Cycling UK Forum

Jdsk wrote: ↑14 Oct 2024, 1:34pm
I'm not sure about "helmet campaigns": please could you give some examples.

What was the point about "risk compensation"?

Thanks

Jonathan

Helmet campaigns? Frequently, after a serious crash, cyclists, or relatives, campaign for helmets. Even if the evidence a helmet would have helped is questionable. For example a girl went over the bars of her bike and broke her neck. She was convinced the helmet saved her life while in fact it may have potentially made things worse as possible landing head first on ahelmet may cause higher forces on the neck than a bare head landing.

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/128 ... irls-life/

Then there was James Cracknell who became a helmet advocate after his crash in Arizona.

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... lls-brain/

I would suggest than not riding east at dawn into a rising sun would be more effective than a helmet in his case. Along with using a mirror. I have had to ride off the road in the USA to avoid being hit by an overtaking vehicle. Using a mirror I saw it coming and could do something about it.

I probably said this in the other thread but for the benefit of anyone who never saw it.

I ordered Rubino Pro tyres in two sizes. One each. Best price I have seen anywhere. Arrived fast. When I put them on the bikes I foubd they were the perfect size - IE went on without levers just and no more. So ordered 4 more for stock along with a few tubes. Again fast delivery not net day but within 3 or 4 days.

Jdsk wrote: ↑13 Oct 2024, 10:51pm

irc wrote: ↑13 Oct 2024, 12:09pm ...
Examples of helmeted riders not reducing their chances of crashing include riding in the doorzone and riding without lights at night. Risk compensation?

I don't understand this, and I think that it would help the discussion greatly if you felt able to expand on the points that you are making.

Thanks

Jonathan

Simply that as far as the general public is concerned and many casual riders the helmet campaigns have had the effect of promoting something that may help in a crash but there is little promotion of avoiding crashes in the first place.

This sort of thing, for example, in a newspaper report after a cyclist and a car were in a collision. The cyclist saying every rider should have a helmet and a helmet cam.

“I would urge every cyclist to wear one, they’ve come down a lot in price now, as have helmets, which I believe should be compulsory. If I hadn’t been wearing one I wouldn’t be here today.”" “Any cyclist who goes out without a helmet telling his wife and children he loves them is lying.”"

A look at the video showed the crash was easily avoidable. Video was linked in a Blog post from Bez who I believe is also a member here. Video now taken down but screenshots make the point.

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-collis ... -happened/

As Bez said

"Collisions and injuries are newsworthy. Those who suffer them will have had a rare opportunity to perform a real-world test of their safety equipment. Therefore, because it only selects people who have been unable to avoid a collision, the media platform is inevitably skewed towards people who have a relatively low propensity for avoidance and a relatively high rate of valuing protection."




"

Nearholmer wrote: ↑13 Oct 2024, 4:40pm

Examples of helmeted riders not reducing their chances of crashing include riding in the doorzone and riding without lights at night. Risk compensation?

If this is the best you can come up with as a way of making yourself feel superior to others, I honestly think you’d be better off not bothering.

Superior? Nope. If by superior you mean safer I must be doing something right which everyone reporting crashes isn't doing.
Just seems that helmets is the only safety factor talked about much. Prevention is better than cure.

This week I had yet another bike ride without a head injury despite not wearing a helmet. My more than half century of riding including foreign and UK touring, yeas of commuting, and off road riding has not included a single crash where I hit my head. In fact nothing worse than minor grazes.

No point to this thread other than it is equally as valid as a thread where someone wearing a helmet survives a crash. Maybe not crashing is better?

Examples of helmeted riders not reducing their chances of crashing include riding in the doorzone and riding without lights at night. Risk compensation?

I think it's in the tradition of leaving criticism aside in the immediate aftermath of the death of someone's husband, father, brother etc.

I wasn't a fan of many SNP politicians but it's understandable that news outlets don't rehash the flaws of the deceased immediately after his death in this or other cases.

simonhill wrote: ↑10 Oct 2024, 6:30pm This was the reply I got from Sportscoverdirect:

"Thank you for your enquiry.

We do not state that it is mandatory for you to wear a helmet underneath our policy wording.

We do, however, state the following on page 5:

You are required to take all practicable steps to protect yourself and Your Property, and to act at all times as if You are not insured.

If this means wearing a helmet to reduce the chances of a head injury when cycling, then please ensure that you do so. "

If this means wearing a helmet when walking to reduce the risk of injury?

Seriously? I have seen hillwalkers wearing bike helmets to ride a track to the start of a mountain walk where despite a perhaps similar risk of head injury they go without.

I was in the vicinity of a hillwalking fall where a head injury was the cause of death. Talking when loaded into the helicopter and dead within an hour. Possibly might have been saved by a helmet.
My risk assessment that day was that it was too windy to go on the tops. It was the only time I have ever been literally blown off my feet and dropped a few feet away when trying to walk into a corrie a thousand feet lower than the summits. I had to crawl for a hundred yards or so to get away from a point where the winds were being focussed by the terrain. I was wearing a climbing helmet at the time on what was in windless conditions and easy walk.

Blondie wrote: ↑12 Oct 2024, 3:32pm

Angstrom wrote: ↑12 Oct 2024, 7:40am
For those not wearing a helmet, I'd suggest they ask the question to an emergency doctor nearby if they consider helmets are part of "any appropriate safety equipment" in their opinion.

An emergency room doctor will see far far more head injuries from activities not involving a bike such as car crashes, slips, trips etc. Would they suggest helmets as appropriate safety equipment for driving or walking, getting in or out of a bath or shower. If not, why not?

Good question. Because they treat injuries and have no training or qualifications in road safety, accident prevention, or statistics?

Similar to me. Last tour a year ago crossing the Mojave desert. Head protection from wide brimmed hat with neck covering. Skin cancer/sunburn risk higher than concussion risk.

Interesting. At 6ft3, going by the Highpath method I should be riding 185 cranks. My bikes (except an MTB which came with 170s) are all built from frames and I chose 175s on the basis that since I was taller than at least 95% of the population the larger of the two common sizes was best. Not a hard choice.

I wouldn't consider buying longer cranks because I am usedto 175s and the increased risk of toe overlap and ground strike.

The good thing about the home leg is it doesn't matter how far you need break it down. re-assembly can be done at leasure. In Daytona Beach the only box I could get was for a small bike, maybe a childs. My 60cm tourer needed both wheels off, seatpost/saddle, front rack, bars and fork removed, and crankset and pedals off to get it packed between the box and my suitcase.

A benefit of Hollowtech 2 style cranks are they are removed easily with just an Allen key.

USA bike shops don't often have boxes lying around. A couple of times I have just offered to buy a box for a few dollars if they took the factory bike out it. Last time I was surprised when after doing that the mechanic put the sale through the till. I expected it to be beer money.

I used Snowcard Adventure basic for a month in the USA last year. As a healthy 62 year old , non helmet were, I got the cost down to £113 by removing theft and cancellation cover. Very reasonable I thought.


My tour was 99% road. I was happy to take my chance with the 1% bike trails.

Going on a tour using more gravel roads I would go Adventure Plus. I think it would still be good value

My premium more than halved by taking theft cover out. In guess a lot of people buy insurance rather than look after their property

I doubt they would have paid out much on a 15 year old touring bike. My only requirement was for medical cover if involved in an accident or had unexpected serious medical issues.

I am lucky that I haven't seen my GP for a few years so had nothing to declare medically.

As no other companies I looked at allowed tailoring cover like this none for anywhere near.

Bonefishblues wrote: ↑29 Sep 2024, 2:43pm Rockets being fired was largely symbolic, given the quality of Israel's air defences.ough.

Tell that to the israelis who have been evacuated from their homes near the Lebanese border.

If I am going slower it may be because these is a hazard. Narrow gate etc. I want to see that as much as something further away. Maybe just personal preference or as suggested the degree. As a rough idea I perceive the far away part of the beam to be around 3 or 4x brighter than the near part.

Have you got an Aldi light? Because if you haven't there is no point telling me the beam is OK as your beam on your light may be perfectly acceptable while mine isn't.

mattheus wrote: ↑25 Sep 2024, 11:42am

irc wrote: ↑25 Sep 2024, 11:40am

mattheus wrote: ↑25 Sep 2024, 11:08am
Generally that's how you WANT a shaped-beam to work. Of course it can be too extreme ...

Why? After all in daylight you don't want the road or ground 6 feet in front to be harder to see than the road/ground 20 feet away?

I would have thought an ideal beam would be equally bright with a clean cutoff to avoid dazzling drivers.

You're nearer to it [the road 6' in front], so you don't need as much light. And
You've already seen it, cos it was well illuminated a second earlier, and
When you're worried about the nearest 6' you're usually going slower, so less danger

If I am going slower it may be because these is a hazard. Narrow gate etc. I want to see that as much as something further away. Maybe just personal preference or as suggested the degree. As a rough idea I perceive the far away part of the beam to be around 3 or 4x brighter than the near part.