probably been done before but....... helmets? yes or no?

[marin man]

I think the funniest health and safety tripe is when you see surveyors walking round on a building site with their white helmets on and nothing has even been bloody built yet the surveyors are the highest things for miles


Also the "I have been fitting fire alarms for years and they gave me the wrong ladder and it slipped"Doh,if you have been doing it for years should you not know better and refuse to use the ladder :roll: dimwit or what :roll:

 

[Xesh]

I always wear a helmet on the bike whether on or off road.

My dad was once knocked off his bike by some idiot and went to hospital to be checked over. Luckily he just had some cuts and bruises and a really bad headache. When he got home I saw a hole in his helmet around the temple area. He also had a cut on his head in the same place! If he hadn't been wearing the helmet at the time the hole would have been in his head....

 

[FluffyChicken]

show me a helmet that'll fit my 63cm frankenhead, and ill buy it.

till that day, my head rides n*ked.

honestly, think of a person with a silly hat on. multiply by 7.5, and youre knowhere near how daft I look with a lid perched on top of my bonce.

''not as daft as with your head cracked open and brains dribbling out'' I hear you say...

While I don't currently wear a helmet I've been trying on a lot and even within the same brand the fit can be quite different and you have to try from £20 to £100

But you're on the top end of Giro's Large helmets at least for the Phase / The Hex models 63mm is max so should be fine, try all the style on.


But MET do specific large head models
Testagrossa & Predator 61-64cm
http://www.met-helmets.com/home.jsp?idrub=10639
http://www.met-helmets.com/home.jsp?idrub=10640 which looks be the same as the popular Velino model

 

[kaytronika]

Venti was £30
Fits up to 65cm head.

Any bigger than that and you're probably better wearing a wok with some padding in it

 

[xerxes]

I have a Bell Variant, large fits up to 63cm. It seems to sit more over the head than others, rather than on top of it, for me anyway and is available in plain matt black.

 

[jamabikes]

where mine on road cos the missus makes me! off road i have always worn one for the low flying branches.

have had a few(too many) knocks to the head and helmets have helped, but more for the abrasion injuries than impact.

also it helps the paramedics, as most of your skull and brains should be in one place. less to clean up.

 

[Xesh]

.........But MET do specific large head models
Testagrossa & Predator 61-64cm.......

Specialized do the Max which fits 56-64cm.

 

[Marmite King]

Always wear a helmet on the bike............on road and off road.

Came a cropper back in my late teens on a 10 mill TT and gashed the front and side of my head, have worn one since.

 

[kaytronika]

Specialized do the Max which fits 56-64cm.

I love how sensitive to the needs of the larger headed rider they were when they named that.

'Giro HUGE Head'
'Bell Grapefruit on a Toothpick'
'Met Stonking Great Noggin'

 

[Malicious Afterthought]

I choose not to wear one but am a little concerned that the courts deem them necessary when dealing with accidents despite them not being a legal requirement.

A forum member advised a few of us that they are worth 30% more in any compensation claim.

I dunno about the 30% thing. Anyway, I'll copypaste from the other thread:

Recently, I read of a court case where a cyclist was waiting on the road to turn right (so was in the middle) and got skittled by a car. He died after suffering horrific head injuries, but there was something in the judgement that seemed to indicate that if he had survived being hit by the car (if the car didn't hit him quite as hard), his not wearing a helmet would be a factor in his injuries, thus contributory negligence on his behalf.

So it would seem the law seems to think you should.

I'll see if I can dig out the actual text later.

Found it! Although it was a motorbike and not a car.

Smith (a person under a disability proceeding by his wife and litigation friend Smith) v Finch [2009] EWHC 53 (QB)

It matters not that there is no legal compulsion for cyclists to wear helmets and so a cyclist is free to choose whether or not to wear one because there can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury; such a failure would not be “a sensible thing to do” and so, subject to issues of causation, any injury sustained may be the cyclist's own fault and “he has only himself to thank for the consequences". I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the cyclist who does not wear a helmet runs the risk of contributing to his/her injuries.

I think the take home message from that should be "If you're not wearing a helmet, and we happen to think that, on balance, a helmet would have prevented you from suffering head injuries, then you're not getting any sympathy from us".

So, basically, if one were to go over a car bonnet, or even a log on a bridleway going over someone's land, and end up breaking an arm and a leg and suffering brain damage, having a helmet on is probably better for one's longer term fiscal arrangements as regards care, than not.

In the event of coming off a bike whilst one is not wearing a helmet, then it appears to me that the court will see that one is at fault for not wearing one. As a result, by not wearing one, you have contributed to your own injuries and damages that could be awarded to you will be adjusted as a result.

So, basically, what they are saying is this: Don't wear a helmet if you don't want to, but, if something does happen to you, and you aren't, we'll take that into account in court, as we think it is a silly idea not to.

So, you are still free to choose, which I think is what most people want, but those that choose not to run the risk being found at fault for not doing so.