Helmet discussion
- Thread starter Alan57
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
@BigonaBianchi , is it condition of your insurance that riders wear a helmet or purely your decision? I see from your website that riders need to arrange their own insurance in any case.
glenn forger
Guest
It's certainly purely his decision to post lurid and graphic death fantasies, which he admits he doesn't direct at people who are at greater risk. So his horrible fantasies are specific, and partisan.
snorri
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
Some of don't click on Daily Mail links because we know we are weak, will get distracted by all the soft porn on that website and will fail to get the message behind the story we were supposed to read. If you could find some other source and give us a link.......
classic33
Leg End Member
Coming at this from a pedestrian viewpoint. I suffer from/with epilepsy, head injuries are part of the disability/condition in my case.
Last year I sufferred a base of skull injury during a fit. What helmet type would have prevented the injury.
Factor in the fact that as a result of the head injury, the helmet usually worn when cycling would now have been part of the problem. Body reacts by swelling around the injured area. pushing back in on the head.
I've had fits whilst asleep, even managing to crack my skull whilst I "slept".
How do you work round that?
sanddancer
Senior Member
- Location
- N/Wales
Lol a cycling helmet thread. 
glad the op is ok
I do wear a helmet, and glasses.
mainly so I dont get recognised looking like a prat in lycra
And as a newb I'm trying to get my post count up
glad the op is ok
I do wear a helmet, and glasses.
mainly so I dont get recognised looking like a prat in lycra
And as a newb I'm trying to get my post count up
This is again where the helmet research is biased and almost devious.
Like a seatbelt a helmet is an ornament or accessory with absolutely no function at all
... until an accident occurs when you can ask whether it played a part in reducing an injury
Cohort studies then show ALL the head injuries, and it is only in these cases that asking the question about the efficacy of the helmet is possible
However the researchers know that any "evidence" will also show that helmets will hava a similar effect on all head injuries. But politically there will be an outcry if they suggest that all these head injuries were preventable
So they then exclude the vast majority of head injuries and make claims only for a small group wher ethere is a political agenda in their favour
Lets give a similar example:
Is this sensible?
I look at shoes with soles on and decide that they might have some benefit
So I take a group of five year olds and research the use of shoes walking to school
I find that soles on shoes are an effective and comfortable way of preventing cuts and minor injuries
However I then refuse to consider that the same benefit could be acheived if six year olds wore shoes with soles...or that the five yearolds wore these shoes when walking to the shops
SIx year olds wearing shoes, or five year olds wearingthem whn walking to the shop is then something that becomes unacceptable and avoided
Not really sensible yet we acept this ludicrous situation with helmets!
Like a seatbelt a helmet is an ornament or accessory with absolutely no function at all
... until an accident occurs when you can ask whether it played a part in reducing an injury
Cohort studies then show ALL the head injuries, and it is only in these cases that asking the question about the efficacy of the helmet is possible
However the researchers know that any "evidence" will also show that helmets will hava a similar effect on all head injuries. But politically there will be an outcry if they suggest that all these head injuries were preventable
So they then exclude the vast majority of head injuries and make claims only for a small group wher ethere is a political agenda in their favour
Lets give a similar example:
Is this sensible?
I look at shoes with soles on and decide that they might have some benefit
So I take a group of five year olds and research the use of shoes walking to school
I find that soles on shoes are an effective and comfortable way of preventing cuts and minor injuries
However I then refuse to consider that the same benefit could be acheived if six year olds wore shoes with soles...or that the five yearolds wore these shoes when walking to the shops
SIx year olds wearing shoes, or five year olds wearingthem whn walking to the shop is then something that becomes unacceptable and avoided
Not really sensible yet we acept this ludicrous situation with helmets!
Last edited:
winjim
Smash the cistern
That is probably the only sensible reason to get involved in a helmet debate.And as a newb I'm trying to get my post count up
BigonaBianchi
Yes I can, Yes I am, Yes I did...Repeat.
- Location
- Iskele TRNC & Mordor UK
It's my decision. I think thats the safe and professional thing to do given the type of rides, the others in the group, and my wish not to live with the 'guilt' of having not done all I could to make the rides safe for all if somebody gets seriously injured.
Also I suspect strongly that not wearing a helmet on a road cycle ride would likely invalidate claims on most insurance policies. No doubt somebody will hav eanother view but that is mine, and I'm sticking to it. The majority of riders see it as a responsible and professional safety requirement. Those that don't are welcome to their opinion, it's not mine.
glenn forger
Guest
But you have admitted you say NOTHING to your car passengers, so their brains smeared all over everywhere don't matter?
glenn forger
Guest
What, exactly, do you say to your passengers that you don't profit from?
- Status
