(OP)

I'm a new cyclist, though I've learnt a lot over the few weeks since I started. I haven't bought a helmet yet, and my reasoning is thus: a) most of my cycling is done on cycle paths or quiet residential roads, b) I'm sensible, don't take risks and always alert for cars, and I imagine a significant proportion of the people who have accidents without helmets are teenage idiots bombing around trying to look cool.

My family, however, are insistent I wear a helmet because 'you get some bloody idiots on the roads'. I don't dispute that, nor that a helmet will definitely decrease my chances of head injury if I am involved in an accident; but I feel like the chances of me being in an accident are so low anyway that not wearing that uncomfortable thing on my head outweighs the risk. I cycle to my local pedestrianised shops, not on rainy dual-carriageways to get crushed by left-turning lorries at traffic lights.

>>2533

>I feel like the chances of me being in an accident are so low anyway that not wearing that uncomfortable thing [...] outweighs the risk.

I guess you could say that for seat belts but having said that, I've never owned a bicycle helmet. I'm not sure I would even wear a seat belt if they were optional.

>>2533

Whilst I don't dispute your competancy, in a lot of road accidents it is only one of the parties at falt. And although the chances of you having an accident are low. if you continue to cycle you increase the probablity that an accidentt will happen.


>left-turning lorries at traffic lights.

One of the funniet things I've seen on my way to work is a lorry hit a cyclist at the traffic lights, the man get out of his cab and start giving the cyclist a lecture on road safety.

>>2534
Seat belts aren't uncomfortable, though. It's more analogous to why drivers don't wear helmets, or pedestrians don't wear helmets - they're still at risk of head injury if they get involved in an accident, aren't they?

>>2535
If I get involved in an accident, because I'm alert to it and taking all reasonable precautions to prevent it it'll probably be some drunk maniac coming careering out of nowhere and smashing into me, and I think in those circumstances I'd be dead anyway helmet or no.

>>2532
>One of the funniet things I've seen on my way to work is a lorry hit a cyclist at the traffic lights, the man get out of his cab and start giving the cyclist a lecture on road safety.
In my mind's eye he's doing this while the cyclist is trying to put bits of his brain back in.

No thanks. There's research that suggests that if you wear a helmet there is a tendency for car drivers to take more risks around you, on the basis that you're "safer". Along the same lines, car drivers tend to give you less room if you're in a cycle lane.

Cycling carries no greater risk of head injury than all sorts of other ordinary activities. The cycle helmet debate is just an attempt to stigmatise cycling. If it makes sense to wear a helmet to ride a bicycle, then it also makes sense to wear one when changing a lightbulb, walking in the countryside or driving a car.

Racing cyclists are required to wear helmets, as are racing drivers. Both groups operate at extreme speeds, jostling in close quarters where there is a very high risk of collision. A racing peloton average over 25mph, a sprint finish peaks at 45mph and a mountain descent might exceed 60mph. What makes sense for professional racers does not necessarily make sense for ordinary people.

Should all cars have five-point harnesses, reinforced roll cages, bucket seats and fire suppression systems? Should motorists and passengers wear full-face helmets and flame-retardant overalls? Undoubtedly these things would make driving vastly safer, as they already do in motorsport, but they would also make driving much less comfortable and convenient. It is perfectly reasonable to balance safety against other factors.

>>2532

Not if I'm just cycling to a mate's house or down the shops but if I'm out in the plantations bombing round the trails in and out of trees then yes, I do.
It's mainly based on how at risk I feel I am.

>>2535

He was right to lecture that idiot. All it takes is one stupid cyclist to sit in his blind spot and the lorry driver is likely left with a death on his conscience, not to mention all the legal crap and investigations.

>>2540
>He was right to lecture that idiot.
What are you basing this on?

>>2536

>Seat belts aren't uncomfortable, though.

No. The worst they can do is crumple your clothes which is why the royal family didn't used to wear them.

>It's more analogous to why drivers don't wear helmets, or pedestrians don't wear helmets - they're still at risk of head injury if they get involved in an accident, aren't they?

I read this autobiography of a top government scientist in New Zealand who dressed up in drag, killed his wife then tried to dispose of the body by cutting it into little bits and flushing them down the toilet. They were all turning up in the sewage system's filters.

Anyway, he'd read this statistic saying most toddlers who die, die of head injuries so he made his three-year-old daughter wear a helmet all the time. That seems pathological to me.

It was such a weird book. He was blaming absolutely everyone, apart from himself, for what happened.

>>2542
Sounds fascinating.

Sadly not on ebay and quite expensive elsewhere.

>>2541

There's a huge blind spot along the left side of an HGV, so if you undertake a lorry, the driver cannot see you at all. There's also a considerable blind spot directly in front of the cab. Most HGVs have a warning sign on the back, telling cyclists not to pass on the left. It's your responsibility as a cyclist to prevent these accidents by passing on the right, giving the HGV a wide berth. The driver is utterly helpless to prevent an accident if you ride in a position where he can't see you.

>>2544

I paid £30 for this knackered copy where the pages are virtually dropping out. It's super-rare.

I came across it because this Australian guy called Saxby Pridmore wrote two great free ebooks about psychiatry and he mentioned the Rory Jack Thompson case. It must have been big news over there.

RJT pleaded insanity but that meant there was effectively no prospect of him ever being released from the secure hospital because of public opinion, even when his psychiatrists said he was no longer a threat. After he'd been in hospital for longer than he would have been jailed for pleading guilty, he ended up offing himself. Judging by his book though, he didn't seem to have a great deal of insight that what he did was so wrong.

>>2546

It's £18.35 inc P+P on AbeBooks right now so it's come down a bit.

>>2545
What makes you think that this is what happened in this case? All the poster said was: " a lorry hit a cyclist at the traffic lights"

>>2548
How do you think a lorry comes to hit a cyclist at traffic lights?

Two main reasons:
1. I do a lot of mountain biking, so wearing a helmet feels natural & being on a bike without one makes me slightly uncomfortable.
2. I was knocked off my bike when I was 12, wasn't wearing a helmet. I hit my head pretty hard, and although I didn't have any permanent damage (just an interesting scar) I'd have avoided the 20-odd stitches & 2 nights in hospital if I'd worn one.

>>2556
Well there you are then, you were 12. Now you are an adult, do you think you'd be just as likely to have the same accident?

I've never bothered. Covered several thousand miles by bike in my lifetime, no injuries.

I'm not saying it's a good idea to not wear one.

>>2561 I'm the same, I used to ride a lot of single track stuff too. I've come off loads but I always seem to land on something other than my head.

And I think they've always been considered uncool in over here.

I never used to bother with one, but I was persuaded to start wearing one a couple of years ago.

I was cycling downhill in the city centre, when I went through a patch of oil I didn't see. Next thing you know, I'm on my way to the ground. the first thing that hit the road was my head. Luckily I was wearing a helmet or my injuries would be a lot worse than a few grazes according to bystanders.

>>2555
Could have been any number of ways. Why assume it's the cyclist's fault?

>>2564

It has to be the cyclist's fault. If the cyclist is correctly positioned, no conceivable manoeuvre by the lorry driver could lead to the lorry hitting the cyclist.

See John Franklin's "Cyclecraft" if you don't understand why it's the cyclist's fault.

>>2565
I can conceive of several manoeuvres that could lead to the lorry hitting the cyclist that require no fault on the part of the cyclist. You must have a very limited imagination.

>>2566

The cyclist shouldn't be anywhere on the nearside of the lorry, immediately in front of the cab, or close to the lorry on the offside. The only safe road position is wide, well back and to the right, which would be outside of the track of a right-turning lorry. Even a reverse would pose no threat, because you'd be positioned outside of the track of the rear axle. If you're correctly positioned, a lorry couldn't hit you even if the driver was deliberately trying to run you down.

As I said, it's all there in Cyclecraft.

>>2567
But we're not talking about a cyclist trying to undertake a lorry, we're talking about a cyclist being hit at traffic lights. It's more likely that the cyclist was waiting behind the traffic lights (possibly in the little cyclists' area many traffic lights have now) when a lorry came up from behind and didn't stop in time. Now I'm not saying that's definitely what happened, just that it's entirely conceivable if the lorry driver wasn't paying attention (looking at lights or texting say). Now tell me how that would be the cyclist's fault?

>>2568
Possible, also a chance that it was a lorry turning right going too quickly trying to get through a break in the traffic.


9 times out of 10, it is the cyclists fault but there are exceptions.

The OP just realised he misspelt yea and he is now very embarrassed.

>>2569
>Possible, also a chance that it was a lorry turning right going too quickly trying to get through a break in the traffic.
Sorry, no chance of that at all. The physics of the vehicle doesn't allow it, and even if it did, drivers are tracked in so many ways they'd risk losing their job if they tried to pull something like that.

>>2560
Not at all, but the thought's always there, 'what if I got knocked off again?' I suppose my point is that it's a personal decision based on your own experience & attitudes to risk. I don't think they should be compulsory.

Anyway, even if it is made compulsory to wear helmets, it's pretty much unenforceable.

It's illegal to ride on pavements but so many twats do it anyway.

>>2575

>It's illegal to ride on pavements but so many twats do it anyway.

I don't get too angry about that. If one collides with you, the worst you'll get is a bruised shin but if he collides with a vehicle, he's liable to get mown down into a bloody pulp.

>>2576

It's not so much about them hitting people, it's their attitude towards pedestrians. So many think it's themselves who have the right of way, and basically treat pedestrians in exactly the same way that so many drivers treat cyclists.

Also I can understand why it's sometimes better to ride on pavements next to main roads, but side roads like the one I live on, where there's only one car travelling at 20mph every 5 minutes and shitloads of space, yet I still see people cycling on the pavements all the time.

>>2576
>if he collides with a vehicle, he's liable to get mown down into a bloody pulp.

and what's wrong with that? One less cyclist twat.

>>2579

The unsightly blood stain would be difficult to clean and cyclist innards are a bit of a health hazard.

>>2579
This. The risk involved in riding on the carriageway is the price of cycling on the highway. If you can't bear the risk, don't play the game. Anyone who feels they somehow need to ride on the pavement (other than when signposted) should probably stick to riding around the park.

>>2582
You haven't made a very good case compared to >>2576.

>>2582

Riding on the carriageway is far safer than riding on the footway.

The vast majority of accidents occur at junctions - less than 2% of car-bicycle accidents involve a cyclist being hit from behind. A cyclist riding on the pavement is far more at risk when negotiating junctions, because they are less visible to other road users and because their behaviour is less predictable.

Human visual processing is extremely good at quickly categorising things and that ability is the only reason we can understand a complex urban environment. Motorists quickly scan their environment, disregarding things which they don't identify as a potential hazard. A pedestrian can be ignored if they're not waiting to cross, a parked car can be ignored if it's not indicating to pull out etc.

This processing breaks down when dealing with a cyclist on the footway, because they alternate between "pedestrian" and "road user" every time they pass a side street. It's very easy to make a mistake and disregard the cyclist at the wrong moment.

Helmets are almost pointless. They might provide a bit of protection from the kind of injuries that are unlikely to be lethal in the first place but they won't save your life if you get struck by a motor vehicle. Plus they fuck up your hair and make you look a twat. If i'm gonna get knocked off my bike and killed by some cunt i'd rather slam into the tarmac looking cool with a beautiful haircut.

>>2585
>but they won't save your life if you get struck by a motor vehicle^{[citation needed]}

>If i'm gonna get knocked off my bike and killed by some cunt i'd rather slam into the tarmac looking cool with a beautiful haircut.
I don't know. The undertakers can deal with helmet hair. Facial reconstruction is a bit more demanding.

>>2586
if a full motorcycle helmet doesn't guarantee your safety from lethal head injuries, a bicycle helmet certainly doesn't. They don't absorb shock well enough to protect you from the force of being struck by a vehicle. They might stop you getting concussed if you slip on drain cover or something but any kind of major accident and you're a corpse, helmet or not.

>>2587
>if a full motorcycle helmet doesn't guarantee your safety from lethal head injuries
It doesn't guarantee your safety, but it does improve your chances significantly.

>They might stop you getting concussed if you slip on drain cover or something but any kind of major accident and you're a corpse, helmet or not.
Yes, that's why nobody is ever seriously injured on a bike.

>>2587

It's a question of speed.

Motorcycle helmets are designed for high speed impacts, where the motorcyclists themselves are travelling at high speed. The helmets offer the most protection they can for a motorcyclists head impacting the road at 80mph.

For cyclists, when struck by a car there is little chance of the car hitting the cyclists head, even when it does modern cars are designed to be good at absorbing impact anyway. When a car knocks a cyclist over, and then his head hits the ground, the impact will barely be any more severe than if the cyclist simply fell off in most cases.
So cycle helmets are designed according to a worst case scenario of a cyclist approaching 30mph when he hits the floor. The energies involved are vastly smaller than for motorcyclists.

If a cyclist falls off even whilst completely stationary, if his head hits a kerb the height of the fall alone can be enough to kill. This is enough motivation to wear a helmet.

>>2589

You've got the vectors of force wrong. Your forward momentum doesn't substantially contribute to the force with which you hit the deck, because the force is parallel to the impact. The increased risk faced by motorcyclists comes mainly from a) abrasion with the road surface b) the weight of their bike causing crushing and torsional injuries and c) sliding along the road into a solid object.

Head injuries for motorcyclists and cyclists typically involve very similar levels of force. ECE testing of motorcycle helmets is done at no more than 7.5m/s (under 18mph), which is representative of a typical motorcycle head impact. The difference in helmet designs has little to do with absolute risk, but is about rider comfort. Higher standards for cycle helmets would have no net benefit, because bicycle riders would reject the hotter and heavier helmets. Downhill bicycle racers often use full-face helmets that are nearly indistinguishable from motocross helmets, because of the short duration and relative risk of their activity.

>>2590
>c) sliding along the road into a solid object
I'd say the higher speed could make that potentially result in a worse head injury than a pedal cyclist.

I don't wear a helmet but I recognize that I should. I've had a few near misses, and as good as my reflexes have proved in these situations, one of these days somethings going to blindside me (probably literally). Currently I commute in rush hour traffic so I'm twice as fast as the cars, but if I ever tour the Dolomites or something I'll probably buy a lid.

>>2590
That would be true if you were a point mass that suddenly fell and hit the ground, but real-life accidents don't happen like that. The linear momentum parallel to the road can be converted into angular momentum about an axis through an obstacle being hit, increasing the downwards momentum you hit the ground with.

Alternatively, the rider could be flung up into the air through a parabolic arc (say from hitting a windscreen), hitting the ground with considerable more downwards momentum than falling from head height.

People aren't particles, you can't just apply A-level physics.

https://www.youtube.com/v/07o-TASvIxY

>>2593
>People aren't particles, you can't just apply A-level physics.
You can if you get your model right. As you point out, humans are not point masses. The human body is more like a set of point masses with rigid bars connecting them. This model would correctly predict that upon contact with the ground, that horizontal momentum does not stay horizontal.

>>2595
True, but a continuous body made up of connected polyhedra would be an even better model (and probably easier to get an accurate centre of mass). Besides, either of these methods would be beyond the scope of A-level physics.

Did you actually all do A-level physics, is that why all these posts are coming off as incredibly clever and well-informed in the field of bicycle helmets?

>>2647
Not either of those lads, but point masses connected by rigid bars certainly came up in A-level maths. The horizontal momentum is parallel to the ground, but so is the friction when you hit it.

>>2648
To some extent yes, but rotational mechanics was only covered in some optional modules in Further Maths for me, which I didn't do.

You are right about friction, but I think the primary point of helmets is reducing the initial force on the head from impact. You'd need leathers and a full face helmet to protect from friction injuries, which at speeds most people cycle at (I've seen how most people cycle in a city and it sure isn't fast) are complete overkill.

>>2577

I cycle on the pavement on my way to and from work because it's a main road well known for people having drag races and otherwise speeding and dangerous driving. I don't even feel safe walking sometimes near that bastard road.

>>2654
Get onto the road, get off and push, or find another way to get to work.

>>2655

A different poster here, but I am slightly confused. The other person's complaint is totally legitimate. It seems like you're implying that those drivers have some kind of greater right to use the road as they please, even if they drive dangerously.

I got mine last year. By which I mean I was hit by Land Rover and all but walked off Paramedics gave me and my bike a lift

Plus I'm young and have nice hair.

Are we even talking about the OP anymore?

>>2656
No, he is implying one wrong doesn't justify another.

>>2656
No, his "complaint" is that he breaks the law because other people break the law.

>>2659

"But I have every right to use the road" is no good when you've been hit by a car. I'd cycle on the pavement in his case.

>>2660

My motorcycle instructor called it being "dead right" - putting yourself at risk because you have the right of way. I don't endorse riding on the pavement and think it's almost always more dangerous than riding on the carriageway, but vulnerable road users have a right to ride defensively.