Helmet Envy or not

[Andrew_P]

Having ridden 5k+ minus any head gear and with winter fast approaching, and external pressures. I was bought a livestrong Giro Helmet thingy on offer at 90 odd quid.

Now this was bought by someone "protecting their investment" long story

The question is should I wear it?

Reason for and against please.

Simple ones for me

Against

I will look like a helmet or at best a mushroom

For

Might keep my bald head warmer on winter mornings


Seriously these are the only arguments I can proffer, so can I have a list from both camps either convince me or not.

 

[rowan 46]

I am not convinced they are safer and not convinced they are more dangerous. The only reason I wear one is because it gives my family peace of mind and that's a good enough reason for me

 

[smokeysmoo]

^+1

 

[ThePainInSpain]

Having had a quite bad fall a few weeks ago (cracked rib still a little sore, but healing) i ended up with one hell of a black eye. When I looked at my helmet, I realised it could have been a lot, lot worse.
I have ALWAYS worn one and always will.

A friend of mine refuses to wear one because 'they don't look cool', I pointed out that lying in a hospital bed with a mashed brain ain't that cool either. She was not convinced.

The choice is yours, but the only 'against' that I can think of is........................................................................................................



sorry, can't think of one!

 

[Theseus]

As to whether to wear it, that is up to you.

If you want a reason to tell your investor why you should not to wear the one that was bought for you, you could always say that the fit is wrong. All heads are different and that xxxxx (insert brand here) do not fit your head shape.

If you want to keep your head warm, get a woolly hat.

 

[Bicycle]

I'll join you on the fence. I often wear one, but not always.

Reasons to wear one:

1. Mrs Bicycle likes me to and she is clever, kind, caring and wonderful and knows how to make Bread & Butter Pudding.

2. I am superstitious and sometimes I get a funny feeling that not wearing one is asking for trouble...

3. The children approve when I wear one.

4. Some events require it of me.

5. I feel slightly more cosseted on fast descents on wet single-carriageway roads next to articulated lorries. Quite why, I don't know. If they squidged me, I don't think the helmet would stop them flattening my lungs, heart and spleen....



Reasons not to:

1. They lack the excellent peak of a cotton casquette that you can angle perfectly, wherever the sun is in the sky.

2. They lack the excellent sweak-wicking properties of a cotton casquette.

3. I can scratch my head more easily in a cap.

4. In winter, a woolen cap comforter is warmer and snugger.

5. It winds up helmet fascists, although I don't know why it should.

6. I look very silly with a helmet on.

7. I secretly imagine I'm Pantani with hair - and he was a pre-helmet rider....

All my reasons for and against are tosh.... just like my reasons for banking where I do, eating what I eat, reading the paper I read....

 

[Red Light]

Its really up to you. The chance you will have an accident in which it might make a difference is incredibly small. The difference it will make in an accident is about zero according to the best research. So since it makes no difference to something that happens very rarely just look on it as a choice of what hat you want to wear to keep you warm.

In those stakes the pluses for a beanie, buff or other soft hats is they go easily into a pocket, you can wear them to keep warm off the bike, they keep your ears warm too and they are not full of vent holes that reduce their effectiveness at keeping your head warm.

 

[Andrew_P]

Reasons to wear one:


2. I am superstitious and sometimes I get a funny feeling that not wearing one is asking for trouble...

3. The children approve when I wear one.

4. Some events require it of me.


Reasons not to:


5. It winds up helmet fascists, although I don't know why it should.

6. I look very silly with a helmet on.

7. I secretly imagine I'm Pantani with hair - and he was a pre-helmet rider....

All my reasons for and against are tosh.... just like my reasons for banking where I do, eating what I eat, reading the paper I read....

I like these, on a serious note if I and my bike were to get splintered by a third party would the fact that I was not wearing a helmet count against me and any subsquent claim by me or my next of kin?

Any real world data on that? Cannot beleive that no ins company have not used that one?

 

[Red Light]

I like these, on a serious note if I and my bike were to get splintered by a third party would the fact that I was not wearing a helmet count against me and any subsquent claim by me or my next of kin?

Any real world data on that? Cannot beleive that no ins company have not used that one?

Although the principle that it could has been established, all the Court cases to date about cycling on the road, including the one that set the principle, have found the helmet would have made no difference to the outcome and not reduced the damages. If you make sure your next of kin know to contact the CTC should the worst ever happen, they will help make sure it doesn't happen. Your biggest risk is an uninformed lawyer who doesn't know the evidence for helmets and fails to find it out so accepts a reduction by default.

 

[Andrew_P]

A Whole raft of againsts!

My first ride with one on, and frankly it was bloody awful, wind noise, felt like a not so super mario, not very comfortable also felt like I had erected a sail upon my head for extra resistance (I know this was placebo but all the same!).

I have been semi bullied, by people at work wife and kids etc, I had said quietly to myself that I may wear one in the winter commutes on the basis that I rather than a third party may be at fault in an accident (ie hitting a bit of unexpected ice and sliding off) and possibly frosty window puller outters a helmet may offer some protection. My previous one line rely to people was "do you think a bit of polystyrene is going to save me if a car hits me at any angle @ 30mph"? The only thing that will save any cyclist in that event is luck.

Honestly? I think if I had to wear it so it wouldn't move on impact it would be so uncomfortable I would never ride, its sat their perched upon my head a lump of polystyrene, I really feel like it is a case of the emperors clothes "This £99 helemt will save your life" and thus most seem to obey.

I really wish there were conclusive proof either way, some of my logic says that if I T-bone a car pulling out on me that it should break some of the impact, but sliding off? My only off since returning to cycling was turning into work too fast (its slightly gravelly) trying ot beat a record and the front slid away my whole memory was instinctively trying to keep my head away from hitting anything. This was prior to wearing clippless pedals, I reckon these are probably more dangerous than not wearing a helemt in an accidnet situation. I would hope instinct takes over and you unclip, but currently two months in to cliplless I doubt I would!

 

[ufkacbln]

Decide on a daily basis?

If you feel there is a greater risk on Friday because it is icy, then wear one. If the ice has gone on Monday then leave it at home.

Your choice on your assessment of your risk.

 

[ufkacbln]

I like these, on a serious note if I and my bike were to get splintered by a third party would the fact that I was not wearing a helmet count against me and any subsquent claim by me or my next of kin?

Any real world data on that? Cannot beleive that no ins company have not used that one?

Just wait until the next stage...


The cyclist was riding at 20mph, and deliberately chose to exceed the design specification of the helmet....they are therefore liable for the extent of injuries?

 

[Bicycle]

Just wait until the next stage...


The cyclist was riding at 20mph, and deliberately chose to exceed the design specification of the helmet....they are therefore liable for the extent of injuries?

Is this really the next stage, or is it one of those "I wouldn't be at all surprised if...." postings?

I often exceed 30 in a 30 (downhill) but I understand that as bicycles are not required to carry a speedometer, the rider cannot be expected to obey road signs when he/she has no way of telling whether he/she is doing so or not.

As an aside, I think I'd quite enjoy picking up a speeding ticket on a bicycle....

And as to exceeding the design specification of the helmet, I have never been told by a retailer not to exceed a certain speed and have never read instructions on the box not to do so.

I think this thing about a vertical drop at 12.5 mph is a bit of a tired old chestnut.

I'm quite mellow about helmet use, but the more I read from the "They didn't ought to try to make us wear one" Brigade, the more I find myself sympathising with the other side.

That is until I read what they're going on about... then I get back on the fence!

 

[ufkacbln]

I've got a couple of speeding tickets , both (I hasten to add) on controlled roads, with the assistance and approval of the Police

Anyway - it is simply a piece of conjecture, and another one of the unanswered questions, if a helmet is effective at that speed, then exceeding that speed is surely an unnecessary risk that compromises the choice you have made to wear one?

 

[Bicycle]

I've got a couple of speeding tickets , both (I hasten to add) on controlled roads, with the assistance and approval of the Police

Anyway - it is simply a piece of conjecture, and another one of the unanswered questions, if a helmet is effective at that speed, then exceeding that speed is surely an unnecessary risk that compromises the choice you have made to wear one?

1. Your wording is slightly oblique, but you seem to be sugesting you picked up speeding fines on a bicycle. You have my sympathyif you did, but it's a club I'd be amused to join nonetheless. Which speed were you ticketed for exceeding? If it was 40, you have my sympathy and also my envy. How much did they cost you?

2. I'd dared to guess that the 'next stage' bit of your earlier post was conjecture. Thanks for clarifying that. Your second paragraph (quoted above) suggests that if something is designed and built to withstand A, then to subject it to B (where B exceeds A) or to A+Y is an an unnecessary risk.

I'm not sure when 'risk' becomes 'unnecessary risk'. Life is full of compromise and many judgements have to take that into account. Rarely have I looked down at my speed and thought 'Darn it, this unnecessary risk compromises my decision to wear a helmet'.

It does not follow that if an item is designed to be effective in given conditions, it will be ineffective outside those conditions.

The modern cars we drive (I also have an old 60s clunker) are crash tested at various speeds, most of which I exceed most of the time. I don't exceed 70 and then regret the unnecessary risk I'm taking or think that buying a car with a safety cell was a particularly compromised choice.

I've never clonked my head in a bicycle accident and am usually not wearing one when I fall. However my wife has done so, was exceeding 20 at the time and was jolly glad to be wearing a hat.

I'm not entirely sure any of us quite understands the decision-making process others go through when deciding whether to take a risk or not. That being so, I think you might rather too quickly suggest what does or does not compromise my choices.

I shall be eating pasta tonight with raw eg stirred into the sauce. Any risk involved therein does not compromise the culinary choices I've made.

Mmmmmmmm..... Carbonara!