Please don't wear helmets*!!

[mjr]

Maybe the answer is don't cycle on roads ! , (although I met a log lorry the other day on my off road route) but generally it's much safer.
although I would still advise wearing a helmet, tree branches and brambles don't arf hurt when they bounce of your head.

Any hat's enough to deflect them (unless it's such a comically large branch that it'll take you off the bike no matter what headwear).

The answer isn't "don't cycle on roads" sadly, when we're faced with evidence that even a cycleway isn't safe:

(of course, that would be on a short narrow section). Unless it's somewhere physically impossible for motorists to drive, they'll have a go. Actually, sometimes they have a go even if it is physically impossible:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_Cw0QJU8ro

actually if a stone hit you in the head, and you were not wearing a helmet , your natural reaction of dodge duck , ooch that hurt, would quite likely put you off your bike.

Depends on the bike. I can dance on my Dutchie without falling off

Just because it failed to damage the plastic shell of your helmet, - the skin shell of your head is much more fragile,

Well, I've still got a luxurious head of hair before it reaches the skin.

Anyway, the skin of my head isn't very shell-like. Maybe you should moisturise?

 

[Tin Pot]

How To Think Clearly (Pt 1)
People like to decide their opinion then back it up with their experiences, and be dismissive of anything that counters said opinion.

The only way to counter this is to start with an open mind on the subject and apply scientific method and logic to construct an evidence-based worldview.

Where evidence is not available, one should recognise that it is merely an unfounded opinion.

Consequently, when your unfounded opinion is contradicted by an evidence-based one, it is rational to challenge your current opinion and see whether it should be changed.

 

[Licramite]

Most people learn by experience. being told something don't mean a thing unless you have an experience you can connect it to.
that's why you can tell a child not to stick their finger in a fan - then watch them do it.

so most have fallen over and banged there heads, hence you look at the situation , relate it to whats happened in the past and make your choice.

I still prefer to stay off road (despite the comically large branches!) (I mean the type of off road that only horses and tracked vehicles normally go)

 

[Tin Pot]

Most people learn by experience.

Quite true, but that doesn't make it the best way.

I learn by taking advantage of other people's experience and more importantly, scientific experiments. This allows me to be much better informed of the reality of things.

 

[totallyfixed]

Unfortunately we now inhabit a world where to put ones hand up and say I was wrong is increasingly rare [as evidenced by politicians unless they have just lost an election]. I have yet to hear an explanation as to why a whole nation across the North Sea think it perfectly safe to ride without helmets, and from a very young age. Please do not say it is because there are lots of cycle paths over there because the vast majority of accidents on a bike in the UK do not involve a third party. So, either our continental neighbours are more skilful than us [not totally implausible having witnessed the antics of some sportive riders] or when they do crash it doesn't actually do much damage. Heck, it could mean cycling is not dangerous, now there is a radical thought for all you helmet wearers, 'course you wouldn't look like a pro anymore if you ditched it.
Off to the Netherlands and Belgium on Monday touring, can't wait.

 

[david k]

Because safety glasses demonstrably protect the eyes against debris.

There's this useful concept called evidence, which is quite handy when deciding whether something is a useful intervention or not, you should try it some time.

Do you have the evidence to support wearing safety glass whilst cycling?
Does it not give the impression that cycling is a dangerous activity?

 

[benb]

You weren't there. The stone didn't hit your head. Stop telling me how much force was involved. Stop telling me I'm over-egging things. MOD EDIT: Content Removed.

MOD EDIT: Content Removed
You are confident that the stone would have made you fall off, yet it was not going with enough force to damage your helmet at all.
We are entitled to question the inconsistency between those two statements.

 

[david k]

I don't insist they wear sunglasses. I insist they wear safety glasses, and seeing as its me that pays the insurance premiums they can go get their training elsewhere if they don't like it. Not one person has ever objected or even questioned it, but if it happens ill be sure to let you know.

Seeing as I don't pay the insurance costs for anyone else on here I don't insist they wear helmets, gloves, Y fronts, chastity belts etc.

Meeting sarcasm with sarcasm? Must try harder.

But what about freedom of choice?

 

[benb]

Do you have the evidence to support wearing safety glass whilst cycling?
Does it not give the impression that cycling is a dangerous activity?

You're asking for evidence that glasses protect the eyes against debris? Seriously?
Do you also want evidence that a hat keeps the sun out of one's eyes?

No, I don't think glasses give the impression that cycling is a dangerous activity, because they are just glasses.

 

[david k]

You're asking for evidence that glasses protect the eyes against debris? Seriously?
Do you also want evidence that a hat keeps the sun out of one's eyes?

No, I don't think glasses give the impression that cycling is a dangerous activity, because they are just glasses.

But before insisting someone must wear them there should be evidence to back it up yes or no?

 

[david k]

You're asking for evidence that glasses protect the eyes against debris? Seriously?
Do you also want evidence that a hat keeps the sun out of one's eyes?

No, I don't think glasses give the impression that cycling is a dangerous activity, because they are just glasses.

They are just glasses or are safety glasses that must be worn?

 

[benb]

But before insisting someone must wear them there should be evidence to back it up yes or no?

I don't insist people wear them.

As far as I know, there haven't been any studies showing that glasses keep debris out, just as there are no studies showing that roofs keep rain out.

 

[Tin Pot]

I sometimes wonder how sunglasses behave in an accident and whether they can cause more damage.

 

[broadway]

Most people learn by experience. being told something don't mean a thing unless you have an experience you can connect it to.
that's why you can tell a child not to stick their finger in a fan - then watch them do it.

so most have fallen over and banged there heads, hence you look at the situation , relate it to whats happened in the past and make your choice.

I still prefer to stay off road (despite the comically large branches!) (I mean the type of off road that only horses and tracked vehicles normally go)

As far as I recall I have only hit my head when off my bike, so maybe I should wear a pedestrian helmet

Wearing a helmet is up to you of course, but assuming you do travel off-road on those types of routes you are likely travelling at speeds at which helmets are likely to give the most benefit. As it happens my wife went to visit someone this week who went over the handlebars when the front wheel went into a pothole on such a track.

 

[david k]

I don't insist people wear them.

As far as I know, there haven't been any studies showing that glasses keep debris out, just as there are no studies showing that roofs keep rain out.

Not on about roofs though are we?

So you are happy to support drago in insisting he makes people wear a piece of safety equipment without reference to evidence? Yes or no