet law to stifle cycling.

I agree. However I'd rather it was an informed choice. If someone wants to ride around in a plastic hat because they think that makes them look like a pro, good for them. But let's not give them the impression that it's more use in a crash than it really will be.

 

[ufkacbln]

I
What's more, if you're over 18, you still don't have to wear a helmet in most official UK time trials, which seems entirely reasonable to me because most TT courses are rural roads open to other users and the limited impact protection is probably outweighed by the hearing (wind noise over straps) and sight (restricted head movement, especially with TT helmets in an aero tuck) impairment.

However let s put this in perspective.....

UK Cycling Events are one of the larger cycle event organisers in the UK does not accept the EN1078 standard

t is mandatory that all riders wear a safety approved cycling helmet complying with latest ANSI Z90/4 or SNELL standards.

One should ask why these organisers wish us to wear helmets, but do not accept the European standard as being sufficient

 

[mjr]

One should ask why these organisers wish us to wear helmets, but do not accept the European standard as being sufficient

Well, they say ANSI Z90/4 is sufficient, but ANSI disbanded the Z90 committee in 2003 and the as-weak-as-EN CPSC has basically replaced it in the USA, so I suspect the answer is that whoever wrote their terms copied from some other out of date terms. UK Cycling Events was incorporated in 2010 so that selection of standards does seem odd.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Everyone should be campaigning against them in their current form, especially those who advocate their use. The amount of genuine development over the last couple of decades is negligible. No manufacturer dares claim any specific level of protection that they are prepared to back up with guarantees. All we get is people pointing to their every failure as a triumph and the manufacturers are sitting back creaming huge profits off a product that just isn't delivering.

I think that's the longest post you've ever made!

 

[Fab Foodie]

I was angry

Clearly. Breathe deeply.