My lack of helmet worked for me.

[roubaixtuesday]

Secondly when it's raining heavily; water runs through the helmet and into your eyes picking up sweat and/or suncream off the helmet, making it impossible to see at all.

The latter can be solved by wearing a cap under the helmet.

Or pull a helmet cover over any vents. Shower caps work okay for this if you want to save money.

Pete.

Good idea, but for me, having a cap also keeps the rain off glasses (surprisingly well, I wish I'd realised decades earlier!).

[Jon in Sweden]

Absolutely not the case in my experience.

I'm not anti helmet, I always wear one commuting, but there are issues with them.

That as the case may be, I cannot, as the father of two young children and primary breadwinner, justify cycling without one. It lowers the risk and it's something that I regard as being a reasonable measure to take.

[roubaixtuesday]

Absolutely not the case in my experience.

I'm not anti helmet, I always wear one commuting, but there are issues with them.

That as the case may be, I cannot, as the father of two young children and primary breadwinner, justify cycling without one. It lowers the risk and it's something that I regard as being a reasonable measure to take.

I'm not trying to influence you one way or another. As I said, I choose to wear one commuting. I also choose not to when the temperature is in the high thirties.

I do suggest you leave out the emotional blackmail, it just winds people up, understandably.

The extra risk of cycling without a helmet is negligible, and people who choose not to are perfectly reasonable. Equally, like yourself, there's nothing unreasonable in choosing to wear one.

[pjclinch]

Sweat is an issue, but it's an issue regardless of whether you wear a helmet or not. It gets consistently hotter here than the UK in summer, and I feel the heat more than almost anyone I know.

I would suggest sweat output varies from to person. Riding in a helmet on a hot day in my neck of the woods I get sweat dripping in to my eyes on climbs. If I wear a casquette or a bucket hat I don't.

However well vented, helmets give considerably more insulation and less breathability than not having a helmet, whether that's bare-headed or with a lightweight fabric hat like a Buff or a cycle cap. If that's well within your personal discomfort tolerance is a different matter to is it any different at all.

Pete.

[pjclinch]

That as the case may be, I cannot, as the father of two young children and primary breadwinner, justify cycling without one. It lowers the risk and it's something that I regard as being a reasonable measure to take.

This is what I mean by boiling down to you just prefer riding in one than not. That you feel it's a reasonable measure is what you feel. The actual evidence that you're safer is contentious. That you're convinced to some degree by the evidence is part of what makes up your feeling of being happier in one than not.

There's no problem with any of this for reasons to ride in a helmet, but that you can't see a good reason not to wear one yourself isn't the same at all as there's no good reason for anyone else not to wear one.

How many of the people riding around in the Netherlands without helmets do you think have young children and are primary breadwinners? Their culture tells them that's okay, your culture suggests to you that it isn't. These are matters of perspective and subjective feeling, not objective risk assessment/management.

Pete.

[mattheus]

Absolutely not the case in my experience.

I'm not anti helmet, I always wear one commuting, but there are issues with them.

That as the case may be, I cannot, as the father of two young children and primary breadwinner, justify cycling without one. It lowers the risk and it's something that I regard as being a reasonable measure to take.

It's like having Sarah Palin* on the forum: "Speaking as a mother ... "



*Don't look at me like that! You're all old enough to remember her, be honest ...

[irc]

Absolutely not the case in my experience.

I'm not anti helmet, I always wear one commuting, but there are issues with them.

That as the case may be, I cannot, as the father of two young children and primary breadwinner, justify cycling without one. It lowers the risk and it's something that I regard as being a reasonable measure to take.

A million Dutch cyclists don't care about their children then?

[Nearholmer]

This has wound on for a few pages, but I’m still utterly baffled as to how not wearing a helmet can “work” for anybody ……. What ”work” is it postulated to perform; what positive effect is it meant to achieve for the individual not-wearer?

There seems to be some suggestion from some research that it might lead motorists to treat the not-wearer slightly more cautiously that a wearer, but I don’t think anyone would regard not-wearing as a talisman against being hit by an incautious motorist, would they?

And, there are the usual suggestions that putting a helmet on makes a cyclist behave less cautiously, which isn’t backed by evidence.

And, there are numerous tales of not having fallen off a bike while not wearing a helmet, and not banged one’s head, which (unless anyone can evidence otherwise) I’m sure could be matched by numerous tales of not having fallen off a bike while wearing a helmet, and not banged one’s head.

But, I still genuinely don’t “get” what is being asserted here.

It’s not that I advocate compulsion to wear a helmet, I don’t, I’d just like to know what it is that is supposed to “work”. What is not-wearing meant to achieve? (The only thing I can think of is keeping the head cool, by wearing a different sort of hat, in truly baking hot weather)

[Stevek76]

It's just a parody thread of the other one. For all the anecdotes about 'my helmet saved my life' there are endless never reported tales where people without a helmet had an oopsie and didn't actually die, let alone the millions of km travelled where nothing happened at all.

That said, specifically considering the benefits of not using a helmet, it's effectively just a reverse list of the disadvantages/hassle of using one.

Hassle/faff:
Requires additional purchase
Dealing with a bulky object at the destination/attraction end of the journey
Messes up hair
Hot in summer
Limits use of optimal outerwear in rain/winter
Flies/Bees/Wasps (this has happened to me when MTB, do not recommend)
May not fit with users style/fashion wishes

Behavioural changes:
By wearer
By other road users due to more likely to be seen as 'a cyclist' rather than 'a person on a bike'

Also from a public policy perspective contributes to public perception of cycling being vastly more dangerous than it actually is in comparison to other mode choices.

[pjclinch]

This has wound on for a few pages, but I’m still utterly baffled as to how not wearing a helmet can “work” for anybody ……. What ”work” is it postulated to perform; what positive effect is it meant to achieve for the individual not-wearer?

The job is to get to my destination safely.

If I do that without a helmet then not wearing a helmet has worked for me. It's not that I needed a not-helmet to do that, but that I didn't need a helmet to do that.

But, I still genuinely don’t “get” what is being asserted here.

I can only speak for myself, but that helmets aren't actually that important when it comes to cycling safety.

Pete.

[Nearholmer]

Also from a public policy perspective contributes to public perception of cycling being vastly more dangerous than it actually is in comparison to other mode choices.

That bit I understand, up to a point, but it takes a fair stretch to count that as “working” for the individual not-wearer …… I guess you have to postulate that your not-wearing sparks a not-wearing movement, or at least a reduced perception of risk, which then turns into a cycling movement, that then turns into safety in numbers etc.

[pjclinch]

Also from a public policy perspective contributes to public perception of cycling being vastly more dangerous than it actually is in comparison to other mode choices.

That bit I understand, up to a point, but it takes a fair stretch to count that as “working” for the individual not-wearer …… I guess you have to postulate that your not-wearing sparks a not-wearing movement, or at least a reduced perception of risk, which then turns into a cycling movement, that then turns into safety in numbers etc.

I think you're going down a rather blind alley of assuming anyone's trying particularly hard to be safer by not wearing a helmet, as opposed to just joking about how they manage to survive without one. By and large they're not, they just feel they're safe enough to get where they're going okay, and getting where they're going okay is the measure of "working" here.

Back to not-wearing movements, it comes up often in diversity and inclusivity circles that people often have a need to see "people like them" doing stuff to help nudge them in to joining in. While this is more typically based on stuff like sex, ethnicity etc. it's also true of "can I see myself doing that activity that seems to require special clothes and gear I don't really see myself wearing". I want to see more people cycling not because it makes me safer but because it's good for society in general (public health, reducing pollution, making cities nicer and safer places to live etc.). That it's at least okay to do without one appears to be important for a genuine and working utility cycling culture.

Pete.

[Jon in Sweden]

I still just don't understand why when there is a piece of safety equipment available that is barely any inconvenience at all, why anyone would seek to try to discredit the safety credentials of using said equipment.

If I was city riding in the Netherlands, on their wonderful cycle networks and at Dutch city speeds (15-20kph, if I were to guess), then yes, I would be less bothered by wearing one.

But I ride a lot quicker than that. I'm just back from 65km of technical, slippery, loose gravel riding where I averaged 29kph, hitting over 60kph. I am a bloody careful rider, and touch-wood, I've not fallen off for 18 months (which is about 24,000km).

If I am riding road, I ride considerably quicker again, with many of my rides averaging over 35kph, and I regularly exceed 70kph.

The consequences of falling off at those speeds could be very severe. If a helmet reduces my chance of serious head injury even by 20%, then it's well worth having.

I accept that many don't like using them. That's fine and it's understandable. I'm not going to tell you to put a helmet on as an adult. But please don't try to tell me that there isn't a safety benefit of having a helmet, or that the evidence is contentious. It is a valuable bit of safety equipment that should be used by any sport cyclist.

[mattheus]

I guess you have to postulate that your not-wearing sparks a not-wearing movement, or at least a reduced perception of risk, which then turns into a cycling movement, that then turns into safety in numbers etc.

Why do you think there needs to be a "movement"? Why can't every little help?

I'd draw the parallel with littering; every little helps. If 1 selfish ar$e drops 1 wrapper it's not an eco-disaster, but each one contributes.
And at the same time, seeing others litter makes YOU more likely to litter. Again, every little helps!

[roubaixtuesday]

I accept that many don't like using them. That's fine and it's understandable. I'm not going to tell you to put a helmet on as an adult. But please don't try to tell me that there isn't a safety benefit of having a helmet, or that the evidence is contentious. It is a valuable bit of safety equipment that should be used by any sport cyclist.

I believe the technical term is "oxymoron".