Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[Linford]

The study is British so is totally relevant to here. The Dutch was an addendum comment to indicate that not only are cars not used very much for family outings, but that its quite possible to have family outings without a car.

Our public transport network is fairly rubbish outside the big cities as well as being very expensive. I walk into town every weekend with my family (usually cover about 5 or 6 miles), but how many time a year can you do that beore getting bored rigid by it ?

 

[MontyVeda]

will there ever be a helmet debate to end all helmet debates?

will anybody ever bring a new argument to the table?

how long will the same old same old's go round and round in circles?

 

[Red Light]

Cunobelin - take note

Linford take note:

IF a helmet worked well, only 10-15% would have been saved by a helmet.

Its a poor report because it makes that assumption having spent pages reviewing the published data and concluding that it could find no evidence that a helmet did prevent injuries.

 

[Red Light]

will there ever be a helmet debate to end all helmet debates?

will anybody ever bring a new argument to the table?

how long will the same old same old's go round and round in circles?

As long as people have a few minutes to waste winding up Linford.

 

[Linford]

Linford take note:

[quote]IF a helmet worked well, only 10-15% would have been saved by a helmet.

Its a poor report because it makes that assumption having spent pages reviewing the published data and concluding that it could find no evidence that a helmet did prevent injuries.[/quote]

This was an answer to Cunobelins previous comment about the differences between a head injury caused by either car or bike.

 

[Linford]

As long as people have a few minutes to waste winding up Linford.

It takes mre than your efforts to wind me up

 

[theclaud]

I disagree with it too, ben. But that doesn't make it drivel.

I'm quite against compulsion too, but my opinion (to one side or the other in a debate) doesn't necessarily render the contrary view drivel.

Disagreeing with it doesn't make it drivel - it was drivel from the instant it was posted.

 

[theclaud]

[QUOTE 1970330, member: 9609"]You are 27.6 times more likely to suffer a head injury while drinking alcohol than while cycling sober.

Helmets for drinkers is what I say[/quote]

I ride a bike and I'm pissed a lot. Should I wear two?

 

[theclaud]

[QUOTE 1971893, member: 45"]Still having trouble interpreting research. Pedestrians include drunks, the frail elderly and the wreckless who run across the road without looking. As Linf is none of these, he's less likely to acquire a head injury as a pedestrian than as a road cyclist.[/quote]

The first bit of that is probably true, but what if he's a numpty, and never rides a bike?

 

[Linford]

You dont remember last night then? - the 2nd one to cover your modesty.

In fact, it should really be 4.......

Make that 5 - another one to pee into.

 

[Linford]

The first bit of that is probably true, but what if he's a numpty, and never rides a bike?

I am on 2 wheels nearly every day Claudine. I never ever touch alcohol when on them.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

you are so foolish. If you're travelling at speed then your head hits the tarmac a glancing blow and either slides or bounces. When I hit the ground travelling at 22mph I went down sideways with a bang, my shoulder hitting the ground first and my head, pivoting vertically, bounced, causing the helmet to split, which is all to the good. An advertisement for helmets if ever there was one. Greg's head, travelling at a faster horizontal rate, and meeting the ground at the same time as his shoulder, slid, and his cap swivelled around his head and scored a deep line in to his scalp and forehead. Had he been wearing a helmet the helmet would have rotated, and the strap of the helmet would have taken his head with it. Cue neck damage.

Now..........it's easy to theorise about this stuff from the security of your own sofa, but, it's disrespectful, dishonest and downright stupid to theorise when competent eyewitness accounts and that of the crashee tell you what's happened.

Actually it isn't. Your helmet failed catastrophically rather than compressing as its designer intended it to. If a helmet splits in the the EN1078 and Snell 90A tests, which they rarely do being designed to meet the test criteria rather than work well in the real world, it would fail the test.

Helmets are meant to compress to absorb shock, not split. Post accident a helmet in pieces has done very little to protect your head.

 

[Red Light]

Actually it isn't. Your helmet failed catastrophically rather than compressing as its designer intended it to. If a helmet splits in the the EN1078 and Snell 90A tests, which they rarely do being designed to meet the test criteria rather than work well in the real world, it would fail the test.

Helmets are meant to compress to absorb shock, not split. Post accident a helmet in pieces has done very little to protect your head.

And most people don't realise that the test is a drop onto the crown of the helmet whereas most accidents are an impact on to the untested side of the helmet. Because of the free edge there the polystyrene is much more likely to snap off in the impact.

 

[Linford]

I ride a bike and I'm pissed a lot. Should I wear two?

Come to think of it, this is a fairly shocking admission.
I think you kind of exclude yourself from any and all debates on road safety when you condone this.

 

[Linford]

Quite right too for a motorcycle but that is another chalk cheese comparison when we are talking about bikes.

Well, not it doesn't because your behaviour becomes erratic when under the influence.

Somebody in that state has no right to share common space with other vehicles.