Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

The Helmet Thread 2

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.
View Poll Results: What Are Your Helmet Wearing Habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet
52
10.40%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
24
4.80%
I've always worn a helmet
208
41.60%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
126
25.20%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
90
18.00%
Voters: 500. You may not vote on this poll

The Helmet Thread 2

Old 12-25-20, 11:49 PM
  #3251  
Gresp15C
Senior Member
 
Gresp15C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,893
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1062 Post(s)
Liked 665 Times in 421 Posts
Originally Posted by mr_pedro
Another interesting concept that surprisingly makes things safer is how in some residential areas, there is only one road, with no markings and no sidewalk. This not a road for heavy traffic, just for people that live in that block. That one road is to be used by all traffic, and not just that, it is also meant to be used by playing children. Pedestrians are allowed to walk in the middle of the road and the speed limit for cars is defined as “walking-speed”.
Oddly enough it was like that by social convention in the neighborhood where I grew up. It was a suburb of Detroit, and there was car traffic in the streets, but kids played in the streets too. We played street hockey and all sorts of games. When a car was coming, someone yelled "car" and we cleared out of the street. We all rode bikes, probably not very well behaved. But the drivers were careful.

Today, same neighborhood, there are a lot more cars, and more traffic. So the streets are parked up with cars, and they're big cars -- SUV's and pickup trucks. And no kids playing in the streets. A difference between then and now is simply a lot more traffic. Not just cars, but more delivery and service vehicles as well.

In the town where I live, there's a street along my commute where the residents appear to have reclaimed their street. A sequence of maybe 4 or 5 houses all have kids, they put up some signs asking cars to slow down, and the kids are out playing. Usually, among those houses, there are one or two adults out, or at least keeping an eye on things. And it seems to be respected by the drivers and cyclists like myself.
Gresp15C is offline  
Old 12-26-20, 04:18 AM
  #3252  
mr_pedro
Senior Member
 
mr_pedro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 645
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked 75 Times in 48 Posts
Originally Posted by Gresp15C
Oddly enough it was like that by social convention in the neighborhood where I grew up. It was a suburb of Detroit, and there was car traffic in the streets, but kids played in the streets too. We played street hockey and all sorts of games. When a car was coming, someone yelled "car" and we cleared out of the street. We all rode bikes, probably not very well behaved. But the drivers were careful.

Today, same neighborhood, there are a lot more cars, and more traffic. So the streets are parked up with cars, and they're big cars -- SUV's and pickup trucks. And no kids playing in the streets. A difference between then and now is simply a lot more traffic. Not just cars, but more delivery and service vehicles as well.

In the town where I live, there's a street along my commute where the residents appear to have reclaimed their street. A sequence of maybe 4 or 5 houses all have kids, they put up some signs asking cars to slow down, and the kids are out playing. Usually, among those houses, there are one or two adults out, or at least keeping an eye on things. And it seems to be respected by the drivers and cyclists like myself.
We have experienced the same increase in traffic sinds the 50s, it does require city planning to achieve this. For example when I drive home, the largest part of the journey is on the highway and looks like this.

Then, the last 10 minutes before I get home, there is a major road, with no bikes allowed and separate bike path: link.

Then we start getting into the residential areas, but it is still a road that has traffic needing to go further than just this block: link. Narrow street, cobble stones, no separate bike lane. Speed limit is 15 mph, but streets are so narrow that cars can't really drive faster.

Then, for residential areas with only local traffic to that block, we sometimes see the one-road approach I mentioned above: link
mr_pedro is offline  
Old 12-26-20, 08:30 PM
  #3253  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times in 228 Posts
Originally Posted by mr_pedro
Per capita NL has 4~5 times more cycling deaths than the US. And even without exact exposure data for the US it is clear to see that the Americans cycle far less than 4 or 5 times what the Dutch do. What you are arguing is that we can't tell anything because we don't know it exactly.
I am explaining - not arguing actually - that we don't know *enough* about the cycling habits, not that we don't know something "exactly". The available data might fit either hypothesis.

If for example, most of the fatalities and serious injuries in the USA were from either commuters in high traffic areas and from casual riders (on a bike once or twice a year), then your hypothesis wouldn't necessarily hold. I'm not saying that is the case, but I AM saying that it's only one scenario out of a multitude of them. Without knowing the distribution of these, it's a mathematical fact that you can draw no specific conclusions from your (extremely) general data.
wphamilton is offline  
Old 12-26-20, 08:42 PM
  #3254  
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,529
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2111 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times in 443 Posts
What you are arguing is that you are arguing. It’s all you do.

A few ounces of fabric will protect you though.

F’n 2020. 2019. 2018. 2017. 2016. 2015. 2014.

And that’s only everlasting gobstopper thread 2.


-mr. bill
mr_bill is offline  
Old 12-28-20, 10:02 AM
  #3255  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times in 228 Posts
It's funny when I peak under "This user is on your Ignore List." and it's always the same comment, with variations in phrasing.
wphamilton is offline  
Old 12-29-20, 04:20 PM
  #3256  
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,529
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2111 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times in 443 Posts
365 posts. You’re number one!

You’ll never run out of nothing to say.

-mr. bill
mr_bill is offline  
Old 01-02-21, 07:44 AM
  #3257  
jmcullough101
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
A newb here. Just to be clear, is this a thread debating whether helmet is useful at all in the event of accident? Is this a mask-debate thing in cycling world?
jmcullough101 is offline  
Old 01-02-21, 12:03 PM
  #3258  
alanf
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 358

Bikes: Devinci Millenium, Gary Fisher Joshua

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked 29 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by GlennR
After 7200 posts I finally got one.

BTW...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q47nzyBrENM
Another more traditional model:
alanf is offline  
Old 01-02-21, 12:15 PM
  #3259  
Gresp15C
Senior Member
 
Gresp15C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,893
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1062 Post(s)
Liked 665 Times in 421 Posts
Originally Posted by jmcullough101
A newb here. Just to be clear, is this a thread debating whether helmet is useful at all in the event of accident? Is this a mask-debate thing in cycling world?
It is simply the repository of all helmet related thread.
Gresp15C is offline  
Old 02-03-21, 11:05 AM
  #3260  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times in 228 Posts
Why is the thread dead? Did everyone decide to agree?

Mods, I guess you can unsticky and close this now
wphamilton is offline  
Old 02-26-21, 10:36 AM
  #3261  
invalid.user
*bows*
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: GTA, Ontario
Posts: 24

Bikes: Giant Fastroad Advanced 1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked 8 Times in 7 Posts
This subject is not as black and white as either side claims. What I see in this thread isn't people arguing whether helmets increase safety (to any degree, from marginal to significant), I think we can all agree that they do. What I do see are mainly 2 more reasonable/logical sides that people are getting too defensive about:

A: Helmets increase safety, and even if that increase is marginal, people should wear them, because any increase in safety is a good thing.

B: Helmets increase safety, but the increase is too minute to warrant the burden of regulation/mandating their use.

I also believe that there is a side C, that people like wphamilton (correct me if I'm wrong) are arguing: Helmets increase safety, but the increase is marginal, and we would benefit from focusing our attention on other lower hanging fruit, such as infrastructure, enforcing road laws, etc.

I suppose there must also a side D that counter-argues C: Sure, there are lower hanging fruits in cycling safety that we could tackle, but that this stance is a false dilemma in that we could tackle those issues AND encourage helmet use.

Very few people in this thread are arguing that helmets are completely useless and do nothing whatsoever to increase safety. Sure, some have brought up helmet safety concerns, such as strangulation, etc., but those are few and far between. I think we can all agree that helmets do increase safety, but that this discussion is far more nuanced. No side is "stupid" for having their opinion, because most of those opinions hold at least some merit.

As for me, personally, I agree with wphamilton, that helmets have unfortunately stolen the spotlight when it comes to cycling safety. Additionally, 'cycling' is a vast category, and riding styles differ significantly. For my riding style (almost exclusively on dedicated paved paths in the city), I don't think a helmet is crucial. Forcing me to wear a helmet is tantamount to forcing every car to come with a fire extinguisher, racing cage, and forcing all drivers to wear helmets. Sure, it would probably increase safety marginally, but it is not worth the burden it would place on people. However, when it comes to race tracks (for cars), many enforce helmet/extinguisher/roll cage usage, just as many bike parks enforce helmet usage for cyclists. In those cases of an increased likelihood of injury, I fully support mandatory helmet regulations.

Also, after reading since page 115 of this thread, I'm surprised mr_bill has not been banned. He contributes very little to the discussion, and many of his posts are outright trolling.

Last edited by invalid.user; 02-26-21 at 01:11 PM.
invalid.user is offline  
Old 03-01-21, 01:56 PM
  #3262  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times in 228 Posts
Originally Posted by invalid.user

A:

I also believe that there is a side C, that people like wphamilton (correct me if I'm wrong) are arguing: Helmets increase safety, but the increase is marginal, and we would benefit from focusing our attention on other lower hanging fruit, such as infrastructure, enforcing road laws, etc.
Close enough, no argument from me. I involve myself here mainly just to provide objective facts and reason, as much as I'm able, and people are going to make up their own minds about what to do with it.
wphamilton is offline  
Likes For wphamilton:
Old 03-02-21, 03:57 AM
  #3263  
mr_pedro
Senior Member
 
mr_pedro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 645
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked 75 Times in 48 Posts
Originally Posted by invalid.user
This subject is not as black and white as either side claims. What I see in this thread isn't people arguing whether helmets increase safety (to any degree, from marginal to significant), I think we can all agree that they do. What I do see are mainly 2 more reasonable/logical sides that people are getting too defensive about:

A: Helmets increase safety, and even if that increase is marginal, people should wear them, because any increase in safety is a good thing.

B: Helmets increase safety, but the increase is too minute to warrant the burden of regulation/mandating their use.

I also believe that there is a side C, that people like wphamilton (correct me if I'm wrong) are arguing: Helmets increase safety, but the increase is marginal, and we would benefit from focusing our attention on other lower hanging fruit, such as infrastructure, enforcing road laws, etc.

I suppose there must also a side D that counter-argues C: Sure, there are lower hanging fruits in cycling safety that we could tackle, but that this stance is a false dilemma in that we could tackle those issues AND encourage helmet use.
Regarding your point D, the downside to focusing on helmet usage is that the underlying premise is always that cycling is a dangerous activity. That discourages people from using their bikes for daily tasks, just as a means of transport.
Indeed it is a totally different story when cycling close to your limits, e.g. as a sport, a helmet becomes much more sensible to wear.
mr_pedro is offline  
Likes For mr_pedro:
Old 03-02-21, 05:36 PM
  #3264  
invalid.user
*bows*
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: GTA, Ontario
Posts: 24

Bikes: Giant Fastroad Advanced 1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Originally Posted by mr_pedro
Regarding your point D, the downside to focusing on helmet usage is that the underlying premise is always that cycling is a dangerous activity. That discourages people from using their bikes for daily tasks, just as a means of transport.
Indeed it is a totally different story when cycling close to your limits, e.g. as a sport, a helmet becomes much more sensible to wear.
Not that I disagree with you, but just to play devil's advocate for a moment, I don't think you can make that argument because the same can be said about seatbelts and cars, for example. To make this claim, you have to have an inherently prejudiced view of helmets, or at least of their burden on cyclists. Some see helmets as something as natural as tying a shoe lace, and those people would never agree with you that helmets discourage people from using their bicycles. However, others see helmets as a major inconvenience, and a large burden on cyclists, and those people would definitely agree with your premise that generalized helmet enforcement will discourage some people from cycling.

Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to present a counter argument. As I said in my last post, I have the same opinion as you when it comes to helmets; they should be worn in certain scenarios, but should not be enforced for every type of bicycle riding. I personally don't wear a helmet when I'm going on dedicated paved cycling infrastructure or MUP.
invalid.user is offline  
Old 03-02-21, 11:04 PM
  #3265  
mr_pedro
Senior Member
 
mr_pedro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 645
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)
Liked 75 Times in 48 Posts
ll

Originally Posted by invalid.user
Not that I disagree with you, but just to play devil's advocate for a moment, I don't think you can make that argument because the same can be said about seatbelts and cars, for example. To make this claim, you have to have an inherently prejudiced view of helmets, or at least of their burden on cyclists. Some see helmets as something as natural as tying a shoe lace, and those people would never agree with you that helmets discourage people from using their bicycles. However, others see helmets as a major inconvenience, and a large burden on cyclists, and those people would definitely agree with your premise that generalized helmet enforcement will discourage some people from cycling.


Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to present a counter argument. As I said in my last post, I have the same opinion as you when it comes to helmets; they should be worn in certain scenarios, but should not be enforced for every type of bicycle riding. I personally don't wear a helmet when I'm going on dedicated paved cycling infrastructure or MUP.

Well, it is exactly that argument that the Dutch cycling federation makes for not promoting helmet wear for regular daily cycling. The claim is even that the health benefits for the entire population from more cycling, outweigh the negative elements of not wearing helmets.


The perceived deterrent is not so much the inconvenience of a helmet, but the message that cycling is dangerous. Especially if you want to promote helmet usage without it being mandatory, you only have the safety argument. Seatbelts are so efficient at preventing damage in almost any car crash that they are mandatory and people can be compelled to wear them just to prevent fines.

Last edited by mr_pedro; 04-27-21 at 10:02 AM.
mr_pedro is offline  
Likes For mr_pedro:
Old 03-07-21, 08:57 AM
  #3266  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times in 228 Posts
Originally Posted by mr_pedro
...
The perceived deterrent is not so much the inconvenience of a helmet, but the message that cycling is dangerous. Especially if you want to promote helmet usage without it being mandatory, you only have the safety argument.
Possibly both of those. Whatever the reasons, after Australia imposed mandatory helmet laws, and then made them more stringent, we have some data about that. Some of the participation data is "limited and inconsistent" but nevertheless plausible data.

In a nutshell, cycling participation declined but total cyclist injuries and head injuries increased. Fatalities decreased. We could argue about why and how, but here are the facts:
Pedal cyclist deaths and hospitalizations (Australian government)
wphamilton is offline  
Likes For wphamilton:
Old 04-29-21, 12:31 PM
  #3267  
thook
(rhymes with spook)
 
thook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Winslow, AR
Posts: 2,795

Bikes: '83 univega gran turismo x2, '85 schwinn super le tour,'89 miyata triple cross, '91 GT tequesta, '90 yokota grizzly peak, '94 GT backwoods, '95'ish scott tampico, '98 bonty privateer, '93 mongoose crossway 625, '98 parkpre ariel, 2k'ish giant fcr3

Mentioned: 26 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 919 Post(s)
Liked 745 Times in 546 Posts
i've been pleased with my nutcase. got it on year end close out....cheap
thook is offline  
Old 04-29-21, 02:55 PM
  #3268  
fabiofarelli
Senior Member
 
fabiofarelli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 671

Bikes: Especialy Alan, but also Empella, Cascarsi, Gazelle, Bianchi, CJV, Sirocco, Berkers etcetera

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 188 Post(s)
Liked 996 Times in 355 Posts
fabiofarelli is offline  
Old 04-29-21, 06:52 PM
  #3269  
The Golden Boy 
Extraordinary Magnitude
 
The Golden Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Waukesha WI
Posts: 13,640

Bikes: 1978 Trek TX700; 1978/79 Trek 736; 1984 Specialized Stumpjumper Sport; 1984 Schwinn Voyageur SP; 1985 Trek 620; 1985 Trek 720; 1986 Trek 400 Elance; 1987 Schwinn High Sierra; 1990 Miyata 1000LT

Mentioned: 84 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2597 Post(s)
Liked 1,677 Times in 926 Posts
I have a Bern- It's a very nice hat.

New Hat by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr
__________________
*Recipient of the 2006 Time Magazine "Person Of The Year" Award*

Commence to jigglin’ huh?!?!

"But hey, always love to hear from opinionated amateurs." -says some guy to Mr. Marshall.
The Golden Boy is offline  
Old 04-30-21, 01:02 AM
  #3270  
gios
Senior Member
 
gios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: NV
Posts: 600

Bikes: 2021 Litespeed T5 105, 1990 Gios Compact Pro 105

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 167 Post(s)
Liked 325 Times in 182 Posts
White Giro Synthe. The red Katusha is second.


Last edited by gios; 04-30-21 at 01:06 AM.
gios is offline  
Old 04-30-21, 04:30 AM
  #3271  
gearbasher
Senior Member
 
gearbasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sitting on my butt in front of a computer
Posts: 1,534
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 439 Post(s)
Liked 833 Times in 363 Posts
I only use Limar helmets. I bought one before they were available here in the U.S. It was my first helmet and was advertised as being "The Worlds Lightest Helmet". That first one saved me from becoming a vegetable or dead. That created brand loyalty for for me.
gearbasher is offline  
Old 04-30-21, 07:16 AM
  #3272  
mcgregorj 
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 102
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked 69 Times in 22 Posts
I've been using a POC Omne Air Spin for the last year, and really like it. Definitely worth waiting for REI's 20% off coupons though!
mcgregorj is offline  
Old 04-30-21, 07:33 AM
  #3273  
Tony P.
Full Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 275
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 493 Post(s)
Liked 281 Times in 162 Posts
Smart move. Helmet makers, retailers and others have been suggesting a 5-year expiration on helmets but that's just not the case. Old undamaged helmets are at least as good as new ones. Here's some information published in the Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. Basically, it shows that old helmets (up to 26 years old) without damage provided protection.

Helmet Impact Performance Proven to Hold Up for Decades


There are reasons to replace your helmet, but simple age is not one of them.

Extensive testing of used (but not crashed) bicycle helmets shows that the foam liners retain their performance over many years. MEA Forensic announced at a May ASTM F08.53 technical meeting the results of their testing of 675 bicycle helmets, some as old as 26 years. "There is no justification for two to ten year replacement recommendations based on impact performance," said MEA's Alyssa DeMarco.

MEA and collaborator Collision Analysis collected 1,500 used helmets from consumers and eliminated any that showed damage or did not have date of manufacture stickers. The helmets studied had dates that ranged from 1987 to 2013. They crash tested them at 3 m/s (a drop of 1.5 ft.) and 6.2 m/s (a drop of 2 meters--the CPSC standard drop) on a flat anvil in the dry ambient condition. There were only four that exceeded the 300g maximum threshold: three of the oldest models made to meet only the old ANSI standard, and one newer model that had been recalled. So 671 of the helmets passed the current CPSC impact performance standard.

MEA's analysis showed that there was no significant impact performance change with age. Their 26 year data including all 675 helmets tested produced only a 0.7g per year increase in impact readings at the higher drop height. On average, road helmet models produced results 40g lower than skate-style models, and extra-small helmets were 21g lower than large helmets. Lower g's registered in the headform means less shock passed through to the head, but since they are averages they may not apply for a particular helmet model.

After crash testing the helmets on a standard test rig, MEA took core samples from an uncrashed area of 63 of the helmets and tested them at the equivalent of a 6.2 m/s helmet impact. This generated data based solely on the foam performance. They collected stress and strain data related to aging of the foam. Again, the findings indicate that helmet liner foam does not deteriorate with age.

MEA usually publishes their studies in a peer-reviewed journal, but that can be a slow process.

This is the first time anyone has applied rigorous science to assessing the effects of age on helmet foam liners. It is a welcome antidote to the strident marketing claims that foam deteriorates with age. There are other reasons to replace a helmet--crash damage, strap deterioration, improving fit--but simple aging of the foam liner is not one of them.

April, 2016 - the study is now published in the Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
Tony P. is offline  
Likes For Tony P.:
Old 04-30-21, 07:38 AM
  #3274  
thinktubes 
weapons-grade bolognium
 
thinktubes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Across the street from Chicago
Posts: 6,335

Bikes: Battaglin Cromor, Ciocc Designer 84, Schwinn Superior 1981

Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 984 Post(s)
Liked 2,353 Times in 882 Posts
I just replaced my 10+ yo helmet with a Bell Formula. I like it a lot.

Light, comfy, with good ventilation.

thinktubes is offline  
Old 04-30-21, 12:53 PM
  #3275  
johnnyace 
Le savonnier
 
johnnyace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,706

Bikes: I can count 'em on one hand

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 729 Post(s)
Liked 597 Times in 269 Posts
I don't know about favorite (I actually hate helmets, but I like my brain more than I hate helmets, so...), but I just today replaced my 35 year old Giro with a new Specialized Align II. Stuck with purple-ish, though.


Giro helmet, circa 1986

Specialized Align II, circa 2021

The old and the new...
johnnyace is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.