Most people i see on bikes round here have no lights, no helmets, and usually have one hand in there pockets and their phones in the other browsing facebook, only taking one hand out their pocket now and then to steer a bit.
What you're probably seeing is them checking their Strava times. Or they're on MapMyRide. I often forget to set my GPS thingy going til I've been out a while. TBH, the only person they're endangering is themselves as opposed to someone in charge of a tonne of metal going 60 MPH when they're putting on their make-up/fiddling with the phone.
my bike helmet saved my life as a **** driving a nissan terrano decided to drive into me at 40 miles an hour...resulting force about 50mph
However I left my house with out my helmet and went back to get it..this meant I was there at the point in time to be hit by the driver.. if I hadn't of gone back to get it would I have got to work ok?
4 broken bones in hand and concussion.. His 4x4 needed £thousands to repair...
I wear my helmet. however I only purchase tried and tested models.. nothing cheap.
Currently I have a boardman helmet from halfords £40 worth everypenny
There is evidence that some drivers pass closer to cyclists who are wearing helmets. This is a subconscious action. They perceive that the cyclist is better protected and so are prepared to take more risks when driving near them. As a result, there will be cyclists who have been killed or injured who wouldn't have even been involved in the collision if they hadn't been wearing a helmet.
I am yet to see a cyclist wear a helmet or even use the cyce routes instead of being in the middle of the road.
Do these have a death wish? Or do they purposely desire to wreak havoc with people's lives?
I fail to see how somebody not wearing a cycling helmet is "wreaking havoc" with other people's lives.
I can appreciate that if, say, a motorist knocked a cyclist off his bike, and that individual suffered serious head injuries or even death because he wasn't wearing a helmet, then it might play on that person's feelings. But if I were that driver, I would have no crisis of conscience over the cyclist's injuries being made worse because of his failure to protect himself.
I would be anguished and regretful that a person had suffered in an accident that I was a part of, but his failure to adequately protect himself is not my fault.
Helmets are cheap, plentiful and easily obtained. There is no reason whatsoever why anybody on a bike shouldn't wear one except through their own choice.
Somebody else's choice not to wear one wouldn't "wreak havoc" with my life.
I fail to see how somebody not wearing a cycling helmet is "wreaking havoc" with other people's lives.
I can appreciate that if, say, a motorist knocked a cyclist off his bike, and that individual suffered serious head injuries or even death because he wasn't wearing a helmet, then it might play on that person's feelings. But if I were that driver, I would have no crisis of conscience over the cyclist's injuries being made worse because of his failure to protect himself.
I would be anguished and regretful that a person had suffered in an accident that I was a part of, but his failure to adequately protect himself is not my fault.
Helmets are cheap, plentiful and easily obtained. There is no reason whatsoever why anybody on a bike shouldn't wear one except through their own choice.
Somebody else's choice not to wear one wouldn't "wreak havoc" with my life.
Actually there may be plenty of reasons not to wear cycle helmets
I see cyclists wearing helmets every day and also using the cycle lanes when there is one I have also seen plenty not doing these things but as far as I am aware there is no law to compel cyclists to wear a helmet
The research shows the jury's still out - there are circumstances where a helmet could save your life - or not. I read all I could to make my mind up then chose to wear one. But having read all that, I realised it wasn't as clear-cut as non-cyclists seem to think and so respect anyone who decides not to.
Agreed. Some people have been strangled by the straps, others have been killed when their necks were damaged because the helmet got caught on something and yanked their head back.
What clinched it for me back when I was cycling to work was that there were several cases where a helmet kept a cyclist alive..as a paraplegic or near vegetable. This is mainly an issue for the open road but that was most of my commute. I decided I'd rather be dead than confined to a wheelchair for the rest of my life. If I was cycling around town I'd wear one because then it can stop you being crippled. But out on the open road you're pretty screwed if you get hit anyway.
Helmets are just for low speed impacts. I see scruffpot broke 4 bones, so his helmet didn't help much there.
If you cycle at easily attainable speeds of 25-30 mph, I wouldnt put much faith in one protecting me.
How many head injuries in the TdF? I think one where the guy crashed at 50 mph into concrete. Otherwise, broken wrists, collar bones, leg, hip, and loits and lots of painful draped sides.
There is also the issue of rotational neck injury that helmets cause and the simple fact that your head is bigger so you are actually moire like to hit something.
If you do low speed, urban then it is worth having one, high speed rural no real use. Otherwise it is down to the user to decide based on their speed and environment.
i live in the pedestrian hell that is cambridge, i`d say it`s about three quarters helmets and it`s the lycra crowd who ride in groups in the middle of the road, holding up the traffic. the clueless tourists who hire a bike but don`t follow [and probably don`t know] the rules are a bloody danger to everyone.
a large number also ride on the pavements and come up fast and silently behind you, cutting right in to overtake, they need kicking up and down, quite frankly.
I am yet to see a cyclist wear a helmet or even use the cyce routes instead of being in the middle of the road.
Do these have a death wish? Or do they purposely desire to wreak havoc with people's lives?
They purposely desire to wreak havoc with people's lives. I sometimes do it myself, I wake up in the morning and think 'what can I do today to wreak havoc with someone's life? I know, I'll go out on my bike without a helmet. That'll show the ba$tards, that'll ruin their day'.
I am yet to see a cyclist wear a helmet or even use the cyce routes instead of being in the middle of the road.
Do these have a death wish? Or do they purposely desire to wreak havoc with people's lives?
People who use busy/busy-ish roads and don't have a helmet on, they're idiots. They're putting themselves in danger. There's a very high chance that they could end up with a cracked skull, or worse, if they ride on roads without a helmet. It's just stupid.
I fail to see how somebody not wearing a cycling helmet is "wreaking havoc" with other people's lives.
I can appreciate that if, say, a motorist knocked a cyclist off his bike, and that individual suffered serious head injuries or even death because he wasn't wearing a helmet, then it might play on that person's feelings. But if I were that driver, I would have no crisis of conscience over the cyclist's injuries being made worse because of his failure to protect himself.
I would be anguished and regretful that a person had suffered in an accident that I was a part of, but his failure to adequately protect himself is not my fault.
Helmets are cheap, plentiful and easily obtained. There is no reason whatsoever why anybody on a bike shouldn't wear one except through their own choice.
Somebody else's choice not to wear one wouldn't "wreak havoc" with my life.
Although, I can see ypur point, it can wreck a driver's life if an incident occurred.
I fail to see how somebody not wearing a cycling helmet is "wreaking havoc" with other people's lives.
I can appreciate that if, say, a motorist knocked a cyclist off his bike, and that individual suffered serious head injuries or even death because he wasn't wearing a helmet, then it might play on that person's feelings. But if I were that driver, I would have no crisis of conscience over the cyclist's injuries being made worse because of his failure to protect himself.
I would be anguished and regretful that a person had suffered in an accident that I was a part of, but his failure to adequately protect himself is not my fault.
Helmets are cheap, plentiful and easily obtained. There is no reason whatsoever why anybody on a bike shouldn't wear one except through their own choice.
Somebody else's choice not to wear one wouldn't "wreak havoc" with my life.
Say they die after a small bump leads to them banging their head and dying, The other driver, The cyclists family and anyone who witnesses the accident may suffer for years because this person didn't wear a helmet
a large number also ride on the pavements and come up fast and silently behind you, cutting right in to overtake, they need kicking up and down, quite frankly.
That can be a bit of a problem on Birmingham canals as well. Very few cyclist have or use a bell - the only ones that do seem to have a rather weedy 'plink, plink' device.
That can be a bit of a problem on Birmingham canals as well. Very few cyclist have or use a bell - the only ones that do seem to have a rather weedy 'plink, plink' device.
i think a bell is a legal requirement now [?] but to be honest they`ve got no business riding on the *footpath [except little kids].
*pavements i mean, i`d imagine they`re allowed on the tow path.
not quite... new bikes sold have to have them fitted, but there is nothing stopping the new owner removing it, and no requirement to add a bell to old bikes.
Say they die after a small bump leads to them banging their head and dying, The other driver, The cyclists family and anyone who witnesses the accident may suffer for years because this person didn't wear a helmet
I'm thinking of wearing mine around the house and when out jogging for this very reason. I already wear it to bed in case I fall out. I don't think you can be too careful when it comes to personal safety and small bumps.
Comments
What you're probably seeing is them checking their Strava times. Or they're on MapMyRide. I often forget to set my GPS thingy going til I've been out a while. TBH, the only person they're endangering is themselves as opposed to someone in charge of a tonne of metal going 60 MPH when they're putting on their make-up/fiddling with the phone.
Ssh. I have a secret longing for a fixie. Although I lack the beard and the hat.
I find the BiB hard to believe
There is evidence that some drivers pass closer to cyclists who are wearing helmets. This is a subconscious action. They perceive that the cyclist is better protected and so are prepared to take more risks when driving near them. As a result, there will be cyclists who have been killed or injured who wouldn't have even been involved in the collision if they hadn't been wearing a helmet.
I fail to see how somebody not wearing a cycling helmet is "wreaking havoc" with other people's lives.
I can appreciate that if, say, a motorist knocked a cyclist off his bike, and that individual suffered serious head injuries or even death because he wasn't wearing a helmet, then it might play on that person's feelings. But if I were that driver, I would have no crisis of conscience over the cyclist's injuries being made worse because of his failure to protect himself.
I would be anguished and regretful that a person had suffered in an accident that I was a part of, but his failure to adequately protect himself is not my fault.
Helmets are cheap, plentiful and easily obtained. There is no reason whatsoever why anybody on a bike shouldn't wear one except through their own choice.
Somebody else's choice not to wear one wouldn't "wreak havoc" with my life.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1013.html
/thread
What clinched it for me back when I was cycling to work was that there were several cases where a helmet kept a cyclist alive..as a paraplegic or near vegetable. This is mainly an issue for the open road but that was most of my commute. I decided I'd rather be dead than confined to a wheelchair for the rest of my life. If I was cycling around town I'd wear one because then it can stop you being crippled. But out on the open road you're pretty screwed if you get hit anyway.
And some more thoughts:
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/cycle-helmets
If you cycle at easily attainable speeds of 25-30 mph, I wouldnt put much faith in one protecting me.
How many head injuries in the TdF? I think one where the guy crashed at 50 mph into concrete. Otherwise, broken wrists, collar bones, leg, hip, and loits and lots of painful draped sides.
There is also the issue of rotational neck injury that helmets cause and the simple fact that your head is bigger so you are actually moire like to hit something.
If you do low speed, urban then it is worth having one, high speed rural no real use. Otherwise it is down to the user to decide based on their speed and environment.
Many will have been cycling for many years, back to the days when only motor cyclists wore helmets, and there were no cycle lanes.
Old habits die hard.
a large number also ride on the pavements and come up fast and silently behind you, cutting right in to overtake, they need kicking up and down, quite frankly.
They purposely desire to wreak havoc with people's lives. I sometimes do it myself, I wake up in the morning and think 'what can I do today to wreak havoc with someone's life? I know, I'll go out on my bike without a helmet. That'll show the ba$tards, that'll ruin their day'.
People who use busy/busy-ish roads and don't have a helmet on, they're idiots. They're putting themselves in danger. There's a very high chance that they could end up with a cracked skull, or worse, if they ride on roads without a helmet. It's just stupid.
Although, I can see ypur point, it can wreck a driver's life if an incident occurred.
Say they die after a small bump leads to them banging their head and dying, The other driver, The cyclists family and anyone who witnesses the accident may suffer for years because this person didn't wear a helmet
i think a bell is a legal requirement now [?] but to be honest they`ve got no business riding on the *footpath [except little kids].
*pavements i mean, i`d imagine they`re allowed on the tow path.
not quite... new bikes sold have to have them fitted, but there is nothing stopping the new owner removing it, and no requirement to add a bell to old bikes.
I'm thinking of wearing mine around the house and when out jogging for this very reason. I already wear it to bed in case I fall out. I don't think you can be too careful when it comes to personal safety and small bumps.
Or trees. I hit trees an awful lot.
You probably shouldn't be riding a bike then.
It still raised the tone though.
presumably that`s because they mostly share the road with other wheeled vehicles.