helmets

[Liveaxle]

http://yfrog.com/h0f33oj (worksafe)

...or you could have chosen a recumbent trike with snow tyres and not come off at all!

Ah but do snow tyres work on spilt diesel

Really? How did we survive 3 million years of evolution without helmets? Head injury is more frequent in pedestrians than cyclist Because now most cyclists wear helmets perhaps?? yet no one said we should all be wearing walking helmets. omg what a thought Just look ahead when riding and ride according to the conditions.

As I said it is totally personal choice and to be honest I only started wearing one when swmbo nagged me into it! My fall caught me out the conditions weren't icy or rainy just a bit of damp here and there, seeing the damage to my helmet just made me think about it a bit more than usual.

 

[snomaes]

I am now on my second helmet after splitting my first one on the kerb when I came off on a frosty road. It was much easier to replace my helmet than it would have been to repair my skull.

To wear, or not to wear should always be a personal choice, but personally I would never ride without one.

My latest helmet is a Giro Monza, comfortable, light and (in my opinion) quite stylish.

 

[HJ]

As I said it is totally personal choice and to be honest I only started wearing one when swmbo nagged me into it!

Ah yes, the Culture of Fear, there is a lot of it about...

[media]

]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY[/media]

 

[raindog]

Thanks for the vid - interesting.

 

[Aperitif]

Yep good thoughts. Wouldn't the 'health warnings' be impressive on cars! You should re-post this in the Café HJ - good stuff!

 

[fossyant]

Argh, not this old chestNUT again ?????????

Keep to topic. Yes the OP could use it for cycling, but as has been said he'll boil - but then again, most cheap cycling helmets will boil your head

 

[PpPete]

I'm (usually) a helmet wearer on a bike... but being slowly being swayed by the "anti" arguments...but then I'm not one who can claim to have had life saved, or injury avoided by wearing helmet.

I have however started to wear a helmet whilst ski-ing over the last two years, after a particulalry nasty fall after which I was semi-conscious for a few minutes.

And yet snow is (usually) softer than roads or cars... where's the logic in that ?


Just as an aside on the whole "safety culture" ....
Swimming club my kids are members of: these are serious competitive swimmers, training 20 or more miles a week, with a professional coach in attendance. In the last few years all the different pools that the club uses have suddenly added rules about a lifeguard being present in addition to the coach (at extra cost).... not as a "stable door" measure because of some accident that has occurred, I can only guess its because they fear some liability could devolve upon them otherwise. Utterly illogical ... these kids are more at home in the water than otters, chances of them drowning about equal with that of me being snogged by Rachel Riley.

 

[Dan B]

I'm (usually) a helmet wearer on a bike... but being slowly being swayed by the "anti" arguments...but then I'm not one who can claim to have had life saved, or injury avoided by wearing helmet.

I occasioned this damage to a helmet once:

(more pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/coruskate/tags/helmetsavedmylife/ )

and rationally I still don't know if it saved me an injury or caused me one. If I hadn't had that lump of polystyrene sticking out the back of my head, perhaps my neck muscles would have kept it off the ground as I fell back - after all, they've done it before

 

[yello]

Excellent video YouTube link thing there HJ. Thought provoking and somehow, at the same time, intuitively obvious.

 

[Garz]

As a skier and a bicycle rider, I have never seen the need for a helmet in either pursuit, nor have I ever suffer a head injury as a result of either activity, although I have fallen doing both (skiing more often than cycling). Personally I feel that a helmet is a waste of money for either activity (unless you are planning to go to the far extremes), but that is just me, if you want to spend the money, that is up to you :shrug:

This is quite frustrating to say the least and not very encouraging to others.

The chief reason I have one is due to the insurance side of things some stipulate if you are not wearing one it can effect your claim.

 

[MikeMc]

"some stipulate"? - Who, and could you quote from the policy as I'm curious as to how they word it.

 

[ianrauk]

This is quite frustrating to say the least and not very encouraging to others.

The chief reason I have one is due to the insurance side of things some stipulate if you are not wearing one it can effect your claim.

And why should it be encouraging to others? (or discouraging for that matter), Surely it's up the the individual to make up their own mind. If you wan't to wear a helmet, then wear one, if you don't, then don't. Don't listen to anybody else's opinions (pro or anti). It's a choice only the individual should make.

 

[Aperitif]

if you are not wearing one it can effect your claim.

And sorry to drift off topic but those recently discussed words effect and affect show up again - in unfortunate circumstances!

 

[Garz]

And why should it be encouraging to others? (or discouraging for that matter), Surely it's up the the individual to make up their own mind. If you wan't to wear a helmet, then wear one, if you don't, then don't. Don't listen to anybody else's opinions (pro or anti). It's a choice only the individual should make.

Okay, I can't tell the tone your asking this but I'm quite happy with what your saying. I just don't dismiss them so easily, especially if this can affect legal decisions or say the difference between being allowed to participate in an event. If your happy not to wear one then fine, but to tell people there is no need for them and they are a waste of money is hardly constructive.

I'm sure I read it recently when renewing my BC membership anyhow. Whilst I don't think it's a requirement it seems to hinge on the liability aspect of cases:

Whilst current legislation does not make the wearing of a cycle helmet compulsory, this does not prevent a Defendant arguing contributory negligence where a head injury has been sustained and a Claimant has not been wearing a helmet. Whether or not the helmet itself would have made any difference in the circumstances has to be a matter for the medical evidence.

Nevertheless, it seems that there is strong support from a number of bodies that all cyclists should wear properly fitted helmets. Cycle helmets are now compulsory in Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Iceland (under age 16), Czech Republic (under age 16), Canada (aged under 18) and many states in the USA. Since October 1993, the Royal Mail have required their postmen and women to wear helmets.

The wearing or not wearing a helmet is not the only issue that needs to be taken into account when considering liability. The issues of fluorescent clothing and lights are also of much relevance when cycling at night or in poor weather conditions and compliance with the Highway Code is of course always a relevant factor of consideration.

I guess the jury is still out!

 

[ufkacbln]

Okay, I can't tell the tone your asking this but I'm quite happy with what your saying. I just don't dismiss them so easily, especially if this can affect legal decisions or say the difference between being allowed to participate in an event. If your happy not to wear one then fine, but to tell people there is no need for them and they are a waste of money is hardly constructive.

I'm sure I read it recently when renewing my BC membership anyhow. Whilst I don't think it's a requirement it seems to hinge on the liability aspect of cases:




I guess the jury is still out!

It has been unsuccessfully tried.... but on the same subject

If the rider is responsible for "increased injury" due to a decision not to wear a helmet, would a driver be responsible for "increased injury by choosing a car that inflicted greater injury?

If I buy a zero star (EuroNCAP rating) or one star, I am choosing to inflict greater injuries on pedestrians and cyclists should this be taken into account?