Getting bored with not being able to travel so just poking about with no real purpose. Didn't even notice the date.The above is in response to a post of mine from five and half years ago. I'd forgotten all about it.
I often see statements like these used as an argument or defence and no doubt they are used for rhetoric, they are a perfect example of abusing statistics. The way they are written implies that the accidents will happen on a timescale and since the wavelength of this timescale is so much longer than a lifetime it is not going to happen.
I did that in the Black Country Museum . We had to wear a hard hat because of the low ceiling . I walked in and ducked to avoid the obstacle not taking into account of the extra height of the helmet . I didn't half get a jolt on my neck !Consider two people of 175 cm in height walking in the dark and unaware of a steel beam across the path at a height of 176 cm. Which one is likely to suffer from an impact, the helmet wearer or the non helmet wearer?
I would expect the helmet wearer to suffer a neck injury.
No, I think you are inferring that - there is no implication.
Yes, they ban us from rides they have a hand in organising, based on the usual unproven claims used by zealots to promote helmets outside adverts (where advertising standards prevent use of unsubstantiated claims such as helmets prevent injury, are better than nothing or keep riders safe).
It will be as usual, a very small minority - but some certainly do! I've had the odd comment while out cycling bare headed, and even in laid back France I had a cyclist tapping his helmeted head as he passed in the opposite direction while looking at my head.
.So is motorcycling, in 30 years I have had exactly the same number of accidents on a motorbike as I have a bicycle as I have a car. ’I watched the Paris-Nice race yesterday and the Jumbo Vista rider coming off as the street narrowed 500m after a sprint. Not going at any massive speed really but his helmet was cracked in two at the back and he looked a bit wobbly. Assessed as good to carry on. Now who can medically say on here that had he not had the helmet on he would have been exactly the same without any further injury ? No split head needing multiple stitches or a fractured skull ? But then who can prove the helmet saved him from those injuries ? The speed was not a factor as the whole peloton was slowing for the narrow street so guessing he was at a similar speed more like average joe would be doing. To say his head was hit because it’s 50% bigger to me is b******s, if you hit something with enough force to crack a helmet then you where always on a trajectory to hit it and a 1” thick helmet was never the difference between missing and hitting.......like a Tom and Jerry cartoon where his head stops inches from railroad crossing and train only for the gate to open and smack him instead
[Helmet evangelists]
It didn't look like he was assessed in line with the new concussion protocols. Doctor arrives and gives a thumbs up within seconds, doing no tests. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other...aks-into-two-pieces-following-parisnice-crash
Their average speed for the whole stage was over 43km/h (27mph). No way were they doing 10-15mph if it was 500m after a sprint.
No, indeed, the primary cause was routing the peloton into a narrow street with bare metal fences just 500m after a sprint bonus line! The increased size of his head+hat probably didn't improve his chances, though.
He broke the back off his helmet. That's outside the tested protective zone on most helmets and doesn't take much force to break on some models. Also, smashing the back like that indicates it may have been done as he landed on the floor on his back, which is known to be a situation where helmet use can make concussion and neck injuries worse than not using one. It's simply not a crash that current cycle helmets have to be tested for.
So are you saying you use head-protection when driving that is similar to your motorcycle usage?
