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

A helmet wouldn't have helped this guy, doesn't help 90% of accidents, there's no proof it helps with the other 10%, may cause 10% more rotational neck injuries, makes me sweat so much I can't see through the salt running down my face, either causes wind restance or limits movement depending on cycling position, causes drivers to drive closer to you, rapes children, causes global warming and lines the pockets of fat cat executives making money out of people's fears.

And to top it all, it doesn't even look cool.

They can fuck right off.

And worst of all is they are the main cause of dull overly long threads about legal issues on this forum.

Oh and if I hear (or read) another sactamonious twat saying, "I fell off and my helmet broke into a million peices... imagine if that had been my head..." if you think that logic follows or is proof of anything other than how soft polystyrene is you deserve to have your head broken.

I fell of my bike yeterday and broke my phone... lucky it was there really because if it hadn't been I would be having hip replacement surgery right now...

Oh and comparisions with brakes are flawed by the fact brakes are a requirement and helmets are a recomendation.

Read this: http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/files/fullbrook.pdf

The key message from this paper, and the thing to be wary of if you are in an accident is the other party automatically trying to reduce any compensation due to you because you were not wearing a helmet. If you have not suffered any head injuries, then there is no case for contributory negligence related to the wearing, or not, of a helmet. If you have suffered head injuries and were not wearing a helmet, then the arguments start as to whether a helmet would have reduced the severity of the injuries you sustained. If the answer to that is yes (very difficult to prove, but there you go) then you can expect to have any compensation reduced by up to 25% as a result.

It ain't that difficult to understand. As others have said, it's about taking responsibility for your choices and actions and being aware of your rights.

Certain parties have been interested in finding ways of reducing compensation for cyclists who don't wear helmets for years. This judgement may well have a legal follow-up and prove useful in the end. Too early to call.

I find this bit quite important

Helmet expert Dr Bryan Chinn examined Mr Smith's helmet, which was about 20 years old, and told the court that neither that model nor a more modern one would have prevented Mr Smith's injuries because he hit the ground in excess of 12mph. He said the scalloped shape of most modern helmets would not have prevented Mr Smith's injuries, given the location of the impact on the back of his head.

so helmets are ineffective over 12mph... wow that's useful. Most people cycle above that speed I would assume.

I got hit a few years back (in hosptial for 2 nights) smashed up finger which still doesn't bend more than 30 degrees (after 3 operations)
I was happy with the compensation I received but would rather have a fully working index finger back.

Why should my compensation have been less because I wasn't wearing a helmet? My head was totally unscathed.

EDIT - scrap that, just read AdamMs comment!

I find this bit quite important. So helmets are ineffective over 12mph... wow that's useful. Most people cycle above that speed I would assume.

If you are doing 20mph and have time to brake a bit, then impacting at under 12mph is quite probable, I would have thought.

If there is a car involved, then the chances of the impact being over 12 mph are probably quite high, I would have thought.

Many people cite different reasons, for some people undoubtedly fashion is the reason, other reasons may be :

comfort,
convenience,
** studies showing worse behavior of driver towards cyclist wearing helmets,**
believe that while a helmet may offer some protection in some accidents the chances are very small, i.e the same reason people don't wear a helmet walking or running.
freedom

the bold part fucking pissed me off so much, I end up riding without a helmet and the behaviour of certain drivers are noticeable wary of me, but not enough, so I went one step further and got a decent 2nd hand messenger bag, paint "DEAF" in large helvetica, and bingo.

work better than fucking helmet.

another thing work better is the number of cyclists; the more cyclists on a road, the safer it is (i.e. vehicle drivers are actually more aware of cyclists when they pass some every couple of second).

Muhahahaha, I have created a monster!:D

If you are doing 20mph and have time to brake a bit, then impacting at under 12mph is quite probable, I would have thought.

If there is a car involved, then the chances of the impact being over 12 mph are probably quite high, I would have thought.

if something hits you the chances are it'll be over 12mph due to combined speeds etc...

it all depends on how the head hits something I guess... if the head hits the floor there is also the falling speed and acceleration of the head to consider as well.. how the fuck they calculate that I don't know... finger in the air job I reckon

Man people get really angry when they just think about about putting a helmet on! I never wore one because I think they look ugly, but now I'm old (27) and frail I find falling off really hurts.
I fall off my bike lots (so I wear a helmet) cos I'm really clumsy and if its a choice between checking out a girl/bike/motorbike on the other side of the street or straight ahead, I'll invariably cycle into the kerb or a parked car!
I'd like some knee pads too but I can't afford any yet.

if something hits you the chances are it'll be over 12mph due to combined speeds etc...

it all depends on how the head hits something I guess... if the head hits the floor there is also the falling speed and acceleration of the head to consider as well.. how the fuck they calculate that I don't know... finger in the air job I reckon

Was a rough as fook guess on my part.

But then I have spent this winter falling off my bike and hitting my head alot, so my calculations might not be up to much.

27 is old?? don't kid yourself, once you turn 35, you'd says the same thing, 40, ditto, 45, again, 55, again, until you finally reach 60+ is when you finally realised you're actually old.

probably weird coming from a 23 years old but I used to have a girlfriend who's 15 years older than me once.

27 is old?? don't kid yourself, once you turn 35, you'd says the same thing, 40, ditto, 45, again, 55, again, until you finally reach 60+ is when you finally realised you're actually old.

probably weird coming from a 23 years old but I used to have a girlfriend who's 15 years older than me once.

Hey man, your as old as you feel, and my knees feel baaad.

[s]Lots of polymers dissolve very easily in certain solvents. For example, if you place a polystyrene coffee/tea cup into a petri dish with a thin layer of acetone (I think) the whole thing just sinks in and totally disappears into a goo.

A similar thing will happen, but obviously not to the same extent, if the adhesives contain anything that will react with the surface of the helmet.

I don't know anything specific, but the stickers that come with the helmet are going to be made with an adhesive that won't react, or that does react but the rate of reaction is so slow that the helmet will be knackered before the consequences of the reaction are noticeable.

I thought if you got polystyrene balls and put them in a bucket of petrol they dissolved, and if you kept doing it till no more would dissolve the petrol/polystrene mix would be thick and sticky. And you would have made napalm.

The difference is that there is not an equivalent instruction in the Highway Code (or elsewhere) suggesting that pedestrians should wear helmets, nor is it common practice for pedestrians to do so.

It's not an instruction, it's a recommendation. The only time, by law, that you have to obey the highway code is when it says 'must'

The key message from this paper, and the thing to be wary of if you are in an accident is the other party automatically trying to reduce any compensation due to you because you were not wearing a helmet. If you have not suffered any head injuries, then there is no case for contributory negligence related to the wearing, or not, of a helmet.

You're right, it's not hard to understand, but it is bullshit. There is no law that says you have to ride with a helmet, so the point is moot.

Being flippant for a moment, YouTube - Troy Hurtubise: Project Grizzly
would almost certainly prevent you from most injuries sustained in contact with a car. Can the fact that you weren't wearing one point towards contributory negligence?

So if someone carelessly knocks me off my bike and I proceed to accidentally wrap my bike around their head, can I get off with a slapped wrist claiming that their lack of a full-face helmet is contributory negligence?

It's not an instruction, it's a recommendation. The only time, by law, that you have to obey the highway code is when it says 'must'

"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."

"You should wear a helmet."

I'm not expressing an opinion, just clarifying the facts.

So if someone carelessly knocks me off my bike and I proceed to accidentally wrap my bike around their head, can I get off with a slapped wrist claiming that their lack of a full-face helmet is contributory negligence?

I'm sure there would be plenty of lawyers out there ready to assist, on a no-win no fees basis of course. ;)

And plenty of daft judges willing to listen..

That video. lol!

It's not an instruction, it's a recommendation. The only time, by law, that you have to obey the highway code is when it says 'must'

Sano, my bad, I used 'instruction' when I should have used 'recommendation' or 'suggestion'.

Although see Fred's quote from the Highway Code as well regard should/should not...

"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."

"You should wear a helmet."

I'm not expressing an opinion, just clarifying the facts.

With all due respect, no facts are being clarified by that statement! I'm not sure exactly where it was taken from, but the use of the expression 'other rules of the code' suggests, it's not complete. As it is, I read that as

'Ignoring the Highway Code is not enough to get you done. However, depending on how we feel about it, we may or may not use vague guidelines contained within the Highway Code in an attempt to determine whether an incident is your fault'

I'm not sure why I'm being argumentative this afternoon.

Also see the Contributory Negligence stuff here:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1001.html#C

In the interests of clarifying the facts, "may be used " is the operative phrase. It's a suggestion, and neither legislated nor the result of higher court decisions.

The upshot being that counsel may point to highway code's recommendation, and this may have a material impact on the outcome of any decision, but it ultimately comes down to the opinion of some out of touch fella (or laydee) in a silly wig.

In practice, it does often get used, so worth taking seriously. There is certainly advice in the HC that is highly questionable. It is, after all, published by the Driving Standards Agency. A draft of the new HC two years or so ago even wanted to make the use of cycle facilities compulsory. A big campaign by the CTC eventually saw that one off, but it was incredibly hard work. There is still stuff in it that simply needs to come out of it, and a lot of omissions.

With all due respect, no facts are being clarified by that statement! I'm not sure exactly where it was taken from, but the use of the expression 'other rules of the code' suggests, it's not complete.

That's the problem with a quote taken out of context. If we include the previous paragraph of the introduction to the Highway Code, it becomes clear that the 'other rules of the code' are those which are not legal requirements (that is, those rules which do not involve 'must' or 'must not'):

*Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.*
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.