Liberating

For all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmet usage will be moved here.
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5457
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Liberating

Post by pjclinch »

Jdsk wrote: 29 Jul 2021, 9:16am I hoped that this thread might stay on what we do with our heads in hot weather.
You might find https://helmets.org/cooling.htm of interest.

That aside, part of the game here is realising the degree to which helmets are about comfort, a mix of psychological and physical. If it were only about protection everyone would be using heavier, more protective lids, but it's not: it's choosing a point where the comfort and reassurance are at a happy balance point for the wearer*.
If the comfort is primarily psychological, and a rider simply doesn't feel right without a lid, then obviously that has them in a lid, but given that helmet exemptions to the Spanish helmet laws make an exemption for "extreme heat" it's not unreasonable to assume there can come a time when the perceived cons outweigh the perceived pros, and in such a case one can see that it's not necessarily the case that a by-default helmet wearer will always want to be wearing one. In very hot weather (particularly combined with big hills, also note that hill-climb TTs in the UK don't require helmets unlike most competitive cycling) it's worth putting it on the table that it might be worth making an exception: you have more options to cool your head if you don't require a helmet than if you do. Like the Spanish law, being too hot can be a reason to change habits in exceptional circumstances.

Pete.

* (it would be interesting if there were a range of formal protection standards generally available, with more protection needing greater weight and/or less ventilation, rather than the de-facto "EN1078 or nothing" and we could see what people actually chose given a choice, but I digress and we don't really have that option, particularly as the better Snell standard is increasingly rare)
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Liberating

Post by Jdsk »

pjclinch wrote: 30 Jul 2021, 8:40am
Jdsk wrote: 29 Jul 2021, 9:16am I hoped that this thread might stay on what we do with our heads in hot weather.
You might find https://helmets.org/cooling.htm of interest.
Thankyou

Jonathan
User avatar
TrevA
Posts: 3545
Joined: 1 Jun 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Liberating

Post by TrevA »

An interesting link there.

On the subject of cooling, generally the cooler helmets (temp wise) are more expensive, so the more you pay the less helmet you get! I’m not prepared to pay hundreds of pounds for a helmet. I wear a mid-priced Specialized Echelon II, which was £80. Perhaps I compromise the cooling by wearing a sweatband underneath it, but I do need to stop sweat dripping into my eyes and onto my specs. I’m generally OK in temperatures up to 20 degrees C. I do still sweat, but not at such a rate that my sweatband can’t cope with it.

I also find what you wear also makes a difference. In summer, I just wear a thin Lycra top or synthetic T shirt, no vest, or I get too hot.

On the subject of TT’s, it’s rather odd that CTT require you to have a rear light to ride a TT, but don’t require you to wear a helmet, but most people wear them anyway for better aerodynamics.
Sherwood CC and Notts CTC.
A cart horse trapped in the body of a man.
http://www.jogler2009.blogspot.com
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Liberating

Post by mjr »

TrevA wrote: 30 Jul 2021, 4:53pm On the subject of TT’s, it’s rather odd that CTT require you to have a rear light to ride a TT, but don’t require you to wear a helmet, but most people wear them anyway for better aerodynamics.
I think the CTT rear light requirement was introduced a few years ago in a very similar way to how most helmet laws/rules have been passed, by a mixture of making emotive claims not supported by good evidence and ambushing so other evidence couldn't be introduced as rebuttal, but of course I'm going on reports from others because I wasn't involved.

Really, all it tells you is a majority (possibly a slim majority) of people who organise time trials could be convinced that a rear light helps more than it hinders... and I think we could already have guessed that from the number of idiot roadies who seem to think a blinding red flasher will save them from incompetent motorists as they ride towards a setting sun.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
User avatar
SimonCelsa
Posts: 1230
Joined: 6 Apr 2011, 10:19pm

Re: Liberating

Post by SimonCelsa »

Nigel wrote: 26 Jul 2021, 8:48am
We're about to really test the system..... a guarantee replacement T3 has worn through, so will be contacting them for a replacement replacement...

- Nigel
That will be interesting, let us know the outcome although I can't see there being any problem really. They asked me to e-mail them a 'destructed' image of my hat prior to providing a guarantee replacement. There is no longer any requirement to send them the old hat. I think the only charge was £6 for shipping the new hat.

I did not register my Tilley hat when initially purchased and thus was pleasantly surprised when there was no great fuss over supplying me with a new one.

I think they must obviously factor in the expected volume of guarantee claims when setting their pricing policy, £70 for a cotton hat is quite pricey compared to the competition.
User avatar
kylecycler
Posts: 1378
Joined: 12 Aug 2013, 4:09pm
Location: Kyle, Ayrshire

Re: Liberating

Post by kylecycler »

Still struggling to get my head around the perception (at least by the likes of Johnson and Patel) that wearing h-viz is somehow derogatory - it genuinely would never have occurred to me. But yeah, I suppose bin men wear hi-viz, and street sweepers, so from a Tory perspective... :roll:

And Driving Examiners - since about 15 or so years ago, when the pre-test Vehicle Safety Checks were introduced, Driving Examiners have been required to wear hi-viz on tests, ostensibly in case they get run over in the test centre car park (although there's never been a requirement for the test candidate to wear one, so presumably they're expendable). But then, people tend to despise Driving Examiners, even though they're an unfairly maligned profession - the curse of the hi-viz jacket, huh?
Nigel
Posts: 463
Joined: 25 Feb 2007, 6:29pm

Re: Liberating

Post by Nigel »

kylecycler wrote: 31 Jul 2021, 12:00am Still struggling to get my head around the perception (at least by the likes of Johnson and Patel) that wearing h-viz is somehow derogatory - it genuinely would never have occurred to me. But yeah, I suppose bin men wear hi-viz, and street sweepers, so from a Tory perspective... :roll:
....
Plenty of gov. ministers like wearing their HiViz - Johnson is regularly out in orange jacket at construction sites, etc.. So, its not the hi-viz itself.

There's some idea that a "chain gang" will somehow work. There's loads of evidence that it doesn't do much for preventing re-offending, and in terms of getting work done around the community, its more expensive than paying someone to do it. So those two fail. Which only leaves an option of "reassuring the population that offenders are doing their time by making it more visible". Or, "cynical populist headline chasing with no intent of delivering anything".

There's also the un-researched impact of hi-viz offender work on the volunteers who do so much around the community. If there are hi-viz "payback offenders" sent out on jobs, then what of the volunteer litter pickers and sign cleaners ? They'll be mis-labelled as offenders, either by jockular comments from their mates, or genuine comments by neighbours. Result, fewer volunteers doing actual useful stuff around the community.


- Nigel
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5457
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Liberating

Post by pjclinch »

TrevA wrote: 30 Jul 2021, 4:53pm
On the subject of cooling, generally the cooler helmets (temp wise) are more expensive, so the more you pay the less helmet you get!
I think the way it works is by throwing money at it you can get the same strength with less stuff.

Be nice if there was an option to pay more and get more protection, rather than more comfort and the same protection, but the game is very much about ticking the box of meeting "a recognised standard" because that's what people insisting use as a benchmark. Further worth noting that EN 1078 is quite a bit lower than previous standards (like Snell) and it was, IIRC, more or less proposed by the makers who found more rigorous standards trickier to meet.

Used to be the case (back in the Noughties) that Spesh were one of the few makers bothering to meet the Snell standard, but I'm not sure if that's still the case.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Liberating

Post by mattheus »

mjr wrote: 30 Jul 2021, 6:01pm
TrevA wrote: 30 Jul 2021, 4:53pm On the subject of TT’s, it’s rather odd that CTT require you to have a rear light to ride a TT, but don’t require you to wear a helmet, but most people wear them anyway for better aerodynamics.
I think the CTT rear light requirement was introduced a few years ago in a very similar way to how most helmet laws/rules have been passed, by a mixture of making emotive claims not supported by good evidence and ambushing so other evidence couldn't be introduced as rebuttal, but of course I'm going on reports from others because I wasn't involved.

Really, all it tells you is a majority (possibly a slim majority) of people who organise time trials could be convinced that a rear light helps more than it hinders... and I think we could already have guessed that from the number of idiot roadies who seem to think a blinding red flasher will save them from incompetent motorists as they ride towards a setting sun.
Exactly right. TrevA may believe that CTT policies are decided by a panel of scientists and road-safety experts :P

Of course no-one at a CTT event checks competitors vehicles that they use to travel to/from the event (and in fact you can drive up and down the course before, during or after your ride, no-one will check you or your vehicle.)

Anyway, a digression ...
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Liberating

Post by Steady rider »

Time trials have always allowed for choice in helmet use as far as I know. There is mixed evidence for helmet use and no certainty that they improve safety overall. In a typical TT riding position they try to minimise their profile and motorists will probably have a smaller than normal view of a cyclist, having said that, this year in Norfolk I was driving and encountered a TT event and did not have any problem seeing riders - doing about 25 to 30 mph. So if lights in day time make any significant difference may require research.

In hill climbs, allowing for choice is probably a benefit for both the rider and spectator.
drossall
Posts: 6106
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Liberating

Post by drossall »

mattheus wrote: 2 Aug 2021, 1:38pm
mjr wrote: 30 Jul 2021, 6:01pm I think the CTT rear light requirement was introduced a few years ago in a very similar way to how most helmet laws/rules have been passed, by a mixture of making emotive claims not supported by good evidence and ambushing so other evidence couldn't be introduced as rebuttal, but of course I'm going on reports from others because I wasn't involved.

Really, all it tells you is a majority (possibly a slim majority) of people who organise time trials could be convinced that a rear light helps more than it hinders... and I think we could already have guessed that from the number of idiot roadies who seem to think a blinding red flasher will save them from incompetent motorists as they ride towards a setting sun.
Exactly right. TrevA may believe that CTT policies are decided by a panel of scientists and road-safety experts :P

Of course no-one at a CTT event checks competitors vehicles that they use to travel to/from the event (and in fact you can drive up and down the course before, during or after your ride, no-one will check you or your vehicle.)

Anyway, a digression ...
+1. The requirement slipped in while I was riding few events for family reasons. Even now I'm only dabbling in club TTs. I remain to be convinced that it has significant safety benefit. At times when it does, arguably the event should be cancelled...

I did recently have a surprised clubmate see me on the start and ask, "Aren't helmets required for time trials?"

Anyway, sorry, we're going OT from heat and helmets again.
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Liberating

Post by mattheus »

Steady rider wrote: 2 Aug 2021, 7:24pm Time trials have always allowed for choice in helmet use as far as I know. There is mixed evidence for helmet use and no certainty that they improve safety overall. In a typical TT riding position they try to minimise their profile and motorists will probably have a smaller than normal view of a cyclist, having said that, this year in Norfolk I was driving and encountered a TT event and did not have any problem seeing riders - doing about 25 to 30 mph. So if lights in day time make any significant difference may require research.
The TT riding position is a fair point (although it has been thus since, what, 1930s? Have any statistics shown it to increase collisions?)

Fortunately the CTT bods assessing these issues decided that a hi-viz yellow square on the back of every rider would be a big benefit to rider visibility (even those in black skinsuits). That is why we have big yellow number squares :-)

(I got this from the horse's mouth a few years ago.)
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Liberating

Post by Steady rider »

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... g_cyclists

The 2016 paper probably provides a way forward, in that riders could follow the same route and time of day several times and record passing distances, with rear lights switch on and not, possibly using several types of rear light as an additional experiment.

Unfortunately, Cycling UK did not support Clarke's AGM motion for a passing law and by now could have saved perhaps a dozen lives if properly supported by Dft action.

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/passing-laws/ provides some of the discussions
Last edited by Steady rider on 3 Aug 2021, 7:41pm, edited 1 time in total.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Liberating

Post by Steady rider »

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/passing-laws/

See discussion, in the following fives years improvements may have been possible but Cycling UK has not initially suitable research.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Liberating

Post by Jdsk »

Steady rider wrote: 3 Aug 2021, 7:44pm https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/passing-laws/

See discussion, in the following fives years improvements may have been possible but Cycling UK has not initially suitable research.
Who runs that website, please?

I can't find anything there that would tell me.

Thanks

Jonathan
Post Reply