How much to pay for a cycle helmet?

I have had my Raleigh road bike for around ten years and during the summer,
I use it once a week and hardly ever during the winter. So far, I haven't
got around to getting a helmet. After some recent road accidents involving
a couple of my colleagues I think it's about time I bought one.

I have seen several helmets being sold for £20 or less. Does it make any
sense to spend a significant amount of money on a helmet? I realise it's
my head which is at stake but how much is it worth paying? I know that
some will say that considering there isn't much in my head, then it's not
worth spending very much. But I do value my head very much!

Are there any safety standards which the helmets have to meet for them to
be on sale in the UK or can anyone make an untested helmet and then claim
that is it suitable for use by cyclists?

Are there any independent tests which have evaluated the merits of
different makes of helmet?

Thanks

Mr Benn

"Mr. Benn" %%@%%.% writes:

I have seen several helmets being sold for £20 or less. Does it make any
sense to spend a significant amount of money on a helmet?

More money will get you a lighter better ventilated and more stylish
helmet, not (in general) a safer one.

Are there any safety standards which the helmets have to meet for them to
be on sale in the UK or can anyone make an untested helmet and then claim
that is it suitable for use by cyclists?

EN1078 is the basic standard: as far as I know it's mandatory for sale
in the UK. Snell B-95 is a better standard, but optional. It's said to
be actually quite hard to find Snell-certified helmets on sale. See

http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-90...90C_B-95C.html


-dan

Daniel Barlow wrote:
"Mr. Benn" %%@%%.% writes:

I have seen several helmets being sold for £20 or less. Does it make any
sense to spend a significant amount of money on a helmet?

More money will get you a lighter better ventilated and more stylish
helmet, not (in general) a safer one.

Are there any safety standards which the helmets have to meet for them to
be on sale in the UK or can anyone make an untested helmet and then claim
that is it suitable for use by cyclists?

EN1078 is the basic standard: as far as I know it's mandatory for sale
in the UK. Snell B-95 is a better standard, but optional. It's said to
be actually quite hard to find Snell-certified helmets on sale. See

http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-90...90C_B-95C.html

and ....
DUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Marc writes:

Daniel Barlow wrote:
http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-90...90C_B-95C.html

and ....
DUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quack quack. One of the worst things about the crap that judith et al
have put this group through is that it causes people to be much more
ready to jump to "troll" conclusions when they see posts about
hot-button posts from new or unfamiliar names.


-dan

Daniel Barlow writes:

hot-button posts from new or unfamiliar names.

"hot-button topics", I meant, of course


-dan

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 21:14:00 +0100, Daniel Barlow
wrote:

One of the worst things about the crap that judith et al
have put this group through is that it causes people to be much more
ready to jump to "troll" conclusions when they see posts about
hot-button posts from new or unfamiliar names.

True, but "Mr Benn" has been in my kf for some time.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
- attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in
:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 21:14:00 +0100, Daniel Barlow
wrote:

One of the worst things about the crap that judith et al
have put this group through is that it causes people to be much more
ready to jump to "troll" conclusions when they see posts about
hot-button posts from new or unfamiliar names.

True, but "Mr Benn" has been in my kf for some time.

Guy

That was because I called you an idiot or similar. So glad to see that
tolerance is alive and well.

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 21:37:46 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 21:14:00 +0100, Daniel Barlow
wrote:

One of the worst things about the crap that judith et al
have put this group through is that it causes people to be much more
ready to jump to "troll" conclusions when they see posts about
hot-button posts from new or unfamiliar names.

True, but "Mr Benn" has been in my kf for some time.

Guy


Have you learnt how to use one then?

(Sorry ............... ? .................... forgot)

You seem to have great trouble with it in the not too distant past.

--


Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 21:14:00 +0100, Daniel Barlow
wrote:

Marc writes:

Daniel Barlow wrote:
http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-90...90C_B-95C.html

and ....
DUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quack quack. One of the worst things about the crap that judith et al
have put this group through is that it causes people to be much more
ready to jump to "troll" conclusions when they see posts about
hot-button posts from new or unfamiliar names.


-dan


Spot on (apart from the fact that I have put the group through crap).

And that is exactly why the group has turned to rat-shot.

That is NOT as a direct result of me and others - it was already on
the downhill slope - with regulars at the helm - when I first
visited.

I think you will find that I have only responded to individuals
"vigorously" when it was required/encouraged.

Have a look at the response which newcomers get here.

It was the responses which I got, when I first came here, which
encouraged me to stay.

--


Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

Quoting Daniel Barlow :
Quack quack. One of the worst things about the crap that judith et al
have put this group through is that it causes people to be much more
ready to jump to "troll" conclusions when they see posts about
hot-button posts from new or unfamiliar names.

"Mr Benn" and his various different email addresses are hardly new or
unfamiliar.
--
David Damerell flcl?
Yesterday was Wednesday, July.
Today is Thursday, July.
Tomorrow will be Friday, July.