Do you regularly wear a cycle helmet?

[neptune]

After reading some of these stories, I may well consider wearing a helmet myself. Does anyone know where I could buy one with provision for a transparent visor to keep the rain off my glasses and face? Am I the only one who wears glasses and rides in rain? As regards the Wally Factor, at my age I just don`t care, not that I ever did...
If necessary, I thought of a DIY solution, using a visor of the type worn in post mortems. These are cheaply available on ebay.

 

[flecc]

I thought of a DIY solution, using a visor of the type worn in post mortems.

That could either be thought of as rather appropriate, or on the other hand as tempting providence!

 

[jazper53]

Came across a couple of helmets that maybe I would consider wearing




pro_tokyo_cowboy

 

[Cyclezee]

I thought of a DIY solution, using a visor of the type worn in post mortems. These are cheaply available on ebay.

The disposable surgical type visors are quite flimsy Neptune and not really practical for cycling. They are really only designed to protect the wearer from the blood and bodily fluids of others.

 

[tillson]

The disposable surgical type visors are quite flimsy Neptune and not really practical for cycling. They are really only designed to protect the wearer from the blood and bodily fluids of others.

That might come in handy if you come across a non-helmet wearer who's run out of luck and been chewing a Tarmac sandwich.

 

[neptune]

The disposable surgical type visors are quite flimsy Neptune and not really practical for cycling. They are really only designed to protect the wearer from the blood and bodily fluids of others.

I have only seen these visors on TV. My idea is just to keep the rain off your glasses, or very cold air off the face in very low temperatures, They would probably need to be cut down to cover just the upper half of the face, to allow ventilation to prevent misting. Being shorter, would probably make them less likely to flex. The lower half of the face would be covered by a scarf or "neck tube."

 

[tillson]

It had slipped my mind that this poll had finished.

So, what can we take from the results?

1) People wearing helmets on a regular basis outnumber those who don't by a factor of two to one.

I think I knew that anyway. That was a waste of time then.

 

[tillson]

This one seems to have finished as well.

So, what can we take from these results?

1) People don't want to be told that they must wear a helmet.

I think I knew that as well.

 

[Cyclezee]

No not a waste of time Tillson, a worthwhile exercise.

Now it is resurrected from oblivion, we might get a few more voters, but I doubt if the ratio will change a great deal.

What would now be interesting to know, and a question solely for the helmet wearers of course, what is the best or safest helmet?

 

[flecc]

It had slipped my mind that this poll had finished.

So, what can we take from the results?

1) People wearing helmets on a regular basis outnumber those who don't by a factor of two to one.

I think I knew that anyway. That was a waste of time then.

The opposite of the government's figure.

No doubt this is due to this site not being representative of the mass of the population, but I knew that anyway!

 

[flecc]

a question solely for the helmet wearers of course, what is the best or safest helmet?

Not solely for helmet wearers, I don't wear one but can make this worthwhile contribution:

The disguised type covered with material in hat styles as in this link are potentially dangerous. It's important that if the helmet glances against any obstruction that it should slide past. If it doesn't, the wrench as a fabric drags or catches can break a wearer's neck.

 

[Mussels]

No not a waste of time Tillson, a worthwhile exercise.

Now it is resurrected from oblivion, we might get a few more voters, but I doubt if the ratio will change a great deal.

What would now be interesting to know, and a question solely for the helmet wearers of course, what is the best or safest helmet?

I bought a Specialized helmet because it came with a Snell rating and I expected it to be well designed. Not so, the strap adjusters under the ears work loose easily leaving the helmet likely to fall off after an impact.
Their more expensive ones should be better, my disappointment was with the Snell rating system allowing that through.

 

[Auldgit]

Just caught up with this thread. Very interesting. Been under some pressure from family to wear a helmet, was just about to comply, but even more confused now........ It seems that the basic problem is that helmet designs are poor, and lead one into a false sense of security. Think I'll stick to the flat 'at for now until designs improve. AG

 

[flecc]

No protective device is ever perfect against all eventualities though, as today's tragic boating accident in Scotland shows. Four children were in that Canadian canoe, one swam ashore unharmed, a second is critically ill in hospital and the remaining two died. All four were wearing lifejackets when discovered which clearly failed to protect them adequately. I don't doubt that the lifejackets were approved ones which had probably been extensively tested, the failures to protect due to the particular circumstances.

No matter how good and well tested a protective device, it will not meet every possible circumstance. Once again this illustrates how vital primary safety is, avoiding the accident in the first place by paying the most attention to that through more effort in planning, preparation and practice. In my experience few do that adequately, tending to pay more attention to secondary safety by using protective devices to alleviate the accident they almost expect.

 

[Mike63]

After a serious accident that put me in hospital...no bearing on whether or not I was wearing a helmet, my daughter got on my case and every day asks "have I been wearing my helmet ?"
.....I find it easier to wear it than lie to her ...30 years ago she used the same tactic to stop me smoking.

 

[Scimitar]

No protective device is ever perfect against all eventualities though, as today's tragic boating accident in Scotland shows. Four children were in that Canadian canoe, one swam ashore unharmed, a second is critically ill in hospital and the remaining two died. All four were wearing lifejackets when discovered which clearly failed to protect them adequately. I don't doubt that the lifejackets were approved ones which had probably been extensively tested, the failures to protect due to the particular circumstances.

No matter how good and well tested a protective device, it will not meet every possible circumstance. Once again this illustrates how vital primary safety is, avoiding the accident in the first place by paying the most attention to that through more effort in planning, preparation and practice. In my experience few do that adequately, tending to pay more attention to secondary safety by using protective devices to alleviate the accident they almost expect.

Early reports had it the kids were only wearing simple floatation devices, not full lifejackets and they weren't enough to keep their heads above water. If such is the case, it shows how stupidity still rules the roost in some places.

 

[flecc]

The latest news I heard still said lifejackets Dave, but of course the media are not always reliable on such issues. If they weren't, as you've said it certainly was stupidity with such very young children.

 

[Wildswimmer Pete]

I won't wear a cycle helmet partly because I won't do what the Nanny State tells me to do, but more down to cycle helmets being useless. I passed my motorcycle test back in 1968 (no, that's not a typo) and even then it was pointed out that a motorcycle helmet is only good for protection up to 35mph.

Like with motorcycle helmets, cycle helmets lead to a measure of "risk compensation" that could be lethal. I feel vulnerable - ergo I take much more care. I also found out long ago that any type of helmet restricts my peripheral vision. Now illness means I have to give up motorcycling, and find my ability to appreciate hazards is now much better now I can ride without a cycle helmet obscuring my peripheral vision.

 

[yselmike]

that may be so pete but when you get whacked from behind by a scooter/bike you may wish you had worn a helmet,
you are not alone on the streets.

 

[Wildswimmer Pete]

that may be so pete but when you get whacked from behind by a scooter/bike you may wish you had worn a helmet,
you are not alone on the streets.

I don't know anything about the riding/driving standards in your location, but in something like 1,000,000 miles and well over 45 years on two wheels (powered and pedal) I can honestly say that in all that time I haven't been "whacked from behind by a scooter/bike" nor indeed had any "near misses". It's down to using "common sense" and "keeping my eyes open for the other guy" - something my generation did by instinct. There were also many more cyclists on the roads in the 1950s when I grew up and no-one wore helmets - assuming they were available. Putting it simply, unlike nowadays my generation didn't need to be told how to wipe our backsides.

Do you think pedestrians should wear helmets? Pedestrians have suffered head injuries after not just being struck by scooters, motorcycles nor even cyclists, but other pedestrians? Where do you propose to draw the line?

Bear in mind that I have paid taxes and NI contributions for several decades, and the "not wearing a helmet costs society to patch you up afterwoods" argument doesn't wash.