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

wheelo01

magicbastarder wrote: »

any source for that?

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2912237048896090&id=1619331231520018

tomasrojo

https://twitter.com/cianginty/status/1272597769082023938

Going 90km/h downhill means you have about thirty-six times as much kinetic energy as someone cycling on the aforementioned greenways at 15km/h. He's definitely taking more of a risk than anyone on the greenways.

Chips Lovell

In today’s news: “Man who sells bicycle helmets says bicycle helmets should be mandatory”.

TheAnalyst_

This is actually putting me off cycling. I do a fair bit of city cycling and the country I'm in nobody wears a helmet. Fair enough.

Now I've gotten a decent road/gravel bike and I like to do a bit of touring and training every week or so. 40 mins to 2 hours largely on cycling specifc roads. I used to do the same stuff on my city bike. Now that I have a proper road bike Ive had people get really mad at me for not wearing a helmet. Its bizarre. It's like I've broken some rules of a club I never asked to join.
What is the logic behind it? I'm not forcing them to go helmetless. Why do people take it so personally about someone elses decision that has no impact on them?

I've also avoided clipless pedals and lycra shorts which has also pissed some off.

tomasrojo

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

This is actually putting me off cycling. I do a fair bit of city cycling and the country I'm in nobody wears a helmet. Fair enough.

Now I've gotten a decent road/gravel bike and I like to do a bit of touring and training every week or so. 40 mins to 2 hours largely on cycling specifc roads. I used to do the same stuff on my city bike. Now that I have a proper road bike Ive had people get really mad at me for not wearing a helmet. Its bizarre. It's like I've broken some rules of a club I never asked to join.
What is the logic behind it? I'm not forcing them to go helmetless. Why do people take it so personally about someone elses decision that has no impact on them?

I've also avoided clipless pedals and lycra shorts which has also pissed some off.

I refer you to the bikesnobnyc post I alluded to above:

Of course you could always just skip the helmet altogether, but then you wouldn't be able to participate in sanctioned bicycle races, Gran Fondos, or massive charity rides--plus you'll find yourself on the receiving end of all sorts of scorn from the Fredly Do-Right set.

In other words, there's pretty much no downside.

https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2017/09/sorry-im-late-i-forgot-i-wasnt-on.html

magicbastarder

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

Ive had people get really mad at me for not wearing a helmet.

they can get in the sea.

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

I've also avoided clipless pedals and lycra shorts which has also pissed some off.

they can also get in the sea.

rubadub

Chips Lovell wrote: »

In today’s news: “Man who sells bicycle helmets says bicycle helmets should be mandatory”.

I wonder if he has considered the drop in bike sales if he gets his wish.

They should be calling for VAT to be zero on adult helmets. Irish shops must lose a lot of business to the UK where it is zero.

Bike shops should also be calling for better policing and higher sentences for bike theft, that would be hugely in their interest to see an increase in sales. Zero vat on bike locks would be a good idea too. Possibly bikes themselves too.

dinneenp

Hi,
Any recommendations for a bike helmet for road cycling?
Budget, not sure, if I can get an inexpensive one that's good why not? Was browsing and saw this one-
Planet X CARNAC PODIUM SL ROAD HELMET

Thanks,
Pa.

cletus

dinneenp wrote: »

Hi,
Any recommendations for a bike helmet for road cycling?
Budget, not sure, if I can get an inexpensive one that's good why not? Was browsing and saw this one-
Planet X CARNAC PODIUM SL ROAD HELMET

Thanks,
Pa.

I have that helmet in green. I've a big noggin, and it doesn't look completely out of place on it. Nice and light too, and plenty of vents for the air to get through, so not uncomfortable on a warm day

RobertFoster

magicbastarder wrote: »

does anyone know if there's such a thing as buying a sheet of the lined foam used for helmet padding, from which you could cut your own pads? rather than paying €10 upwards for a set of replacement pads.

Your post reminded me to sort out my padding. Some of mine went missing in the wash so I'm after repurposing a chamois from an old pair of Aldi winter tights.

I used the remaining padding to scale a picture of the £15 replacement set, marked and cut out the shape on the chamois. To tidy the edge and stop the foam from being "sprung" all the time, I used a blanket stitch. The reverse of the chamois I used clings to the helmet without needing added Velcro.

It's slightly thicker than the legit padding and it doesn't match, but it should do the job.

[Deleted User]

Would 3M have something you could cut to shape using the old pads perhaps?

Eamonnator

dinneenp wrote: »

Hi,
Any recommendations for a bike helmet for road cycling?
Budget, not sure, if I can get an inexpensive one that's good why not? Was browsing and saw this one-
Planet X CARNAC PODIUM SL ROAD HELMET

Thanks,
Pa.

I have one of these in the correct colour, red.
Very comfortable and light.
If I remember correctly, I bought it for less than the current price, but nonetheless still very good value.
be careful with delivery cost. I used Parcel Motel.

cletus

Eamonnator wrote: »

I have one of these in the correct colour, red.
Very comfortable and light.
If I remember correctly, I bought it for less than the current price, but nonetheless still very good value.
be careful with delivery cost. I used Parcel Motel.

Hmm, I bought mine on cycle adverts from (I think) briando. He had two for sale, red and green. Is it possible you're the one who bought the red one before I got to it?

CramCycle

I had the Planet X helmet as well, light, well ventilated. Probably not the most comfy in the world but so long as you have some hair your grand.

MojoMaker

A far nicer helmet on your head is the Notus and particularly the Notus Evo (a Specialised Evade copy) - and I see them for less than the Podium at the moment, normally it's the other way around.

The Notus Evo is a very nice helmet indeed

https://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/HECANOTEVO/carnac-notus-evo-road-helmet

Eamonnator

cletus wrote: »

Hmm, I bought mine on cycle adverts from (I think) briando. He had two for sale, red and green. Is it possible you're the one who bought the red one before I got to it?

Not guilty.
Bought mine from Planet X.

Thinkingaboutit

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You can just imagine the 'sure this is a no-brainer, who could possibly object to this' thinking behind the proposal, and then suddenly he starts reading the twitter replies....

He's the 'no-brainer.'

tomasrojo

Chris Boardman has spotted Dillon:
https://twitter.com/Chris_Boardman/status/1273187214269329413

conkennedy

Nothing gets past Boardman

Eamonnator

conkennedy wrote: »

Nothing gets past Boardman

He has quite a lot of skin in the game, professionally and personally.

magicbastarder

and probably skin left on velodromes as well.

anyway, what's the deal with the timing of that FF politician announcing this in the week where the PfG was being finalised? was it deliberately bad timing on his part?

Chips Lovell

Dillon is a Fine Gaeler. I'd say there was as much thought put into the timing of the announcement as there was into the proposal itself, i.e. very little.

As for Boardman's intervention, I reckon he neither knows nor cares who Chris Boardman is. If he did actually care about this issue, he wouldn't have made the proposal in the first place.

Hurrache

He's an ex Mayo county player and captain, all star winner too, I'd certainly like to think that he'd at least have a passing knowledge of Boardman given his sporting interests.

I also think he's been lobbied by those who know of his sporting royalty in his home county, also home of the RSA, or using his history himself, as a way to try add some weight behind his backward proposals.

On this topic, someone called Sam Waide was appointed the new CEO of the RSA this week.

kirving

How about they remove VAT from cycling helmets if they want to encourage usage? Maybe even give a tax credit toward them? Better that that claiming the 20% back on my health expenses for the year. I buy my helmets in the UK for this reason.

How about using the carrot instead of the stick approach?

CramCycle wrote: »

s that while lots of people have anecdotal evidence of their benefit, and one poster with a negative, studies overall don't find any benefit or negative at a population level for the atypical cyclist. There are many possible reasons but the bare bones of it is, whether you wear one or not, it's statistically fine to say your choice makes no difference.

I'm very happy to agree that in large scale studies, the overall benefit of mandatory helmets is negated by the reduction in cyclists. ie: preventing safety in numbers, other health benefits, etc.

Personally though, I've been knocked out cold while wearing a helmet and hitting the edge of a rock at at least 30kph. I'd have no trouble saying the helmet minimised my injuries as far as possible and the doctors agreed. Some will say I have no hard evidence to say that the helmet helped, and I might not, but they can try out the same accident helmetless and gather some evidence if they'd like to argue that assertion. I certainly won't be repeating it.

In another crash, the rear axle bolt hit my helmet in the temple area, and left me really dazed. Again, I'm very confident in saying that the helmet prevented a skull fracture. Take a look. Statistically extremely unlikely, but I cycle enough that it adds up over time, and I only need to be on the wrong side of that statistic once to ruin my life.

Should they be mandatory though? Absolutely not.

Should they be worn as must as practically possible? Yes, IMO. And by that I mean daily commuting on the road at a decent speed, MTBing, cold weather. Going to the local shops or over to the park on a summers day, no.

People deriding trauma doctors who regularly see cycling injuries and saying "they're not experts" is disingenuous to be fair. They might not be looking at population level statistical analysis, but I'd still trust their opinion on injuries they've seen with and without helmets.

The other argument of "your skull is harder than foam" argument is anti-vaxxer levels of misinformation and should be called out as such.

tomasrojo

I'm not sure why you're invoking anti-vax in this context. You can actually see a benefit very clearly at the population level with vaccines.

The argument isn't just that the benefit of helmets is negated at the large-scale by the reduction in cyclists. It actually appears to be too modest to capture in large-scale studies, which are exactly the type of studies you need to detect small effects.

tomasrojo

In passing, Ben Goldacre wrote a good bit about Archie Cochrane, and why we don't higly value the opinions of senior doctors if there isn't much evidence to support them:

The real challenge is in identifying what works the best, because when people are deprived of the best, they are harmed too. But this is also a reminder of how inappropriate certainty can be a barrier to progress, especially when there are charismatic people, who claim they know what’s best, even without good evidence.

Medicine suffered hugely with this problem, and as late as the 1970s there were infamous confrontations between people who thought it was important to run fair tests, and “experts”, who were angry at the thought of their expertise being challenged, and their favourite practices being tested. Archie Cochrane was one of the pioneers of evidence based medicine, and in his autobiography, he describes many battles he had with senior doctors, in glorious detail.

https://www.badscience.net/2013/03/heres-my-paper-on-evidence-and-teaching-for-the-education-minister/

tomasrojo

I don't think many people would take issue with the idea that you'd be better off wearing some kind of head-cushioning device if you are putting yourself in scenarios with any great frequency where you're likely to whack your head off a rock. But that isn't what utility- or commuting cycling is like.

I'm not sure of any studies done on large numbers of sports cyclists and just sports cyclists, but the benefit sports cyclists might attain through using helmets probably isn't well addressed in looking at whole-population studies. At the same time, the number of sports cyclists who don't use helmets, apart from maybe endurance training, must be very low.

buffalo

Kevin Irving wrote: »

People deriding trauma doctors who regularly see cycling injuries and saying "they're not experts" is disingenuous to be fair. They might not be looking at population level statistical analysis, but I'd still trust their opinion on injuries they've seen with and without helmets.

So if a doctor says something could save your life, you'd do it?

A woman's life was likely saved by her silicone breast implants after she was shot in the chest at close range while walking down a street in Toronto, doctors have said.

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2020/0422/1133041-breast-implant-shooting/

kirving

tomasrojo wrote: »

I don't think many people would take issue with the idea that you'd be better off wearing some kind of head-cushioning device if you are putting yourself in scenarios with any great frequency where you're likely to whack your head off a rock. But that isn't what utility- or commuting cycling is like.

That's the thing - many people do, including on this thread, in particular when anyone dares suggest that a helmet may have saved their life.

I've seen on Twitter plenty of times, things along the lines of "you have no evidence to suggest that" and "how can a lump of foam protect your skull", backed up by complete pseudoscience referencing material hardness and strength data.

In terms of recommending for commuting, I guess that depends on a lot of factors. My commute is under 10 minutes in a country town on quiet roads, plenty of others differ greatly.

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm not sure why you're invoking anti-vax in this context. You can actually see a benefit very clearly at the population level with vaccines.

The argument isn't just that the benefit of helmets is negated at the large-scale by the reduction in cyclists. It actually appears to be too modest to capture in large-scale studies, which are exactly the type of studies you need to detect small effects.

Most of the anti-mandatory rhetoric I agree with, but the fringe arguments (on both sides I may add) really are dangerous lies. I appreciate that's not where you're coming from, but it needs to be called out nonetheless.

buffalo wrote: »

So if a doctor says something could save your life, you'd do it?

Where did I say that?

An endocrinologist may have a different opinion on mandatory helmet usage than an orthopedic surgeon, that's understandable and probably expected.

The "helmets are not effective" argument should be clearly framed at a public health level, rather than an individual level, but it all get's lumped together. I really think is an important distinction to make.

I couldn't care less about how many people on my road have diabetes when I'm lying on the ground having come off my bike, I care that I haven't cracked my skull.

tomasrojo

Kevin Irving wrote: »

That's the thing - many people do, including on this thread, in particular when anyone dares suggest that a helmet may have saved their life.

I've seen on Twitter plenty of times, things along the lines of "you have no evidence to suggest that" and "how can a lump of foam protect your skull", backed up by complete pseudoscience referencing material hardness and strength data.

In terms of recommending for commuting, I guess that depends on a lot of factors. My commute is under 10 minutes in a country town on quiet roads, plenty of others differ greatly.

Yes, you can overstate either way.

But at the same time, it's widely believed that "helmets save lives". This may be true in some scenarios, but, if so, it seems to be a very small number of events in the overall picture, or else there seem to be an equal number of events that balance it out by taking lives, because the net effect is a helmet benefit that seems to be too modest to capture, to use Ben Goldacre and David Spiegelhalter's wording.

Which isn't the same as saying that they have no effect. We're just having a lot of trouble agreeing what it is, though I lean strongly towards Goldacre and Spiegelhalter's take.