Get in gear - 6 essentials every new road cyclist needs in their starter kit

Richard D wrote:

Fewer deaths, because fewer children cycle.  Their parents are (rightly?) concerned about all the homicidal berks driving around in their 4x4s, so prefer to keep their children safe by driving them around in 4x4s.

Only too true. Children's freedom, which is important for their development, has been more and more curtailed over the years.

In 1971 80% of seven and eight years old got to school without an adult.

By 1990 this had fallen to 9%.

Its probable that even fewer are allowed this freedom these days.

How children get to school is likely a good indicator of their freedom generally.

hawkinspeter wrote:

rix wrote:

road.cc wrote:

...we feel it’s up your own discretion whether you choose to wear a lid.

I would say that it is very irresponsible on road.cc part to give such an advice, especially to new cyclists. New cyclists should be encouraged to wear helmets. There is no reason not to wear them.

There's lots of reasons to not wear a helmet: http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets

Also, there's precious little data to support the view that helmets increase riders' safety, so it's not irresponsible at all to leave it up to someone's discretion.

However, I do think they should have mentioned gloves. In my view, they're the number one safety item on a bike that are also beneficial for comfort as well. Whenever I've come off my bike, I've instinctively used my hands to protect me and I've been glad to have the gloves take the brunt of the damage.

With proper mental training, you can override your instincts to put your hands out first, and instead take the impact with your head, which is not only softer, but also doesn't perform important work like the hands do.

Then there will be no need for gloves.

ch wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

rix wrote:

road.cc wrote:

...we feel it’s up your own discretion whether you choose to wear a lid.

I would say that it is very irresponsible on road.cc part to give such an advice, especially to new cyclists. New cyclists should be encouraged to wear helmets. There is no reason not to wear them.

There's lots of reasons to not wear a helmet: http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets

Also, there's precious little data to support the view that helmets increase riders' safety, so it's not irresponsible at all to leave it up to someone's discretion.

However, I do think they should have mentioned gloves. In my view, they're the number one safety item on a bike that are also beneficial for comfort as well. Whenever I've come off my bike, I've instinctively used my hands to protect me and I've been glad to have the gloves take the brunt of the damage.

With proper mental training, you can override your instincts to put your hands out first, and instead take the impact with your head, which is not only softer, but also doesn't perform important work like the hands do.

Then there will be no need for gloves.

British Cycling are doing a training course on this at the moment. Pricey at 120quid but like you say you make the money back in glove costs. It's like, free money.

reippuert wrote:

unless you are actually employed by either, i assume youre not driveing  you car wearing a policeuniform or firefighter uniform unless you are actually woriking as a policeman or firefighter

I suspect that most of the people wearing name of <football> team, do not play for said team, they are  just showing their support, as are cyclists in team kit.

As you use the word sneakers, you may be from the colonies. Please substitute the variable <soccer>

hawkinspeter wrote:

There's lots of reasons to not wear a helmet: http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets

Interesting article.. And it all makes sense.. But too hot here to not wear a helmet (Thailand!)

hawkinspeter wrote:

rix wrote:

road.cc wrote:

...we feel it’s up your own discretion whether you choose to wear a lid.

I would say that it is very irresponsible on road.cc part to give such an advice, especially to new cyclists. New cyclists should be encouraged to wear helmets. There is no reason not to wear them.

 

However, I do think they should have mentioned gloves. In my view, they're the number one safety item on a bike that are also beneficial for comfort as well. Whenever I've come off my bike, I've instinctively used my hands to protect me and I've been glad to have the gloves take the brunt of the damage.

Gloves can be helpful in helping to prevent minor injories to the hands. The number one safety item is, of course, a pair of sunglasses or other eye protectors. Scabby palms heal. Skulls can be repaired. Eyes are fragile and irreplaceable.

andyp wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

rix wrote:

road.cc wrote:

...we feel it’s up your own discretion whether you choose to wear a lid.

I would say that it is very irresponsible on road.cc part to give such an advice, especially to new cyclists. New cyclists should be encouraged to wear helmets. There is no reason not to wear them.

 

However, I do think they should have mentioned gloves. In my view, they're the number one safety item on a bike that are also beneficial for comfort as well. Whenever I've come off my bike, I've instinctively used my hands to protect me and I've been glad to have the gloves take the brunt of the damage.

 

 

Gloves can be helpful in helping to prevent minor injories to the hands. The number one safety item is, of course, a pair of sunglasses or other eye protectors. Scabby palms heal. Skulls can be repaired. Eyes are fragile and irreplaceable.

Irreplaceable? I think not.

Simon E wrote:

Clipless pedals? Not needed. Pro cyclists, TTers, audaxers and tourists have all ridden perfectly well for decades without them.

Helmet? Not needed. It should go without saying, really (see above).

Computer? Not needed (see above).

Cycling jersey? Not needed. It's only a variation on a t-shirt, just buy a decent cut and/or size smaller if you don't like it to flap.

Water bottle? Not needed. Unless it's really hot a normal person can easily ride for up to 2 hours without needing a drink. This does not apply to fools who've bought into the hydration/electrolyte sales hype.

If you have tightened the bolts up properly you're unlikely to need a multi-tool.

Yes all these things can make cycling more enjoyable but they are definitely not *needed*. But since some people seem to put more effort into (or have more interest in) shopping than riding then these rather pointless listicles will continue to be published.

Look at yout corporeal decadence! Who needs all of that, solipsism is clearly the way forward

Mungecrundle wrote:

5. A mobile phone - Bollocks to all that fixing punctures at the side of the road crap. Call the missus at the first sign of trouble or bad weather to come pick you up.

Damm I have to get married to cycle.

leaway2 wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

5. A mobile phone - Bollocks to all that fixing punctures at the side of the road crap. Call the missus at the first sign of trouble or bad weather to come pick you up.

Damm I have to get married to cycle.

No, you just need to cycle with a buddy that is married and has a mobile or carries a puncture repair kit. 

rix wrote:

road.cc wrote:

...we feel it’s up your own discretion whether you choose to wear a lid.

I would say that it is very irresponsible on road.cc part to give such an advice, especially to new cyclists. New cyclists should be encouraged to wear helmets. There is no reason not to wear them.

Is the Wrong Answer.  To encourage helmets you need to be sure, based on evidence well beyond the anecdotal, that whoever you're aiming the advice it is significantly likely to be at least no worse off.

The following evidence-based advice is given out to Scottish cycle trainers in the Tayside region:

"Use of a Cycle Helmet may offer some protection in the event of an accident, or may make the injury worse or may make an accident more likely"

Hardly a ringing endosement, is it?  But it is absolutely in line with the state of the evidence at present.

As for cost, you can get an EN1078 lid for less than a tenner if you want.   

And a saddle that works for the rider is more important than padded shorts.  Both together is better still.

reippuert wrote:

....shoes (your feet will kill you if you ride in your sneakers....

Sneakers ?

fenix wrote:

Lights are a legal requirement in the UK?  Since when ??

1989 it looks like, Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations (RVLR) requires "At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). ... Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady frontlamp"

https://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/article/bike-light-laws-in-the-uk-wh...

Mal

fenix wrote:

zanf wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

rix wrote:

road.cc wrote:

...we feel it’s up your own discretion whether you choose to wear a lid.

I would say that it is very irresponsible on road.cc part to give such an advice, especially to new cyclists. New cyclists should be encouraged to wear helmets. There is no reason not to wear them.

There's lots of reasons to not wear a helmet: http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets

Also, there's precious little data to support the view that helmets increase riders' safety, so it's not irresponsible at all to leave it up to someone's discretion.

However, I do think they should have mentioned gloves. In my view, they're the number one safety item on a bike that are also beneficial for comfort as well. Whenever I've come off my bike, I've instinctively used my hands to protect me and I've been glad to have the gloves take the brunt of the damage.

Actually, lights need to be on that list, and in quite a high position. In the UK, they are a legal requirement, and will do more to prevent you being in a collision with another vehicle, than a helmet will at saving your noggin after one.

London Cyclist had a really good article a few years back by an RAF pilot on why you should always commute (or even on solo rides) with flashing lights even during the day [saccadic masking].

 

Lights are a legal requirement in the UK?  Since when ??

since the nazis took over

Matt_S wrote:

I think we may have got a bit distracted by all this Helmet stuff.

The first thing a new cyclist needs to know is The Rules.

http://www.velominati.com/the-rules/

it's mostly so car drivers don't scream at you to get a helmet, and also for when you hit a pothole going 50mph downhill.

ktache wrote:

And you have to wonder how many comments there would have been if it had contained all of those deleted because they were by or quoted Superpython?

Or Willo.

(Gawd, there are so many posters who've been banned over the years...)

rix wrote:

I saw a guy in hospital with life threatening head injuries. He collided head-on with another cyclist on a cycle path. One of them was not wearing helmet. Now, try to guess which one was in hospital, one with helmet or without?

For me it is simple, old fashioned, common sense to wear helmet.

Why is that "common sense" so often is the same thing as "what I believe"?

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

So how fast do you need to be going before a helmet is advisable?

Up to 12mph, and bear in mind that wearing a helmet means that drivers will pass you closer and you'll have more collisions.

I doubt most will even notice.

eburtthebike wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

So how fast do you need to be going before a helmet is advisable?

Up to 12mph, and bear in mind that wearing a helmet means that drivers will pass you closer and you'll have more collisions.

I doubt most will even notice.