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; } } }

Child Item

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

cython

Geraint Thomas has called for helmets to be compulsory in the UK. Think it's misguided myself, and while he's obviously a professional cyclist, I don't see how that makes him any more qualified to recommend policy than anyone else. Certainly nothing to suggest that he has a better understanding of the statistics, etc.

conkennedy

cython wrote: »

Geraint Thomas has called for helmets to be compulsory in the UK. Think it's misguided myself, and while he's obviously a professional cyclist, I don't see how that makes him any more qualified to recommend policy than anyone else. Certainly nothing to suggest that he has a better understanding of the statistics, etc.

He has backtracked on that and is saying that he is misquoted and its a personal choice

Macy0161

Also, professional cyclists/ teams are sponsored by helmet companies. Anything they say should be viewed with that in mind. They'll probably also answer "yes", if asked whether expensive sun glasses should be compulsory....

rubadub

Macy0161 wrote: »

Also, professional cyclists/ teams are sponsored by helmet companies.

In this case he was just simply ignorant about it. He admits he never thought of it and like the majority of people can not immediately think of the cons or any harm in making them mandatory. He has likely not read up on all the studies.

Geraint Thomas
‏
Verified account

@GeraintThomas86
Follow Follow @GeraintThomas86
More
Wow! This was one question in an hour interview. It’s nothing I’ve ever thought about. So when asked I thought... I always wear one and I’d advise all children to wear them so&#55358;&#56631;*♂️ Didn’t realise people felt so passionately about helmets!!

In my job people operate lathes with no gloves when many first see them they think they are mad, but there is good reason not to wear safety equipment in some cases. In this case the gloves can get caught and drag you into machinery.

What is so annoying is people see huge backlash against the likes of these doctors and sportspeople and talk shows, but most do not seem to question why. They just brand everybody mad! which to me is a far greater sign of madness and idiocy.

I have said before that cycling without a helmet could keep you safer, I know if I see a meandering child or a wild madman walking along the road I become more cautious, whether I am walking, on a bike or in a car. If people presume me to be a wild madman liable to do anything then they might give me a bit more room too.

tomasrojo

To be fair to Geraint Thomas, I don't think he ever was "calling" for helmets to be made compulsory. He was asked in passing about it, and he made an off-the-cuff remark; in fact, a lot of people use "should be made compulsory" as a sort-of synonym for "people should do this". , rather than "people should be penalised for not doing this". I'm pretty sure the journalist or their editor asked the question hoping to get that headline.

Macy0161

Well yeah, I know I was being a bit facetious, but pro's have to wear them racing, and even ignoring the training in gear you're going to race in, they would be contractually obliged (either for sponsorship or team insurance reasons) to wear them training. So it really isn't something a modern day pro has to think about.

doozerie

One person's review of the Lumos MIPS helmet, which they sum up as "the best commuter helmet available": https://titaniumgeek.com/lumos-mips-helmet-review-the-best-commuter-helmet-available/

Shopify_59c7c081-56d8-4186-944c-b14c13639a71_800x.jpg?v=1523517295

Shopify_59c7c081-56d8-4186-944c-b14c13639a71_800x.jpg?v=1523517295

Personally I'm not convinced by the lights built into the helmet, my preference will always be good quality lights on the bike itself. Having said that, I have supplemented my bike lights in the past with a small torch attached to my helmet (on some of those occasions when I wore a helmet while commuting), and I reckon the ability to instantly direct a stream of impossible-to-ignore light at a motorist stopped more than one of them from "not seeing me" when they started to pull out in front of/on top of me from a side road. The lights on this helmet are not that type of bright and directional light, but perhaps they still help to discourage people from ignoring you.

The more I read about MIPS though, the more I wonder why it isn't available in far more helmets. In fact, if marketing of it is to be believed it should be mandatory in all helmets. I'm not sure the marketing really is to be believed, mind you, marketing is what it is and at its worst it amounts to socially acceptable form of lying.

MIPS perhaps highlights yet again that dubious line that the helmet manufacturers tread, and that we as consumers arguably support. Essentially, helmet manufacturers are keen to have us believe that their MIPS helmets are much safer, but happily sell us their non-MIPS helmets without any mention of them being therefore "less safe". As consumers we'll often opt for the cheaper products, often telling ourselves (or deluding ourselves, depending on your perspective) that we are buying something that is "good enough". And meanwhile, the safety standard(s) don't seem to have changed in a long time (EN1078 was published in 1997 and doesn't seem to have been amended since then, from what I can find) despite the significant developments that helmet manufacturers claim to have achieved since then.

Actually, when searching for info on EN1078 just now, I found an article (LINK) which mentions a site I haven't seen before but looks worth exploring:

The researchers and engineers behind Giro and Bell’s in-house test lab, The Dome, recently launched HelmetFacts.com. It’s a website where athletes who need to protect their noggins (ahem, triathletes) can find info on everything from helmet materials to standards and testing protocols. Wondering what that cert on your brain bucket means? Allow The Dome team to clarify.

tomasrojo

bikesnobnyc writing well, as is his wont:

Unfortunately, when it comes to encouraging kids to ride bikes and keeping them safe, helmet giveaways are the ultimate cop-out. They’re a symptom, not a cure, and tossing free helmets at our deadly driving epidemic is like throwing your empty pistol at the advancing T-1000 Terminator android before turning tail and running away. And it’s doubly insulting when the agencies giving away the helmets are the same ones that are directly responsible for street safety—your local transportation department or police precinct foisting a helmet on you is like your restaurant server presenting you with a barf bag along with your food order.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2341056/give-kids-bikes-not-helmets

Last line pretty funny too.

doozerie

My daughter was hit on the head by a chestnut that fell from a tree while she was cycling to school yesterday. A really unfortunate bit of bad luck, you couldn't describe it any other way.

Anyway, she was fine after a while but a kid in her class told her she should have been wearing a helmet. The kid is only 9, he hasn't had the time or misfortune to be bombarded by the relentless "cycling = death, unless you wear a helmet" ****e, which makes it both kinda funny but also kinda puzzling why he'd zoom straight in on the idea that cyclists need to worry about stuff falling from above when pedestrians apparently don't.

Chips Lovell

Didn't you know that falling chestnuts only hit cyclists?

conkennedy

doozerie wrote: »

My daughter was hit on the head by a chestnut that fell from a tree while she was cycling to school yesterday. A really unfortunate bit of bad luck, you couldn't describe it any other way.

Was your daughter wearing a hi-viz vest? If she was, the chestnut would have seen her and would have missed her.

check_six

conkennedy wrote: »

Was your daughter wearing a hi-viz vest? If she was, the chestnut would have seen her and would have missed her.

I think you're misunderstanding how a hi-viz vest works. The chestnut would still have hit its mark, but the reason for this happening would be shifted to another rung on the infinite ladder of victim blaming explanations.
And who amongst us can say that is a bad thing?

Arcade_Tryer

doozerie wrote: »

My daughter was hit on the head by a chestnut that fell from a tree while she was cycling to school yesterday. A really unfortunate bit of bad luck, you couldn't describe it any other way.

Anyway, she was fine after a while but a kid in her class told her she should have been wearing a helmet. The kid is only 9, he hasn't had the time or misfortune to be bombarded by the relentless "cycling = death, unless you wear a helmet" ****e, which makes it both kinda funny but also kinda puzzling why he'd zoom straight in on the idea that cyclists need to worry about stuff falling from above when pedestrians apparently don't.

Helmets are associated with cycling as a safety feature the same way as seat belts are with motor vehicles; and in this case the helmet would have offered protection against the falling chestnut so the child has a point also. Honestly sounds like the kid was showing genuine concern rather than trying to rationalise the idea of wearing a helmet to offset the risk of falling chestnuts. This is likely similar to the way most people (especially those who do not cycle regularly) view the helmet issue i.e. out of concern for safety. Of course concern for safety is not a good enough reason to introduce a policy like compulsory helmet usage, and many people and organisations taint the idea completely with their obvious faux concern.

youtheman

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

doozerie wrote: »

My daughter was hit on the head by a chestnut that fell from a tree while she was cycling to school yesterday. A really unfortunate bit of bad luck, you couldn't describe it any other way.

Anyway, she was fine after a while but a kid in her class told her she should have been wearing a helmet. The kid is only 9, he hasn't had the time or misfortune to be bombarded by the relentless "cycling = death, unless you wear a helmet" ****e, which makes it both kinda funny but also kinda puzzling why he'd zoom straight in on the idea that cyclists need to worry about stuff falling from above when pedestrians apparently don't.

Helmets are associated with cycling as a safety feature the same way as seat belts are with motor vehicles; and in this case the helmet would have offered protection against the falling chestnut so the child has a point also. Honestly sounds like the kid was showing genuine concern rather than trying to rationalise the idea of wearing a helmet to offset the risk of falling chestnuts. This is likely similar to the way most people (especially those who do not cycle regularly) view the helmet issue i.e. out of concern for safety. Of course concern for safety is not a good enough reason to introduce a policy like compulsory helmet usage, and many people and organisations taint the idea completely with their obvious faux concern.

I think kids are just been conditioned to wear helmets. Like when my kids were younger they would get impatient with me if I drove out of the driveway before they had time to fasten their seatbelts (and I never lectured them once on the subject). Another time I lit up a cigar and they got visibly upset because they thought I was in imminent danger. It's just systematic of how thinks are going.

CramCycle

youtheman wrote: »

I think kids are just been conditioned to wear helmets. Like when my kids were younger they would get impatient with me if I drove out of the driveway before they had time to fasten their seatbelts (and I never lectured them once on the subject). Another time I lit up a cigar and they got visibly upset because they thought I was in imminent danger. It's just systematic of how thinks are going.

To be fair, the kids were pretty much bang on in their comments. as the driver, you shouldn't have moved before checking seat belts were done. The cigar is your choice, but I wouldn't smoke in front of my kids.

youtheman

CramCycle wrote: »

youtheman wrote: »

I think kids are just been conditioned to wear helmets. Like when my kids were younger they would get impatient with me if I drove out of the driveway before they had time to fasten their seatbelts (and I never lectured them once on the subject). Another time I lit up a cigar and they got visibly upset because they thought I was in imminent danger. It's just systematic of how thinks are going.

To be fair, the kids were pretty much bang on in their comments. as the driver, you shouldn't have moved before checking seat belts were done. The cigar is your choice, but I wouldn't smoke in front of my kids.

Thanks for the lecture. Really appreciated!.

magicbastarder

doozerie wrote: »

My daughter was hit on the head by a chestnut that fell from a tree while she was cycling to school yesterday. A really unfortunate bit of bad luck, you couldn't describe it any other way.

we used to have conker fights in school. not 'playing conkers' in the traditional sense, we'd just lash them as hard as we could at each other; until the great conker fight of 92, which left seven people hospitalised and one brain damaged.

CramCycle

youtheman wrote: »

Thanks for the lecture. Really appreciated!.

plodder

I noticed dozens of teenagers cycling to school this morning on Griffith Ave and none of them was wearing a helmet. I imagine stuff like that just gets nicked/thrown on the roof in your typical secondary school. So, forcing kids to wear helmets would result in either/both ignoring the rule or stopping cycling, neither of which is desirable really.

doozerie

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Didn't you know that falling chestnuts only hit cyclists?

Funnily enough (well, kinda), a chestnut fell on her head the previous day while she was standing under a tree without a bicycle in sight. Which could be dismissed as a bizarre coincidence, but I'm convinced the chestnut knew she wasn't a mere pedestrian but a cyclist in disguise. It KNEW!...

doozerie

magicbastarder wrote: »

we used to have conker fights in school. not 'playing conkers' in the traditional sense, we'd just lash them as hard as we could at each other; until the great conker fight of 92, which left seven people hospitalised and one brain damaged.

You angered the conkers. Now they're out to get us. They're starting with the cyclists but then they are coming for the rest of them.

This is just the beginning of conkerpocalypse, and YOU provoked it!

CramCycle

As she was standing under a chestnut tree, on the windiest days we have had in quite some time, coming into Autumn. May I suggest Occam's razor, and also that she avoids standing under said trees. If conkers continue to hit her in the head, may I suggest you blame Dave in her class at school, never trusted Dave, always looks like he is up to something.

Macy0161

doozerie wrote: »

Anyway, she was fine after a while but a kid in her class told her she should have been wearing a helmet. The kid is only 9, he hasn't had the time or misfortune to be bombarded by the relentless "cycling = death, unless you wear a helmet" ****e, which makes it both kinda funny but also kinda puzzling why he'd zoom straight in on the idea that cyclists need to worry about stuff falling from above when pedestrians apparently don't.

In the risk of crossing megathreads, coming home from their swimming the other night, one of mine commented how it was hard to see, and anybody on the road would want to be "good" and have hi viz. Sparked an interesting discussion around why lights and torches are more important (around corners/ moving/ not reliant on the cars lights), and reflective v hi viz.

I actually think the schools have replaced all the catholic indoctrination with a load of victim blaming indoctrination. RSA seated at the right hand of the Motor Vehicle...

doozerie

CramCycle wrote: »

As she was standing under a chestnut tree, on the windiest days we have had in quite some time, coming into Autumn. May I suggest Occam's razor, and also that she avoids standing under said trees.

Both chestnut incidents pre-dated the stormy day. Down with apologists for the chestnut trees, chestnut trees are the real villains here and the world must know!...

CramCycle wrote:

If conkers continue to hit her in the head, may I suggest you blame Dave in her class at school, never trusted Dave, always looks like he is up to something.

"Dave and the chestnut trees", a group that could only ever have been a rubbish musical combo, or a gang of evil super villains, I'm voting for the latter.

doozerie

Back on the topic of helmets, one of our neighbour's kids told my daughter recently that she really should wear a helmet while cycling. I imagine she was parroting what she heard others/adults say (or maybe at the age of 8 this kid is already "reasoning" that cycling is dangerous and that helmets are the solution, which would be more worrying).

The irony is that I'm regularly reminded of the poor casual standard of driving amongst some of our neighbours. People so often see dangers everywhere, mostly *elsewhere*, too rarely do they realise that they themselves may be the source. I guess it's far easier to look outwards than inwards.

dx1200

Lots of good points in this article on CNET by a Brain surgeon who recommends against wearing helmets. Essentially the argument that they can actually cause more danger by creating a false sense of security leading to - cyclists taking more risks as they think they are safer and drivers also taking more risks as they think you are more protected.

https://www.cnet.com/news/brain-surgeon-theres-no-point-wearing-cycle-helmets/

I wear a helmet whenever I train or go for a spin where I know I will be hitting higher speeds, tackling descents, dodgy surfaces etc. I may have a higher chance of a fall on those days or at least a fall that a helmet could protect me in.

When I'm pootling along on a short commute to work or into town then no helmet as I'm confident enough in my ability if I have minor fall. If a vehicle hits me then I doubt the helmet will be up to much, unless the head injury is to the very top of my head. Helmets offer little protection around the sides and are only tested on top to the best of my knowledge.

Also when I look like a regular person on bike e.g no safety kit, drivers seem to give me more space. If I'm in full kit then humans in cars seem to see me as more 'able'. There a few scientific studies that show this to be common too.

Ian Walker - journalist in the Guardian wrote a book called 'Bike Nation:How cycling can save the World' . It's got great arguments on the helmet thinking.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bike-Nation-Cycling-Save-World/dp/1911214942

If a person is deterred from cycling because they have to wear a device (which is arguably less safe than a car seatbelt) then surely this creates another health risk - inactivity or a greater chance of it at least.

Helmets are not in the top issues surrounding cycling safety. Cycling education for kids (and adults), infrastructure, better policing of the roads and driver awareness would do a better job of saving lives than helmets. It's a shame that the helmet argument is so often used as one the most important factors in cycling safety.

Finally, penalty points should be removed for bad road use. Instead if you endanger someone you should be pelted with conkers.

rubadub

dx1200 wrote: »

Also when I look like a regular person on bike e.g no safety kit, drivers seem to give me more space. If I'm in full kit then humans in cars seem to see me as more 'able'. There a few scientific studies that show this to be common too.

I wondered if the taximan who went out of his way to knock the lad off the bike would have done so if he was not wearing a helmet. I presume he was wearing a helmet as in another video of his he was.

I had a lad swerve in at me last week, he called me "a prick" for cycling on "the footpath", it was a cycletrack, and not a single pedestrian on it either! Lunatic, but I did wonder if he would have swerved in closer if I had a helmet on.

That recent video further convinces me not to wear one, I have witnessed scum not fighting people, and saying so because they were old, had a broken arm, were female, were small/weak looking etc. I remember similar bully arseholes in school going after lads after hurling helmets and shinpads became popular.

I imagine most of the bullies would also not hit a mentally disabled person (or whatever this weeks PC term is), and quite a lot of people consider non helmet wearers to be mentally deficient/mad/crazy etc.

One upside of the popularity of helmets are the ridiculous amounts of accounts/tales I have heard of "I would be dead if it was not for my helmet". This is good since the bullies likely believe it and think there is an extremely high risk of death if they knock somebody off a bike with no helmet.

Eamonnator

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/11/commentary-why-i-stopped-wearing-a-bike-helmet/

Great article from Cycling Tips.

Chips Lovell

The most extraodinary thing about that article is the preface the editor felt they needed to add to it:

Before you dive into Peter Flax’s piece below, a quick note. First and foremost, the following column is Peter’s opinion. It does not reflect the opinion of CyclingTips.

Most of us at CyclingTips wear helmets most of the time. I wear one whenever I kit up for a ride. They’re pretty comfortable these days, and I don’t see any reason not too, even after reading the story below. For some of our readers, helmets are mandated by law, and of course, we don’t want anyone to break the law.

To be frank, I wasn’t sure if it was a perspective we wanted on the site.

You'd swear he'd written an article advocating racial segregation or cannibalism.

Grassey

While I wouldn't agree with making cars more dangerous I do take the underlying point about becoming more removed from the environment, and the rise corresponding with 'always being connected'. Ties in nicely with the ridiculousness in the highvis thread at the minute 🤣