Why are UK cyclists fixated on helmets

[Kookas]

Comedy Pilot. I stand corrected. Not All but an awful lot of them.

Why would a solicitor need to know if you were wearing a helmet if there is no legal requirement to do so? It looks like the legal system has been sucked in as well. The same goes for insurance companies. How can they refuse a claim if you are complying with all the requirements of the law? But we all know they will try anything.

I can see a couple of the hard core helmet people joined in with this, and thats good. But reading between the Lines it looks like this helmet fetish could be coming to an end.

It was good to see that this topic can be talked about at length without someone throwing the teddy off the bike.

It is interesting to see on the internet that you can find just as much information to refute the use of helmets as you can to support the good they do. You cant see that when it comes to motorbike helmets. Why is that?

Steve

Motorbike helmets are nearly pure safety equipment. Cycle helmets are safety equipment, diluted by reasonable breathability, low weight and good aerodynamic performance - three things that don't matter nearly as much when you're not the one pushing the back wheel.

 

[ufkacbln]

Actually, I remember from a dim and distant acute spinal injuries course I did that there is a particular kind of fracture in the bone of the heel that often accompanies a spinal fracture. It happens when someone falls from height and lands on their feet. So not so silly as it would seem.

Anyway, we digress!

Yep.... basically (a bit like a helmet?) the leg fails to absorb the pressure and the calcaneum cracks!

Often a difficult one for the patient as they tend to crack both heels at the same time making mobility and issue.

However in the Casualty episode, they were quite happily pointing out a Cervical spine fracture whilst placing their finger on a metatarsal bone in the foot.

 

[ufkacbln]

Motorbike helmets are nearly pure safety equipment. Cycle helmets are safety equipment, diluted by reasonable breathability, low weight and good aerodynamic performance - three things that don't matter nearly as much when you're not the one pushing the back wheel.

Also why we need to question what cycle helmets actually are and their function!

The EN1078 required for sale in the UK is laughably weak and ineffective. It is not acepted in teh US, and not accepted by some UK organisers for their events

Also unlike the motorcycle helmet, cycle helmets have become less and less effective over the years and less likely to protect than a helmet of 15 years ago.

Now add the comments by Headway who support the British Dental Association's demands for greater facial coverage and we have to ask where we are going

Are we happy for the helmet to continue to decrease in effectiveness as it becomes more and more driven by fashion and hysteria as opposed to fact, or should we really be looking at something that when needed will do the job?

 

[ianrauk]

Helmets are sh!t.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Helmets doth offend mine head.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Women I meet when out on my bike have sex with me, and turn down my helmet-wearing chums.....

 

[snorri]

my helmet-wearing chums.....

It's time you were a litle more selective regarding your choice of "chums".

 

[srw]

[QUOTE 2982305, member: 45"]It's ok folks, there's no creep towards compulsion. It'll never happen.

You can quote me on that in 5,10,20 years.[/QUOTE]

I've postulated before that the success of Boris Bikes as a tourist attraction in London, especially around Westminster, has set helmet compulsion back years - probably permanently. I did notice this morning on my way round Hyde Park that the proportion of non-helmet wearers is probably up around 1 in 8 or 1 in 10 - often combined with working clothes and a traditional bike. That was before any self-respecting tourist was out of bed.

 

[Markymark]

Then should we be pushing for more effective helmets?

 

[MontyVeda]

Then should we be pushing for more effective helmets?

there's all sorts of different helmets available, just choose one that suits your requirements.... you shouldn't have to 'push' for anything.

ps. it doesn't have to say 'cycling' on the box.

 

[Markymark]

What I mean is that there's plenty of posts here about the ineffectiveness of cycling helmets. If people choose to wear them should they then at least do a better job?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

they mostly do a fine job for the narrow range of circumstances in which they are designed to perform adequately.

very few of us ride our bikes within the performance envelope of our helmets.

 

[Markymark]

Would it then not be a good idea for the design to better accommodate the greater range of requirements from cyclists if large numbers of people are already wearing them?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Would it then not be a good idea for the design to better accommodate the greater range of requirements from cyclists if large numbers of people are already wearing them?

Large numbers of people would not be prepared to wear a helmet that could accommodate the range of performance required by a typical UK cyclist...

...think about what sort of helmet that would be needed to dissipate the forces involved in a 30mph off over the handlebars onto the side of skull with the head/body rotating...

...you simply could not cycle in it.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

We need force-fields.

If we had force-fields I suspect the technology used could meet our transport needs rendering our bikes redundant.


oh.



hang on.



you were joking.



weren't you?