Remember kids... always wear a helmet. (The almighty bikeradar helmet thread)

What an amazing troll, far better than lynchman.

Are you deliberately avoiding the direct questions that I have asked you?
I would never do such a thing. In fact I have already answered all your questions, possibly 70 or 80 pages ago, maybe using a different identity.
I did consider staying up all night to dig out the research about how getting a good night's sleep is the best way to reduce risk of injury. I discovered that more research was needed, . . . . .

Snotters, can you maybe operate on a system of rationing your funny posts so I don't keep getting "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to snottyotter again." twenty times a day, plz?

I would never do such a thing. In fact I have already answered all your questions, possibly 70 or 80 pages ago, maybe using a different identity.

You are Jeez and I claim my £5.

Anyway, here's a picture of some chairs made from traffic signs:

So many interesting sub threads since I last looked in, I may have to stay up all night. I found that wearing a helmet while cycling at over 50mph creates a deafening roar, much worse than wearing headphones.

I don't go over 45mph, cause my helmet wont save if I take a tumble at this speed.

No, seriously. Does encasing your skull in a hard shell messes up acoustic effects. I don't mean a loss of hearing or something like that. I had some troubles with identifying the direction and distance the sound comes from when wearing a helmet.

Now, to clarify, I have nothing against wearing helmets (of any kind and in any activity), but I don't want them to be compulsory either. Your choice etc.

What I would like to see is clear information about the effectiveness of them. And this rises questions:

• In testing they drop them on different shape anvils with some kind of headform in them. What happens if you add the weight of a rider to it. Will it affect the impact force?
  
• Progress in technology means that there is plenty of new synthetic materials since the polystyrene foam was introduced. Are there better alternatives available now? I've seen the cardboard thing, are there any other ideas?
  
• Research. What data is gathered when they create the statistics. Do they compare speeds of impact and resulting injuries or just count the amount of cases of head injuries and tick the box when the helmet was used without looking at the variable circumstances. Has anybody got an idea how valid the statistics really are and should the be trusted. (US Army arctic clothing research famously showed that most of body heat is lost through the head. Later it was clarified that most of body heat escapes this way if you wear warm clothing without the hat, so adequate headwear is important. Bit like the famous anegdote about a Russian scientist and a deaf spider.)
  
  

I'm not trolling here. Just want to know how much bull is in this shit.

"What an amazing troll, far better than me."

Ftfy!

You're far too blatant to be subtle.

I'll make it clear then.
Every time someone wears a helmet while cycling, and gets seen doing it, they reinforce the image that cycling is something dangerous. Same goes for fluorescent vests.
Everyone from you kids in your house to your colleagues at work to all the people you encounter on the roads.
"Look at him (or her) they are doing something so dangerous they need to take special measures to protect themselves".

The marketing people at the helmet companies know this, and build on it. So do the people in the shops that sell helmets.

In reality there are far greater chances of needing to take special measures to protect your head. Being in cars, playing a number of sports, doing stuff around the house and at many types of work. All these provide many more people to A&E than cycling.
Most of these do not factor in the wearing of a crash helmet as part of any campaign to reduce head injuries.

Yet there is pretty much no conclusive evidence that helmets actually provide any real benefit. There is as much for as there is against, and given that the impetus behind researching the positive claims lies with those making money out of it, I am surprised how much I have read that refutes their effectiveness.

Now when you think that "other people" think cycling is dangerous, because of all the helmet wearing and fluoro vests think (don't look anything up, just think about it) about how many people think of not cycling. They will say it isn't safe. Not based on any evidence, just an impression. They will stay in their cars, or on their buses, or at home, or they will walk. Their risk of having a head injury in all those activities will fluctuate,and they won't even consider wearing a helmet in any of them. Cycling sits in the middle of the range.
And by wearing a helmet you, yes YOU, are contributing to that problem.

Zing, it's all about perception.

I'll make it clear then.
Every time someone wears a helmet while cycling, and gets seen doing it, they reinforce the image that cycling is something dangerous. Same goes for fluorescent vests.

Look at the Skyride that required people to wear a helmet and an (optional I think) fluor vest that make it look like they're entering a dangerous junction;

So. Many. Poorly. Fitted. Helmets.

Charlie LCC, answer Jeez's questions!
When you got behind the wheel of that white Fiat Uno did you really think that killing Princess Di would encourage more people to cycle?
When you and your LCC colleagues sank the Rainbow Warrior did you actually not know that you would tar all cyclists with the terrorist brush? And if you did not did you also not realise that you were being a dick?
Had JFK been wearing a helmet do you not think that he would possibly be alive today? Note I say 'possibly'. Is it not possible that there is the possibility? Or are you once again spouting anti-helmet bullshit? Is that the view from the grassy knoll Charlie? Well, is it?

Maybe you can answer this then. Do you -

(1) Not give a shit about whether people misunderstand you
or
(2) Enjoy being a fucking coward who is not prepared to post his opinion
or
(3) Just want people to assume the worst of you int he absence of anything else.

You think that helmet wearers are part of the problem and that makes you a bit of a dick IMHO. If you don't think this then you are an even bigger dick for not making it clear and allowing your words to be misinterpreted because they imply something you don't mean.

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez

I'm really sorry you have a problem mis-understanding me.

In my opinion Ed is absolutely right "it's all about perception".

PS - at night in dark country roads and quiet towns where street lighting is poor I really do think it is insane not to be wearing fluorescent

This annoys me every time somebody says it, but you're annoying enough on your own for me to point it out.

At night, fluorescent is useless until cars start being fitted with UV lights. What you need is retroreflective.

What is the point of posting on a thread when you are not prepared to say what your opinion is?
What kind of reply do you expect if you call me a dick?

Fluro escalation.

10 years ago if you wore a reflective Sam Brown you were the most obvious cyclist on the road. Today entry level is a motorway worker's gherkin. In ten years time everyone will will be in fluro onesies with matching helmets and overshoes.

I once had a driver nearly knock me off and say it was my fault for not wearing high vis. I have sympathy for him. It's the fluro nodder's fault he's been conditioned that way.

If you were on a pitch-black country road at 2am he may have a bit of a point .

No he doesn't (assuming he have a light).

fluro onesies

forum group buy anyone?

^ do you have facts to back all that up?

Of course he does.

I take it you have never driven down a pitch black country road late at night. Visibility is an absolute nightmare and anyone with any sense at all will do their utmost to be seen. Lights are obviously a legal requirement but retroreflective is fucking sensible too (unless of course you are someone refusing to wear it as a rational response to the relative value of your own life.)

I am loving your troll, seriously I felt like a complete amateur in comparison to you and the now second place Lynchman.

^ do you have facts to back all that up?

There are three things that I believe are fairly established. Can anybody sensibly argue that the following are not true?

1) It has been established that wearing a bicycle helmet *may *reduce the risk of *some *head injuries in *some *circumstances.

2) Wearing high visibility or bright clothing means that more light is reflected from your clothing which means that there is a *possibility *that you *may *be more visible to other people in *some *circumstances.

If these points are fair statements then surely by wearing bright clothes and a helmet you are marginally reducing the risk to yourself in a very limited number of circumstances?

^ And by logical progression there is a possibility that wearing bright clothes and a helmet reduces your possibility of personal injury in some circumstances.

A more serious response is no - it is based on extensive trolling and experience. It is absolutely fine to form opinions based on extensive trolling and experience - but when it comes to imposing the £20 bottom bracket labour charges on others (eg as a politician) you really need the evidence to back it up. Likewise you must be prepared to alter your opinions based on troll and experience if the evidence contradicts it.

ftfy.