Windy eye problems!

[jonny jeez]

At a guess, because it's special kit that relatively few people need for cycling, so why olympicate things?

Props for using Olympicate...I thought we were going with X-ify?

I assume we are not talking about prescription glasses here?

 

[CanucksTraveller]

At a guess, because it's special kit that relatively few people need for cycling, so why olympicate things?

Because it costs literally about 4 quid for Bolle safety glasses, and your eyesight is worth significantly more than this. 4 quid safety glasses are hardly special kit, or remotely Olympic, but they are sensible.

 

[Dan's Owd Man]

Do they fit over specs OK then? And do you know if the blue mirror is a blue tint or just a mirror effect?

I am fairly certain that you could not get a pair of glasses under them as they are wrap around,close fitting.
I use a set of black for the sun and a pair of orange to brighten up a rainy day,i have not tried the blue mirror so i can not say.
Richard

 

[mjr]

Because it costs literally about 4 quid for Bolle safety glasses, and your eyesight is worth significantly more than this. 4 quid safety glasses are hardly special kit, or remotely Olympic, but they are sensible.

But it's not about purchase price (more the faff of obtaining, carrying, wearing and so on), Bolle lenses are lumpy, and your eyesight wasn't significantly at risk to begin with!

Yes, there's a small chance of a freak incident, but the main reason to wear them is comfort if you need them. If you can ride without messing about with extra glasses, why wouldn't you?

 

[Accy cyclist]

Like others have said, you need to protect your eyes from objects that can cause you serious harm, and it costs only a few quid to do so! If you get hit in the eye with an oncoming bumble bee it'll knock you for six! I've had them hit my glasses, they certainly sh!t you up when they hit you!

 

[ColinJ]

At a guess, because it's special kit that relatively few people need for cycling, so why olympicate things?

Because a bee/wasp/fly/stone/owt else hitting an eye at a closing speed of 100+ kph can seriously f**k up your eyesight! (And that isn't taking into account the crash which would often result.)

When the stone cracked my glasses, I had been wearing them from new for less than 30 minutes!

I nearly always wear safety glasses. (Incidentally, I found the same ones sold by Screwfix on eBay at half the price.) £2 to protect your sight seems like a very good deal to me. On the rare occasions that I have gone out without glasses on I have often suffered from watery eyes and impacts with flying beasties which serve as reminders not to do that again.

 

[CanucksTraveller]

But it's not about purchase price (more the faff of obtaining, carrying, wearing and so on), Bolle lenses are lumpy, and your eyesight wasn't significantly at risk to begin with!

Yes, there's a small chance of a freak incident, but the main reason to wear them is comfort if you need them. If you can ride without messing about with extra glasses, why wouldn't you?

Okay so price isn't the issue for you any more, now you've seen they're dirt cheap. Now it's the faff. But to order online is something like a one/two minute exercise, and usually they're here the next day, maybe the one after. Faff to carry? You wear them on your face, no need to carry them. Faff to wear? Again, you wear them on your face, not hard. They're not uncomfortable, and you don't notice them once on, so no faff there.

Your other issue was Olympification (which I also have to give you cred for inventing!) They're not dear, and not particularly sexy. How are we Olympifying eye protection here?

You say there's a small chance of a freak incident... you're right to an extent, but why wouldn't I want to eliminate that risk entirely?
You also say the main reason to wear is comfort... I agree. Why would I want my eyes to be uncomfortable, red and streaming?

 

[mjr]

Bees do maybe 30kph, so that means ordinary cyclists do 70kph... if you're part of the minority doing that often, good luck to you and yes, maybe wear goggles for safety as well as comfort.

 

[CanucksTraveller]

That makes no sense based on the points we were debating here. I never mentioned bees and terminal velocity / closing speed for that matter, only general safety, risks and comfort overall. You raised cost and faff as barriers to those points, and we appear to have put those to bed. What's your thrust now?

 

[T4tomo]

Bees do maybe 30kph, so that means ordinary cyclists do 70kph... if you're part of the minority doing that often, good luck to you and yes, maybe wear goggles for safety as well as comfort.

It's just common sense to wear shades or glasses. Most people's eyes stream on descents, whether it's at 40kpm or 70kph. It's just a fact. I can't believe your arguing against wearing glasses/ shades when cycling, and that's without factoring the risk of bugs grit dust stones etc getting in your eyes.

 

[mjr]

Okay so price isn't the issue for you any more, now you've seen they're dirt cheap.

Price was never the issue for me and the low cost was mentioned right near the top of page one anyway.

Now it's the faff. But to order online is something like a one/two minute exercise, and usually they're here the next day, maybe the one after.

Without exception, every pair of goggles I've ordered online has been unwearable junk. I won't buy ones I can't check for defects any more.

Faff to carry? You wear them on your face, no need to carry them.

You must look awful odd at your destination. Do you really wear them all day at work, or while walking around shops?

Faff to wear? Again, you wear them on your face, not hard. They're not uncomfortable, and you don't notice them once on, so no faff there.

After a few hours, the pressure of the second set of arms is noticeable IMO.

Your other issue was Olympification (which I also have to give you cred for inventing!) They're not dear, and not particularly sexy. How are we Olympifying eye protection here?

No, you're Olympifying cycling (and I didn't invent that word).

You say there's a small chance of a freak incident... you're right to an extent, but why wouldn't I want to eliminate that risk entirely?

There's a small chance of a tree blocking the way. Why wouldn't you want to eliminate that risk entirely and cycle everywhere with a saw?

You also say the main reason to wear is comfort... I agree. Why would I want my eyes to be uncomfortable, red and streaming?

If you suffer from such things, as I do, it's a good idea, but plenty of people don't.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

I must have lost at least £50 worth of Aldi's cycling glasses through the years, I'm terrible for leaving glasses on top of panniers then setting off.
But it's a good idea to wear them if you can be bothered, indeed if your eyes are sore.
Here in Scotland I find the glasses mostly annoying, because it always rains then one can't see.

 

[mjr]

That makes no sense based on the points we were debating here. I never mentioned bees and terminal velocity / closing speed for that matter, ...

Try reading other people's posts. Sadly, you're not the only person asserting nonsense is "common sense" on this topic.

 

[ColinJ]

Bees do maybe 30kph, so that means ordinary cyclists do 70kph... if you're part of the minority doing that often, good luck to you and yes, maybe wear goggles for safety as well as comfort.

I am an ordinary cyclist and like many ordinary cyclists round here I often hit 70-80 kph on rides. The descent in the photo is on one of my favourite loops and the only time I don't go faster than 70 kph is when a headwind slows me down ... I am sometimes overtaken by other cyclists going even faster down there. (I don't have a high enough gear to pedal. That speed is achieved just by freewheeling.)

 

[vickster]

Isn't the point here that the OP's eyes are suffering, she's been to the doctor and has been advised to wear glasses to protect her eyes from the elements? Not whether she may be dive bombed by an insect?

FWIW I now wear prescription transition Oakleys. An effective but admittedly expensive option. I just carry my normal specs in the pouch/case that came with the Oakleys