The mid priced helmet from the Canadian company Louis Garneau that offers good ventilation and a comfortable fit.
I was a bit worried about the tightening system at the back of the helmet, unlike other helmets I have used, the fitting system looks a bit on the skinny side. However my initial thoughts were proven incorrect when I went for several rides with the helmet and the fitting system held securely (no side wobble) and felt very comfortable, even when doing some technical and bumpy sections on my mountain bike.
The straps have all the usual adjustments, under ear and main chin adjustments, the straps are comfortable on the skin. The only disappointment is the strap fastening clip is right under the chin and not to the side which is much more comfortable if you like a tight-fitting strap. The padding on the inside is well spread out and plentiful, with replacement pads included with the helmet.
The helmets overall shape is a modern aggressively looking one, which means you don’t get the mushroom head shape like some older style helmets. The plastic outer case has what Louis Garneau call “U-bar technology” which basically has a raised section of plastic in between each vent which is meant to add structural support to the helmet. How much is not something I can determine but it is an interesting look.
Overall the helmet is great value for money, with a RRP of £69.99, the ventilation, fit and looks are things you would expect to find on a much more expensive helmet.
Evans Cycles currently have this helmet priced at £49.99 for some models and the rest at £69.99
Look at these cyclists, on ice and not one of them is wearing a helmet and none of them crack their heads open and die.
I posted this more in jest than an actual representation of not needing helmets.
Recently the Womens Institute has been looking into backing mandatory helmet laws. As adults who have cycling experience, you are unlikely to fall of your bicycle by your self. You are more likely to be knocked off your bicycle by a hard moving vehicle. A collision which involves forces outside of the design parameters of a bicycle helmet.
Just look at the other countries which have mandatory helmet laws, cycling levels have dropped but a considerable amount.
It would be better to target the cause of bicycle accidents rather than try to force people to use protection which doesn’t actually protect you in all circumstances.
Cyclists across the globe have to deal with inconsiderate drivers that don’t understand our needs or that we are allowed to use the road. Many of us have taken to using cameras, a cyclist in Boston recently posted a video of a driver who was very impatient as he cycled down a busy road with lots of hazards, the driver could have easily changed lanes to pass the cyclists but instead choose to sound his horn and pass him with only inches to spare.
As always, the driver shortly stopped in traffic and got out of his car asking the cyclist if he wanted a fight. Quite rightly the cyclist didn’t want to get into a fight with someone who was more than likely several times the size of him.
When the cyclist went to the Police they where not interested in what happened, even when the cyclist stated that he had the whole incident on video. I’m sure most of us have experienced problems like this, lets just hope it changes as the grow of camera use in cyclists increases.
I posted before about the use of cameras on the road and the laws behind it. But i feel i missed a few things out that are worth noting. From before we know that the general use of a camera is perfectly legal. The information commissioner confirmed that recording for personal purposes on the road is perfectly fine and that uploading footage to websites like youtube is fine, even if it includes faces or VRNs (Vehicle Registration Number). The information commissioner also confirmed that this is not braking any part of the Data Protection Act.
What about article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
Martin Porter wrote about just this, what is more important, the right to privacy or the right to live? Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights states
Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
People have tried to spin this argument against me but the European Convention on Human Rights only applies to a state and not an individual member of the public. Let’s also not forget that the roads are a public place and there should be no expectation of privacy on them.
The Human Rights Act in the UK applies the acts from the European Convention on Human Rights to all members of the public in the UK and not just the state. But again the question is what is more important, life or privacy? The Human Rights Act states
You have the responsibility to respect other people’s rights, and they must respect yours.
How much privacy is actually broken by posting a video online? I would say minimal, everything that is displayed is public information and only friends and relatives can identify the person by their face. There have been no cases so far that relate to this so it is hard to say what the outcome would be in a court of law.
There has been plenty of media coverage about helmet cameras this year already several court cases involving footage from cameras. So far there has not been even a hint from the Police, CPS or any other legal body that using cameras and posting footage of it online is against the law.