Glad I had a lid.

[AlanW]

Therefore, why don't I wear a helmet?
Because it's uncomfortable. If it was, I may wear it and not take it off.

Not wishing to join in on the should a helmet be worn or not debate, just commenting on this statement. But have you thought that maybe all helmets are different and that one shape doesn't fit everyone? Even the same make helmets but in different styles will fit differently.

Its a bit like saying that my Selle Italia (or want ever brand) saddle is uncomfortable so I not going to have a saddle at all, I'll stand up all the time.

[Mike Sales]

Its a bit like saying that my Selle Italia (or want ever brand) saddle is uncomfortable so I not going to have a saddle at all, I'll stand up all the time.

Only if you find no saddle more comfortable than the one you have tried. In fact, he may well have tried several foam hats and found that they are all too warm, or that they all irritate, or whatever.

[mjr]

Only if you find no saddle more comfortable than the one you have tried. In fact, he may well have tried several foam hats and found that they are all too warm, or that they all irritate, or whatever.

As the hats have to pass a test on a standardised head shape, there seems a lot less variation than among saddles.

[Bicycler]

Therefore, why don't I wear a helmet?
Because it's uncomfortable. If it was, I may wear it and not take it off.

Not wishing to join in on the should a helmet be worn or not debate, just commenting on this statement. But have you thought that maybe all helmets are different and that one shape doesn't fit everyone? Even the same make helmets but in different styles will fit differently.

Its a bit like saying that my Selle Italia (or want ever brand) saddle is uncomfortable so I not going to have a saddle at all, I'll stand up all the time.

Saddle might be a good comparison. We can't assume that something that works for us works for others. For some (like me) saddles present no problem. As easy to sit on as a chair at home. Put your leg over a bike with any saddle fitted and ride until you get tired. For many other people some saddles are painful and others are comfortable. There are many others for whom all saddles are uncomfortable to varying degrees, though they eventually find one that is comfortable enough to be tolerated - it is, after all, the only way you can ride an upright bicycle for any distance.

The major difference with helmets is that they aren't needed in order to ride a bike.

I'll admit to not having spent tons of money on different helmets but I have worn several at various points in time (usually where compulsory). I know enough about them and my own natural propensity to overheat for me to be fairly sure I will never be 'comfortable' in one.

I'm in fairly good company. From another thread:

Its a very nice helmet, well made, comfy...

I'm sorry, but I simply can't relate to that.

I've tried helmets retailing for up to £100 (more at today's prices) and never found one that I'd describe as 'nice', or 'comfy'. My head gets horribly sweaty in even the 'best ventilated' and I'm sure their few grams nevertheless contributed to a chronic neck problem, that is gradually showing some improvement since I stopped wearing one altogether.

The phrase 'nice helmet' makes as much sense to me as 'nice radiation suit', except that the latter can be relied upon to protect from the danger that actually prompts one to wear it.

If forced by law, I daresay that (like others with saddles) I would be able to find one that wasn't quite uncomfortable enough to make me give up cycling. But, whilst I have a choice and have not seen proof of their effectiveness, I'm not going to put myself through the misery.

[Mick F]

Therefore, why don't I wear a helmet?
Because it's uncomfortable. If it was, I may wear it and not take it off.

Not wishing to join in on the should a helmet be worn or not debate, just commenting on this statement. But have you thought that maybe all helmets are different and that one shape doesn't fit everyone? Even the same make helmets but in different styles will fit differently.

Hi Alan,
Maybe you're right and maybe you're wrong. I've use a Specialized S3 for some years, and before that at Giro (something or other).

I had a thread on here - don't bother looking at yet another helmet thread! - about helmet quality and if you get more if you pay more.

I finally bought the S3 as it had good reviews and I found it on offer at the local Specialized shop. It's fully adjustable for head shape in height, width and length. It had good padding and nice light straps and the helmet is very well vented and cool (for a helmet). It fits my head perfectly.

Why is it now uncomfortable?
Because in the last six months, what was left of my hair seemingly suddenly went. I'm now totally bald, and as a "newbie baldie", I find that this wonderfully fitting S3 helmet is uncomfortable on my bare skin.

Maybe in the winter and cold, I could wear a skull cap underneath maybe?
I tried it, and it is still not quite right, so perhaps I should try a beanie hat underneath ................ or buy a wig.

[Vorpal]

If the number of races can't be determined, might the number of racing licences be a useful approximation?

That information doesn't seem to be readily available either. Some organisations under the auspices of the UCI publish that information on their websites, some don't. I imagine that the UCI holds both sets of data, but it doesn't seem to be readily available.

I have found limited information about the numbers of National Federations. There were 30 when it began in 1900 and there are now 179. But I can't even find numbers of racing licences issued by BC, let alone UCI. The financial intake for racing licences is published, but not the numbers.

[mjr]

I've use a Specialized S3 for some years [...]
Maybe in the winter and cold, I could wear a skull cap underneath maybe?
I tried it, and it is still not quite right, so perhaps I should try a beanie hat underneath ................ or buy a wig.

Specialized Helmet Manuals usually say something like:

Do not wear anything underneath your helmet, such as a cap, hood, bundled hair, headphones, barrettes, as the helmet may loosen or come off.

This is impractical and of course widely ignored, which may be part of what negates the obvious physical impact protection in real-world use, but I don't think it explains all of it.

And if "some years" is more than five, the manual says to replace it.

[Mick F]

And if "some years" is more than five, the manual says to replace it.

Of course it does.
They cannot plan their life-expectancy in the real world because they don't know how the helmet will be treated. They also want you to buy a new helmet.

Just looked at the labels inside. It's a Sept 2012 helmet. Can't remember when I bought it, though it must have been after Sept 2012.

[TonyR]

And you know all that without even having seen the data?

All I'm really saying is I suspect it's a bit more complicated than directly and implicitly causally associating helmet requirements with three-fold death rate increases.

More assumptions and jumping to conclusions. Nowhere did I claim causality. I just said it was notable. Perhaps you need to find yourself a Sancho Panza.

[TonyR]

Someone else who hasn't seen the data but knows all about it?

That would be a more convincing challenge if the data was properly cited when the claim was made.

It would fail completely as a challenge if the request had been to see the data. But it wasn't it was a rebuttal of data not even seen. It reminds me of an article I read about an invited talk about Europe to a UKIP group. It said:

A repeated pattern was that facts and reality were denounced by the UKIP campaigners as lies if they didn’t like them – even the suggestion that Churchill was pro-European was described as a lie. (He was, verifiably, founding Honorary President of the European Movement).

[pjclinch]

And you know all that without even having seen the data?

All I'm really saying is I suspect it's a bit more complicated than directly and implicitly causally associating helmet requirements with three-fold death rate increases.

More assumptions and jumping to conclusions. Nowhere did I claim causality. I just said it was notable. Perhaps you need to find yourself a Sancho Panza.

If it's notable in a thread about lids, in a forum about lids, that implies (hence my use of "implicit") it's notable because of lids. I said it wasn't particularly notable given a big list of other issues.
Finding the statistic notable in respect of lids requires, errrr, assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

[TonyR]

[quote="TonyR"]

And you know all that without even having seen the data?

All I'm really saying is I suspect it's a bit more complicated than directly and implicitly causally associating helmet requirements with three-fold death rate increases.

More assumptions and jumping to conclusions. Nowhere did I claim causality. I just said it was notable. Perhaps you need to find yourself a Sancho Panza.

If it's notable in a thread about lids, in a forum about lids, that implies (hence my use of "implicit") it's notable because of lids. I said it wasn't particularly notable given a big list of other issues.
Finding the statistic notable in respect of lids requires, errrr, assumptions and jumping to conclusions.[/quote]

[Steady rider]

Bicycler » Thu Jan 28, 2016 11:05 pm, (from another discussion)

Steady rider wrote:

Erke and Elvik 2007 examined research from Australia and New Zealand and stated:
"There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent."

You mentioned this in the "glad I wore my lid" thread the other day. Which research did they examine? (probably best to answer on the other thread in the helmet section rather than here)

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/au-assessment-2015.pdf page 21

The findings were based on six reports, four from when legislation was in place

.

see also http://www.cycle-helmets.com/elvik-helmets-handbook.pdf

[Vorpal]

argue nicely, please

[pjclinch]