A moment of political awakening came to me as a lad, when I was watching Harold Wilson on a TV interview about some matter of the day. The man droned on and on and on about this, that, the other without ever, once, addressing the point of the question. Yet, he seemed to - that was his trick. The interviewer was no Paxman, that was for certain, and shouldn't have let him get away with it.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned James Cracknell, there he was minding his own business when.....
James Cracknell: the day I got knocked off | The Times
Personally I wear one, but the one I have is only a cheapie. Can anyone recommend a good helmet without breaking the bank please?
Thanks
Phil
James Cracknell: the day I got knocked off | The Times
Personally I wear one, but the one I have is only a cheapie. Can anyone recommend a good helmet without breaking the bank please?
Thanks
Phil
They can't all split open and be uselss... so your helmet will be even safer as the odds it happens twice are that much lower.
Logic, sponsored by a newspaper.
C
Cyclezee
Guest
I would like to know the answer to that one too?
Perhaps we can get sensible answers from the pro helmet wearing members rather those who are worried about them spoiling their expensive hair do or find them uncomfortable to wear
I think the question needs defining John, since there are two parameters which will frequently and perhaps always be in conflict, namely protection and comfort.I would like to know the answer to that one too?
Perhaps we can get sensible answers from the pro helmet wearing members rather those who are worried about them spoiling their expensive hair do or find them uncomfortable to wear
I'd suggest two answers, each meeting an inquirer's priority, whether safety or comfort.
I find Bell helmets to be both comfortable and protective. They are manufactured for a reputable motorcycle helmet maker, and the larger size fits my wider than average head. We provide customers on our Segway tours with a Bell skate/snowboarding helmet (can't remember the modelI would like to know the answer to that one too?
Perhaps we can get sensible answers from the pro helmet wearing members rather those who are worried about them spoiling their expensive hair do or find them uncomfortable to wear
))*Whenever a customer falls off, they ALWAYS strike their head. On two occasions the polystyrene padding has been crushed, making the helmet unusable, but the customers were able to walk away, a little scraped maybe, but fully compost menthol
For winter use, I purchased one of the Aldi ski helmets: provides some warmth for the lugholes, but doesn't obscure sound.
*Bell Faction
And no, it's not the extra weight/size of this helmet that causes heads to hit the ground, it was our own early experiences on Segways that convinced us of the need for protection for usually novice riders.
Last edited:
The failure of James Cracknell's helmet to remain intact cannot be interpreted as 'doing nothing to protect him'. The force required to split the helmet was force that was not transmitted to his skull. The residual force is what caused his injuries.
How much worse would his injuries have been without that initial dissipation of the total force? Head split in half rather than helmet? IMHO he can rightfully claim that his helmet helped save his life.
The force required to split many cycle helmets is very small, given the flimsy nature of most of them, and we don't know the nature of the impact, glancing or otherwise, direction etc. There just isn't enough information to be definitive, but the fact remains that he suffered serious and life threatening injuries despite wearing a helmet.
It would have been better for me to have said little to protect rather than nothing to protect, but I was making the point that in truck versus bike accidents, helmets don't even begin to give adequate protection.
The Hövding is slowly coming down in price. On Amazon for £250ish. Going to take the plunge soon once I've paid for new fencing and roof fascia that have been flattened recently!
The Hövding does seem to offer better protection than conventional designs.
Mind you, you'll need lots of them to protect that fence and roof.
.
The Hövding does seem to offer better protection than conventional designs.
Mind you, you'll need lots of them to protect that fence and roof.
.
Now that would get expensive! There does not appear to be any re-activation of the units.
A bit like car airbags then, replacement only, perhaps not surprising given the similar method.
Well worth it if the scars on it show a severe impact was avoided, but an unwelcome expense if it's a activated by a fall but doesn't strike anything.
D
Deleted member 4366
Guest
That was an advertising slogan for Bell motorcycle helmets back in the 70's, it goes something like... 'got a 10 dollar head, get a 10 dollar helmet'
This slogan is still trotted out these days like it means anything.... The biggest cause of death & brain injury in motorcycle accidents is when your brain goes slamming into the inside of your skull. An expensive Arai or Shoei cannot stop this happening anymore than a cheaper helmet will.
Although I would always wear a helmet on a motorcycle even if they weren't compulsory.
As for wearing a helmet on a bicycle, I don't. If I were downhill mountain biking at high speeds then I probably would, but I don't consider I really need one in occasional leisure cycling at slow speeds.
Last edited:
I'll not argue with that, but even a 5 star NCAP rating will struggle with that. And collision with an HGV or even a car is not the reason I wear a helmet. It is to protect me in the event that I have a spill from my bike, whether through my own fault or that of someone else.
Proportionality is key with any safety measure - the risk is small and it's not appropriate, for example, to wear full motorcycle leathers and full face helmet for day to day cycling (unless you're Guy Martin doing a ton 2 foot behind an HGV
) Even the Hovding, at that price, is questionable given the risk. On the other hand, I'm happy that £30-50 is proportionate for the given risk that I envisage. The appropriate safety measure for possible collision with motorised vehicles is 'avoid it'.
In case scientific study counts.
Netherlands research. http://www.swov.nl/rapport/factsheets/uk/fs_bicycle_helmets.pdf
A recent study in Australia. Helmets reduce head injury severity › News in Science (ABC Science)
"Bicycle riders without a helmet are almost six times more likely to suffer a severe head injury than a helmeted rider, a new Australian study shows.
The finding adds to growing evidence supporting mandatory helmet laws.
Australia is one of the few countries in the world with mandatory helmet laws for bicycle and motorcycle riders.
The research, published today in the Medical Journal of Australia looks at the protective effect of helmets by examining the link between severe head injury in an accident and helmet use.
Lead author Dr Michael Dinh from the University of Sydney and his team based their findings on a study of 348 patients aged over 15 years admitted to seven Sydney trauma hospitals in the 12 months from July 2008.
The team found cyclists without helmets were 5.6 times more likely to suffer any head injury than cyclists wearing a helmet and 5.5 times more likely to suffer a severe head injury.
For motorcyclists the benefit of helmet wearing was not as marked as those without helmets were only 2.2 times more likely to suffer any head injury than motorcyclists with helmets and just 3.5 times more likely to suffer a severe head injury.
"The protective effect of helmet use with respect to head injury prevention therefore appears to be greater in pedal cyclists compared with motorcyclists," the team writes."
Netherlands research. http://www.swov.nl/rapport/factsheets/uk/fs_bicycle_helmets.pdf
A recent study in Australia. Helmets reduce head injury severity › News in Science (ABC Science)
"Bicycle riders without a helmet are almost six times more likely to suffer a severe head injury than a helmeted rider, a new Australian study shows.
The finding adds to growing evidence supporting mandatory helmet laws.
Australia is one of the few countries in the world with mandatory helmet laws for bicycle and motorcycle riders.
The research, published today in the Medical Journal of Australia looks at the protective effect of helmets by examining the link between severe head injury in an accident and helmet use.
Lead author Dr Michael Dinh from the University of Sydney and his team based their findings on a study of 348 patients aged over 15 years admitted to seven Sydney trauma hospitals in the 12 months from July 2008.
The team found cyclists without helmets were 5.6 times more likely to suffer any head injury than cyclists wearing a helmet and 5.5 times more likely to suffer a severe head injury.
For motorcyclists the benefit of helmet wearing was not as marked as those without helmets were only 2.2 times more likely to suffer any head injury than motorcyclists with helmets and just 3.5 times more likely to suffer a severe head injury.
"The protective effect of helmet use with respect to head injury prevention therefore appears to be greater in pedal cyclists compared with motorcyclists," the team writes."
Hövding ? Airbag for cyclists
Well, at least one doesn't look like a total kno... silly person before it goes off.
Frankly, these sort of figures are meaningless and also suggest someone trying to pad out the case.
What we need to know is how many accidents...obviously most are not reported.
Of those reported, how many head injuries with helmet/without helmet.
What is 'Any head injury?' could be a trifling scratch
What is 5.5 times more likely than? Sounds obvious to the man in the street, but it could be that of the 348 patients, 2 with helmets and 11 without helmets had serious head injury.
Even the authors of the report admit that they need better data!
Sounds like politicians trying to justify their own laws
What we need to know is how many accidents...obviously most are not reported.
Of those reported, how many head injuries with helmet/without helmet.
What is 'Any head injury?' could be a trifling scratch
What is 5.5 times more likely than? Sounds obvious to the man in the street, but it could be that of the 348 patients, 2 with helmets and 11 without helmets had serious head injury.
Even the authors of the report admit that they need better data!
Sounds like politicians trying to justify their own laws