To wear or not to wear, that is the question!

Re:

Before seat belts were compulsory, I always wore one, for every journey. Why? Because since the age of 19 when I got my first company car, I have driven somewhere in the region of 35,000 miles a year, every year, so I have always figured my chances of having an accident are higher than your average driver.

My other main pastime is horse riding; there is no law or compulsion to wear a riding hat, but when I learned the basics of horsemanship at an old fashioned riding school, it was compulsory. As a novice rider on a somewhat feisty horse, and as someone who enjoys riding fast and jumping fences, I figured it was worthwhile to stick to that more recently when I started riding again. I have destroyed one riding hat, when I hit the wing of a jump followed by the ground with my head. The (£70) hat looked fine, but I cut the straps off, binned it and bought a new one the same day, I figured that as I didn't have so much as a headache following my fall, it was probably a worthwhile investment.

Following the same logic, that a few pounds worth of protection is worth the effort, I have worn cycle helmets since really getting into mtb's in around 1990, and have carried that logic across to my road riding. I'm not worried about the protection it can offer in a collision with a vehicle, I have done that once from the pillion seat of a motorcycle and my very expensive helmet offered my legs no protection whatsoever, which is why one of them ended up broken. No, the reason I prefer to wear a helmet on a bike is because if I make a mistake and take a tumble, and the circumstances are just wrong, then it could well be my head that hits the deck / tree / concrete post / rock first, and if some carefully engineered and tested expanded polystyrene helps protect the few functioning brain cells I still have, then I'm all for that. Plus, I think they look pretty cool.

I would however, NEVER support compulsory cycle helmets.
 
I wear both helmet while cycling and seatbelt while driving (I know it's compulsory in a car but my sister still refuses to wear one as a lot do) as I feel naked without them and very vulnerable. Funny the only times I have been knocked off my bike was during the days I didn't have a helmet, the first left me with a very large scar across my forehead and concussion and the second lots of bruising all over my body, I'd prefer not to take the risk.

I also don't hold a lot of store with statistics as there are loads of them floating around about every subject ever studied that definitely, without a doubt prove that both sides of every argument are both right and both wrong, a few mins trawling the internet will give anyone what they want to make their argument look compelling, but then your adversary can do exactly the same. I'll stick with gut feeling myself and let others go with theirs

Alison
 
Re:

That's a good article.

I don't wear a helmet,they're stupid.

If you wear one on a bike,you should wear one in a car,and when drinking your drug of choice .
 
Why has cycling been singled out as an activity in need of head protection?

Been asking the same question myself. Personally, I don't wear a helmet most of the time. Although I might wear it if I'm on a fast, flowing Sportive with a lot of fast descents on public roads. However, I never wear it when cycling in London - just don't see the necessity.

I agree that Cycling shouldn't be seen as more inherently dangerous than crossing the road - which in London, is very bloody dangerous.
 
Re:

the thing that now pi##ses me off with the helmet debate is that insurance companies and some judges in civil court cases have reduced payouts on the grounds of the cyclists' contributory factor of not choosing to wear a helmet. So you may get run down through no fault of your own, maybe even cos the driver was drunk/texting etc, but your compensation may be reduced cos you weren't wearing a helmet.

Yet if the same person would have suffered head injuries whilst driving a car, he would have no reduction on grounds of not wearing a helmet.

Stinks somehow.
 
Re: Re:

pigman":1fte2ym8 said:
the thing that now pi##ses me off with the helmet debate is that insurance companies and some judges in civil court cases have reduced payouts on the grounds of the cyclists' contributory factor of not choosing to wear a helmet. So you may get run down through no fault of your own, maybe even cos the driver was drunk/texting etc, but your compensation may be reduced cos you weren't wearing a helmet.

Yet if the same person would have suffered head injuries whilst driving a car, he would have no reduction on grounds of not wearing a helmet.

Stinks somehow.

That is not right, I chose to wear one, but while it is just a matter of choice and not law then one should not be penalised for having chosen not to yet sufferred an accident not of your own making.

Alison
 
Re: Re:

pigman":fma11wgn said:
the thing that now pi##ses me off with the helmet debate is that insurance companies and some judges in civil court cases have reduced payouts on the grounds of the cyclists' contributory factor of not choosing to wear a helmet. So you may get run down through no fault of your own, maybe even cos the driver was drunk/texting etc, but your compensation may be reduced cos you weren't wearing a helmet.
Yet if the same person would have suffered head injuries whilst driving a car, he would have no reduction on grounds of not wearing a helmet.
Stinks somehow.
This was exactly the case when an old woman in Scotland was killed by a driver and the driver got away
with it and the judge said it was the cyclist fault she died because she wasn't wearing a proper cycling helmet.

Its because of cases like this that the CTC has pushed harder to get the law changed.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/government-a ... -penalties
 
Before I ride I do a risk assessment using my noodle and common on the likelihood of me belting my swede or something belting into my swede, MTB always, popping out nah, fast (Pah! as if) road riding sometimes.

Riding, lycra clad, helmet gloves and spuds, the cycling equivalent of the lad in a souped up Impreza, it looks like you're out for sport.
It always annoys me, especially with US cyclists I hear on shows or Podcasts when they say we just want to be safe to practice our sport, the public roads are not for sport.

I know a few folks who've been knocked off, they've always been road riding in all the gear.

I believe if you're in normal clothes, no helmet then you will be looked upon differently by other road users, they see you, likewise if you're riding in all the gear you're probably paying more attention to your riding than to other road users.
 
Back
Top