Helmets - the definitive thread.. ** Mod Note - Please read Opening Post **

jimmycrackcorm

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Never mind the helmets, how come they are cycling so close to the seafront and not one of them is wearing a life jacket?

Because I can pee more water than there is on that shore.

Chips Lovell

buffalo wrote: »

From http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/move-from-current-religious-instruction-in-catholic-schools-may-begin-by-2014-1.1510094

Anyone else fancy starting a pool on when the first letter decrying the lack of a helmet on the father will be published? Tomorrow or Monday? Will Ultan Ó Broin be the author!?

Poll added.

doozerie

I saw a cyclist wearing a very unusual looking helmet this morning. At first glance it looked like a motorbike helmet as it came down quite low, completely enclosing the ears, and it had no obvious vents at all, but the part that wrapped around the chin was actually a strap rater than something rigid/structural. It may all have been a motorbike helmet, I suppose, but it lacked the bulk that I'd typically associate with one and it seemed relatively light too. I've not seen one like it before.

Separately, while trying to find a picture of the helmet just now, I was unable to find one just like it (the closest thing was labelled as a helmet for a scooter), but I did find this stupid example of helmet propaganda. It's a poster from the Boston Public Health Commission showing a guy bleeding from the face and with a tagline of "Still think it's the helmet that's unattractive? There are no excuses" alongside a "No excuses. Wear a helmet" logo thing. Apparently a bicycle helmet can prevent your face from being lacerated now. Or something. Go magic helmet, go!

ThisRegard

doozerie wrote: »

I'm not sure about the existence of studies but another concern would be that the back of a helmet would be fouled by the back of the seat thereby forcing the child's head forward and tilted down. That's one of the problems you sometimes see in photos of kids wearing helmets in child trailers and I imagine various of the babyseats for bikes would be subject to it too.

One thing that I'd strongly recommend is getting a decent bike stand for your bike, if you don't have one already. When attaching a bike to our child trailer it makes life a lot easier when the bike isn't prone to falling over at the slightest movement of the trailer, and I'd expect the benefits to be even greater when putting a child into a child seat on the bike.

I put off buying one last year because it was intended for use on leisure cycles as opposed to commuting, and it didn't seem to stop raining from around the time I went to buy it until this summer.

Anyway, there's a few out there with what the manufacturers claim to be space at the back of the head to allow the helmet sit into it and therefore not pushing the kids head forward.

On the helmet issue, our 3 year old only has worn it around the house, when messing. Fair enough I suppose. When out on her balance bike she doesn't put one on.

If she saw me wear mine she'll put it on, but I'm not going to walk around the park with 2 dogs on a lead and a helmet on my head just for that.

check_six

RayCun wrote: »

But seriously, if you think helmets are useful and your children should wear them, why not wear one yourself? If you don't think it's important, neither will your kids.
(and if you think they're pointless and ineffective, why would you tell your kids to wear them?)

I recommend my son to wear gloves and a helmet. He asked why and I explained that the gloves are in case you fall off your bike, and the helmet is in case you get any hassle off your teachers in school for not wearing a helmet on your bike. Also we got him a helmet that looked really good, so that helped. He accepted the reasons and wears the helmet most of the time, but I'm not bothered if he doesn't. I do, however, get very upset if he makes manoeuvers without checking around him first. This would include manoeuvers on quiet side streets where there is no other traffic. I'm trying to get him to develop good habits, and for the most part it's working pretty well.

buffalo

RayCun wrote: »

But seriously, if you think helmets are useful and your children should wear them, why not wear one yourself? If you don't think it's important, neither will your kids.
(and if you think they're pointless and ineffective, why would you tell your kids to wear them?)

Because children are still developing physically, and are more likely to fall over and hit their head than a grown man? Grown ups do lots of things that kids shouldn't do, like stay out late at night, or drink alcohol. Just remember to wear your drinking helmet.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Poll added.

Not quite as good as a betting pool, but that'll do pig, that'll do.

doozerie

RayCun wrote:

But seriously, if you think helmets are useful and your children should wear them, why not wear one yourself? If you don't think it's important, neither will your kids.
(and if you think they're pointless and ineffective, why would you tell your kids to wear them?)

I think that kids will wear helmets, or not, for a host of reasons. And parents will encourage wearing a helmet, or not, for a host of other reasons. Peer and social pressure influence both, and this might play a part in a parent encouraging their kids to wear a helmet while they themselves don't (people amaze me, they could see a small child vandalise someone's property and just tut to themselves but take no action, but put that same child on a bicycle with no helmet and the same people will approach a parent and give out to them for being irresponsible). Or it could simply be that the kids decide they want to wear a helmet regardless of whether the rest of the world does or doesn't - kids defy adult logic, mostly.

Fundamentally though, I don't see a real problem with one parent not wearing a helmet while the rest of the family does. It's easy to lose sight of the fact that people are individuals, even in the context of a family, and it's unrealistic to expect that both parents will agree on everything. I'd even argue that it's healthy for children to be exposed to both views rather than one parent succumbing to the view of the other in some misguided attempt to make the kids live easier - certainly, at a young age they won't understand the differences between the two views so you have to be careful that neither parent paints their view on helmets as being "correct" as that'll just confuse the kid(s) amongst other things, but kids can certainly understand that people hold different opinions. In fact, a kid's very reason for existing seems at times to centre entirely around exploiting those differences in opinion so they might be only too delighted to discover another difference between both parents! Maybe it'll even encourage the kids to approach the topic of helmets with an open mind later in life rather than have them unquestioningly accept social doctrine.

RayCun

buffalo wrote: »

Because children are still developing physically, and are more likely to fall over and hit their head than a grown man?

You don't wear a helmet because you never fall off your bike? I never crash my car, so...

doozerie wrote: »

Fundamentally though, I don't see a real problem with one parent not wearing a helmet while the rest of the family does. It's easy to lose sight of the fact that people are individuals, even in the context of a family, and it's unrealistic to expect that both parents will agree on everything.

Sure, maybe the dad isn't wearing a helmet because he thinks they're stupid but doesn't want to get into another argument on the subject with the mum ("we keep saying the same things!") so he lets her put helmets on the kids and keeps his thoughts to himself.
Or maybe he thinks "yeah, yeah, helmets are okay for kids", but the kids will pick up on that and ditch the helmets as soon as they can, because that's what grown-ups do and they want to be grown-up. (not because they've spend a long time debating the merits of helmets and came down against them, but because they're copying their cycling model)

RayCun

check_six wrote: »

the helmet is in case you get any hassle off your teachers in school for not wearing a helmet on your bike.

I think this is a bit mad, and not because it's about helmets, it just seems like a really weird message to give to your kid. "I think this is stupid and pointless but I want you to do it anyway, even though I've just told you it's stupid and pointless, because other people do it and I'd rather you went along with it for show"

check_six

RayCun wrote: »

I think this is a bit mad, and not because it's about helmets, it just seems like a really weird message to give to your kid. "I think this is stupid and pointless but I want you to do it anyway, even though I've just told you it's stupid and pointless, because other people do it and I'd rather you went along with it for show"

It might be a bit mad, but I like to think I'm showing him that helmets are not the be all and end all about cycling safety. In fact, for the most part they are down the list in terms of relevance. I like to emphasise good road positioning, predictable manoeuvering, consideration for other road users, good bike maintenance, and good situational awareness. I try to impart these ideas as a priority.

After these come the right kit which includes lights, rain gear or warm jacket, gloves, and then the helmet. I didn't say that the helmet was pointless, I just said that if he doesn't wear it that it would be the first thing other people (including teachers) would ask about when inquiring about his cycling, even though it is not as important as the other road behaviours I mentioned above. It is probably easier for him to say that yes he does wear a helmet rather than try to explain the finer points of roadcraft.

buffalo

RayCun wrote: »

You don't wear a helmet because you never fall off your bike? I never crash my car, so...

How did you get that from what I said? Did I say I didn't wear a helmet? Did I say I never fall off my bike? Have the decency to read what I said and consider it, instead of launching into whatever strawman argument you have up your sleeve.

You asked why an adult would wear a helmet wouldn't wear a helmet while putting one on their child. I said a child is more likely to fall than an adult. That is an answer to your question. It's just one more factor to be taken into account when debating the merits of wearing versus not wearing a helmet, rather than issuing a blanket "wear one all the time", or "never wear one ever".

RayCun

buffalo wrote: »

How did you get that from what I said? Did I say I didn't wear a helmet? Did I say I never fall off my bike? Have the decency to read what I said and consider it, instead of launching into whatever strawman argument you have up your sleeve.

You asked why an adult would wear a helmet wouldn't wear a helmet while putting one on their child. I said a child is more likely to fall than an adult. That is an answer to your question. It's just one more factor to be taken into account when debating the merits of wearing versus not wearing a helmet, rather than issuing a blanket "wear one all the time", or "never wear one ever".

Cranky for a Friday :eek:

Equally, I am much less likely to be in a car crash than an 18-25 year old youth driving after midnight on a country road. But I don't think "right, chance of car crash is only 0.05% this journey, a seat belt only helps in 6% of crashes... therefore I won't wear a seat belt on the way over. But when I'm driving home again I will because it will be four hours later - I'm not crazy!"

Dermot Illogical

RayCun wrote: »

I think this is a bit mad, and not because it's about helmets, it just seems like a really weird message to give to your kid. "I think this is stupid and pointless but I want you to do it anyway, even though I've just told you it's stupid and pointless, because other people do it and I'd rather you went along with it for show"

Thousands of people do something similar every Sunday.

RayCun

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Thousands of people do something similar every Sunday.

Yep, that's the other example I had in mind, and I think its a weird thing to do.

RayCun

check_six wrote: »

It might be a bit mad, but I like to think I'm showing him that helmets are not the be all and end all about cycling safety.

I completely agree, and I'm not questioning that. Putting a helmet on a kid (and maybe some high-vis) and saying "now, you're grand, off you go" is not very useful.
But are you saying that helmets are (one, small) part of cycle safety or that they're a pointless fetish that you wear to appease other people?

buffalo

RayCun wrote: »

Cranky for a Friday :eek:

Equally, I am much less likely to be in a car crash than an 18-25 year old youth driving after midnight on a country road. But I don't think "right, chance of car crash is only 0.05% this journey, a seat belt only helps in 6% of crashes... therefore I won't wear a seat belt on the way over. But when I'm driving home again I will because it will be four hours later - I'm not crazy!"

I do. When it's raining, or I'm planning on breaking 40kmph, or hitting the hills, I wear a helmet. When I'm pootling along at 20kmph on the way to work or heading to the shop, I don't.

Likewise, when I head off for a solo multi-day hike, I give someone a route card and check in at the end of the day. When I'm going for a walk in the park, I don't. Sure, it'd be no harm to tell someone where I'm going in case I fall or get attacked, but I'll take my chances. If you don't want to, fair enough, I won't criticise you for it. But I don't understand the need to try to show other people that they're wrong (iyo).

Lumen

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Thousands of people do something similar every Sunday.

I was wracking my brain and trying to work out what you meant.

Sex?
GAA?
Sex?
No, can't be sex.
Sex?
GAA?

Ah, church.

Iwannahurl

RayCun wrote: »

But seriously, if you think helmets are useful and your children should wear them, why not wear one yourself? If you don't think it's important, neither will your kids.
(and if you think they're pointless and ineffective, why would you tell your kids to wear them?)

I'd say the adults are deciding for their kids, and for themselves.

Interesting point, though, as parents often find themselves in "don't do as I do, do as I say" situations. Alcohol is an obvious example.

I put a helmet on my kids because they are more likely to fall off and have softer skulls. I don't wear a helmet myself because I don't feel the need and it's too much hassle tbh. However, I'm aware that this gives a mixed message to the chislers. They are more likely to be influenced by their peers in the street, though, most of whom tear up and down the neighbourhood on their bikes without a helmet between them.

monument

One thing is for sure: The amount of focus on helmets and high-vis compared to other safety measures is perverse.

check_six

RayCun wrote: »

But are you saying that helmets are (one, small) part of cycle safety or that they're a pointless fetish that you wear to appease other people?

I suppose it's a bit of both. They add a soupcon of safety, and a big steaming bucket of appeasement. Which is more important? I suppose the safety thing, but in real life day to day terms the appeasement thing will get people off your back.

When I'm bringing my young fella to school in the morning I ask him if he'd like to wear his helmet. I don't force him to wear it. I suppose it comes back to my idea that the helmet is far down the list of things that keep you safe on the bike, and I don't want it to be seen as some kind of magic aegis shield thing.

RayCun

buffalo wrote: »

I do. When it's raining, or I'm planning on breaking 40kmph, or hitting the hills, I wear a helmet. When I'm pootling along at 20kmph on the way to work or heading to the shop, I don't.

I can understand that, I suppose. I could argue about... but I won't. Friday

buffalo wrote: »

But I don't understand the need to try to show other people that they're wrong (iyo).

It's not the wearing helmets/not wearing helmets thing I'm interested in. I wear one, but I don't think they should be compulsory*, and if people don't want to wear them (or their kids to wear them), I don't care. I'm just curious why people would make sure their kids are wearing them, but not wear one themselves. It seems like a good way to guarantee that your kids will stop wearing them as soon as they can.


*because the safety benefits are marginal and the best way to improve safety is to increase the numbers cycling, but compulsory helmet laws are a deterrent

buffalo

RayCun wrote: »

It seems like a good way to guarantee that your kids will stop wearing them as soon as they can.

I see nothing wrong with this. When I have kids, the sooner they can stop wearing helmets, the better. If they're able to stop wearing them at 15 or 16, great. If it's 18, so be it.

AstraMonti

RayCun wrote: »

Equally, I am much less likely to be in a car crash than an 18-25 year old youth driving after midnight on a country road. But I don't think "right, chance of car crash is only 0.05% this journey, a seat belt only helps in 6% of crashes... therefore I won't wear a seat belt on the way over. But when I'm driving home again I will because it will be four hours later - I'm not crazy!"

There is no connection between helmets and seatbelts, your thinking is flawed and it does not make sense, it's like comparing a fireman's suit with a surfing wet suit.

RayCun

buffalo wrote: »

I see nothing wrong with this. When I have kids, the sooner they can stop wearing helmets, the better. If they're able to stop wearing them at 15 or 16, great. If it's 18, so be it.

Able to stop? They don't ever have to start, do they?

Capt'n Midnight

RayCun wrote: »

Cranky for a Friday :eek:

Equally, I am much less likely to be in a car crash than an 18-25 year old youth driving after midnight on a country road. But I don't think "right, chance of car crash is only 0.05% this journey, a seat belt only helps in 6% of crashes... therefore I won't wear a seat belt on the way over. But when I'm driving home again I will because it will be four hours later - I'm not crazy!"

Seat belts are proven to be effective.

US stats show that air bags save lives.


But here's the thing, air bags save less lives than would be saved if everyone wore seat belts. So there is an argument that air bags actually kill more people than they save because people think they replace seat belts. ( for kids wearing seat belts there is no argument, air bags are dangerous )

CramCycle

RayCun wrote: »

I think this is a bit mad, and not because it's about helmets, it just seems like a really weird message to give to your kid. "I think this is stupid and pointless but I want you to do it anyway, even though I've just told you it's stupid and pointless, because other people do it and I'd rather you went along with it for show"

Dear child of mine,
I am teaching you a valuable lesson for life. There is, IMO, no need to wear a helmet. You may ask yourself then, why do you make me wear one Dad? Well child, it is simple, your mother and/or grandmother have no idea what they are on about when they screamed at me when I said their was no need. My examples of you climbing on the couch and picking up more inertia falling of a stool where either ignored or blatently misunderstood due to their ignorance of simple physics. If you were to be seen by either of these people without a helmet you would be banned from cycling until an age where it is possible you would not pick it up. Therefore, for my sake, your love of me and the fact that I hope you will appreciate cycling in your youth (and later on in life) as much as I did, you will wear a helmet for my safety from your mother and/or grandmother and as soon as you are certain you will not be caught or you are old enough to not care about their opinion, you can throw it in the bin or continue to wear it as you see fit.

Sincerely

Your Father

CramCycle

hardCopy

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Thousands of people do something similar every Sunday.

You can lick your plate at home, but not in the restaurant.

Lots of things in life are about keeping up appearances.

Iwannahurl

hardCopy wrote: »

Lots of things in life are about keeping up appearances.

MajesticDonkey

buffalo wrote: »

If they're able to stop wearing them at 15 or 16, great. If it's 18, so be it.

Are you not forgetting about something small in the equation, like...I dunno...maybe the other road users? They might be the role model cyclist by 15 or 16, with perfect knowledge, awareness and vision on the roads, but not everyone is like that.

CramCycle

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

Are you not forgetting about something small in the equation, like...I dunno...maybe the other road users?

What has that to do with Helmets?