cycle helmet

biscuitdunker

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Right, so he's so concerned about his brain that he only uses the meakest form of protection, rather than buying a full face helmet which offers massively more protection than his fruit bowl.

Ok. That makes sense. :rolleyes:

It's not his face which is the concern. Cycle helmets are designed so that they take the brunt of an impact if you hit your head straight on, that's why they continue past a person's head - it's the overlap which protects the frontal lobe in an impact.

I'm doing no such thing. Learn to read before you talk such nonsense.

That's amazing, because when you berate a parent for stopping their child from cycling without a helmet, it looks almost exactly like you're trying to convince them to let their child cycle without a helmet! Incredible.

Generali

DaveMacD wrote: »

I personally can't see the point of lycra on a bike. It's protective qualities leave rather a lot to be desired. Much rather be wearing jeans.

Lycra shorts for cycling have flat seams which prevent chafing. They also have padding to help prevent saddle sores.

As they cling to the body, they can't get caught in the chain or wheels (I have had clothing get caught in both a chain and wheels, not a great experience as if nothing else you get oil and holes on you clothes).

Luckily, cycling a lot gives you a nice bottom. Irregular cyclists need to get out on the bike more so they have a nice pert bottom too.

The_Banker_5

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

A dear member of our family died after falling from her bike while out for a country ride - young, fit and healthy with two small children and everything to live for - it appears her front wheel hit a stone and she lost balance and fell. The neurosurgeon was very clear in saying that a helmet would have provided adequate protection to have made the accident survivable.

Please, please always wear a helmet.... the pain to everyone you would leave behind is unbearable and avoidable.

That is so tragic and I hear what you are saying, I really do.

However, thankfully those accidents are very few and very far between and I'm a bit too set in my ways now to start wearing a helmet on my pushbike in case I fall and bang my head.

Once my front wheel came off going down a steep bank and I went straight over the handlebars. I never banged my head because I put my hands out automatically to protect myself. However before I went over the handlebars I did the splits on the crossbar and banged my whatsits.:eek:

Very painful I can tell you, but it still didnt warrant wearing a Cricketers Box to protect them every time I went cycling in case I banged them again. Can you see where I'm coming from here?

I do wear a helmet when I'm riding my motorbike though cos it can do 60mph in first gear.:eek:

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

biscuitdunker wrote: »

It's not his face which is the concern. Cycle helmets are designed so that they take the brunt of an impact if you hit your head straight on, that's why they continue past a person's head - it's the overlap which protects the frontal lobe in an impact.

Full face helmets don't primarily protect one's face. This is why motorcyclists also wear full face helmets. Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance on the subject.

biscuitdunker wrote: »

That's amazing, because when you berate a parent for stopping their child from cycling without a helmet, it looks almost exactly like you're trying to convince them to let their child cycle without a helmet! Incredible.

Lets look at your quote shall we?

"I don't care if you take my view seriously. I am only baffled by your attempts at convincing parents not to make their children wear helmets when they cycle."

I'm berating a parent for not allowing their child to cycle because that child won't wear a helmet or a vest. Don't twist my words.

biscuitdunker

The_Banker wrote: »

That is so tragic and I hear what you are saying, I really do.

However, thankfully those accidents are very few and very far between

They may be where you live, but here in London they happen quite often.

biscuitdunker

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Full face helmets don't primarily protect one's face. This is why motorcyclists also wear full face helmets. Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance on the subject.

You make the claim that I am ignorant, but do not go on to explain why. Some motorcyclists do not wear full face helmets, there are open face helmets which many choose to wear.

I'm berating a parent for not allowing their child to cycle because that child won't wear a helmet or a vest. Don't twist my words.

And what exactly is your intention in doing so? Also, wrt your response to Tiddlywinks - are you always extremely callous and sarcastic, or only when someone has told you that they lost a loved one?

marmitedog

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

A dear member of our family died after falling from her bike while out for a country ride - young, fit and healthy with two small children and everything to live for - it appears her front wheel hit a stone and she lost balance and fell. The neurosurgeon was very clear in saying that a helmet would have provided adequate protection to have made the accident survivable.

Please, please always wear a helmet.... the pain to everyone you would leave behind is unbearable and avoidable.

Sorry to hear about this freak accident.

It is extremely difficult/rare to land on your head when falling of a bicycle with no-one else involved, especially on the road.

marmitedog

biscuitdunker wrote: »

They may be where you live, but here in London they happen quite often.

What? Accidents involving cyclists hitting stones and suffering fatal head injuries are more likely in London? Or are you trying to make an ill considered cheap point?

Left turning goods vehicles are the main reason for cyclist fatalities in London, with women being over represented. Helmets are useless at preventing 30 tonnes from crushing your abdomen.

Hypotheses for this include - gutter hogging, reluctance to jump red lights and a general lack of speed/assertiveness.

BillScarab

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

A dear member of our family died after falling from her bike while out for a country ride - young, fit and healthy with two small children and everything to live for - it appears her front wheel hit a stone and she lost balance and fell. The neurosurgeon was very clear in saying that a helmet would have provided adequate protection to have made the accident survivable.

Please, please always wear a helmet.... the pain to everyone you would leave behind is unbearable and avoidable.

I'm sory you lost a family member but how can the neurosurgeon prove that? Did they visit the scene of the accident? Did they say what type of helmet would have prevented the injury? Did they specify what safety standard the helmet should meet to have prevented it?

Even if he was correct you can't base policies on isolated incidents, only on whole population studies.

The standard polystyrene helmets provide so little protection it is unbelievable. Statistically there is no evidence that cycle helmets have any impact on the head inuury rate amongst cyclists.

biscuitdunker

marmitedog wrote: »

What? Accidents involving cyclists hitting stones and suffering fatal head injuries are more likely in London? Or are you trying to make an ill considered cheap point?

Fatal head injuries in cyclists. I don't think it's a cheap point. My BIL has worked in nearly every major head trauma unit in London and often sees cyclists with severe head injuries. Before specialising, he worked in one of the busiest A&Es in the country and again, often saw cyclists with major head injuries. If asked, he would most likely say that he quite regularly sees cyclists with head injuries.