nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

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

Felloffmebike

I'm sure this has been discussed before but I'm interested in a lot of recent comments about wearing or not wearing a helmet. It never occurred to me not to wear one but recently I'm picking up a lot of people who seem to have a different view. Why is that? Does wearing a helmet not make it safer if you fall, even a little bit? And those who advocate not wearing one, is it a safety thing or a style thing or a macho man thing or what? Or is there some evidence that a helmet doesnt actually give you any protection or even that wearing one could be dangerous in itself.

I'm not looking to start an argument, just interested in the different views.

Mod note

Title changed - this can hopefully be considered the definitive helmet thread that can be pointed to whenever anyone wants to start another discussion on the subject - I'll put a link from the FAQs to it also

Find more posts tagged with

cycling

safety

myths

helmet

helmets

henry marsh

Quick Links

Comments

CramCycle

Chuchote wrote: »

Would it be technically possible to have a stickies folder where non-major stickies were corralled?

A discussion for the annual review possibly, but not for here

Tenzor07

Portugal drops proposal for mandatory helmet law:

https://cyclingindustry.news/portugal-drops-mandatory-helmet-study-following-public-backlash/

Chuchote

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Portugal drops proposal for mandatory helmet law:

https://cyclingindustry.news/portugal-drops-mandatory-helmet-study-following-public-backlash/

So maybe time to start campaigning, mass-cycling and letter-writing?

magicbastarder

irish cyclists don't really have such a hot topic issue to rally around though. it's all fighting little fires rather than one big ones.

Chuchote

magicbastarder wrote: »

irish cyclists don't really have such a hot topic issue to rally around though. it's all fighting little fires rather than one big ones.

Well… surely yes, if the Gardaí are pushing for mandatory helmets and hi-viz, and there's also a push to force people to cycle on the dreadful and often dangerous cycle lanes?

magicbastarder

the AGSI passed a motion, which is not the same as the gardai as an official body pushing for the same (i.e. it's not - as far as i am aware - a policy move o'sullivan or others in the garda hierarchy are peddling). also, as it's not the gardai who would actually introduce this law anyway, and several ministers having gone on record over the years saying explicitly it's not something considered desirable, it's not concrete enough to rally around.
the cycle lanes issue has gained a little bit of steam, and i can imagine that becoming a rallying cry.

ED E

magicbastarder wrote: »

irish cyclists don't really have such a hot topic issue to rally around though. it's all fighting little fires rather than one big ones.

The number of us ending up smeared on the tarmac by HGVs and Campervans of late is certainly a hot topic in my eyes....

I love Sean nos

magicbastarder wrote: »

the AGSI passed a motion, which is not the same as the gardai as an official body pushing for the same

The AGSI did the equivalent of a 10 year old boy shouting "look at the cow's nest" and the media fell for it, with the public following them.

A real media would have reported on how ridiculous it is to even contemplate the issue of high-vis while the reputation of the force is at such a low point that no one can believe a word from any Guard, from the newest recruit to the Commissioner.

It's beyond rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic; it's wondering whether the deck chairs need a fresh coat of paint and a change of image via a marketing campaign, all the while floating among corpses.

Beasty

Chuchote wrote: »

Would it be technically possible to have a stickies folder where non-major stickies were corralled?

CramCycle wrote: »

A discussion for the annual review possibly, but not for here

It's already there, in the Charter and FAQs sticky....

Roadhawk

I know there are many pros and cons for the use of helmets while cycling but the guys in this video really experienced the pros...

adjust the video speed to 0.25 and watch from about .29 seconds...

[Deleted User]

I know there are many pros and cons for the use of helmets while cycling driving but the guy in this video really experienced the pros..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzKc76-isOk

dub_skav

Roadhawk wrote: »

I know there are many pros and cons for the use of helmets while cycling but the guys in this video really experienced the pros...

adjust the video speed to 0.25 and watch from about .29 seconds...

I know I'm going to sound flippant, but it looks to me like he did a great job of getting his hands and forearms out to absorb the impact and tucked his chin in to roll, but then a big foam thing on his head smacked into the ground.

I have had a similar over the handlebars crash, but - shock horror - without a helmet and it was my arms and upper back that hit the ground, as, like this guy I tucked my chin and rolled through the impact.

CramCycle

Its not flippant, just an anecdote, just like mine. In no way should anyones policies be influenced by it. I have permanent neck problems due to a helmet hooking a roll bar in a crash. If I hadn't been wearing it, my arms/elbows/tuck, would have brought me through the rear window safely but the helmet hooked the frame and now I get to crack my neck every day and live with constant aching. I certainly wouldn't stand on a pulpit and tell people not to wear helmets because of this but I do understand why making them mandatory without valid reasons is a terrible idea.

decj15

I would have been one of those people that wears a helmet when on my road bike but short commutes or trip to shops would not justify. I came off bike last week and hit footpath whacked head and lots of road rash got home checked helmet and it was smahed inside. If it was my skull that looked like that helmet i would be in bad shape. Wont be cycling again without a helmet

tomasrojo

Your skull wouldn't have looked like that. It's not made of expanded polystyrene.

You're perfectly entitled to wear a helmet all the time cycling if you want to. Indeed, if this gave you such a fright that otherwise you'd give up cycling, it's a good idea.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Your skull wouldn't have looked like that. It's not made of expanded polystyrene.

citation required.

CramCycle

Beastys is mainly made from Titanium as far as I know, my own seems to be made of porous, light weight wood, according to more learned people than myself.

[Deleted User]

magicbastarder wrote: »

meant to post this yesterday - section from the irish times weekend section on getting fit/active - this was the bit about cycling.

Decent helmets cost from €40 up and are essential

Correction: You'll get one in Aldi or Lidl fairly frequently for €15-€20 - and they are not essential at all.

ED E

€20? I wish [64cm noggin]

rubadub

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

and they are not essential at all.

I would forgive him quicker if he was just another uninformed drone rattling off the same stuff about helmets that he hears everyone else saying.

But he seems to be really into cycling, so it's quite sad to see this crap being perpetuated. Absolutely no excuse for someone like him. And it is a big deal, there was some court case I saw where they were strongly inferring that since a guy was not wearing a helmet he was a totally reckless individual.

https://twitter.com/kiliandoyle
https://www.irishtimes.com/profile/kilian-doyle-7.1837443

mr spuckler

rubadub wrote: »

I would forgive him quicker if he was just another uninformed drone rattling off the same stuff about helmets that he hears everyone else saying.

But he seems to be really into cycling, so it's quite sad to see this crap being perpetuated. Absolutely no excuse for someone like him. And it is a big deal, there was some court case I saw where they were strongly inferring that since a guy was not wearing a helmet he was a totally reckless individual.

https://twitter.com/kiliandoyle
https://www.irishtimes.com/profile/kilian-doyle-7.1837443

yeah there was a case recently linked here where a guys injuries compensation claim was reduced because he wasn't wearing a helmet.

[Deleted User]

ED E wrote: »

€20? I wish [64cm noggin]

Even less, in fact - just a tenner;

https://www.aldi.ie/bikemate-adult%27s-bike-helmet/p/094575151852500

buffalo

rubadub wrote: »

I would forgive him quicker if he was just another uninformed drone rattling off the same stuff about helmets that he hears everyone else saying.

But he seems to be really into cycling, so it's quite sad to see this crap being perpetuated. Absolutely no excuse for someone like him. And it is a big deal, there was some court case I saw where they were strongly inferring that since a guy was not wearing a helmet he was a totally reckless individual.

https://twitter.com/kiliandoyle
https://www.irishtimes.com/profile/kilian-doyle-7.1837443

Attack the post, not the poster.

If you're getting into cycling you'll quickly find you need one. Joining a club? You'll find that any club spin requires a hard-shell helmet. Want to do a leisure event? You need a helmet! Partake in a race? Definitely.

So yes, for the active sporting cyclist, they quickly become essential.

(Coming from someone who never wears a helmet when he can get away with it, yet has four of them at home.)

mcgratheoin

mr spuckler wrote: »

yeah there was a case recently linked here where a guys injuries compensation claim was reduced because he wasn't wearing a helmet.

Just to clarify - that was a settlement out of court where the defendant included the part about the helmet and it was agreed to by the plaintiff. As far as I know (open to correction) it was not something that a judge came up with when assessing the division of liability.

mr spuckler

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Just to clarify - that was a settlement out of court where the defendant included the part about the helmet and it was agreed to by the plaintiff. As far as I know (open to correction) it was not something that a judge came up with when assessing the division of liability.

i hadn't recalled it that way but assuming this is the one you're referring to (and the one i recalled!) then you';re right in that certainly is the way it reads.

an interesting and related piece below.

https://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/smith-v-finch-jorgensen-v-moore-reviews-cases-involving-cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence

Mr Justice Griffith also commented that cyclists who are not wearing helmets when they suffer head injuries should in principle be held liable for those injuries if it can be shown (on the balance of probabilities) that a helmet would have prevented them.

edit: removed second link because of duplication

mcgratheoin

mr spuckler wrote: »

i hadn't recalled it that way but assuming this is the one you're referring to (and the one i recalled!) then you';re right in that certainly is the way it reads.

Yeah, that's the one I was thinking of. If this ever gets established as a point of law or precedence then it really opens a can of worms legally speaking. A very good comparison would be car colours. Given the fact that black cars are more likely to be involved in collisions, the same principle should attribute a proportion of liability in any crash to the person who chose to buy and drive a black car.

check_six

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Yeah, that's the one I was thinking of. If this ever gets established as a point of law or precedence then it really opens a can of worms legally speaking. A very good comparison would be car colours. Given the fact that black cars are more likely to be involved in collisions, the same principle should attribute a proportion of liability in any crash to the person who chose to buy and drive a black car.

Yes indeed, but the helmet is not going to make it more likely to be in a crash. It's more like saying that if you don't have rear passenger airbags you should be more liable if someone rams into the back of your car, even though there are no rear passengers and you are not at fault for the crash.

magicbastarder

check_six wrote: »

Yes indeed, but the helmet is not going to make it more likely to be in a crash.

not necessarily? there's as yet questions over whether helmets on cyclists are going to have a psychological effect on their behaviour, or on the behaviour of motorists who may be sharing the same space as them.

CramCycle

My understanding was that wearing a helmet may in fact increase your chances of being in an accident, due to perceived increase in safety leading to people taking marginally more risks.

Great story on here from someone finding their child ramming into the kerb and falling off, on the basis they were now basically invincible thanks to the helmet (an exaggeration of the typical adults response).

The Davestator

CramCycle wrote: »

My understanding was that wearing a helmet may in fact increase your chances of being in an accident, due to perceived increase in safety leading to people taking marginally more risks.

Great story on here from someone finding their child ramming into the kerb and falling off, on the basis they were now basically invincible thanks to the helmet (an exaggeration of the typical adults response).

This argument really makes me laugh. (and despair for people who make it) (and not aimed at cram)

It's more common to have a little fall than the be 'hit by a truck' argument.

If i fall off my bike due to hitting a pothole, luas track etc, I'd rather be wearing a helmet than not.