Safety gear and cycling?
Discussion
I'll prefix this by saying I'm a motorbiker, but not evil. Pretty much all of my friends/colleagues are cyclists, and whilst in city/town conditions they seem equally as prone to numpties in cars/vans driving over them as to me.
Is there much worthwhile safety gear for cyclists?
It seems a little odd to me that motorbikers gear is all primarily designed for safety, there is a huge focus on the safety of the helmet, the protection the boot gives fro a side/front/rear hit, the impact on your back from a rear hit, padding on elbows, knees, protection on hands for knuckle hits and scrapes, etc etc...
on the other hand cyclists seem to wear less protection than the average swimmer. I do get that cyclists are actually working hard, but the lack of safety ear really does surprise me. When a 50cc scooterist whines past at 20mph in a t-shirt you hear plenty of 'retard' comments, but when you see a peleton of cyclists doing the same in spandex mankinis there is no reaction.
To me cycling helmets look pretty worthless, they will just be knocked backwards or forwards, and do nothing for an impact to the face, a spinal protector would be easy to sew into your cycling top and wouldn't stop movement, even in hot conditions elbow/knee protection wouldn't be too annoying, and the cycling gloves I see look like they would survive only a few inches sliding along asphalt before shredding your hands.
Is there much worthwhile safety gear for cyclists?
It seems a little odd to me that motorbikers gear is all primarily designed for safety, there is a huge focus on the safety of the helmet, the protection the boot gives fro a side/front/rear hit, the impact on your back from a rear hit, padding on elbows, knees, protection on hands for knuckle hits and scrapes, etc etc...
on the other hand cyclists seem to wear less protection than the average swimmer. I do get that cyclists are actually working hard, but the lack of safety ear really does surprise me. When a 50cc scooterist whines past at 20mph in a t-shirt you hear plenty of 'retard' comments, but when you see a peleton of cyclists doing the same in spandex mankinis there is no reaction.
To me cycling helmets look pretty worthless, they will just be knocked backwards or forwards, and do nothing for an impact to the face, a spinal protector would be easy to sew into your cycling top and wouldn't stop movement, even in hot conditions elbow/knee protection wouldn't be too annoying, and the cycling gloves I see look like they would survive only a few inches sliding along asphalt before shredding your hands.
Fair (and valid) point, on an MTB I tend to be reasonably well protected, but one on of my road bikes I have little more than a decent skid lid, and a pair of mitts - in fact I came off earlier this year at probably less than 8mph and tore my right knee to bits! Descending a hill out of Henley today I hit just over 45 mph - best not to think about what could happen, so I don't....in fact if you thought too hard about what could happen you would never get the bike out of the garage!
I try to make myself very visible on the road, I always ride with a very bright flashing light on the front and back of the bike, I have fluro shoes (which spin around at about 100 rpm) and try to make sure that my road placement on hazardous sections of road makes me instantly visible (although from time to time I could be considered a bit of a pain in the ass by short sighted motorists......) Despite my best efforts you cannot legislate for stupidity and I have been clipped, nearly hit, grazed etc more times than I can remember.
The main issue with 'proper' safety gear on a road bike is the bulk and tendency to rub. You will notice most cyclists will wear Lycra - not because they have a fetish or look good in it, but because it is close fitting and drastically reduces the tendency for clothing to rub and cause sores. Also, you tend to move about a bit in the saddle, occasionally standing for the odd hill or sprint, crouching on descents, upright on climbs - it would imagine it would be difficult and expensive to design protective clothing that would be flexible enough to meet the needs of most cyclists.
I try to make myself very visible on the road, I always ride with a very bright flashing light on the front and back of the bike, I have fluro shoes (which spin around at about 100 rpm) and try to make sure that my road placement on hazardous sections of road makes me instantly visible (although from time to time I could be considered a bit of a pain in the ass by short sighted motorists......) Despite my best efforts you cannot legislate for stupidity and I have been clipped, nearly hit, grazed etc more times than I can remember.
The main issue with 'proper' safety gear on a road bike is the bulk and tendency to rub. You will notice most cyclists will wear Lycra - not because they have a fetish or look good in it, but because it is close fitting and drastically reduces the tendency for clothing to rub and cause sores. Also, you tend to move about a bit in the saddle, occasionally standing for the odd hill or sprint, crouching on descents, upright on climbs - it would imagine it would be difficult and expensive to design protective clothing that would be flexible enough to meet the needs of most cyclists.
Edited by MadDad on Saturday 25th May 21:59
Efbe said:
I'll prefix this by saying I'm a motorbiker, but not evil. Pretty much all of my friends/colleagues are cyclists, and whilst in city/town conditions they seem equally as prone to numpties in cars/vans driving over them as to me.
Is there much worthwhile safety gear for cyclists?
It seems a little odd to me that motorbikers gear is all primarily designed for safety, there is a huge focus on the safety of the helmet, the protection the boot gives fro a side/front/rear hit, the impact on your back from a rear hit, padding on elbows, knees, protection on hands for knuckle hits and scrapes, etc etc...
on the other hand cyclists seem to wear less protection than the average swimmer. I do get that cyclists are actually working hard, but the lack of safety ear really does surprise me. When a 50cc scooterist whines past at 20mph in a t-shirt you hear plenty of 'retard' comments, but when you see a peleton of cyclists doing the same in spandex mankinis there is no reaction.
To me cycling helmets look pretty worthless, they will just be knocked backwards or forwards, and do nothing for an impact to the face, a spinal protector would be easy to sew into your cycling top and wouldn't stop movement, even in hot conditions elbow/knee protection wouldn't be too annoying, and the cycling gloves I see look like they would survive only a few inches sliding along asphalt before shredding your hands.
Weight, heat and movement.Is there much worthwhile safety gear for cyclists?
It seems a little odd to me that motorbikers gear is all primarily designed for safety, there is a huge focus on the safety of the helmet, the protection the boot gives fro a side/front/rear hit, the impact on your back from a rear hit, padding on elbows, knees, protection on hands for knuckle hits and scrapes, etc etc...
on the other hand cyclists seem to wear less protection than the average swimmer. I do get that cyclists are actually working hard, but the lack of safety ear really does surprise me. When a 50cc scooterist whines past at 20mph in a t-shirt you hear plenty of 'retard' comments, but when you see a peleton of cyclists doing the same in spandex mankinis there is no reaction.
To me cycling helmets look pretty worthless, they will just be knocked backwards or forwards, and do nothing for an impact to the face, a spinal protector would be easy to sew into your cycling top and wouldn't stop movement, even in hot conditions elbow/knee protection wouldn't be too annoying, and the cycling gloves I see look like they would survive only a few inches sliding along asphalt before shredding your hands.
At sixth form college I took karate classes which, at one point, involved the use of light body armour - supposedly just heavy enough to prevent injury (as much for the "attacker"'s hands as for you) but still leave you in no doubt you'd been hit. (Incidentally, if you ever were interested in a more hands-on approach to martial arts, I'd recommend finding an instructor who uses or at least allows these... or just take up boxing).
After five minutes, the rush of cold air after removing it was practically orgasmic. I'm not really sure what would happen after an hour, but imagine a single water bottle probably wouldn't suffice.
It does semi-concern me that everyone seems keen to extoll how wonderful even a cheap helmet is... and then buy a £100 helmet that conforms to the exact same specification. If you're that keen, you'd want the best protection that could be offered, no? Or do people really think there's no way to improve on the protective ability of a cheap lump of expanded polystyrene? Manufacturers are very keen to roll out weight or wind tunnel data to prove their new whatever is more aero, but there's no serious effort to develop a test that would allow better differentiation of protective ability. Maybe the odd buzzword rolled out but that's it.
Far too many people seem to forget that the best safety gear is the stuff inside your skull, not outside. Work on improving that first.
Edit: huh, by pure coincidence this just popped up and is far more interesting to read: http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/
After five minutes, the rush of cold air after removing it was practically orgasmic. I'm not really sure what would happen after an hour, but imagine a single water bottle probably wouldn't suffice.
It does semi-concern me that everyone seems keen to extoll how wonderful even a cheap helmet is... and then buy a £100 helmet that conforms to the exact same specification. If you're that keen, you'd want the best protection that could be offered, no? Or do people really think there's no way to improve on the protective ability of a cheap lump of expanded polystyrene? Manufacturers are very keen to roll out weight or wind tunnel data to prove their new whatever is more aero, but there's no serious effort to develop a test that would allow better differentiation of protective ability. Maybe the odd buzzword rolled out but that's it.
Far too many people seem to forget that the best safety gear is the stuff inside your skull, not outside. Work on improving that first.
Edit: huh, by pure coincidence this just popped up and is far more interesting to read: http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/
Edited by paranoid airbag on Sunday 26th May 12:31
garrykiller said:
I think it's a fantastic point, but I wouldn't want to be cycling 100k in full leathers and a full face helmet. Too much weight.
Not to mention heat! DH'ing in the Alps with body armour and a full-face lid, in 30ºC heat was utterly horrendous after less than 1hr. And that's with minimal pedalling! 4 hours at 100rpm on a road bike in similar attire doesn't bear thinking about.As a regular cyclist and 'all the gear, all the time' motorcyclist, yes.. the same has occurred to me, usually after a particularly speedy descent in lycra.. Here's my take:
1) The scooterist isn't doing 20mph, even 50cc machines do 30, (and apparently do that everywhere..); 30mph is more than twice the kinetic energy of 20 (KE proportional to Vsquared) - so you're going to slide twice as far, even from the lowly scoot.
2) Cycles do achieve some pretty decent speeds on occasion, BUT for short durations. On average, speeds are nearer the 20mph kind of range, and that's for pretty well trained folks - less for the average non-competitive types. Motorbikes on the other hand sometimes go as slow as that, but spend most of their time at higher speeds. 70mph = over 12 times the energy you'd have at 20.
3) When you fall off a cycle, you aren't likely find yourself with 200kg of metal sitting on your leg as you slide along.
Yes, you can still kill yourself falling off a cycle without being hit by a car, it does happen. However, I don't personally feel that cycles/motorbikes are as similar / parallel as they might first appear.
1) The scooterist isn't doing 20mph, even 50cc machines do 30, (and apparently do that everywhere..); 30mph is more than twice the kinetic energy of 20 (KE proportional to Vsquared) - so you're going to slide twice as far, even from the lowly scoot.
2) Cycles do achieve some pretty decent speeds on occasion, BUT for short durations. On average, speeds are nearer the 20mph kind of range, and that's for pretty well trained folks - less for the average non-competitive types. Motorbikes on the other hand sometimes go as slow as that, but spend most of their time at higher speeds. 70mph = over 12 times the energy you'd have at 20.
3) When you fall off a cycle, you aren't likely find yourself with 200kg of metal sitting on your leg as you slide along.
Yes, you can still kill yourself falling off a cycle without being hit by a car, it does happen. However, I don't personally feel that cycles/motorbikes are as similar / parallel as they might first appear.
They're not essential though, are they? In the first 90 years or so before current polystyrene existed, the TdF suffered 3 deaths. One of which was a combination of drugs and heat. That's pretty good relative to motorsport. And WW's didn't help him in the giro did it? And, as has been made countless times, probably the safest and most enjoyable country in the western world for utility cycling is one where helmets are rare.
I really don't get this hard-on for hard hats. Has anyone EVER said "I would be too scared to cycle but luckily helmets exist"? Would anyone give up if they didn't? I doubt it. There nice and probably help at least some of the time, but they are NOT revolutionary.
If I had to nominate an important development it would be the combination of LED lighting and Li-ion batteries - which DO allow me to undertake journeys that would otherwise be prohibitively dangerous.
I really don't get this hard-on for hard hats. Has anyone EVER said "I would be too scared to cycle but luckily helmets exist"? Would anyone give up if they didn't? I doubt it. There nice and probably help at least some of the time, but they are NOT revolutionary.
If I had to nominate an important development it would be the combination of LED lighting and Li-ion batteries - which DO allow me to undertake journeys that would otherwise be prohibitively dangerous.
paranoid airbag said:
I really don't get this hard-on for hard hats. Has anyone EVER said "I would be too scared to cycle but luckily helmets exist"? Would anyone give up if they didn't? I doubt it. There nice and probably help at least some of the time, but they are NOT revolutionary.
Equally, I don't get why every time there's a thread that mentions safety anywhere, someone has to pop up with an anti-helmet rant.It's quite simple - minimally inconvenient, reasonably effective, therefore common sense. Nothing's proof against everything, even seatbelts can sometimes do more harm than good, but there ya go.
(and that will be my only comment on the subject - arguing the anti helmet brigade is rather like wrestling a pig..)
ETA: I do think that compulsory is a bit silly.
I wear a spine guard on my mtb and sometimes a helmet and people do tend to get all self righteous when I meet them on the trails if I have decided not to wear the expanded polystyrene thing on the top of my head. Given the choice I will always chose the spine guard first, but then my skull is pretty thick. It's all about risk assessment.
Efbe said:
To me cycling helmets look pretty worthless, they will just be knocked backwards or forwards, and do nothing for an impact to the face, a spinal protector would be easy to sew into your cycling top and wouldn't stop movement, even in hot conditions elbow/knee protection wouldn't be too annoying, and the cycling gloves I see look like they would survive only a few inches sliding along asphalt before shredding your hands.
Interesting thread, and I agree to some extent. I had a fairly big fall from my road bike last winter - came off on a wet corner at c. 20MPH and supermanned across the road. Resulted in a trip to hospital that need a dozen stitches to sew my chin back up and my knee took a couple of months before it could push the bike with full power again.A properly fitted cycle helmet won't get knocked backwards or forwards - if it moves on your head then it's not fitted properly. However, conventional ones don't protect your face, as the consultant who sewed me back up pointed out. I now mostly cycle with a Casco Viper MX helmet which is pretty much as light and airy as a normal bike helmet, but protect your chin in a fall. It's not so great on my more agressive road bike when you're down on the drops though, so I do still wear a normal helmet sometimes.
I was wearing full gloves when I came off, and judging by the abrasions on the gloves and not on my hands, they did their job. I could do with sorting out some lighter weight full gloves for now the weather is warming up - the fingerless ones are fine for sorting out vibration but aren't going to help in a fall.
Knee protection appeals strongly to me because my fall really did screw up my knee - my left knee took a lot of the impact as i went down. However, I've yet to see any knee protectors that I'm convinced won't get in the way of the pedalling action.
I've no idea what spinal protectors do for cyclists, so don't have one.
I realise that hard core roadies probably laugh at me (I also wear full high vis on the road, with a super bright flashing light front and rear), but frankly I don't care: my job is customer facing and relies on me not looking like Frankenstein with stitches and scabs all over my face, so I could do without that; and losing a month of cycling simply because my knee is too painful isn't fun. It's a balance of getting enough safety kit without it being overly restrictive on movement or making the ride hot and unpleasant - it's supposed to be fun after all.
p.s. my main bike is a cyclocross bike, and it spends a fair bit of time hurtling down off road tracks - hitting patches of sand or gravel half way down reminds me every time why I like my silly semi full face helmet.
james0 said:
I wear a spine guard on my mtb and sometimes a helmet and people do tend to get all self righteous when I meet them on the trails if I have decided not to wear the expanded polystyrene thing on the top of my head. Given the choice I will always chose the spine guard first, but then my skull is pretty thick. It's all about risk assessment.
Hi James, could you give me details of your spine guard please? I've been thinking about getting one for when I go mountain biking.Cheers
Hi, it's made by Evoc and its a hydration pack with a spine guard insert. I think from memory that its called a Fr Lite. There is room for a 3ltr reservoir and a few tools, phone, wallet and a snack. Ideal for a day out. I found in a recent crash on the run out of the slab at Dalbeattie that my lid put a hell of a lot of strain on my neck due to the extra leverage with a fairly gentle sideways impact as I was rolling on bailing out.
paranoid airbag said:
They're not essential though, are they? <snip> but they are NOT revolutionary.
If I had to nominate an important development it would be the combination of LED lighting and Li-ion batteries - which DO allow me to undertake journeys that would otherwise be prohibitively dangerous.
No one has said they should be or are FFS- talk about militant, its the anti-crowd that take the bisciut every time!If I had to nominate an important development it would be the combination of LED lighting and Li-ion batteries - which DO allow me to undertake journeys that would otherwise be prohibitively dangerous.
As for nominating LED lighting as revolutionary- are you nuts? We where offroading with modified motorbike lamps, foglamps and torches when LED's where a twinkle in the inventors mind. Sure LED's are efficent but that where not a revolution, they where an evolution at best!
Helmets- wear one if you like or not, no one else cares! This is the UK afterall, home of apathy! :-)
All I'll say is I've fallen off (properly not just fooling about) 3 times-
First time was offroad, I awoke in a dark forest and took 5min to find my bike 10mtrs away in a hedge, still no memory of how or why. Big gash in upper forehead from trailside rock and long bloodsoaked limp home. Would a helmet have helped, 50:50 but worth the gamble.
Second big crash was lowside on diesel soaked roundabout rushing to Uni lecture, I went from upright and looking for traffic to unconsious sliding along the tarmac in a fraction of a second. Luckily aided by off-duty nurse, was out for 2minutes and the tarmac eroded 3" skin off the side of my head above the ear. As a result decided I should wear my helmet, which was at that time hung in my houses hallway...
3rd time was almost a year after the 2nd, same roundabout, same speed but black ice and also rushing (proving students don't learn :-) Hit the ground hard, shattered helmet into 4 pieces but no knock out, no loss of skin and bone, picked up my books and wheeled bike to lecture without aid.
I don't feel safer with a helmet, although I think it increases my visibility and instantly labels me to drivers as a cyclist from a distance (how do they know if I'm not a jogger or pedestrian if I'm obscured by other cars, Cycle Helmet makes me obviously a cyclists) and the pad at the front prevents sweat dripping in my eyes as a bonus!
For less than the cost of a bike tyre its a common sense purchase IMO.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff