Very interesting dolling up work, maybe that guy who did that ought to make custom bikes like those and sell them...not that I would ever want one but I have friend who restores those years of bikes and he's able to sell his for a very good profit.

As I've mentioned before, I was manager at a velodrome that hosted IHPVA events on occasion. Those were some very cool bikes ridden by some very strong riders. Even the "slow" ones could cruise around at world-record pace without any real difficulty.

I do not believe I have ever been passed by a recumbent on the road, however. You guys like to brag about how fast your bikes are in theory, but the reality is that they are almost always dorkmobiles ridden by old bearded guys with spindly legs and pocket protectors. And yes, they do all seem to be wearing the largest helmets possible, if for no other reason than to have the space to mount all the accessories. (Side note: Despite all the claims about how much more comfortable recumbents are, I note a number of threads on the recumbent forum dealing with the aches and pains caused by recumbent riding. My first suggestion would be to take the mirrors, lights, video cameras, and various assorted totems off of your helmets. If I rode around with six pounds of junk attached to my head my neck would be sore too.)

So, short answer, I don't disrespect recumbents in general. It's really just yours in particular that I'm making fun of.

six

Im glad you dont disrespect bents in general, just mine. That is fine by me since I am a big boy and can stand the heat. Especially since I know the source.

Heres a tip. Glue your handle bar grips on real tight for the day a bent come blazing by you! :)

In the mean time read up on a little cycling history. Read how recumbents hold nearly all the speed records. The last one for the record books was a tadpole trike that was the first "bike" to the South pole.

six jours adressed the aero benefit already. I personally know one fast bent rider. all the others are slowsters.

and the southpole tadpole run wasn't so great as people make it out to be as it was a supported run. The actual unsupported run was done with two wheels and traditional geometry.

furthermore I can easily see why bents are intriguing. I dream of a fully decked electric aero velomobile with carbonf frame and the works for rain commutes. However a bent, especially a three wheeled on does not give the same fun. with two wheels we're going close but the handling is worse.

Helmet Camera and Accidents
 

Since my original post on Michael Schumacher was closed, I decided to open a new discussion base on recent discovery regarding the helmet camera. Investigators are now saying it appears the helmet camera attached to Michael's helmet may have actually made things worse! I'm seeing more cyclist attach GoPros on their helmets without any regard how this might compromise the equiptment.

I think this is the first time a study was conducted on the safty of a helmet camera. Unfortunately, it takes a horrible accident and maybe a lawsuit before these camera manufacturers stop selling the product in this manner. In fact, these "featured mounts" are a major selling point for GoPro not realizing a hard impact will drive the camera into the helmet breaking it in pieces making the injury far worse.

I'm stilling thinking of buying one but will NOT be attached to my helmet.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20140216/f1/140219854

I suspect that any other attachment of a solid object to a bicycle helmet (to include various lighting devices) would also compromise whatever protection the helmet might provide.

In most cases the brackets are weak and the stuff gets pinged off by the angle of impact, especially stuff mounted top dead center as most lights and cameras are. However, in the instance of a direct radial impact on the attached object, there's a better than even chance it'll be driven through the shell into the wearer's head.

I strongly suspect that the camera here is being blamed because folks don't like to discuss how ineffective sport (bike, ski, etc) helmets are against penetrating impacts, such as rocks, curbs etc. Unlike hard hats intended to stop penetrating projectiles, sport helmets are designed as impace attenuators (g-force reducers) when a moving head strikes a nearly flat surface. Trying to do both well would make helmets too heavy and discourage use. (catch-22) or helmet design.

Unfortunately, with the strong drive to get folks to wear helmets, it's politically incorrect to discuss their limitations.

I figured the helmet camera would break apart before it would break through the helmet let alone skull. Perhaps a solution is a breakaway mount for cameras? I doubt however that this is a major cause of death or injury among cyclists.

P.S. 200th post! :thumb:

I also doubt that it's a common source of injury, but don't count on a camera, or light or the bracket not to kill you on a radial impact. Obviously a radial impact that high is unlikely, but it happens. As I said earlier, despite the report blaming the camera, I suspect that it probably wasn't the major cause of the helmet's failure to protect it's wearer. There are real limitations, and nobody should expect more protection than practical limits allow.

At most, helmets, reduce or ditigate head injuries, they don't offer absolute protection from them. (

Helmet fans, shouldn't read this as anti helmet, as much as pro-realistic expectations.

Good point. I have a red blinky attached to the rear of my helmet. I'm now thinking of removing it.

It all comes down to probabilities. In a crash, is it possible that a helmet mounted device will be driven through the helmet? Yes. Is it probable? I doubt it. Will seeing a helmet mounted camera temper the aggressive behavior to the cyclist of some motorists? Maybe. Will having a helmet mounted camera cause some cyclists to take greater risks in an attempt to entrap aggressive drivers, and get hits on YouTube? Probably. Does any of this paint a clear picture of the net worth of helmet mounted cameras as safety devices? Clear as mud.

EDIT. BTW, I occasionally ride with a Contour roam. I admit I have to resist the urge to go for that entrapment in cases where the fault of the motorist is kinda iffy. My main motive is to compile entertaining clips for family and friends of some of the interesting things that happen on my rides. I also like to make clips of certain road features to submit to local traffic engineers with suggestions of improvements.

I have used handlebar mounts, and helmet mounts. Helmet mounts have the advantage of being less susceptible to jerkiness from road shocks, and being "aimable".

I suspect they are trying to deflect the blame on the camera because I've yet to read any news article placing it on Michael Schumacher who took a needless risk and putting himself in great danger going through the rocky section for the sake of recording a home video. I've seen a number of GoPro cyclist on the street racing through traffic at high speed in Manhattan so they can show their friends on how brave they were. It's like camera attached helmets make people take more risks, not less!

One of the reasons I really disliked my GoPro is that it's a ridiculously clunky brick bolted to my helmet. I'm now using a much more low profile camera and I have it mounted with a 3D printed slide bracket that will break away under any significant impact.

I don't know that a camera would make people take more risks, but maybe it would for some.

OTOH, there's been a strong long term trend away from blaming anything on people in the USA, especially. Instead, we like to blame objects, or other outside factors. When a golfer is struck by lightening during a thunder storm we call it a storm related death instead of a stupidity related death.

One of the few places where I don't see this attitude is in the diving world, where after an acident, you might see comments like "I can't believe he was so dumb. What as he thinking?"

Another possibility is that cameras on bikes (no matter where mounted) may encourage aggressive behavior by immature cyclists who wish to show off their cycling "skills" and/or risk taking abilities on YouTube and other outlets for such videos.

Technology that acts as a catalyst for dumbbell cycling behavior is not unheard of; think of the recent fatality in SF caused by a cyclist using his strada device and reckless behavior to become somebody special. Youtube is full of cyclists who have recorded and are proud of their Jackass style of cycling. BF is occasionally blessed with the same and/or posts from admirers of such recorded stunts.

Only the self-absorbed people that project their behavior on others.

The article didn't really seem to say that the camera itself caused the injury directly, but that it made the helmet weaker. To quite --

Personally, I think this sounds like blamestorming, and it ignores the fact that helmets tend to fail when they hit rocks. (To be fair, I'm assuming that ski helmets aren't much tougher than bicycle helmets, but I don't have any experience with them.)

My guess is that their thought process was something akin to "helmets prevent injuries, but he was injured anyways, so let's find something that's out of the ordinary and blame it on that. Oh, the mount for the camera broke, or the part of the helmet that it mounts to broke, that must be it."

And I have to wonder how much the helmet manufacturer had to do this this idea.

I bet the helmet came with a safety notice warning users aagainst ttaching anything to their helmets. Camera company would be stupid if the camera didn't come with a notice saying you need to defer to your helmet mfg warnings about attaching the camera to it, and that you do so at your own risk. If both those notices or similar was included in helmet and camera packaging/instructions, then ultimately, Schumacher is at fault.

Do cameras encourage users to do stupider things than they might otherwise, like helmet wearers do stupider things than they might if they weren't wearing one...?

I attached a camera to my helmet once, but since my head is always on a swivel when working traffic, the video had too much of a Blair Witch effect, so both of my cameras are now firmly attached to my bike.

I think it is possible cameras may encourage some to do more risky things - certainly true if filming an event that is risky by design.

However I also think that in the case of cycling in traffic a camera may cause the user to take less proactive measures to avoid a developing conflict 'caused by someone else' in the first place. For example, seeing a potential conflict developing that legally may be the 'other' persons fault, the cyclist could take measures to avoid it altogether or they could continue riding into the conflict knowing there will still be a way out (so the risk to them has not really increased) - but they will then have on film an example of someone else doing wrong up until the bail out moment.

There was such a film on A&S a few months ago, a cyclist who was showing how he was getting repeatedly right hooked when riding up along side cars at an intersection. They clearly knew the potential for conflict as they were quick to brake at the last second and not collide, but they could just as well have taken proactive measures to avoid the situation in the first place, but then they would not have had a video to post.

Chris Boardman: "Helmets not even in top 10 of things that keep cycling safe
 

Here's a link to worthwhile reading for anyone interested in bike safety.

I post it here without opinion, except that he raises good points.

Feel free to agree, disagree, and debate.

Good read. If I'm just riding around town I don't feel like I need a helmet. A fast road ride though where I'll be bombing down descents at 45mph+, I definitely feel better with one on.

Yes, there are definitely apples and orange comparisons being made when we compare injury rates in the USA and UK with the Netherlands. And not all cycling needs are the same, but I posted it because he tries to - properly - move the debate away from reducing injuries with helmets to preventing the accidents that cause them in the first place.

Got Good use from my helmet in 16 mph crash Jan 11,2014.

Helmet with the damaged area removed.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=365434

I never really got the whole helmet debate. It should be personal choice, not legislated. Infrastructure, education, and community acceptance are bigger issues.