Cycling UK Forum

Flying I don't find is the problem, its the prayer I mutter every time when I grab the brakes when I'm at such high speeds. Its not a case of lack of faith in hub brakes (quite the contrary, I love them), but just getting used to such manoeuvrability and the ability to STOP (excuse the capitals!) that I could never have on an upright.

Quackers came awfully close to another asbo a couple of weeks ago on flying downhill and a two wheel right-turn (yes, I did lean!). Let him off with the excuse it was just a bit of rough play!

Rollcage? Damn, I could have asked them when I was ordering a couple of tyres about half an hour ago.

The problem is that life is dangerous.

The perceived risk and the actual risk are usually quiet different and people are really bad at assessing either. John Franklin has a lot to say on his website about helmets and their effects.

As my consultant said re my vertigo and cycling, 'When you fall off you have a 50/50 chance of falling into the road or pavement, so if I were you I'd not ride two wheels.'

I mentioned my recumbent triking and he promptly came out with, 'Aren't they dangerous being so low?'

In the first statement he was correctly assessing a risk. In the second I would contend he was not.

Strangely he did not advise a helmet for walking, yet I probably have a far higher risk of stumbling while on foot than a normal cyclist has of a fall however caused from a bike.

...and as us trikers all know, we get more room from vehicles than a standard upright probably due our distictiveness (as opposed to motorists' usual cycle-blindness).

I ride upright, 'bent bike (Velotechnik Grasshopper) and 'bent trike (Windcheetah). I wear my helmet all the time. BUT...

I have no illusions about whether it is doing anything to protect my head in the event of a crash. All it's doing is providing me an excellent view of what's coming up behind me.

It has a 3-mirror periscope built into an oversize vent, and a large peak containing the first mirror.

One of the disadvantages of recumbents is how tricky it is to turn ones head to see backwards (as the years creep up on one!). This helmet removes that problem. One glance, and I know if there's a car immediately behind me. If not, it's then safe to turn round and look properly.

I'm so used to it now that I can't ride without it. I NEED to have eyes in the back of my head, and now I've got 'em.

rower40 wrote:I ride upright, 'bent bike (Velotechnik Grasshopper) and 'bent trike (Windcheetah). I wear my helmet all the time. BUT...

I have no illusions about whether it is doing anything to protect my head in the event of a crash. All it's doing is providing me an excellent view of what's coming up behind me.

It has a 3-mirror periscope built into an oversize vent, and a large peak containing the first mirror.

One of the disadvantages of recumbents is how tricky it is to turn ones head to see backwards (as the years creep up on one!). This helmet removes that problem. One glance, and I know if there's a car immediately behind me. If not, it's then safe to turn round and look properly.

I'm so used to it now that I can't ride without it. I NEED to have eyes in the back of my head, and now I've got 'em.

Which is why I own at least 5 glasses mounted mirrors. It might be more but on has been missing for some months!

I've read the pros and cons in some detail, and so I don't wear a polystyrene hat while cycling, on recumbent or upright, in the same way that I don't wear one when driving my car or when walking.

Only ever wore a "helmet" once as it was required by BHPVA rules at the World Championships some years ago in Brighton. That helmet was borrowed from someone else, was much too small, and so balanced stupidly on the top of my head. But the BHPVA organisers were happy that I was "wearing" it. It seems that so long as you have some over-priced polystyrene on top of your head, it doesn't matter whether it would actually stay there if your head hit something...

I'm not even sure that a standard bike helmet is suitable for recumbent riding (have a look at the disclaimer label inside one to see what activities you aren't supposed to use one for) as we tend to go much faster and lower than ordinary bikes do. Certainly on a trike I'd never fall off when stationary, which is what bike helmets are designed for. I'd be worried about neck injuries from glancing blows twisting my head round if I was wearing a bike helmet. It's probably worth wearing one with a nice smooth surface (like a motorbike helmet) to avoid this.

Fonant wrote:I'd be worried about neck injuries from glancing blows twisting my head round if I was wearing a bike helmet. It's probably worth wearing one with a nice smooth surface (like a motorbike helmet) to avoid this.

All cycle helmets should have a smooth shell for precisely that reason. Your skill is not a smooth surface, and thus will grab, while a helmet will greatly reduce the risk of rotational injuries.

But you're absolutely right that, statistically, there are many greater risks in life, including walking down stairs and driving cars, and we don't wear helmets for those. In the end, we all place greater store in our own anecdotal experience (like my face-plant from a two-wheel bike) than we do in the stats ...

Ben

Ben Lovejoy wrote:All cycle helmets should have a smooth shell for precisely that reason. Your skill is not a smooth surface, and thus will grab, while a helmet will greatly reduce the risk of rotational injuries.

I quite agree! Old helmets used to have a smooth hard shell, but these days you get a deliberately squishy polystyrene foam with a lightweight shell on the outside, with plenty of vent holes. These pass the required tests, and are cooller to wear, but are most probably worse in a fast accident.

Although we could debate the relative slipperyness of polystyrene helmet versus skin&hair, I think you'd agree that a helmet does add significantly to the size of your head. This means that any force twisting your head+helmet will have quite a bit more torque with which to do damage (perhaps 25-30% more torque for your neck to resist). Your head is also effectively quite a bit larger, and a bit heavier, so your neck is less likely to be able to keep it off the ground to avoid hitting it.

It would be good to see some twisting tests added to the helmet certification standard, but I suspect they won't as few people will want to cycle in smooth hard-shell hats with no vents.

I cut my forehead open following a speed-wobble and over-the-handlebars when I was about eight. Since then I've only come off at speed once, from my upright at about 20mph, and ended up sliding down the road on my front for some way, with my head up watching where I was going! I don't relish the idea of parting with my Windcheetah at 35mph, but so far, so good...

I think we can probably all agree on Plan A being: Do Not Crash

I've got a great idea!!!!

Forget the helmet, I've got a big pot of lithium grease in the garage. I'll plaster my hair in that tomorrow before the club run. Ultimate non-slip! COME ON CAR BUMPERS, LETS BE 'AVING YOU!!!!

(trust me to come up with a sensible and practical idea! )

We knew we could count on you to be the voice of reason.

Ben Lovejoy wrote:All cycle helmets should have a smooth shell for precisely that reason. Your skill is not a smooth surface, and thus will grab, while a helmet will greatly reduce the risk of rotational injuries.

Bearing this comment in mind, I'm surprised that you ride with a lamp* strapped on top of yours. (I take on board what you say about the difficulties of fitting elsewhere.)

As a layman I should have thought that strapping something on like that would spoil the smooth shell effect and also concentrate all the force in a small area if you were in an over-the-handlebars type landing.


* At first glance I thought it was a rather natty video camera.

All hail lithium grease!!!!

Throw down the helmet and single pannier!!!

Heheheheheheheheheh!!!

(I think I to stop eating the cheese from under the cooker and have a lie down...)

thirdcrank wrote:Bearing this comment in mind, I'm surprised that you ride with a lamp* strapped on top of yours. (I take on board what you say about the difficulties of fitting elsewhere.)

It's not ideal from that perspective, and also adds a small amount of weight, and thus torque. It's a pragmatic rather than ideal solution.

That said, the light is very small and light and held on only with rubber O-rings and velcro, so I would expect it to detach itself quickly and expensively in any ground-helmet interface ...

Ben