Helmets - Personal Experience



On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 11:49:41 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 10:44:07 +0000 (UTC), "Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
><[email protected]>:
>
>>if they need a helmet for this they certainly need one for using, or even being near, playground
>>appartus.
>
>Or not. A number of children have been strangled by helmet straps on playground equipment.
>Dangerous things, helmets.

A small child playing with its bike in the park will now be expected to put the helmet on and do up
the straps every time it gets on the bike, and take it off again every time it gets off. Two or
three days of that will put it off cycling for life.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain
 
> > so I don't know why so many are so fervently anti-cycling helmet.
>
> That's not true. Most seem to be anti-compulsion.
>
> > I think to deny the potential benefits of a GOOD QUALITY (shouting deliberate) helmet is
> > ridiculous.
>
> So did your GOOD QUALITY helmet prevent he accidents you were involved in?
>
> Choose an answer:
> a) No
> b) No
> c) No
>
> John B

John B! you should be ashamed of yourself. Confusing a helmet zealot with choice. Naughty.
 
In message <[email protected]>, Peter B
<[email protected]> wrote:

> This is not quite the same as making the wearing of helmets for minors compulsory, most of their
> cycling is more a form of play and if they need a helmet for this they certainly need one for
> using, or even being near, playground appartus.

One unfortunate girl, who attended my primary school, did have to wear have to wear a helmet for
walking, as she fell over frequently. She is unique in my experience.

She would have no chance at riding a solo bicycle (without stabilisers).

--
Member AFFS, WYLUG, SWP (UK), ANL, Leeds SA, Leeds Anti-war coalition OpenPGP key fingerprint: D0A6
F403 9745 CED4 6B3B 94CC 8D74 8FC9 9F7F CFE4 No to software patents! No to DRM/EUCD - hands off our
computers!
 
Zog The Undeniable wrote:

> Out of interest, is a £99 Giro helmet any more *protective* than a £20 Giro helmet?

I doubt it. Possibly even the reverse. The Giro Pneumo is a hell of a lot lighter than, for example,
the Specialized King Cobra I normally use, even before attaching lights to the latter.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
> I doubt it. Possibly even the reverse. The Giro Pneumo is a hell of a
lot
> lighter than, for example, the Specialized King Cobra I normally use, even before attaching lights
> to the latter.

Which lights & attaching mechanism do you use? I'm looking for a helmet light & would appreciate any
recommendations.

Ta

Mark
 
"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Which lights & attaching mechanism do you use? I'm looking for a helmet light & would appreciate
> any recommendations.

Petzl make the One True Headtorch.

I use a Petzl Zoom Zora Belt (with separate battery pack so's not toi have the weight of the
batteries on me bonce). A set of 4 C cells lasts an improbably long time. I did add a plug and
socket to the cable.

Thinks: this is mad, really. All that clutter on the lid is further eroding its alleged protective
effect. Mind, I ride a Proper Bike (TM) so am unlikely to go cranium-first into anything in
particular.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
 
> I use a Petzl Zoom Zora Belt (with separate battery pack so's not toi have the weight of the
> batteries on me bonce). A set of 4 C cells lasts an improbably long time. I did add a plug and
> socket to the cable.

And it attaches to your bike helmet OK?

Mark
 
"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > I use a Petzl Zoom Zora Belt (with separate battery pack so's not toi
have
> > the weight of the batteries on me bonce). A set of 4 C cells lasts an improbably long time. I
> > did add a plug and socket to the cable.

> And it attaches to your bike helmet OK?

Ah, well, that required a small amount of ingenuity. I removed the elastic straps and used some
Velcro computer cable straps to attach it. Some use zipties, but the Velcro straps work perfectly
well and are easier to remove. I also have a Velcro pad on the base of it which hooks onto the pads
which also attach my visor.

Someone once described my bike as "impossibly cluttered" (yes, Arrelcat, I maen you <g>) - I am
begininng to think my plastic hat might fall into the same category!

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
 
Mark wrote:

> Which lights & attaching mechanism do you use? I'm looking for a helmet light & would appreciate
> any recommendations.

Rear is a Cateye LD500 attached using the belt clip and a velcro strap which crawled out of a box in
the shed. Front is a Cateye EL400.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Petzl make the One True Headtorch.

Though this was true for many moons it is no longer the case. Things like the Lucidos and Black
Diamonds are viable alternatives. And Petzl now make quite a range. I hardly ever use my Zoom any
more (but I've never liked them much on a bike in any case, as I don't like the light to be directed
where I'm looking when I'm looking over my shoulder.

IIRC Lumicycle's ads now feature blinding headlamps.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> I hardly ever use my Zoom any more (but I've never liked them much on a bike in any case, as I
> don't like the light to be directed where I'm looking when I'm looking over my shoulder.

Heh! I want the light of the headtorch to be directed wherever I point my head - that's what
I paid for!

(yes, yes, I know)

I have Proper Bike [TM] so looking over the shoulder is a rare ocurrence. I have a Mountain Mirrycle
on the end of one handlebar. Rare as hens' teeth at the moment, apparently, but very much better
than the original one I tried which was made of spaghetti and cheese.

Having said which, I also use it on the wedgie. The Zoom is particularly good because you can adjust
the beam width on the fly (yes, yes, I know that's why it's called the Zoom). It is markedly better
than the less well focused 5W VistaLite Lightstick headtorch I bought by mistake a while back.

> IIRC Lumicycle's ads now feature blinding headlamps.

If I were buying rechargeables now I would almost certainly go with Lumicycles. They seem to be
way out in front at the moment. But I lack the powers of organisation to keep the batteries
charged so for my daily trog along the Dark Places of Oxfordshire I am lit by the Awesome Power of
SON on the 'bent and the Slightly Less Awesome But Particularly Good Value For Money Power of
Nexus on the wedgie.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>I have Proper Bike [TM] so looking over the shoulder is a rare ocurrence. I have a Mountain
>Mirrycle on the end of one handlebar.

I have mirrors on my upright bike and on my car. With both of them, looking over the shoulder is
still a frequent occurrence (less frequent than on a bike without a mirror, yes, but not rare). At
various times I have looked over my shoulder and seen a vehicle that wasn't visible in the mirrors.
Is visibility riding a Proper Bike really that much better?

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/14.shtml http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.shtml
 
Alan Braggins wrote:

> I have mirrors on my upright bike and on my car. With both of them, looking over the shoulder is
> still a frequent occurrence (less frequent than on a bike without a mirror, yes, but not rare). At
> various times I have looked over my shoulder and seen a vehicle that wasn't visible in the
> mirrors. Is visibility riding a Proper Bike really that much better?

Vision behind generally a bit worse IMHO, but not to the point of worryingly so, at least on the
ones I've used. I have a mirror on the Streetmachine, but I still only use it in lieu of looking
over my shoulder when I can already see something in it. In other words, I assume it might give a
false negative, so will double check if the mirror says it's clear, but it won't give a false
positive: if it tells me there's a bus there I can safely assume there really is a bus there without
looking directly.

OTOH vision looking forwards is generally better, somewhat contrary to most expectations. Unless
you're on the sort of upright with an unfashionably sit up and beg riding position there's a
tendency for your default field of view to be the road just in front of the front wheel. On the
'bent my default view is where I'm actually going.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >I have Proper Bike [TM] so looking over the shoulder is a rare
ocurrence.
> >I have a Mountain Mirrycle on the end of one handlebar.

> I have mirrors on my upright bike and on my car. With both of them, looking over the shoulder is
> still a frequent occurrence (less frequent than on a bike without a mirror, yes, but not rare). At
> various times I have looked over my shoulder and seen a vehicle that wasn't visible in the
> mirrors. Is visibility riding a Proper Bike really that much better?

Riding along the A4155 from Henley to Reading, I like to know what's approaching from behind. On the
wedgie that means frequent checks over the shoulder. On the 'bent it means mirror checks. Moving the
head is generally only required for traffic manoeuvres and while someone is passing. Looking over
the shoulder is virtually impossible, but I can get a fair view backwards by turning my head.
Junctions with acute angles are the worst problem.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Or not. A number of children have been strangled by helmet straps on playground equipment.
> Dangerous things, helmets.

Bloody negative attitude! Easily remedied by removing the straps and then glueing, or if the child
has a high pain threshold screwing, the helmet on.
--
Regards, Pete
 
"Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Bloody negative attitude! Easily remedied by removing the straps and then glueing, or if the child
has
> a high pain threshold screwing, the helmet on.

Sorry, Pete, you're right of course.

I've been reading that newer high density foams are better than polystyrene because they don't
suffer brittle failure. They are heavier and more expensive of course - but think of the children!
<url:http://www.thinkofthechildren.co.uk>

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
 
Alan Braggins wrote:
>
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >
> >I have Proper Bike [TM] so looking over the shoulder is a rare ocurrence. I have a Mountain
> >Mirrycle on the end of one handlebar.
>
> I have mirrors on my upright bike and on my car. With both of them, looking over the shoulder is
> still a frequent occurrence (less frequent than on a bike without a mirror, yes, but not rare). At
> various times I have looked over my shoulder and seen a vehicle that wasn't visible in the
> mirrors. Is visibility riding a Proper Bike really that much better?
>
> http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/14.shtml http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/15.shtml

I feel you are right and it is one drawback of the darkside <scrubs keyboard with carbolic>. Looking
behind on my trice is sometimes quite difficult, and the mirrors are a great help, but I wouldn't
_ever_ rely on them.

John B
 
"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> writes:

> Zog The Undeniable wrote:
>
> > Out of interest, is a £99 Giro helmet any more *protective* than a £20 Giro helmet?
>
> I doubt it. Possibly even the reverse. The Giro Pneumo is a hell of a lot lighter than, for
> example, the Specialized King Cobra I normally use, even before attaching lights to the latter.

The Giro Switchblade (if you can get one - I gather they're no longer being imported) is a bit more
protective than a £20 Giro helmet, simply because it has some degree of protection for the face. If
I'm right and the Switchblade is no more, then the only helmet available which is both ventilated
enough for vigorous riding and offers any degree of face protection is the Met Parachute, like mine.

Given that in a fair proprtion of over the bars accidents the cyclist lands at least mostly on their
face, I'm surprised they're o rare. Mind you, the face guard on mine is quite light and made from a
plastic which is hard and which I consequently fear may be brittle, so how much real face protection
it would give you I don't particularly want to test.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; of 90+ years of protection, but a cure for cancer, only 14? -- user 'Tackhead', in /.
discussion of copyright law, 22/05/02
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> If I were buying rechargeables now I would almost certainly go with Lumicycles. They seem to be
> way out in front at the moment.

Well, I wouldn't. We have one set of Lumis in the household (mine) and one set of Fireballs
(Juliette's), and the Fireballs are just infinitely better thought through.

The cable attachment on the Fireball lights is a shrouded bayonet clip. On the Lumis it's just a
plug. Rattling down a rough piece of track in the dark the Lumi plugs tend to vibrate loose, so the
lights go out suddenly, which isn't at all clever a thirty miles an hour down a rough track in the
dark. Of course they do tend to go out one at a time, and a sensible person would have stopped when
the first one went...

The lamp enclusure on the Fireball is nicely shaped in anodised aluminium; that on the Lumi, just a
black aluminium can.

The nice cam-lever handlebar attachments are an optional extra on the Lumis, they're standard on the
Fireballs.

The Fireball bottle-cage battery pack enclosure is a very nicely made two-piece aluminium affair,
with a proper marine-type water-tight cable gland. The battery inside is modular and can be
unplugged.

The Lumi equivalent is an adapted cheap plastic water bottle. There's no gland, and while the cable
is a tight fit in its hole it is possible to envisage water ingress. The battery is assembled into
the bottle by some crafty process and can't easily be removed.

In summary the Fireball lights are a lot better manufactured; they look like a finished product,
whereas Lumicycles look like a prototype.

Apart from the plug issue there's nothing actually wrong with the Lumis, they work very well; and
the service you get from the company is very good indeed. But there's no doubt in my mind that the
Fireball lights are both better value for money and just better, so in my opinion Lumicycle need to
raise their game.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; of 90+ years of protection, but a cure for cancer, only 14? -- user 'Tackhead', in /.
discussion of copyright law, 22/05/02
 
Peter B wrote:

> Bloody negative attitude! Easily remedied by removing the straps and then glueing, or if the child
> has a high pain threshold screwing, the helmet on.

"Long long ago, when Leonard Cohen was the Canadian ambassador to the court of Ivan the Terrible, he
declined to observe the Tsar's law that all should doff their hats in his presence. Ivan thus
decreed that Cohen should never be able to remove his hat again, and had it secured in place with a
four-inch nail. On his return to Canada, Cohen had the hat surgically removed, but the nail proved
impossible to get out. Hence 'Recent Songs'"

Paraphrased from "Sounds" review, 1979.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Boris on helmets by choice
Replies
4
Views
928
UK and Europe
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
I
Walking Helmets Anyone?
Replies
0
Views
475
UK and Europe
iarocu
I
M
Walking Helmets (obviously mildly OT)
Replies
0
Views
408
UK and Europe
Mark T
M
T
Police joggers in cycle helmets!?
Replies
18
Views
619
UK and Europe
Tom Crispin
T
A
Helmets - Brussels adds to the debate
Replies
64
Views
1K
UK and Europe
burtthebike
B
Top Bottom Back