Transport minister Grant Shapps hospitalised (and thanks his helmet) after cycling crash; Giro d'Italia stages revealed; Homemade e-bike; Bernal denies Ineos rift; Insane climbing; Dear Deidre: Strava edition; Sagan looks to future + more on the live blog

Cyclist gets hit by a car - handwringing masses "cyclists should wear helmets"

Pedestrian gets hit by cyclist - mob with pitchforks "cyclists should be better regulated."

Pedestrian gets hit by a car - tumbleweeds

"3 pedestrians killed by drunk driver in horror crash. Witnesses report the victims were not wearing fluorescent jackets or helmets while using the pavement."

Yep, just as stupid as some of the reporting we see regarding cycling deaths...

Ride On wrote:

"Lots of people on pushbikes this weekend valued at £5k and yet won’t pay £20 for a helmet..." If I had a £5k bike I wouldn't want a £20 helmet! That said I do usually wear a helmet.

I just recently picked up a cheapo helmet from Aldi although my bike isn't quite worth £5k. I'm yet to be convinced that more expensive bike helmets provide significantly more safety benefits despite the marketing hyperbole. (I usually purchase bike helmets based on how they look)

Oh I have no doubt they are all pretty much the same (polystyrene covered in plastic) but a some hats look 👌 while some look more 🍄.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Ride On wrote:

"Lots of people on pushbikes this weekend valued at £5k and yet won’t pay £20 for a helmet..." If I had a £5k bike I wouldn't want a £20 helmet! That said I do usually wear a helmet.

I just recently picked up a cheapo helmet from Aldi although my bike isn't quite worth £5k. I'm yet to be convinced that more expensive bike helmets provide significantly more safety benefits despite the marketing hyperbole. (I usually purchase bike helmets based on how they look)

Aside from some questionable claims, mostly what you pay for is less weight and more ventilation. I.e. more comfort for the same (mandatory) level of protection.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Aside from some questionable claims, mostly what you pay for is less weight and more ventilation. I.e. more comfort for the same (mandatory) level of protection.

It doesn't feel any heavier than other bike helmets though I haven't bothered weighing it. It's definitely lighter than the HedKayse that I've got and also more comfortable.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I just recently picked up a cheapo helmet from Aldi although my bike isn't quite worth £5k. I'm yet to be convinced that more expensive bike helmets provide significantly more safety benefits despite the marketing hyperbole. (I usually purchase bike helmets based on how they look)

You're right, and it's almost completely the opposite of expensive=better protection.  Expensive helmets are optimised for weight and aerodynamics and style, not providing protection, whereas cheap helmets are designed for one thing; to pass the tests.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Ride On wrote:

"Lots of people on pushbikes this weekend valued at £5k and yet won’t pay £20 for a helmet..." If I had a £5k bike I wouldn't want a £20 helmet! That said I do usually wear a helmet.

I just recently picked up a cheapo helmet from Aldi although my bike isn't quite worth £5k. I'm yet to be convinced that more expensive bike helmets provide significantly more safety benefits despite the marketing hyperbole. (I usually purchase bike helmets based on how they look)

Indeed so, but is it any different for bicycles, and might not a susceptibility to marketing hyperbole afflict the poor sap equally for both items?

Sriracha wrote:

Indeed so, but is it any different for bicycles, and might not a susceptibility to marketing hyperbole afflict the poor sap equally for both items?

Some of it is marketing, but there's clear functional differences between bikes e.g. disk brakes, groupsets etc.

Everyone whould be wearing one of those then.

Let's not go for PPE as the first resort to a problem.

Oh exactly; but if we're going to recommend PPE, we might as well recommend PPE that has been proven to work...

What's it like cycling with it on ?

Exactly.

I'm wondering what caused him to fall off - was it slippery leaves, mechanical failure or a collision?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Exactly.

I'm wondering what caused him to fall off - was it slippery leaves, mechanical failure or a collision?

Yes, it would seem much more helpful if his comments focused on what caused the crash and how to reduce the chance of similar happening.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Exactly.

I'm wondering what caused him to fall off - was it slippery leaves, mechanical failure or a collision?

Or just wearing a helmet, thus giving him a false sense of security and therefore paying less attention to what he is doing.  Cyclists who wear helmets have more collisions.

eburtthebike wrote:

Or just wearing a helmet, thus giving him a false sense of security and therefore paying less attention to what he is doing.  Cyclists who wear helmets have more collisions.

Especially if you wear it wrong so it falls over your eyes

hawkinspeter wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

Or just wearing a helmet, thus giving him a false sense of security and therefore paying less attention to what he is doing.  Cyclists who wear helmets have more collisions.

Especially if you wear it wrong so it falls over your eyes

Gods, but that man is a f-ing idiot 

Chill, Babe. You're just going to have to live with it.

brooksby wrote:

Gods, but that man is a f-ing idiot 

That's just his bumbling idiot act - he's far more dangerous than that.

Johnson didn't use to wear a helmet whilst cycling round London.  I think his PR people told him he should to avoid getting into a helmet debate.  (Not that there's any debate that Johnson is a helmet...)

hawkinspeter wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

Or just wearing a helmet, thus giving him a false sense of security and therefore paying less attention to what he is doing.  Cyclists who wear helmets have more collisions.

Especially if you wear it wrong so it falls over your eyes

If you look closely at the photo in hawkinspeter's post, you can see an extraneous skin tab sticking out of the helmet. The official name for this useless flap of skin is Boris Johnson (or Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson in full).

I must admit the more usual approach to wearing them that I see is pushed right back on the head leaving the forehead/ temples exposed. In my 40+ years as a cyclist I have found many novel and interesting ways of falling of a bike but none have ever led to an impact on the back of my head.

The reason for raising this is twofold

1. Data on death/ injury with/ without helmet takes no account of whether the helmet was being worn correctly

2. Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is a completely different sort of bellend to  the rest of us.

For what it is worth, I wear a helmet because I believe it will reduce the risk of injury in some circumstances, but also a well designed and ventilated helmet in my experience increases airflow and hence cooling across my head compared to no helmet. 

SimoninSpalding wrote:

For what it is worth, I wear a helmet because I believe it will reduce the risk of injury in some circumstances, but also a well designed and ventilated helmet in my experience increases airflow and hence cooling across my head compared to no helmet. 

How does that work? I've always felt that a bike helmet tends to warm my head rather than cooling it.

Potentially a specific use case, but in spite of my advancing years I have a thick, luxuriant (if slightly fluffy) growth of hair up top and without hat it tends to prevent airflow close the scalp and insulates. My helmet has the dual effects of flattening my hair and speeding up airflow by channelling it through the vents and increasing evaporation/ cooling. It may be that I am the only person that finds this.

For avoidance of doubt, I choose to wear a helmet, I see it as one of a range of measures I take to try to come home in one piece from a ride (like riding assertively / defensively, avoiding badly designed junctions where a couple of other cyclists have tragically lost their lives etc.), but I would in no way advocate compulsion.

SimoninSpalding wrote:

Potentially a specific use case, but in spite of my advancing years I have a thick, luxuriant (if slightly fluffy) growth of hair up top and without hat it tends to prevent airflow close the scalp and insulates. My helmet has the dual effects of flattening my hair and speeding up airflow by channelling it through the vents and increasing evaporation/ cooling. It may be that I am the only person that finds this.

Luckily, my genes have allowed me to develop a strategic cooling area on my head to maximise airflow.

hawkinspeter wrote:

SimoninSpalding wrote:

Potentially a specific use case, but in spite of my advancing years I have a thick, luxuriant (if slightly fluffy) growth of hair up top and without hat it tends to prevent airflow close the scalp and insulates. My helmet has the dual effects of flattening my hair and speeding up airflow by channelling it through the vents and increasing evaporation/ cooling. It may be that I am the only person that finds this.

Luckily, my genes have allowed me to develop a strategic cooling area on my head to maximise airflow.

You may be in the minority on this forum - sounds like head-cooling devices could find a use here...

SimoninSpalding wrote:

1. Data on death/ injury with/ without helmet takes no account of whether the helmet was being worn correctly

When the original research by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, which showed 85% effectiveness, was proved to be the baddest of bad science and completely totally utterly BS, they had to find a way to weasel out of the refutations; answer?  the helmets weren't being worn right.

I'm not aware of any evidence or data showing that helmets don't work because they aren't worn right, and there was no suggestion of that in the study that found the 85% figure, so it is at best unproven, and at worst, more bad science by possibly the baddest scientists in the history of science.