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

The Davestator wrote: »

Each to their own, but I genuinely don't understand why anyone would choose not to wear a helmet when it's clearly dangerous to cycle in Ireland.

Do you choose to wear a helmet when in a car in Ireland? Far more head injuries and deaths occur in cars than on bikes - so if you are a big fan of helmets, wear one while driving.

We do have the helmet mega-thread. Let's take it there maybe?

(Cycling is not specially dangerous. I'll just address that one, as it's not specifically a helmet comment. Cycling is about as dangerous as walking -- less so if you look at risk based on persons killed or seriously injured per 100 million km travelled, slightly more so based on KSIs per 100 million hours travelled.)

The Davestator

rubadub wrote: »

He was not talking solely about competitive/sporting cycling though. I would not have much of an issue if he did say it is essential for those -I would like to see it pointed out that it is obligatory. At the very start he says it has many forms. Gently going around a park and commuting were mentioned. I took him to mean a helmet is essential in all cases. And I bet his (mad/insane/neglectful) parents let him out on a bike with no helmet when he was younger.

I believe it is and its one reason I rarely wear one.

Same could be said for falling over while walking, or being in a car crash. They keep asking the likes of A&E doctors and coroners "do you think he would have been saved if he was wearing a helmet" but only about cycling injuries -it's embarrassingly ridiculous logic.

I am sick of death of hearing irrational hypocritical people/media calling me "mad" or "reckless" for not wearing a helmet on a bike. It used to be benign and I would just shrug off their ignorance, but when it is effecting court cases etc it really has to be addressed.

If wearing a seat belt in a car was not law would you wear one? Do you wear a life jacket on water? Do you wear a helmet if sking?

Each to their own, but I genuinely don't understand why anyone would choose not to wear a helmet when it's clearly dangerous to cycle in Ireland.

rubadub

buffalo wrote: »

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.

He was not talking solely about competitive/sporting cycling though. I would not have much of an issue if he did say it is essential for those -I would like to see it pointed out that it is obligatory. At the very start he says it has many forms. Gently going around a park and commuting were mentioned. I took him to mean a helmet is essential in all cases. And I bet his (mad/insane/neglectful) parents let him out on a bike with no helmet when he was younger.

check_six wrote: »

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

I believe it is and its one reason I rarely wear one.

The Davestator wrote: »

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

Same could be said for falling over while walking, or being in a car crash. They keep asking the likes of A&E doctors and coroners "do you think he would have been saved if he was wearing a helmet" but only about cycling injuries -it's embarrassingly ridiculous logic.

I am sick of death of hearing irrational hypocritical people/media calling me "mad" or "reckless" for not wearing a helmet on a bike. It used to be benign and I would just shrug off their ignorance, but when it is effecting court cases etc it really has to be addressed.

buffalo wrote: »

The context of the article* was cycling as an sporting 'activity'. Obviously this can be incidentally as transport, but it was alongside similar pieces on getting into running, GAA, martial arts, swimming, horse riding, etc.

Ah, yeah, that's a good point. Funnily enough, I don't see cycling in that light at all. It's lumped in with driving, getting the bus, walking and so on. Except that I feel enthusiastic about it.

buffalo wrote: »

Actually, out of interest - do any 'pure' utility cyclists wear padded shorts? (i.e. bought them just for heading to work/shops, and never go on spins around the countryside.)

Not me. I never do more than 30km in one go, so have never felt sore after a cycle.

buffalo wrote: »

Actually, out of interest - do any 'pure' utility cyclists wear padded shorts? (i.e. bought them just for heading to work/shops, and never go on spins around the countryside.)

Yeah, I wear padded shorts or bibs almost every day when commuting because I want to be as comfortable as possible. If I weren't pressured into going fast by motor traffic and no infrastructure, I would use a Dutch cruiser and normal clothes.

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Not getting into the helmet stuff, except that I'm "into cycling", I guess (I post here enough), but there are no activities I take part in that require a helmet. I never joined a club, never raced, don't do charity cycles. I just cycle around all the time, going place I have to be, carrying stuff I have to carry, sometimes a lot of stuff. I'm probably in a minority there.

The context of the article* was cycling as an sporting 'activity'. Obviously this can be incidentally as transport, but it was alongside similar pieces on getting into running, GAA, martial arts, swimming, horse riding, etc.

Actually, out of interest - do any 'pure' utility cyclists wear padded shorts? (i.e. bought them just for heading to work/shops, and never go on spins around the countryside.)

*https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/get-active-do-you-want-to-get-fit-this-summer-here-s-all-you-need-1.3155164

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Haven't really nailed down the analogy, I was pointing out the legal weirdness of holding somebody partially liable in a collision where they were not at fault at all, due to their exercising of a personal preference.

I guess the argument is that a collision is to be expected at some stage, so you should be prepared for one, with ameliorating measures. If you aren't prepared, it's contributory negligence.

(I don't agree with this, just in case that's not clear.)

Not getting into the helmet stuff, except that I'm "into cycling", I guess (I post here enough), but there are no activities I take part in that require a helmet. I never joined a club, never raced, don't do charity cycles. I just cycle around all the time, going place I have to be, carrying stuff I have to carry, sometimes a lot of stuff. I'm probably in a minority there.

I agree that cycling is not really free once the bike is bought, but not from the point of view of buying gear. Even if you're a frugal cyclist (as I certainly am) there are parts that require replacement, especially chains, brake pads, rims and tyres.

I worked it out years ago at a few cent a km (took the total spending on maintenance and component replacement over a year and divided by a rough estimate of the total travelled that year).

So it's very cheap, but if you're doing thousands of km a year, it'll probably cost you two hundred euro or so.

mcgratheoin

check_six wrote: »

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.

Haven't really nailed down the analogy, I was pointing out the legal weirdness of holding somebody partially liable in a collision where they were not at fault at all, due to their exercising of a personal preference.

MOD VOICE: Just realised we are delving into helmet mega thread territory. I will move the posts over there later.

The Davestator wrote: »

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

No offence taken,

My view, has been, and always will be, it should be a persons choice for a variety of reasons.

This said, I can see the argument on a population level. Study referenced in this pop science link: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/24/bike-helmet-appetite-danger

Do I take more risks when wearing a helmet, yes I do, but that is more to do with the fact that I wear a helmet when taking part in risky activities. I don't think I take more risk heading down the shops but then again, I only wear my helmet heading to the shops if my child is with me as he has no choice thanks to his mother, therefore it would be impossible for me to explain that I don't have to do what he has to do. In that scenario, I think I take far less risks.

The Davestator wrote: »

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

That's your choice. But there's a big difference between expressing a personal choice and saying that a helmet is 'essential'.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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: »

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.

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.)

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

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.

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

ED E

€20? I wish [64cm noggin]

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.

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.

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

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

citation required.