Do you wear a helmet when cycling?

[Chamfus Flange]

Yes, for all rides. They don't save lives (nothing does) but they will reduce the likelihood of some kinds of injury. I've been through the whole agrument for motorbikes before and from that discussion I know there will always be a hard core who will apose. However, I hope will don't go down the compulsary route.

 

[Deleted member 1258]

I don't wear a helmet, I never have, They weren't about when I started riding, and now we have them I have never felt that I need to wear one.

 

[HLaB]

I tend to wear a helmet, other than for small scrapes I don't think its good for much and it annoys me that it presents an image that cycling is more dangerous than it actually is but I wear it to pacify the folk who generally worry about be and to shut up the annoying ill-informed about helmets. I usually find that the anti helmet folk are more informed and don't make stupid remarks.

 

[addictfreak]

Always for me. I have come off before and hit my head heavily on the road, helmet was a write off, my head was intact!
Did the helmet make a difference? Thankfully I will never know.

There are many injuries that you can receive in an accident that are capable of killing you or causing serious injury. A helmet may only offer a little protection, but I'll settle for that.

 

[cyberknight]

I have always worn a helmet since my return to cycling after a 15 year break,mainly due to Mrs CK pressure and now the fact that judges have been known to reduce compensation and make the cyclist partially to blame for not wearing one.

http://www.accidentsdirect.com/acci...n-to-reduce-for-cyclists-without-helmets.aspx

TBH i would like to ditch the lid as i find them a sweat box but for the forseeable future i will wear mine.

 

[martint235]

That sums it up for me

To answer jonney jeez, whilst I might not believe it helps the Missus is much happier knowing I wear a helmet and I am not about to shatter that image for her otherwise I will be commuting sans bike

Yeah I do have this too. The missus has relunctantly, and I mean reluctantly, allowed me to do weekend rides without a helmet but there is no way I'd be allowed to commute into London without one.

 

[BSRU]

I have always worn a helmet since my return to cycling after a 15 year break,mainly due to Mrs CK pressure and now the fact that judges have been known to reduce compensation and make the cyclist partially to blame for not wearing one.

http://www.accidents...ut-helmets.aspx

TBH i would like to ditch the lid as i find them a sweat box but for the forseeable future i will wear mine.

That article is disturbing, almost blaming the cyclist for not wearing a helmet, what next reduction due to not wearing full body armour.

 

[slugonabike]

Yes, I wear a hemet. I bought it when I got my bike and didn't know any better. Now that I have done some research I am worried about the potential increase in life-damaging brain injuries whilst wearing it. However, at my speed and level of (im)competance, I reckon I'm more at risk of falling off and hitting my head than anything else and that's where the helmet seems to be of most use.

 

[snorri]

That article is disturbing, almost blaming the cyclist for not wearing a helmet,

but it is not a researched article, it's just an advertisement.

 

[Dan B]

I have always worn a helmet since my return to cycling after a 15 year break,mainly due to Mrs CK pressure and now the fact that judges have been known to reduce compensation and make the cyclist partially to blame for not wearing one.

http://www.accidents...ut-helmets.aspx

TBH i would like to ditch the lid as i find them a sweat box but for the forseeable future i will wear mine.

That case bears closer investigation. If you look up the details you'll see that what the judge actually said was that un-helmeted cyclists who suffer head injuries may not be entitled to full compensation if it can be shown that a helmet would have reduced or prevented their injuries. He then went on to award full compensation to the cyclist : the impact speed was above 12mph and the blow was to the back of Smith's head, an area not necessarily protected by a helmet.

So it's bad news but it's not as bad as Accidents Direct want you to believe (I wonder why?)

Check out the write up from the CTC here : http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5180

 

[Andrew_P]

Almost nobody wears a helmet here, except for small kids, mountainbikers and people in races where it's compulsory.

I'd say less than 1% of grown-up commuters wear one.

Are the hospitals full of vegative ex-cyclists?

 

[DrSquirrel]

That case bears closer investigation. If you look up the details you'll see that what the judge actually said was that un-helmeted cyclists who suffer head injuries may not be entitled to full compensation if it can be shown that a helmet would have reduced or prevented their injuries. He then went on to award full compensation to the cyclist : the impact speed was above 12mph and the blow was to the back of Smith's head, an area not necessarily protected by a helmet.

So it's bad news but it's not as bad as Accidents Direct want you to believe (I wonder why?)

Check out the write up from the CTC here : http://www.ctc.org.u...aspx?TabID=5180

I don't think AD care - wouldn't they want to get the most compensation for the cyclist (their client)? Remembering they would more likely be representing a cyclist as when would a motorist get injured?

AD wont be defending a motorist.

Just strange misguided faff.

 

[Andrew_P]

Yes, and it's the same in the Netherlands apparently.

 

[Dan B]

I don't think AD care - wouldn't they want to get the most compensation for the cyclist (their client)? Remembering they would more likely be representing a cyclist as when would a motorist get injured?

Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I think their biggest profits come from getting as many payouts as fast as possible instead of extending the process over years by pushing for every last penny, and if they can dampen your expectations upfront by telling you you're not eligible for the last 15% then you'll be less likely to become the awkward customer who insists the case actually goes to court instead of settling for the motorist's insco's first offer

It's certainly true for estate agents

 

[DrSquirrel]

Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I think their biggest profits come from getting as many payouts as fast as possible instead of extending the process over years by pushing for every last penny, and if they can dampen your expectations upfront by telling you you're not eligible for the last 15% then you'll be less likely to become the awkward customer who insists the case actually goes to court instead of settling for the motorist's insco's first offer

It's certainly true for estate agents

Didn't think you got the choice of going to court with "no win no fee" companies... that or if you have insurance which covers it, I doubt they care... if they get their fees.