Swedish company Hövding has announced a partnership with Absolutely, one of Britain’s oldest courier businesses, that will see it supply the London-based firm with its innovative airbag cycle ‘helmet’.
In a joint press release, the companies say that “many professional couriers shun helmets because they are uncomfortable to wear for long periods of time and are perceived to be ‘useless’ in the event of an accident.”
The tie-up between the firms seeks to address that perceived problem, enabling Absolutely “to further expand its safety measures for its push-bike couriers and increase their protection when delivering within the capital.”
The announcement coincides with the start of a three-month trial, with couriers wearing the airbag – which is stowed in a neck collar, with a gas cylinder deploying it when necessary – also sporting Absolutely x Hövding cycling jerseys.
While Absolutely sounds like – and indeed is – a 21st Century brand name, the business behind it can trace its heritage back more than 150 years, when it was founded as G. Thompson Ltd, using Welsh Cobs to transport people and goods around London by horse and cart.
It’s now owned by the fifth generation of the founder’s family, and managing director Jeremy Thompson said: “We pride ourselves on our knowledge, experience and heritage as well as the safety of our people.
“Hövding is a good example of deploying technology in our business for the benefit of our cycle couriers and leading the way in London.
“We very much hope to see this world leading technology being deployed not only within our business but also throughout the UK to reduce injuries and fatalities.
“According to TFL’s 2015 report released in June 2016, there were 387 serious cyclist injuries in London, of which nine were fatalities.”
Not all of those incidents would have resulted in the cyclist sustaining a head injury, and even where they did, it is debatable whether a helmet – airbag, or otherwise – might have prevented it.
Mr Thompson added: “Ensuring our couriers have adequate protection is of paramount importance to us and following our partnership with Hövding, we intend to lead the field.”
Hövding CEO Fredrik Carling said that his company “is always looking for opportunities to partner up with other forward-thinking companies that encourage and promote cycling safety.
“Absolutely is a tremendous ambassador for our product and we are proud to be a part of an initiative that will improve the safety of hard-working couriers.
“Additionally, we hope that by having a successful partnership we can effectively introduce our product and drastically reduce the number of road deaths in the UK,” he added.
Wearing a helmet while cycling is recommended under the Highway Code, but is not compulsory under UK law – although where someone rides a bike in the course of their employment, using one could be a condition imposed by their employer’s insurers.





























75 thoughts on “Airbag cycle helmet firm Hövding ties up with one of UK’s oldest bike courier businesses”
And that thing is more long
And that thing is more long-term comfy than a decent well-fitting helmet? Hmmmm…
Is it of as little use as an
Is it of as little use as an EPS helmet?
It is not a question of
It is not a question of comfort. If it keeps your geek pie from being messed up then it’s well brown.
handlebarcam wrote:
Apparently it is: …”many professional couriers shun helmets because they are uncomfortable to wear for long periods of time…”
And the creep continues.
And the creep continues.
When you have EU road safety commission focusing on countries like the Netherlands and Denmark and highlighting them as some of the worst countries for cycling based on per capita deaths instead of billion miles travelled you know that there is a serious agenda afoot especially since they then mention helmets in the same paragraph as an explanation as to the greater number of deaths in these countries. This is all contrary to the ECF ethos regarding same.
Yet we know that helmetless riders are safer and less likely to be involved in an incident in the first place.
From the testing I saw of these they might work in very specific circumstances, then again they might not in terms of protecting a rider. What they won’t do same as plastic hats is stop an HGV/BUS/tipper wagon etc from crushing you, smashing pelvis, chest and head, nor will it stop some dick pulling out at a junction and all the fall-out from that.
Wonder how many ‘saved my life’ stories this will produce?
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Not trolling, genuine question, is there a study showing this specifically in cyclists or is this statement simply extrapolating risk compensation theories to cyclists?
gonedownhill wrote:
Showing what specifically? Rather vague, random, non-specific question.
burtthebike wrote:
The bit that was specifically highlighted in bold in my reply:
“Yet we know that helmetless riders are safer and less likely to be involved in an incident in the first place.”
Not trolling, genuine question, is there a study showing this specifically in cyclists or is this statement simply extrapolating risk compensation theories to cyclists?
[/quote]
Take a look at
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/17/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law/ and
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/27/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law-the-evidence-and-what-it-means/ .
ChairRDRF wrote:
4. Helmet effectiveness: In addition, there are doubts about the potential effectiveness of cycle helmets against likely impacts on the head, as well as the relative importance of other impacts on the body (for which helmets are not supposed to have effectiveness). The design is for low-speed impacts. There is significant debate about the amount of energy which they can absorb and the significance of breakage on impact.
V…
According to the UK government’s scientific review, standard helmets are only effective in falls and low speed collisions, where they reduce the risk of a fatal head injury by 10 – 16%.
Bigtwin wrote:
That review was done by TRL, and the press release headline did indeed say that they would prevent between 10-16% of fatal head injuries, but if you read the whole report, it stated that this was an estimate with no actual data or evidence to support it, in other words a guess.
Nowhere with a massive increase in helmet wearing can show any reduction in risk to cyclists, despite all the “helmet saved my life” stories and the many thousands of anedotes. So which is true, the whole population long term, reliable data, or the anecdotes and fairy stories?
burtthebike wrote:
Interesting way to descrive people’s experiences.
Bigtwin wrote:
Same old quite frankly. In the real world, Burt the bike’s statistics mean f*ck all to those of us who’ve been involved in accidents and have helmets to thank for avoiding more serious injury. That goes for both me and my 8 year old who ended under a car and survived being hit by a combination of road and mechanicals.
People can choose not to wear them or not, I don’t care, but from experience will continue to do so.
drosco wrote:
Interesting way to descrive people’s experiences.
— drosco Same old quite frankly. In the real world, Burt the bike’s statistics mean f*ck all to those of us who’ve been involved in accidents and have helmets to thank for avoiding more serious injury. That goes for both me and my 8 year old who ended under a car and survived being hit by a combination of road and mechanicals. People can choose not to wear them or not, I don’t care, but from experience will continue to do so.— Bigtwin
Tell me something: why doesn’t the death rate of cyclists fall as helmet wearing rates rise? Surely if all the “helmet saved my life” stories and anecdotes were true, the death rate of cyclists would have fallen significantly, but it hasn’t.
burtthebike wrote:
Just because your chosen statistics don’t show it, it still happened. Go figure.
drosco wrote:
— drosco Same old quite frankly. In the real world, Burt the bike’s statistics mean f*ck all to those of us who’ve been involved in accidents and have helmets to thank for avoiding more serious injury. That goes for both me and my 8 year old who ended under a car and survived being hit by a combination of road and mechanicals. People can choose not to wear them or not, I don’t care, but from experience will continue to do so.— burtthebike
Tell me something: why doesn’t the death rate of cyclists fall as helmet wearing rates rise? Surely if all the “helmet saved my life” stories and anecdotes were true, the death rate of cyclists would have fallen significantly, but it hasn’t.
[/quote] Just because your chosen statistics don’t show it, it still happened. Go figure.[/quote]
I quite literally have no idea what you are trying to say there, so could you be a little more explicit than the rather enigmatic “go figure”.
If you are suggesting that all the “helmet saved my life” stories are true, and yet the death rate of cyclists hasn’t fallen, then the only possible conclusion is that wearing a helmet makes it several thousand times more likely that you’ll be involved in a life threatening collision, which hardly seems a good reason for wearing one.
Bigtwin wrote:
You assume I was describing their experiences; you are wrong, yet again. I was describing their assumptions, which contradict all the reliable data.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Heres one, racing accident on closed roads, 25+ MPH straight down on my head.
Won’t appear in any stats as I decided not to attend hospital against paramedic advice based on the speed of impact, damage to helmet and other injuries. I suspect that many “helmet saved my life” stories are anecdotal simply because the wearer does not end up in A&E and those that do are involved in incidents that blow through the limited protection offered or have other injuries requiring treatment.
They most definitely do work in some circumstances, yet I don’t wear one for commuting as I refuse to accept that riding your bike to work in an urban low speed environment should be considered a dangerous activity requiring PPE.
Mungecrundle wrote:
looking at that I’d say your head would have missed the ground completely and you still wouldn’t have registered on the stats. if you and your fellow competitors were all sans helmet you might even had ridden more safely and the incident avoided completely. Do you follow cycle racing, how long for? if you bother to have a quick look you’ll see that the amount of crashing competition riders do now compared to even pre 2000s is massively more. Only one change and that is plastic hats, that there are more deaths in the pro ranks after helmet compulsion in racing just tells you all you need to know really.
Glad you’re okay all the same.
Neither a regular helmet nor
Neither a regular helmet nor one of these helps with a more immediate problem – sun protection. A good old cycling cap (worn under my helmet) does that, however, and prevents the “go-faster stripes” that get tanned on my scalp during summer.
I think, as is often the case, it is a case of “hourses for courses”. There probably be some cases where this device will help, just as there are some cases where a regular cycling helmet helps (as in the kinds of crashes that happen in racing or high-speed recreational sport riding).
There are however many cyclists who probably don’t need any kind of head protection (except maybe a hat or cap to protect from the sun – but that need is not restricted to cycling).
gmrza wrote:
Once again a quote that demonstrates how far the invidious messaging regarding helmets has progressed.
Here we see a perfectly reasonable argument but based on the fallacy that regular cycle helmets help “in the kind of crashes that happen in racing or high-speed recreational sport riding”. There has not been any evidence that regular cycle helmets help in those specifically mentioned kinds of crashes.
I am really struggling with the idea that belief based on heresay and advertising with no evidential basis is taking precedence over facts and evidence.
The helmet stuff all seems a bit like religion in that regard.
Admitedly I do get a bit bothered by this stuff because I come under regular pressure from others about the need to use this peice of PPE that is thoroughly untested in the environment where I’m being told I should use it.
For clarity I’m in no way opposed to PPE or H&S regulations – I always wear correct boots with penetration protection and toe caps in a joinery workshop and face masks and safety glasses whenever appropriate – but there is evidence out there to support not only the need but also the efficacy of those products.
shay cycles]
Or, there are many people who have had on off where they thank God they were wearing a helmet. Contrary to your assertion, not everyone is suckkerd into their opinion by “research” and “theory”, but by their own experience. Like the OP says – horses for courses. Or “hourses” actually, which may be something entirely different…
Bigtwin wrote:
And did those people who thanked their god then repeat the collision without a helmet to prove that the helmet actually did something, or were they merely assuming from the scratched/broken helmet that it did something significant?
All the long term, large scale, reliable scientific evidence done by disinterested researchers shows at best no benefit from helmet wearing, and at worst an increase in risk, but hey, who needs data when you’ve got some anecdotes?
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html
burtthebike wrote:
That is utterly laughable. Seriously, good one!
Bigtwin wrote:
Honestly mate, don’t go there, you’re wasting your time..
Bigtwin wrote:
When I have an accident that scrapes my helmet I generally assume the incident would in all likelihood instead have scraped my head, maybe my logic is flawed due to the protection my brain is getting…
alansmurphy wrote:
There is also the possibility that the item scraping your helmet would have scraped thin air as it would have been above where your head is. Not saying that this is always the case but could account for some cases hence the debate.
ClubSmed wrote:
Really? Really?
ClubSmed wrote:
Clubsmed, Gravity* is a force which causes objects to attracted each others. When there is a large disparity between the mass of the objects it appears that the smaller object is ‘falling’ towards the centre of mass of the larger ‘fixed’ object. This movement can, however, be arrested by stronger forces such as Electromagnetism. Unfortunately sudden deceleration can cause lower density objects to deform. If either of these objects is ‘living’ this event can deleterious to the health of the organism.
*Gravity is not actually a force, but a perceived acceleration due to objects moving through a curved space-time caused by the presence of mass.
alansmurphy wrote:
So you don’t think the mass of the helmet at x velocity and the additional circumference has any influence whatsoever in terms of where you head would be in relation to the ground?
this is part of the problem, you increase your head size and you increase the chances of striking your head when you come off. For sure the helmet may well do what it’s supposed to do and you avoid some bruising and abrasions and a bit of a thick head, however with the helmet you could end up with a TBI that wouldn’t have even happened because of the shockwave transmitted through the helmet because it’s only capable of about 70 joules worth of reduction on the top most section. As with boxing and gridiron we know that helmets increase TBI rates (boxing found the results since headgear inception shocking to say the least!)
Situations like this are why the stats show no improvement or worse and that despite better medical tech, better impact zones on vehicles etc.
I watched some crashes that was caused by Mark Cavendish from a few years back. About 6 riders hit the deck sliding on their sides, IMHO I would have said 5 of the 6 would not have hit the ground with their heads at all with an unhelmetted head. Additionally because of risk homeostasis we know that riders in competition are taking more risks and crashing more than they ever did, a LOT more and the number of all body part injuries have risen dramatically, that and the number of pro deaths exceeds pre helmet compulsion like for like timescale wise.
Bigtwin]
I see where you’re coming from on this, but imagine if many people were thankful that they had their lucky socks on or they might have ended up dead, you probably wouldn’t find that as convincing. What’s going on is that the anecdote is reinforcing a (not entirely unreasonable) notion that you already hold – that helmets prevent head injury. This is known as confirmation bias. To demonstrate this, if you came across someone whose helmet didn’t prevent head injury, you might automatically assume that it would have been far worse if they hadn’t been wearing it despite objective evidence. It’s just a projection from what you reason to be true.
Sometime reality is non-intuitive and that is why using evidence to make decisions is better than using “common sense”.
I’m still undecided about the evidence (though I tend towards being sceptical about the overall benefits helmets) but wear my lucky polystyrene hat virtually all the time, just in case. I tend to object to people criticising other cyclists who choose not to.
DaveE128 wrote:
No, you really don’t. Actually you don’t have a clue. What you are doing is EXACTLY what you are wrongly accusing me of; being subject to your own confirmation bias, whist bandying around a lot of utterly meangliess tosh “support”for your “argument” like “objective evidence”.
Bigtwin wrote:
You’re highlighting two ways of viewing the world.
1: ‘only my experience can be relied upon’.
2: ‘only methodical experimentation, observation and objective reporting can be relied upon’.
One of these is subject to confirmation bias. The other is not.
Ponder that while you read this site on your computer, or start the engine in your car, or cook your dinner, or even clip into your favourite pedals.
The scientific method exists pretty much purely to negate confirmation bias. Stop being silly.
davel wrote:
For starters, your assertion that confirmation bias cannot apply is just plain wrong.
More importantly, if one has a brain – protected by helmet or otherwise – one appreciates that what you refer to is not binary. Cycling helmets are – to me – a surprisingly poorly researched field. One might suppose and indeed hope that the more cycling takes off in the way it has in recent years, the more quality reasearch and analysis may emerge as, presumably, able people are keen to carry out the research and funding emerges. Currently, you can find “authorative” stuff to back whichever opinion you happen to hold, or if you are, like me, a helmet agnostic who usually wears one for reasons to do with previous accidents/damage. Then again, I’m probably older than the average CC reader, so I can (just) remember this exact level of “I’m right your’re wrong” nonsense being spouted about seatbelts, motorcycle helments, airbags, various drugs and a bunch of other stuff, which are now, save for cranks, post-controversial.
Bigtwin wrote:
“your assertion that confirmation bias cannot apply is just plain wrong”. in the scientific method? Behave. If someone rigs an experiment to prove a hypothesis that they’ve already decided on, by definition it doesn’t fall within the scientific method.
“Cycling helmets are – to me – a surprisingly poorly researched field”. Right, now you’ve made your angle clear, you’ll probably find fewer people disagreeing with you. The quality of the research isn’t great – agreed. It appeared that you were applying equal weight to ‘a helmet saved my life’ vs actual research.
davel wrote:
Start your education here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/70c9/3e5e38a8176590f69c0491fd63ab2a9e67c4.pdf
The just use Google for multiple thousands of further examples that show irrefutably that you are talking complete balls.
My “angle” was and is perfectly clear. You’re just too biased to see it, and you clearly read everything from an already entreched reactionary point of view.
davel wrote:
Start your education here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/70c9/3e5e38a8176590f69c0491fd63ab2a9e67c4.pdf
The just use Google for multiple thousands of further examples that show irrefutably that you are talking complete balls.
My “angle” was and is perfectly clear. You’re just too biased to see it, and you clearly read everything from an already entreched reactionary point of view.
Bigtwin wrote:
Thus spake the voice of reason and objectivity… so perfectly clear that at least one other poster jumped to exactly the same conclusion I did.
You produce that ‘dismal science’ article as competition versus hundredes of years of actual science? You are floundering. Get back in your chair, wingnut.
davel wrote:
Oh I though my expression was pretty crystal: “There is no debate to be had. The only sensible position is “make your own mind up”. “
Your position you convey is one of such astonishing pig-ignorance that’s it’s hard to believe that you are anything other than trolling. If you genuinely believe that there is no confirmation bias in science and scieftific result, then you really are a congenital idiot. As probably indicated by your description of that paper.
Bigtwin wrote:
I think you need to look up ‘scientific method’. Maybe ‘reading comprehension’ too, while you’re at it. Or maybe just ‘English’ and ‘words’. I never said that there was no bias of any flavour in science or result. Scientific-fucking-method. You appear to be the type of gormless twat who will argue about literally anything.
Or, you might be right.
I just went on to the EPO story to read about that study. The first comment is a particularly low-value waste of cyberspace.
‘This bloke’s a fucking idiot’, I thought to myself. Is that confirmation bias, or am I just correct?
davel wrote:
— davel I think you need to look up ‘scientific method’. Maybe ‘reading comprehension’ too, while you’re at it. Or maybe just ‘English’ and ‘words’. I never said that there was no bias of any flavour in science or result. Scientific-fucking-method. You appear to be the type of gormless twat who will argue about literally anything.— Bigtwin
Very good. Must be nearly time for biscuits and squash in your soft play room?
Bigtwin wrote:
Easy now, don’t project your kiddie issues onto me. It really isn’t my fault that you’re the type of salad who thinks an ‘ology’ is actual science. You could have been studying a proper subject instead of trying on your sister’s bras.
davel wrote:
Easy now, don’t project your kiddie issues onto me. It really isn’t my fault that you’re the type of salad who thinks an ‘ology’ is actual science. You could have been studying a proper subject instead of trying on your sister’s bras.[/quote]
So soon? Ask for another custard cream and a story.
shay cycles wrote:
The H&S executive excluded cycle helmets from the designation Personal Protective Equipment, presumably because they had looked at the data and realised that they didn’t protect. This hasn’t stopped local authorities and private companies having rules to make their employees wear helmets on H&S grounds.
“push-bike couriers”? – don’t
“push-bike couriers”? – don’t know about you people, but I pedal mine…
brooksby wrote:
and do you do that by *pushing* down on the pedals?
ClubSmed wrote:
Heh! You know, I’d never even considered that interpretation. I’d just assumed that people who called them “push bikes” were a bit dim…
brooksby wrote:
The questions is……. they were so named before they had pedal power, for obvious reasons. But that was at a time long before the internal combustion engine, and hence, the motorbike. So why “pushbike”, when “bike” would have done? Also presumably in the age before PR, else surely they would have called them “ride bikes” or somthing else to indicate the potential for flat/downhill use, rather then forcussing on the irksome manual propulsion issue…
ClubSmed wrote:
Is that right? I’d thought it’s from the original colloquial term for the steerable Laufmaschine which was powered by the rider ‘pushing’ it along with their feet. Admittedly it’s an odd term these days – somewhat akin to referring to a car as a horseless carriage.
With regard to the etymology of the term – where’s @CarltonReid when we need him?
This commercial hook up might
This commercial hook up might blow up in their faces
mmm, sweaty necks
mmm, sweaty necks
I wonder if Absolutely have
I wonder if Absolutely have made this a requirement for their riders, and if so, on what grounds? It can’t be H&S as the H&S Executive have excluded cycle helmets from the designation PPE, and all the reliable evidence shows that they don’t reduce risk.
Or perhaps they’ll do what Royal Mail did, and demand that it is worn as part of the uniform, slightly undermined by their refusal to release the research on which they based their decision.
Oh good, another helmet
Oh good, another helmet debate
kamoshika wrote:
There is no debate to be had. The only sensible position is “make your own mind up”. But for those who are going through that process, it’s proably worth calling out the crap assertions consisiting of the usual tosh like “figures have proved” and “evidence incotravertably shoes” and ‘it’s long been unarguable” and “just coz your helmet was worn though when you slid down the road at 55mph, you don’t know that your hair woulnd’t have turned to Kevlar and prevented injury” etc.
Bigtwin wrote:
The first tactic of those losing an argument is to grossly exaggerate what their opponents say, to the point of absurdity. Since no-one has actually said any of the things you assert, you merely look ridiculous.
kamoshika wrote:
Or science versus myth as I like to call it.
They started it!
They started it!
2p: Unless people grumbling
2p: Unless people grumbling about ‘anecdotal evidence’ are willing to smash their naked heads against concrete/tarmac/a rock/The Rock as a control group then we can’t do the experiment that you require as definitive proof. You therefore demanding that proof is the scientific equivalent of a toddlers tantrum. But the idea that no helmet ever prevented injury is just delusional.
Leviathan wrote:
Tell me who said that, ever.
Your contribution is over-valued at 2p.
davel wrote:
Hapenny Chew: Don’t tell me you haven’t heard exactly this claim before on this very website. The late great Superpython was a fan of claiming they caused torsional injuries without evidence. And would you like to try the ‘a trunk ran over me, an me guts iz on the floowa, a helmet was useless mister’ fallacy.
Please report back when you have completed my suggested control experiment.
Leviathan wrote:
Shit, I think we’re getting into semantics, but surely burt’s assertion relates to total gain, whereas your statement implies that ‘a helmet has never prevented injury’…
That could also be misinterpretation on my part. If SP59/BTBS or burt has explicitly said ‘no helmet has ever prevented injury’ then that is nuts – but I still don’t think they have…
Oh, we’ve had some cracking
Oh, we’ve had some cracking arse-gravy though. I especially liked:
“All the long term, large scale, reliable scientific evidence done by disinterested researchers shows at best no benefit from helmet wearing, and at worst an increase in risk, but hey, who needs data when you’ve got some anecdotes?”
Which really is 24 carot, copper-bottomed, award winning, total and utter b0ll0cks of the very first order.
Bigtwin wrote:
Thanks. You know you’ve won an argument when the people criticising you can’t muster a single fact nor any logic to support their assertions, and are forced to resort to silly, stupid, pathetic insults. Perhaps when you’ve grown up a bit and have realised that the grownups use facts rather than insults, and are capable of constructing a fact based logical argument, you might consider posting again.
I wear a helmet, just to look
I wear a helmet, just to look pro
Grahamd wrote:
I wear a helmet, so I don’t look like a tin foil hat wearing, recumbant bike riding, Engineering graduate Grundiad reading cardigan wearing bellend.
SingleSpeed wrote:
That’s the only valid reason for wearing a helmet I’ve seen.
Let me put it this way. I
Let me put it this way. I have literally zero interest in your statistics, or how to explain them. If you want to spend your days arguing on here why people shouldn’t wear helmets, knock yourself out though.
drosco wrote:
Science versus myth. You have literally no interest in the facts because they contradict your belief. Please give my regards to everyone in the Flat Earth Society.
burtthebike wrote:
Science versus myth. You have literally no interest in the facts because they contradict your belief. Please give my regards to everyone in the Flat Earth Society.— drosco
The irony.
drosco wrote:
Science versus myth. You have literally no interest in the facts because they contradict your belief. Please give my regards to everyone in the Flat Earth Society.
— burtthebike The irony.— drosco
Irony? What exactly is ironic about maintaining your unproven and unlikely belief in the face of all the reliable data? You believe something despite the evidence as if it was some kind of religion, just requiring faith for it to be true, and yet cannot dispute any of the facts.
That’s not irony, that’s just denial.
burtthebike wrote:
Zzzzzzzzzz
drosco wrote:
The irony.[/quote]
Irony? What exactly is ironic about maintaining your unproven and unlikely belief in the face of all the reliable data? You believe something despite the evidence as if it was some kind of religion, just requiring faith for it to be true, and yet cannot dispute any of the facts.
That’s not irony, that’s just denial.
[/quote] Zzzzzzzzzz[/quote]
Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of and can be cured by learning, but those who remain wilfully ignorant are to be pitied. Nowt so blind……..
I lose track, but was this
I lose track, but was this article even about the efficacy of helmets as a thing? I thought it was about a courier company signing up to tie airbags to all their riders’ necks…
Wow, I am interested in the
Wow, I am interested in the facts, but people stuffing out figures as if they are facts about helmets just tosh. More crashes in bike races? how on earth do you link that to hats!
The article contains tosh, helmets uncomfortable over long periods? Really? not in my experience.
so facts (you know internet ones as in my own anecdotal ones just to ad yet more fluff to the debate)
i do find that wearing a helmet helps reduce sunburn for me, no need for a cap which makes me sweat too much.
when taken out such that I did a somersault into head plant I found my helmet destroyed (compression of the polystyrene) definitely protected me from scrapes, no idea if the concussion was less. Interestingly I was knocked out but as I ended up lying in a turn right box of the junction fortunately I did not delay the motorists – I could have been dead but they just drove by on both sides! Don’t you love the British motorist.
the other crashes over the years I’ve kept my head off the deck and wished for better hip and elbow protection.
main reasons for wearing a helmet? It means my wife worries less and I’d sure be really annoyed if I came off with cranial scrapes not wearing one in the event of an off
but I do enjoy the occasional hat free ride
Wow, I am interested in the
Double post.
Evidence suggests this is a phenomenon produced by not wearing a helmet fact…
enjoy riding chaps