On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:02:37 GMT, Peter Grange
wrote:

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270

More bull****.

But hang on, he's a policeman so it _must_ be true.

Don't BIT's stats claim they prevent leg injuries too though?

Confusing isn't it?



I didn't realise you were a witness - or perhaps the paramedic who
attended the accident - or were you the doctor who operated on him?

Oh - no - you're a ****wit cyclist who can't see that there may be
some truth in the story.

You are of course right - no-one should ever wear a cycle helmet
because they never do any good.

Roll on compulsory training for all cyclists and compulsory helmets.

(Give us a laugh - what's your view on riding on pavements and
ignoring red lights?)

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:16:33 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:02:37 GMT, Peter Grange
wrote:

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270

More bull****.

But hang on, he's a policeman so it _must_ be true.

Don't BIT's stats claim they prevent leg injuries too though?

Confusing isn't it?



I didn't realise you were a witness - or perhaps the paramedic who
attended the accident - or were you the doctor who operated on him?

You have just been "caught" by a troll - not even a cyclist could
believe that helmets never do any good - he must have posted it just
for an argument.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:16:33 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:02:37 GMT, Peter Grange
wrote:

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270

More bull****.

But hang on, he's a policeman so it _must_ be true.

Don't BIT's stats claim they prevent leg injuries too though?

Confusing isn't it?



I didn't realise you were a witness - or perhaps the paramedic who
attended the accident - or were you the doctor who operated on him?

Oh - no - you're a ****wit cyclist who can't see that there may be
some truth in the story.

You are of course right - no-one should ever wear a cycle helmet
because they never do any good.

Roll on compulsory training for all cyclists and compulsory helmets.

(Give us a laugh - what's your view on riding on pavements and
ignoring red lights?)

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)


"but when the cyclist veered to the right he was struck by the
Vauxhall Astra van."

So why did he veer to the right ....surely that contributed to him
getting hit ?

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:54:01 +0100, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:16:33 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:02:37 GMT, Peter Grange
wrote:

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270

More bull****.

But hang on, he's a policeman so it _must_ be true.

Don't BIT's stats claim they prevent leg injuries too though?

Confusing isn't it?



I didn't realise you were a witness - or perhaps the paramedic who
attended the accident - or were you the doctor who operated on him?

Oh - no - you're a ****wit cyclist who can't see that there may be
some truth in the story.

You are of course right - no-one should ever wear a cycle helmet
because they never do any good.

Roll on compulsory training for all cyclists and compulsory helmets.

(Give us a laugh - what's your view on riding on pavements and
ignoring red lights?)

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)


"but when the cyclist veered to the right he was struck by the
Vauxhall Astra van."

So why did he veer to the right ....surely that contributed to him
getting hit ?


It probably did - that is not the point of the thread - the OP was
rubbishing that the helmet may have saved his life.


--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:21:06 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:54:01 +0100, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:16:33 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:02:37 GMT, Peter Grange
wrote:

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270

More bull****.

But hang on, he's a policeman so it _must_ be true.

Don't BIT's stats claim they prevent leg injuries too though?

Confusing isn't it?



I didn't realise you were a witness - or perhaps the paramedic who
attended the accident - or were you the doctor who operated on him?

Oh - no - you're a ****wit cyclist who can't see that there may be
some truth in the story.

You are of course right - no-one should ever wear a cycle helmet
because they never do any good.

Roll on compulsory training for all cyclists and compulsory helmets.

(Give us a laugh - what's your view on riding on pavements and
ignoring red lights?)

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)


"but when the cyclist veered to the right he was struck by the
Vauxhall Astra van."

So why did he veer to the right ....surely that contributed to him
getting hit ?


It probably did - that is not the point of the thread - the OP was
rubbishing that the helmet may have saved his life.



Err...well excuse me for breathing !!!

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:16:33 +0100, judith wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:02:37 GMT, Peter Grange
wrote:

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270

More bull****.

But hang on, he's a policeman so it _must_ be true.

Don't BIT's stats claim they prevent leg injuries too though?

Confusing isn't it?



I didn't realise you were a witness - or perhaps the paramedic who
attended the accident - or were you the doctor who operated on him?

Oh - no - you're a ****wit cyclist who can't see that there may be some
truth in the story.

You are of course right - no-one should ever wear a cycle helmet because
they never do any good.

Roll on compulsory training for all cyclists and compulsory helmets.

(Give us a laugh - what's your view on riding on pavements and ignoring
red lights?)

Have you actually tried one of these helmets on? I must say that when
wearing one it still leaves you feeling very vulnerable as the lower 3/4
of the head is still completely exposed. I suppose they may offer some
protection in a limited number of low speed impacts but anything other
than that they would be completely useless. You'd could get the side/front
or back of your head (stoved in/whatever) as those parts are completely
unprotected. Only an idiot would feel that he had any protection while
wearing one. If anything they are a hindrance, at the very least annoying.
You should try one on.

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

"Dead Paul" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:16:33 +0100, judith wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:02:37 GMT, Peter Grange
wrote:

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270

More bull****.

But hang on, he's a policeman so it _must_ be true.

Don't BIT's stats claim they prevent leg injuries too though?

Confusing isn't it?



I didn't realise you were a witness - or perhaps the paramedic who
attended the accident - or were you the doctor who operated on him?

Oh - no - you're a ****wit cyclist who can't see that there may be some
truth in the story.

You are of course right - no-one should ever wear a cycle helmet because
they never do any good.

Roll on compulsory training for all cyclists and compulsory helmets.

(Give us a laugh - what's your view on riding on pavements and ignoring
red lights?)

Have you actually tried one of these helmets on? I must say that when
wearing one it still leaves you feeling very vulnerable as the lower 3/4
of the head is still completely exposed. I suppose they may offer some
protection in a limited number of low speed impacts but anything other
than that they would be completely useless. You'd could get the side/front
or back of your head (stoved in/whatever) as those parts are completely
unprotected. Only an idiot would feel that he had any protection while
wearing one. If anything they are a hindrance, at the very least annoying.
You should try one on.

The problem is that you would never get pedal cyclists to wear full face
motorcycle crash helmets - too big, heavy, clumsy, expensive, etc. The type
of helmet made for pedal cyclists, skate-boarders, et al, is a good
compromise - it affords a decent level of protection but is lightweight,
fairly inexpensive, and leaves the ears clear so that cyclists can hear what
is going on around them.

Whilst it does leave the lower part of the head unprotected, its design
means that it will still provide good levels of protection in most pedal
cycling accidents - ie hitting a kerb and flying over the handlebars. The
way in which the head is attached to the body means that when skidding along
the ground the head will definitely be protected.

Many people have died following a non fatal punch when they have fallen over
backwards and hit their heads on the ground. A cycle helmet would
dramatically reduce the chances of head injury in such a fall. I am not
advocating that everyone should walk around wearing cycle helmets in case
they are assaulted - merely pointing out that in any scenario where the head
is likely to come into contact with the ground (and the risk is far higher
when cycling than when walking), then a pedal cycle helmet *will* provide
good head protection. To argue otherwise is simply stupid - a bit akin to
the nonsense arguments made against car seat belts when they became
compulsory.

Ret.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:40:06 +0100, Ret. wrote:


"Dead Paul" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:16:33 +0100, judith wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:02:37 GMT, Peter Grange
wrote:

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270

More bull****.

But hang on, he's a policeman so it _must_ be true.

Don't BIT's stats claim they prevent leg injuries too though?

Confusing isn't it?



I didn't realise you were a witness - or perhaps the paramedic who
attended the accident - or were you the doctor who operated on him?

Oh - no - you're a ****wit cyclist who can't see that there may be some
truth in the story.

You are of course right - no-one should ever wear a cycle helmet
because they never do any good.

Roll on compulsory training for all cyclists and compulsory helmets.

(Give us a laugh - what's your view on riding on pavements and ignoring
red lights?)

Have you actually tried one of these helmets on? I must say that when
wearing one it still leaves you feeling very vulnerable as the lower 3/4
of the head is still completely exposed. I suppose they may offer some
protection in a limited number of low speed impacts but anything other
than that they would be completely useless. You'd could get the
side/front or back of your head (stoved in/whatever) as those parts are
completely unprotected. Only an idiot would feel that he had any
protection while wearing one. If anything they are a hindrance, at the
very least annoying. You should try one on.

The problem is that you would never get pedal cyclists to wear full face
motorcycle crash helmets - too big, heavy, clumsy, expensive, etc. The
type of helmet made for pedal cyclists, skate-boarders, et al, is a good
compromise - it affords a decent level of protection but is lightweight,
fairly inexpensive, and leaves the ears clear so that cyclists can hear
what is going on around them.

Whilst it does leave the lower part of the head unprotected, its design
means that it will still provide good levels of protection in most pedal
cycling accidents - ie hitting a kerb and flying over the handlebars. The
way in which the head is attached to the body means that when skidding
along the ground the head will definitely be protected.

Many people have died following a non fatal punch when they have fallen
over backwards and hit their heads on the ground. A cycle helmet would
dramatically reduce the chances of head injury in such a fall. I am not
advocating that everyone should walk around wearing cycle helmets in case
they are assaulted - merely pointing out that in any scenario where the
head is likely to come into contact with the ground (and the risk is far
higher when cycling than when walking), then a pedal cycle helmet *will*
provide good head protection. To argue otherwise is simply stupid

There's nothing like logic eh? You write nonsense old boy. The helmet only
covers about 1/4 of the head. It leaves front back and sides exposed. Thus
it only affords protection to the top of the head and then only in low
velocity impacts. I actually think it could lull some riders into a false
sense of security. As far as I'm concerned they are a waste of space and
inhibit natural movement. I just can't stand wearing the things, i find
them exceedingly inhibitory. I've had a lifetime of cycling and have come
off my bike many times without any head injury. It is quite easy to
protect the head when falling off your bike in most instances where the
speeds are low but of course if you are going to get hit by a car then
it's another matter entirely, those helmets will be completely useless in
such instances. I'm afraid you are pretty much at the mercy of the gods
should you get hit by a car.




- a bit
akin to the nonsense arguments made against car seat belts when they
became compulsory.


Cycle helmets make riding uncomfortable. They are a liability.

Ret.

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

Ret. wrote:
Many people have died following a non fatal punch when they have fallen over
backwards and hit their heads on the ground. A cycle helmet would
dramatically reduce the chances of head injury in such a fall. I am not
advocating that everyone should walk around wearing cycle helmets in case
they are assaulted - merely pointing out that in any scenario where the head
is likely to come into contact with the ground (and the risk is far higher
when cycling than when walking), then a pedal cycle helmet *will* provide
good head protection.

Actually the risk - of severe injury or death - isn't 'far higher' when
cycling that when walking. It's about the same - somewhat less per mile,
somewhat more per hour, as national statistics show.

To argue otherwise is simply stupid - a bit akin to the nonsense
arguments made against car seat belts when they became compulsory.

Some nonsense arguments were used at that time. But the argument that
they transferred risk from drivers to passengers and other road users
stands.

Colin McKenzie



--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

"Ret." wrote in message
...

The problem is that you would never get pedal cyclists to wear full face
motorcycle crash helmets - too big, heavy, clumsy, expensive, etc. The
type of helmet made for pedal cyclists, skate-boarders, et al, is a good
compromise - it affords a decent level of protection but is lightweight,
fairly inexpensive, and leaves the ears clear so that cyclists can hear
what is going on around them.

Whilst it does leave the lower part of the head unprotected, its design
means that it will still provide good levels of protection in most pedal
cycling accidents - ie hitting a kerb and flying over the handlebars. The
way in which the head is attached to the body means that when skidding
along the ground the head will definitely be protected.

Many people have died following a non fatal punch when they have fallen
over backwards and hit their heads on the ground. A cycle helmet would
dramatically reduce the chances of head injury in such a fall.

If by head injury you are including cuts, scrapes and a headache then I
would probably agree with you. If you are talking serious head injuries then
I don't buy it.

How much energy can a cycle helmet absorb before failing? How much energy is
required to cause a serious head injury? How much more likely is a helmeted
head to hit the ground due to its larger size? How much increased risk is
there from rotational injuries?

I am not advocating that everyone should walk around wearing cycle helmets
in case they are assaulted - merely pointing out that in any scenario
where the head is likely to come into contact with the ground (and the
risk is far higher when cycling than when walking), then a pedal cycle
helmet *will* provide good head protection. To argue otherwise is simply
stupid - a bit akin to the nonsense arguments made against car seat belts
when they became compulsory.


Could you explain why conutries that have introduced mandatory helmet laws
have not seen a corresponding decrease in cyclist head injury rates.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf

The analogy with car seat belts is also flawed:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1135.html