Hovis ad

[squeaker]

Why the poorly fitting helmets
Reflecting reality I suppose

[Mick F]

Yes, reality.

No point wearing one unless it fits and is fitted correctly.
No much point in wearing one anyway, but any point is lost if it's not on correctly.

Saw a young lad last week in Plymouth on trike - you know the sort, a shopping trike with derailleur gears - and he was wearing a helmet ........... and it was fitted on the back of his head.

[horizon]

I think that we forget that a cycle helmet is an icon in the true meaning of the word. It stands for a social and cultural belief. It is meant to portray the values and attitudes inherent in that belief. In that sense it is mutable: if you want to challenge the belief (in this case that the human spirit is constrained by too great an anxiety about our personal safety), then the icon is subtly adjusted to incorporate that point of view. Because Hovis is dependent on a conformist view of society in order to sell its products, it is unable to challenge the icon completely (i.e. the children must still wear helmets) but the culturally dominant belief is still challenged by putting the helmet at a jaunty angle (q.v. CTC Cycle magazine cover controversy).

It amazes me that anyone still believes that a cycle helmet has anything to do with protection - human culture is much more complex (and interesting) than that. Symbolism is a hugely powerful force.

[squeaker]

It amazes me that anyone still believes that a cycle helmet has anything to do with protection - human culture is much more complex (and interesting) than that. Symbolism is a hugely powerful force.

Indeed: who wears a 'St Christopher'? And, more interestingly, why?

[TonyR]

It amazes me that anyone still believes that a cycle helmet has anything to do with protection - human culture is much more complex (and interesting) than that. Symbolism is a hugely powerful force.

They're the VW of cycling - something designed to pass a artificial test in a lab that bears no resemblance to its performance in the real world.

[drossall]

Yebbut most of us don't have to ride with bricks flying round our heads.

[horizon]

Yebbut most of us don't have to ride with bricks flying round our heads.

It may be the first time they've found a genuine reason to wear one!

(NB Forum helmet wearers please ignore all my ramblings,as you probably do anyway - I respect your decision, really. )

[Cunobelin]

Yebbut most of us don't have to ride with bricks flying round our heads.

Portsmouth isn't quite that bad

[gaz]

I've had the occasional chestnut strike, dismissed it as just one of those things. If bricks grew on trees it would be another matter, thankfully based upon my own gardening experiences they're a root crop.

[pwa]

I think that we forget that a cycle helmet is an icon in the true meaning of the word. It stands for a social and cultural belief. It is meant to portray the values and attitudes inherent in that belief. In that sense it is mutable: if you want to challenge the belief (in this case that the human spirit is constrained by too great an anxiety about our personal safety), then the icon is subtly adjusted to incorporate that point of view. Because Hovis is dependent on a conformist view of society in order to sell its products, it is unable to challenge the icon completely (i.e. the children must still wear helmets) but the culturally dominant belief is still challenged by putting the helmet at a jaunty angle (q.v. CTC Cycle magazine cover controversy).

It amazes me that anyone still believes that a cycle helmet has anything to do with protection - human culture is much more complex (and interesting) than that. Symbolism is a hugely powerful force.

I wear a lid when I cycle (not tested for all potential impacts) for the same reason that I wear a hard hat on a construction site (also not tested for all potential impacts). I wear it because it has some protective attributes that are likely (but not guaranteed) to help me if my head collides with something. No Jonathan Meades like analysis is needed. No symbolism involved.

[Heltor Chasca]

I've had the occasional chestnut strike, dismissed it as just one of those things. If bricks grew on trees it would be another matter, thankfully based upon my own gardening experiences they're a root crop.

[emoji106][emoji23]

[MartinC]

..........................I wear it because it has some protective attributes that are likely (but not guaranteed) to help me if my head collides with something........................................

Very gentle challenge to this logic. Exactly the same rationale applies to wearing a knotted handkerchief. What underpins it in this case is an assumed value for the "likely" part of the argument. Unfortunately there's no real evidence that the protective attributes of a plastic hat are more likely than a knotted handkerchief.

[Mick F]

I wear a lid when I cycle (not tested for all potential impacts) for the same reason that I wear a hard hat on a construction site (also not tested for all potential impacts). I wear it because it has some protective attributes that are likely (but not guaranteed) to help me if my head collides with something. No Jonathan Meades like analysis is needed. No symbolism involved.

I agree on this.

I was wearing a helmet up until recently when I found myself losing hair. I've been losing it for years, but recently it's become sort of "critical" to comfort inside a helmet.

Try as I might, I couldn't get on with it any more. I tried padding, extra padding, and persevering. In the end, I gave up.

Has anyone noticed - other than Mrs Mick F?
No.
Not at all or at least no-one I know has commented in the slightest, even though I'm a common sight round here.

[horizon]

I'm happy to concede that the cycle helmet provides a high level of practical and effective protection in the (very likely) event of an accident.

I'm not happy to concede (and really cannot) that the cycle helmet is not a cultural icon. It is firmly entrenched in the social consciousness as a symbol of responsibility, self-care, protection in a dangerous world and an example of truly adult behaviour. It is advocated by cyclists and non-cyclists alike but especially by the latter. It is charged with emotional depth and littered with assumptions about the moral state of the wearer or non-wearer. It is far more than just a helmet. It has both the ability to carry a message and have that message challenged by a slight alteration of the way in which it is worn.

For that reason alone I wouldn't wear one.

[horizon]

PS I don't even want to start on the emotional charge embodied in the advert. These young, brave adventurers setting out into a dangerous world and breaking out of domestic restriction are intended to pull at the heart strings of the target market (bread buying mothers of young children). For goodness' sake, it's a loaf of bread (and not a particularly healthy one at that).

The helmets tick all the right boxes, not just for the authorities, regulators and the moral over-seers, but for the mothers (or should that be "Moms"?) stuck at home, desperate for a bit of freedom themselves (not on their bikes then?) and investing those feelings in their young offspring. It is the worst and most dishonest kind of advertising and the helmets play centre part. Oh, how easily we are deceived!