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

doozerie

monument wrote: »

Grand sure then.

Well I'm glad we sorted that out, 'twas heading toward handbags at dawn there for a while and I'm simply not a morning person.

Beasty

Phew!!

monument

Non-pro-helmet anecdotal evidence warning!

Interesting video showing what on the surface at least seems to be a random voxpox of normal Dutch cyclists, including questions on helmets....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il1IGKaol_M

...in any case, one of the 'extra' bits reminds me that the Dutch (and the Danish) ride bicycles a lot while drunk. One of the people said:

"I don't think I know anybody who has had [a head] injury; normally when they are drunk they fall down and hurt their hands and their knees, but never their head..."

And -- in large numbers -- they also partake in loads of diffrent types of risky cycling... like cycling with umbrellas, cycling with dogs on leads, cycling holding another bicycle, cycling with a friend on the rear carrier...

Rob A. Bank

HivemindXX wrote: »

As of now 71 individuals have posted in this thread.

27 say they always wear helmets
4 say they never do
6 say they sometimes do
34 didn't say (a couple of these are apparently non-cyclists)

Only 1 person seems to think helmets should be compulsory
1 person thinks maybe they should be
24 say they shouldn't (13 of these always wear helmets themselves)
45 people didn't explicitly say

I didn't know anyone was keeping the score !

For what it is worth... I like my health and lifestyle choices to be evidence based, so therefore I never wear a helmet... and I think it would be absolute madness to make them compulsory.

As I see it... the problem with finding solid evidence about helmet safety is that cycling is as safe as walking. So severe injuries and death are very rare events, so rare that it is difficult to find the numbers for sensible conclusions. If the roads were littered with bodies the answer would be obvious in a very short time.

So what are we left with... on one side you have the 'Helmet saved my life' anecdotes and seriously dodgy 'scientific' papers claiming "85 percent reduction in the risk of head injury … and an 88 percent reduction in the risk of brain injury” with helmets.

On the other side you have the population studies which clearly show that cycling becomes more lethal as helmet wearing increases. This has happened in Australia, New Zealand, various states in the USA and Canada and more recently among the pro cycling peleton.

One or the other is the truth.

I believe that the population evidence is the most sound, simply because it is difficult to fudge if someone is alive or dead.

Why this is happening is fascinating, with small clues littered around the medical literature but as far as I can see nothing absolutely conclusive.

PS... I don't care what anyone else cares to wear on their heads.... it is their business alone. And I have no missionary zeal to convert anyone to my point of view.

NeedMoreGears

Slightly off topic so apologies but..... One particular component of this debate intrigues me and that's the interaction between the good of the individual and the good of the wider population. I would be convinced that on balance wearing a helmet is a good idea for me (as I've indicated in posts above the main benefit I perceive is injury reduction in medium energy events - I pretty certain it won't save my life if a truck runs over my head and I'm happy that the increased chance of rotational brain injuries etc are outweighed by the injury reduction benefit). But there appears to evidence that, for the population as a whole, the discouragement factor due to "having" to wear a helmet reduces numbers cycling and thereby increases the risk to the residual cycling cohort.
So a prisoners dilemma like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma) tension emerges (assuming both of the above are accurate and I am aware of the lack of universal agreement on this) whereby it's in my selfish interest that no-one else (except me) wears a helmet. That way I get the benefit of an increased cycling population and the injury reduction benefit of wearing the helmet.

Just a curiosity - not advocating one way or other

rp

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

One particular component of this debate intrigues me and that's the interaction between the good of the individual and the good of the wider population.

Wasn't it Mr Spock who said that, in the Wrath of Kahn?

seamus

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

So a prisoners dilemma like (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma) tension emerges

You see, it's not quite the same as the Prisoner's dilemma.

If the entire population (or a large majority) voluntarily wore helmets without any pressure - legal or social - to do so, then there should be little or no negative effects from it.

The negative effects come from the compulsion of wearing helmets moreso than the actual fact of wearing helmets.

Granted, there are the risk compensation suggestions, but that seems to be less of a factor than the "Ew, helmets are unsightly, screw this cycling lark" one.

Grudaire

It's ok, they'll just start fining cyclists to keep us all safe!

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/fines-for-cyclists-and-alcohol-locks-for-drivers-on-the-cards-1.1341664

Beasty

Cliste wrote: »

It's ok, they'll just start fining cyclists to keep us all safe!

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/fines-for-cyclists-and-alcohol-locks-for-drivers-on-the-cards-1.1341664

Let's keep this discussion to helmets

Thanks

NeedMoreGears

@rp - 'hope I haven't broken some trekkie version of Goodwins law by mistake!

@Sé;amus - The second curiosity for me (it's kinda Friday and not too busy here today) is around the "compulsion" idea. There seems to be two forms (i) a legal requirement with penalties etc and (ii) a social (?) pressure/risk perception resulting that creates a type of self imposed obligation. It's really the latter one that creates the prisoner's dilemma - if helmet wearing is compulsary and enforced then the cycling population loses its ability to influence anyone thinking of taking up cycling one way or the other - ignoring other ways it could influence our potential cyclist for the moment

I wonder which of the two is more off-putting for people?

seamus

I see your prisoner's dilemma now, I'd never considered it that way.

As more people that choose to wear helmets without the compulsion, then to non-wearers this automatically creates a perception that the helmet is necessary and cycling is inherently dangerous. Therefore the simple act of wearing a helmet for one's own protection contributes to this effect and may disimprove the overall level of safety.

Whereas not wearing a helmet while theoretically may be individually less safe, contributes to an overall improvement in cycling safety.

droidus

seamus wrote: »

I see your prisoner's dilemma now, I'd never considered it that way.

As more people that choose to wear helmets without the compulsion, then to non-wearers this automatically creates a perception that the helmet is necessary and cycling is inherently dangerous. Therefore the simple act of wearing a helmet for one's own protection contributes to this effect and may disimprove the overall level of safety.

Whereas not wearing a helmet while theoretically may be individually less safe, contributes to an overall improvement in cycling safety.

That is, I believe the crux of the argument that Monument and others have been making, and for which they have been pilloried and characterised as extremists.

monument

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/About%20Us/RSA_STRATEGY_2013-2020%20.pdf

The RSA think nearly 50% of cyclists wear helmets, and they want to get more people wearing them.

Keep_Her_Lit

Got to say, this is one "dilemma" that I haven't lost any sleep over.

The proliferation of cycling helmets apparently deters non-cyclists from cycling. Haven't any of them wondered why the wearers of those helmets haven't been deterred from cycling?

I'm quite happy to see more people taking up cycling. But I've no interest in being an active participant in increasing the numbers of cyclists because of the argument that this will make things safer for all cyclists. There's no need to do that, since cycling is already a safe activity, as we are continually assured by some of those who choose not to wear helmets. And on this, I agree with them.

Even if this tenuous, arm-waving logic is taken at face value, the cost-benefit analysis falls down flat from my point of view.

The potential cost : a head injury which might have been prevented by wearing a helmet.

The potential benefit : somebody, somewhere might someday decide to complete a journey by bicycle because they saw me cycling without a helmet.

I fully agree that my actions and decisions help to shape the society in which I live. However, I give much more weight to how those decisions might affect those closest to me.

There may well be some individuals out there who think that helmets look "unattractive" and decide not to cycle as a result. TBH, I couldn't care less.

droidus

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

@Sé;amus - The second curiosity for me (it's kinda Friday and not too busy here today) is around the "compulsion" idea. There seems to be two forms (i) a legal requirement with penalties etc and (ii) a social (?) pressure/risk perception resulting that creates a type of self imposed obligation. It's really the latter one that creates the prisoner's dilemma - if helmet wearing is compulsary and enforced then the cycling population loses its ability to influence anyone thinking of taking up cycling one way or the other - ignoring other ways it could influence our potential cyclist for the moment

I wonder which of the two is more off-putting for people?

It's worth pointing out as well, that the social pressure is very often couched in pretty extreme language tantamount to moral blackmail 'you'd be an idiot not to wear one', 'how would your family feel if you died', 'I work in an A+E and Im begging you to wear a helmet' etc... to the point where its an almost pavlovian response when hearing of an accident to first ask if the cyclist was wearing a helmet and to even apportion legal blame/responsibility based on the answer.

Few things that should be pointed out:

1) Cycling is not a sport! I wish this one would sink in. We keep coming back to points about helmets and dangerous 'sports'. A commuting cyclist doesn't normally get above about 12mph - very hard to give yourself a serious injury at that speed.

2) The best way to prevent injury is to slow down. Again, something we can learn from our continental friends. Nobody in Copenhagen cycles around like they are in a race. They are getting from A to B in a smart, stylish fashion. I do believe that helmets, lycra and other 'sports' gear encourages cyclists to behave more dangerously. They encourage the sport / transport confusion above.

3) The reason so many of the 'anti' helmet brigade get touchy about this is that it is a live issue. There's a very real risk some politician looking for cheap publicity will adopt this as a hobby horse, get the Joe Duffy brigade onside and before you know it we're living the australian nightmare. That's why we're suspicious of the ongoing media focus on this issue - one that objectively speaking is so trivial as to make you question the motives of those who are so obsessed with it.

Keep_Her_Lit

Deleted User wrote: »

A commuting cyclist doesn't normally get above about 12mph

Man, you need to get some more miles in your legs.

- very hard to give yourself a serious injury at that speed.

On the contrary, death through sheer boredom would be a real risk.

2) The best way to prevent injury is to slow down.

Alternative methods include sharpening up your reflexes, learning to read the road and traffic conditions more accurately and improving your bike handling skills. All far more enjoyable and engaging than just plodding along.

Again, something we can learn from our continental friends. Nobody in Copenhagen cycles around like they are in a race.

Well then I'm glad I don't live in Copenhagen.

They are getting from A to B in a smart, stylish fashion.

More vanity. I enjoy cycling fast (or at least trying to) and have no interest in whether observers think I'm smart or stylish looking.

I do believe that helmets, lycra and other 'sports' gear encourages cyclists to behave more dangerously. They encourage the sport / transport confusion above.

There's no confusion in my mind. Unlike riding fast on a high performance motorcycle, it's perfectly possible to cycle fast on public roads without being dangerous.

3) The reason so many of the 'anti' helmet brigade get touchy about this is that it is a live issue. There's a very real risk some politician looking for cheap publicity will adopt this as a hobby horse, get the Joe Duffy brigade onside and before you know it we're living the australian nightmare. That's why we're suspicious of the ongoing media focus on this issue - one that objectively speaking is so trivial as to make you question the motives of those who are so obsessed with it.

Sorry, I am not changing my riding style to placate Joe Duffy and the assorted muppetry who are dull enough to take anything he says seriously.

Keep_Her_Lit

Keep_Her_Lit wrote: »

Alternative methods include sharpening up your reflexes, learning to read the road and traffic conditions more accurately and improving your bike handling skills. All far more enjoyable and engaging than just plodding along.

Coming from the man who has landed on his head four times in total.

With the greatest of respect, I would keep working on those reflexes until you don't fall on your head at all. Because one day you'll go flying and a helmet won't save you.

chakattack

4 in 29 years is a pretty good record.

I'm up to 2 in 4 already.

doozerie

Deleted User wrote: »

A commuting cyclist doesn't normally get above about 12mph - very hard to give yourself a serious injury at that speed.

I see a number of issues with this line of reasoning, making it an over simplification that simply muddies the debate in my view. For one thing, speaking personally my commute takes me along some relatively narrow roads with other cyclists and motorised traffic, and at rush hour when congestion is at its worst and peoples' patience is at their shortest (making them more unpredictable and therefore a greater source of risk). By comparison my "sporting" rides on the bike are on roads with less traffic. The odds of my colliding with other road users on my commute route are greater in my view, and to me that poses greater risk to me than falling off my bike at speed with no traffic around me i.e. my commute riding is arguably more dangerous.

For another thing I commute by bike all year round, through ice and snow included, whereas I don't take my "sporting" bike out in ice typically. Similarly I commute in the dark, in other forms of poor visibility, or basically in whatever conditions that nature throws at me, whereas I'm much more selective about when I ride my other bikes. Generally speaking I am more likely to come off , or be knocked off, my commute bike due to wet or icy roads, etc., than my "sporting" bikes, and my very few falls and collisions over the years have borne this out.

I spend more time on my commute bikes than my "sporting" bikes, increasing the likelihood that if I have a fall it'll be while commuting.

Despite all that I don't believe that cycling is a dangerous activity, and I think that suggesting that one form of cycling is somehow more dangerous than another form helps to fuel the arguments of those for whom cycling and danger go hand in hand.

Further, if you factor in the tests that helmets are required to undergo to meet the safety standards, you'll find that a helmet is likely to be of more benefit in a low speed crash than a high speed one, so it could be argued to be of greater use to a commute cyclist than a "sporting" one. I'm not making that argument incidentally (not least because a commute cyclist is probably more likely to be hit by a car at which point any benefit of the helmet comes strongly into question), but it's another example of the further can of worms that you open up when you try to distinguish one form of road cyclist from another.

Deleted User wrote:

The best way to prevent injury is to slow down.

I disagree. In my view the best way to prevent injury is to ride in a way that makes you less likely to have a fall or a collision in the first place. Some of this involves working your own awareness, some of it involves encouraging other road users to be more aware of cyclists, etc. A big part of that is encouraging empathy in the other road users around you (be they drivers, cyclists, or whatever), which is ironically the opposite of what helmet debates all too often seem to achieve.

doozerie

doozerie wrote: »

I disagree. In my view the best way to prevent injury is to ride in a way that makes you less likely to have a fall or a collision in the first place. Some of this involves working your own awareness, some of it involves encouraging other road users to be more aware of cyclists, etc. A big part of that is encouraging empathy in the other road users around you (be they drivers, cyclists, or whatever), which is ironically the opposite of what helmet debates all too often seem to achieve.

I agree with this - I just happen to think that slowing down is the number one smartest way to "ride in a way that makes you less likely to have a fall".

Maybe it's just me getting old but every time I'm passing parked cars I am assuming one of them is going to open a door in my path. Every time I am descending I am assuming some muppet is going to drive into my path from the left. Every time I am crossing a junction inside stationary traffic I am assuming someone will turn right across me. and so on. That attitude inevitably makes you slow down.

Haven't had so much as a scrape for a long, long time now - despite cycling across Dublin and back every day.

monument

chakattack wrote: »

4 in 29 years is a pretty good record.

I'm up to 2 in 4 already.

Good compared to what? I'm at 0 in ~25.

Unregistered.

monument wrote: »

Good compared to what? I'm at 0 in ~25.

It's good compared to 25 in 25.

Dermot Illogical

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with this - I just happen to think that slowing down is the number one smartest way to "ride in a way that makes you less likely to have a fall".

Maybe it's just me getting old but every time I'm passing parked cars I am assuming one of them is going to open a door in my path.

Smarter still would be to stay out of range when passing parked cars.

dub_skav

monument wrote: »

Good compared to what? I'm at 0 in ~25.

Me too, including school I'm over 25 years commuting and no head strikes yet.
I'd worry that those with 2 or more are engaging in risky behaviour

buffalo

Deleted User wrote: »

The best way to prevent injury is to slow down.

But if we follow the line of logic that says greater speed is correlated to a greater rate of accidents, then the accident rate should approach zero as we slow down. So to have zero accidents, logically, we should not move. For the least amount of accidents, while still moving, by your logic, we should walk. Very slowly.

buffalo

buffalo wrote: »

But if we follow the line of logic that says greater speed is correlated to a greater rate of accidents, then the accident rate should approach zero as we slow down. So to have zero accidents, logically, we should not move. For the least amount of accidents, while still moving, by your logic, we should walk. Very slowly.

Your logic is correct but I am not sure it amounts to an argument.

galwaycyclist

buffalo wrote: »

But if we follow the line of logic that says greater speed is correlated to a greater rate of accidents, then the accident rate should approach zero as we slow down. So to have zero accidents, logically, we should not move. For the least amount of accidents, while still moving, by your logic, we should walk. Very slowly.

Logically yes but that would be impractical. If we want to consider the safety of relatively slow cycling, the Bikeshare schemes like Velib in Paris and Dublin bikes provide a good example. Heavy, clunky, slow but apparently reasonably safe.

The Bicycle Revolution in Paris, Five Years Later
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/07/the-bicycle-revolution-in-paris-five-years-later/

In five years, 138 million people have used the 23,000 rental bicycles, and the system currently has 225,000 subscribers out of a total urban population of 2.3 million. In addition, during this time, only six people have died in traffic accidents involving rental bicycles.

Dublinbikes 3 years on and the wheels are still turning…
http://www.dublinbikes.ie/Magazine/News/3-years-on-and-the-wheels-are-still-turning

It has been over 3 years since dublinbikes was introduced to the streets of Dublin and the scheme is now firmly established as part of daily life in Ireland’s capital city. Over 4 million journeys have been taken to date and with each bike being used on average 10 times a day, it is one of the busiest bike share rental schemes in the world.

In that time there has been one death involving a Dublinbikes user.

doozerie

galwaycyclist wrote: »

If we want to consider the safety of relatively slow cycling, the Bikeshare schemes like Velib in Paris and Dublin bikes provide a good example. Heavy, clunky, slow but apparently reasonably safe.

Anecdotally I can say that my experience of Dublinbikes users suggests that some of them at least are a real danger to themselves and others too in some cases.

My daily commute home brings me along Lombard Street East, Westland Row, and onto Merrion Square West. That particular part of my commute represents what for me are consistently the worst examples of cycling that I encounter in Dublin, and I see extreme examples there on an almost daily basis. I encounter people cycling against one-way traffic on Lombard Street East (towards traffic turning onto the road from both directions alongs City Quay), against me (and other traffic) on my side of the (2-way!) road on Westland Row, and against one-way traffic on the last bit towards Merrion Square West (including cycling against traffic on a blind corner). Basically people use the route as a stupidly dangerous shortcut between Merrion Square and City Quay.

Not all of the lunatic cyclists I see along there are on Dublinbikes but they do account for the majority. The only reason I can see for why I haven't seen any of these cyclists involved in a collision along those stretches is that other road users, me included, go to lengths to avoid a collision, by stopping, pulling further out into traffic to leave space for them, etc. So while one seemingly plausible explanation for the lack of incident (that I am aware of) on those bits of road is that cycling madly against traffic is safe, I think the more accurate explanation is that other road users are working hard to keeping these people from harming themselves, representing amongst other things some very considerate driving on the part of motorists despite the view of some that Dublin motorists are a murderous lot.

That particular example, and some other incidents I've observed involving Dublinbikes users, leaves me wondering exactly how safe Dublinbikes user are generally. At the very least it confirms for me that the safety of some cyclists is not due entirely to their own actions, in the worst cases they actually remain safe in spite of themselves. And that makes me question whether the Dublinbikes scheme itself is "safe" or whether Dublin is a much safer city to cycle in than public opinion would have you believe (because of considerate behaviour by motorists, other cyclists, and pedestrians). Because I don't consider cycling in Dublin inherently dangerous to start with, I tend towards the latter of those reasons.

As an aside, RTE Radio 1 spoke about road safety in Dublin this morning. They prefaced it with references to Dublin being, basically, an extremely dangerous city centre to travel in. Is it any wonder that so many people (mistakenly) believe cycling in Dublin to be dangerous when the national media so casually label it as such.

galwaycyclist

Helmets not required for Tour de France 2014 Grand Depart
http://www.ctc.org.uk/helmets-not-required-for-tour-de-france-2014-grand-depart

The change in the rules came about after a special request from cycle campaigning organisations and local authorities keen to use the event to promote everyday cycling.

The uniform anonymity of a fully helmeted peloton is thought by some to alienate non-cyclists and, while inspiring some to take up racing, may not generate the quotidian, utilitarian cycling – to shops, schools or for commuting - that leads to reduced congestion, pollution and improved health.

Beasty

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Helmets not required for Tour de France 2014 Grand Depart
http://www.ctc.org.uk/helmets-not-required-for-tour-de-france-2014-grand-depart

I thought UCI rules, which require helmets, would prevail. You may also want to check the date of that article;)

doozerie

Beasty wrote: »

I thought UCI rules, which require helmets, would prevail. You may also want to check the date of that article;)

It does mention a "special dispensation" from UCI, but on the other hand the following does appear very relevant to the date:

It was hoped by the Yorkshire organisers that some teams may consider wearing flat caps instead of helmets, to help inspire a generation to get back on their bikes. One company has even specially designed ‘flatter’ cap, with enhanced aerodynamics, but retaining the sun and rain repelling peak which may be so necessary if July 2014’s weather goes the way of previous years.

And as for this:

Allowing professionals to be seen without helmets will provide a 'roll model' and example to those for whom helmets appear alien and make cycling look more hazardous than it actually is.

Roll model? Surely that should be "bend-your-knees-and-roll model". But probably better not to be encouraging the riders to take a dive from their bikes in the first place.

Beasty

Can honestly say I've never worn a flat cap in my life - if they try and make them compulsory there will be hell to pay ...

galwaycyclist

Beasty wrote: »

I thought UCI rules, which require helmets, would prevail. You may also want to check the date of that article;)

Har reckon you might be right imagine a crowd of inebriated Jackie Healy Reas on carbon fibre frames waving their Kerry County Council drinking licences at the police.

doozerie

Beasty wrote: »

Can honestly say I've never worn a flat cap in my life - if they try and make them compulsory there will be hell to pay ...

I find their reference to the development of a "flatter" cap which retains the rain repelling peak, particularly ridiculous. Every cycling flat-cap wearer knows that you rely on the umbrella in your right hand to keep the rain off while on the bike.

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Har reckon you might be right imagine a crowd of inebriated Jackie Healy Reas on carbon fibre frames waving their Kerry County Council drinking licences at the police.

Too vivid! I immediately moved on to imagining him in a helmet and high-viz which wasn't much of a style improvement in that rather narrow spectrum that is fashion in Irish politics. Mick the pink beware, you're days at the top are numbered. Of course, If we're hoping to transition to something closer to the Amsterdam style, there's always Ming....

...and suddenly I don't feel quite so ridiculous in my own modest cycling gear. Yay!

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with this - I just happen to think that slowing down is the number one smartest way to "ride in a way that makes you less likely to have a fall".

Perhaps a fall, though sometimes being faster IMHO makes you less likely to be involved in an accident. Being at similar speed as the traffic around you when manoeuvring, e.g. changing lane coming up to a right hand turn, leaves cars less scope to make an inopportune overtaking move. I think being visibly predictable also play a huge part here; looking behind, signalling early, being decisive in your move, and not doing anything erratic. To my mind, much of the risk involved in urban cycling is in and around junctions, and slow isn't always best. (Nothing to back up this opinion BTW, just my perspective from watching the interaction between cyclists at junctions).

Trampas

Looking to get back into cycling and never worn a helmet but that will change.

Like everything there will be cheap and dear but I am wondering things I need to check for when buying a helmet.

Thanks

smacl

Trampas wrote: »

I am wondering things I need to check for when buying a helmet.

Everything except the mirror. I bought a cheapo helmet in LIDL, which is ugly as sin but cheap. Having read a number of these threads, the main advantages of more expensive helmets relate to aerodynamics and style, such as it is, rather than safety.

doozerie

Trampas wrote: »

Looking to get back into cycling and never worn a helmet but that will change.

Like everything there will be cheap and dear but I am wondering things I need to check for when buying a helmet.

Thanks

Helmets sold in europe are required to meet safety standard EN1078 but you should check that any helmet you are considering buying includes the relevant mark/statement. There remains the question of whether it really does meet that standard though, I'm not sure that independent tests are ever routinely carried out to verify this - last year Which? magazine tested a number of helmets and apparently some of them failed to meet the european standard.

Helmets sold in the US and Australia have to meet an arguably better safety standard (the helmet must be able to withstand an impact of greater force, for one thing), so a helmet meeting one of their standards might be a better choice than one meeting the lesser european standard.

Welcome to the (helmet) world of supposedly safer cycling.

In addition you'll want a helmet that fits right (size, shape, whether it fits with any glasses that you wear, etc.) and feels comfortable - not all helmets suit all heads - so try before you buy. And make sure that you wear it properly, I often see people wearing helmets incorrectly (too far forward on their head, too far back, straps too loose, straps in the wrong place, etc.), and in those cases it is extremely unlikely that the helmet will be able to offer any protection in an impact.

chakattack

@ Doozerie

That's quite interesting. I've noticed online stores like competitive cyclist in the states sell pretty much the same range that's available here.

If I buy a Giro Atmos (or whatever) from the states will it differ from the same model from a bike shop here?

smacl

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps a fall, though sometimes being faster IMHO makes you less likely to be involved in an accident. Being at similar speed as the traffic around you when manoeuvring, e.g. changing lane coming up to a right hand turn, leaves cars less scope to make an inopportune overtaking move. I think being visibly predictable also play a huge part here; looking behind, signalling early, being decisive in your move, and not doing anything erratic. To my mind, much of the risk involved in urban cycling is in and around junctions, and slow isn't always best. (Nothing to back up this opinion BTW, just my perspective from watching the interaction between cyclists at junctions).

I don't disagree with any of this, definitely true about being decisive and predictable.

Was also interested to read the account of cycling against one-way traffic in the merrion square / westland row area above. I cycled northwards along Merrion Square recently with a colleague on the way home. He was wearing a helmet and castigated me for going without.

When we reached the north-west corner he announced he was continuing straight on (against the traffic on a one way street around a blind corner). I said goodbye on the basis that I was intending to obey the law, turn left and go around the loop.

A nice example, IMHO, of the double-think some people engage in when it comes to helmets and safe cycling.

(for the record I think in many cases we should open up one-way streets for cyclists with contraflow cycle lanes, but that's another argument)

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

A nice example, IMHO, of the double-think some people engage in when it comes to helmets and safe cycling.

Yep, helmets wont keep you safe any more than health insurance will stop you getting sick. To me they're a tiny piece of the jigsaw and are afforded far too much attention. Worse still, I suspect they've become a distraction for many cycling advocates whose efforts would reap far better rewards in direct promotion of utilitarian cycling.

doozerie

chakattack wrote: »

@ Doozerie

That's quite interesting. I've noticed online stores like competitive cyclist in the states sell pretty much the same range that's available here.

If I buy a Giro Atmos (or whatever) from the states will it differ from the same model from a bike shop here?

I think the models for sale in the US are the same as the ones here, though I'm not entirely sure. A few years back I was looking at Giro helmets in Wheelworx and they had the helmet boxes on the shelves - if I remember rightly the box (for the Aeon, or whatever was their top model of helmet at the time) had both the EU safety standard and the US one listed on the outside. The standard(s) should be listed inside the helmet too, though maybe they don't bother adding a sticker listing anything other than the standard of the area they are being sold in.

My understanding is that a helmet that meets the US standard will meet the european one, but not necessarily the other way around. But undergoing the certification process is a requirement, at least I expect so. I read somewhere a while back that Catlike helmets, which were becoming very popular in europe at the time and which were being touted as using some kind of superior safety design (can't recall the details though, a lot of that claim might just have been marketing fluff), were not available in the US as they hadn't been certified to the US standard and so couldn't be legally sold there. I think they were subsequently certified, but it was interesting to see that the certification didn't seem to be just a formality.

monument

doozerie wrote: »

Anecdotally I can say that my experience of Dublinbikes users suggests that some of them at least are a real danger to themselves and others too in some cases.

My daily commute home brings me along Lombard Street East, Westland Row, and onto Merrion Square West. That particular part of my commute represents what for me are consistently the worst examples of cycling that I encounter in Dublin, and I see extreme examples there on an almost daily basis. I encounter people cycling against one-way traffic on Lombard Street East (towards traffic turning onto the road from both directions alongs City Quay), against me (and other traffic) on my side of the (2-way!) road on Westland Row, and against one-way traffic on the last bit towards Merrion Square West (including cycling against traffic on a blind corner). Basically people use the route as a stupidly dangerous shortcut between Merrion Square and City Quay.

Not all of the lunatic cyclists I see along there are on Dublinbikes but they do account for the majority. The only reason I can see for why I haven't seen any of these cyclists involved in a collision along those stretches is that other road users, me included, go to lengths to avoid a collision, by stopping, pulling further out into traffic to leave space for them, etc. So while one seemingly plausible explanation for the lack of incident (that I am aware of) on those bits of road is that cycling madly against traffic is safe, I think the more accurate explanation is that other road users are working hard to keeping these people from harming themselves, representing amongst other things some very considerate driving on the part of motorists despite the view of some that Dublin motorists are a murderous lot.

That particular example, and some other incidents I've observed involving Dublinbikes users, leaves me wondering exactly how safe Dublinbikes user are generally. At the very least it confirms for me that the safety of some cyclists is not due entirely to their own actions, in the worst cases they actually remain safe in spite of themselves. And that makes me question whether the Dublinbikes scheme itself is "safe" or whether Dublin is a much safer city to cycle in than public opinion would have you believe (because of considerate behaviour by motorists, other cyclists, and pedestrians). Because I don't consider cycling in Dublin inherently dangerous to start with, I tend towards the latter of those reasons.

As an aside, RTE Radio 1 spoke about road safety in Dublin this morning. They prefaced it with references to Dublin being, basically, an extremely dangerous city centre to travel in. Is it any wonder that so many people (mistakenly) believe cycling in Dublin to be dangerous when the national media so casually label it as such.

Not excusing the behavour but and this is more general anyway: Motorists (sometimes) adapt in the face of relatively large numbers of people walking or cycling, thus safety in numbers in Dublin city centre.

But where there's relatively low numbers of cyclists, motorist are slow to change their ways.

Chiparus

Not in favor of compulsory helmet laws, but this video shows some of the value.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ff_1367186005

doozerie

Chiparus wrote: »

Not in favor of compulsory helmet laws, but this video shows some of the value.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ff_1367186005

In fairness that video could be used to argue a number of things, including better enforcement of motorbike regulations to stop idiots like the one in that clip from riding a bike that they are apparently incapable of riding safely.

As to the specific question of bike helmets though, personally if I was wearing a helmet in a collision like that in the video I'd rather be wearing a helmet designed for the likes of skateboarding. From what I understand, an assumption in helmet design for skateboarding is that a fall backwards onto the back of the head is likely and the helmet design is supposed to take that into account. By contrast I don't think a fall backwards from a bicycle is considered common so cycling helmet design and manufacture probably reflects that. As an example, one of my helmets has a huge hole (for ventilation) at the back which makes me question how much protection it offers against an impact there.

Basically, not all helmets are the same in terms of what they aim to protect, and whatever about your views of the benefits or not of cycling helmets it's not a simple case of a particular helmet being good or bad in every situation - so whether a cycle helmet gives any decent protection to the back of the head at all is not clear to me.

Ray Palmer

It is interesting that people have mentioned broken helmets as indication of how it saved their head. My understanding is helmets are meant to compress. If they crack or break on impact they have expressly not worked and thus probably not saved your head from the trauma in any significant way.

Like crushing an egg on the dome once it gives way it has no extra protective quality it is broken.

Chiparus

doozerie wrote: »

In fairness that video could be used to argue a number of things, including better enforcement of motorbike regulations to stop idiots like the one in that clip from riding a bike that they are apparently incapable of riding safely.

As to the specific question of bike helmets though, personally if I was wearing a helmet in a collision like that in the video I'd rather be wearing a helmet designed for the likes of skateboarding. From what I understand, an assumption in helmet design for skateboarding is that a fall backwards onto the back of the head is likely and the helmet design is supposed to take that into account. By contrast I don't think a fall backwards from a bicycle is considered common so cycling helmet design and manufacture probably reflects that. As an example, one of my helmets has a huge hole (for ventilation) at the back which makes me question how much protection it offers against an impact there.

Basically, not all helmets are the same in terms of what they aim to protect, and whatever about your views of the benefits or not of cycling helmets it's not a simple case of a particular helmet being good or bad in every situation - so whether a cycle helmet gives any decent protection to the back of the head at all is not clear to me.

Yes, if you look at the video, while the helmet does protect the back of the head it also looks like it increases the lever action hyper flexing the neck.

Capt'n Midnight

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It is interesting that people have mentioned broken helmets as indication of how it saved their head. My understanding is helmets are meant to compress. If they crack or break on impact they have expressly not worked and thus probably not saved your head from the trauma in any significant way.

It takes energy to break/crack/compress a helmet, energy that would otherwise have to be adsorbed by your skull.

So a broken helmet is probably a sign that it has done it's job.

Or to look at it another way - why do you think hard shell helmets exist ?

And I'm going to keep saying it, a cycle helmet is not designed to take an impact at the speeds motorists travel at, even in a 30Kmph zone. For protection against that sort of impact you need a motorcycle helmet.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1182.html