Forum menu
I have just ridden my road bike without a helmet............
How cool was that ?
I've found that the straps act like a kind of drainpipe when you're sweating, which was a bit odd until I realised what was happening, Ikept thinking it was rain drops on my legs. ..
But,yes I'd recommend one.
Where's the neon 'Caution! Cyclist' sign, massive airzound horn, and panniers carrying a paramedic's emergency first aid kit? You're just not taking this safety business seriously are you?
or comedy value, here is me, on the busy roads, wearing a helmet AND high-viz vest:
which one are you?
Sorry Terry, that isn't going to end the debate....
Was a bit thick of me 🙁
I agree with ned.
which one are you?
I'm the black guy.
4.BP.BLOGSPOT.COM Beep boop, "Caution, this cyclist is not wearing a helmet", beep boop
Good choice crikey. I'm mostly not wearing a Specialized S3. I was going to not wear a Prevail, but that proved a bit to pricey for little extra benefit.
I wore a cheaper Specialized Echelon in 38 degree heat in France recently. It was remarkably well ventilated considering the buckets of sweat pouring off me, cycling up Alpe d'Huez.
LH4.GOOGLEUSERCONTENT.COM More power to you if you can wear a cat on your head...
Shoulder, yes
But head?
EDIT: He's wearing a hat, a helmet and a cat. Where does he stand on this issue?
Those Catlike helmets always make me think of the rather creepy "breast rash larvae" hoax that was doing the rounds a while ago:
[url=
SNOPES.COM link possibly NSFW[/url]
GrahamS your argument is now using safety equipment which allows you to perform a task more safely causes injury
Demonstrated quite effectively on lots of building sites where eye protection is causing extra slips, trips and falls. I'm not sure if the research has been carried out but the numbers were showing a trend when I left the business.
Interesting how "common sense" risk analysis is so cultural biased.
I understand that back in days of unharnessed high steel, workers in North america wore steel toe-capped boots so that their toes aren't crushed by errant steel. High steel workers in the far east reckoned that it's more important to guard against the risk of falling off and dying than the risk of losing some toes, and wore(wear?) sneakers so they can fell the edges of the beams beneath their feet.
Both common sense, but both are cultural conformity with the norm, a cultural understanding of what's best.
"Common sense" does not really exist - it's all a product of our personal experiences and prevalent culture. If they are largely the same, then you'll agree. Otherwise, nope.
That's why it's common!
I've never worn my lid on my commute or when i did a bit of roadie riding and some 10 TT's ,but do every time on the MTB, After watching helicopter heroes this morning tending a guy who fell off on road going down a hill I think I should start.
Ironically, people do not always agree about which particular perceptions, judgements and understandings are "common sense". So although the term originated in philosophy, it is often seen as an inexact and subjective term, to be avoided in precise discussion.
Ho, ho! No danger of finding any precise discussion on here!
"Common sense" does not really exist - it's all a product of our personal experiences and prevalent culture. If they are largely the same, then you'll agree. Otherwise, nope.
I disagree.
Common sense should be called 'commonly accepted belief'. It's often not sense at all 🙂
Well, blow me down, I have learnt something from (because of) a helmet thread.
It encouraged me to think about what common sense means. I've been working on the usage of it as "good reasoning" i.e. "Don't you have any common-sense?" said to someone who's done something a bit silly.
Which ignores a great other part of what how it's used and what it means: [url]
Common sense should be called 'commonly accepted belief'. It's often not sense at all
This.
Particularly in the cycling world there are many things that would appear to fit into the 'But it's common sense!' approach which are actually not true.
Nothing like a philosophical tangent to kill a thread. fingers crossed...
...you'd have to be a nutter to get on a bike without a helmet on.
imnotverygood - Member...you'd have to be a nutter to get on a bike without a helmet on.
*Holds hand up*
Young Lady Falling off her bike without a helmet and looks fine:
[img] 
[/img]
(its Friday!)
Oooh strappy shoes and toe straps - that's a recipe for blisters!
Speaking from experience ?
but on the plus side she would get a wide pass
Been happening for years.......
[img]
[url=
do need much of an excuse to give lenient sentences [/url] as we have less rights than the average dog when involved in a rta.
You are an idiot if you don't wear a helmet!
Reply deleted as point made previously upthread.
Martin Porter has written some good stuff on the legal side of things.
e.g.
NEWLAWJOURNAL.CO.UK "Smith had not been wearing his cycle helmet and that, asserted Finch, made him at fault and partly responsible for his own brain damage"
"However, Smith was spared a reduction in his damages by the defendant's inability to prove that a helmet would have made any difference."
few more in here too...
see page 4
"Phethean-Hubble v Coles [2011] EWHC 363 (QB) HHJ Wilcox
Child cyclist rides from pavement onto road into the path of (child) motorist sustaining serious brain injury in the resulting collision. The Judge followed Smith v Finch finding both that the cyclist was at fault in not wearing a helmet and also that it had not been established that a helmet would have made any difference. The division of responsibility or causing the accident was one third cyclist and two thirds motorist (a decision that may well not survive appeal). The finding that a helmet would not have made a difference was not appealed. Shorrock was not cited"
[url=
spared double road killer Gary McCourt from jail.[/url]
How about this one from the US, where a driver kills a child cyclist while doing [b]84mph[/b] in a 45mph limit, and the SUES the child's parents because he wasn't wearing a helmet!?! 😯
BIKERADAR.COM That's just because the US legal system is rubbish though - he will lose his claim, but it costs him nothing to bring it.
costs him nothing to bring it.
But sadly it costs the family money to defend it! What a crap system.
I doubt if the money is their main complaint.
Last bloke who tried something similar dropped the case:
[i]Hundreds of protesters gathered outside the courthouse and the pending lynch mob convinced Delgado and his lawyer that continued litigation would be a bad idea.[/i]
Here's hoping.
Sadly this man has killed TWO cyclists.
[img]
Helmeted or not and the real debate is how we get pricks like this off the road for good.
Some shocking decisions on this and I do agree with this comment
“He says that Mrs Fyfe not wearing a helmet contributed to her death. That’s a bit like saying if I am shot while not wearing a bullet-proof vest then it’s my fault.
You may as well arguing owning a bike and going on the road contributed
However she would have been fine had she not been hit
Can car drivers payouts be reduced if they chose to drive a car without airbags or a poor safety rating?
Been happening for years.......[img]
br />
No[i]t[/i]ice how she is p[i]r[/i]otecting her head by h[i]o[/i]lding it away from the ground? That's something we [i]l[/i]earn as young children. The more you do it, the more instinctive it becomes. Those banging their heads all the time were wrapped in cotton woo[i]l[/i] as k[i]i[/i]ds a[i]n[/i]d didn't [i]g[/i]et the chance to hone their self preservation skills. Probably best they wear a lid every time they 're on a bike.
obvious troll is obvious not to mention incredibly slow off the mark
If that ^^ is aimed at me then please clarify.
So you're saying we don't learn to protect our head from damage in fall when young?
You're also saying practice doesn't make perfect, and someone who has never done something before will be just as adept as another who has repeatedly rehearsed?
I throw your troll accusation back in your face! (and apologize for [s]not spending my life on here[/s] being so slow)
You're also saying practice doesn't make perfect,
So you are saying the unhelmeted have practicised crashing till they are perfect at it and your non trolling argument is they crash more so they get injured less
Ok, this is my first time contributing to the helmet debate, but I couldn't resist.
I always wear a hemet when riding on and off road, but I have given this issue a lot of thought. My reasoning is:
1. Helmets are designed to reduce head injuries in certain types of scenario
2. As far as I can understand, these scenarios correspond to impacts at "cycling speed" with hard surfaces
3. Whilst helmets are not *designed* to reduce head injuries with motor vehicles travelling at "motor vehicle speed", they may well provide some marginal benefit over not wearing a helmet in such a scenario
4. Real world crashes of type 2 above are a definite possibility. I have experience of such crashes on and off road (thankfully none involving motor vehicles). In most of the crashes, my legs, arms or shoulders took the brunt of the impact. In a minority, I also banged my head. One of the crashes resulted in me having slight concussion, another just in a very stiff neck the next day. I cannot say whether I would have sustained more severe head injuries had I not been wearing a helmet, just that I believe that the impacts experienced were within the design basis for the helmets.
5. Whilst an argument could be made for not wearing helmets because they are not designed to protect the wearer in crashes of type 3 above, this would not reduce the likelihood of the wearer being involved in a crash of type 2 above.
6. I do not personally experience any disbenefit with helmet use, so the risk/benefit trade off is a simple one. I can cope with being sweaty, and have very short hair.
That's just my reasoning. I'm happy with wearing a helmet.
Interestingly, there is a similar debate in the yachting community with respect tot the wearing of life jackets on yachts (racing vs cruising etc). The RNLI have a "Useless unless worn" campaign.