cycle helmet

biscuitdunker

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

So they must be reckless, according to your view? Or is it just that their view of what risks are acceptable, and what are not, are different from yours?

If you accept such a premise, you must also accept anybody else's premise when they suggest that motorcyclists are reckless because they don't use cars.

As I understand it, full face helmets, apart from protecting the face, also protect the chin area. This is an important area to protect, but nowhere near as important as protecting the brain. You may die from an injury to your chin, but it's not as likely as death from a brain injury. What I am saying, and keep trying to say but obviously am not being clear enough, is that protecting your brain is more important than protecting your face or chin. While wearing a full face helmet may provide more protection to your head overall, they do not provide anymore protection for the brain, as far as I'm aware.

If you don't understand my intent then I'm not about to waste my time explaining it to you. Oh and if Tiddlywinks has a problem with anything I write he/she can address it themselves.

I must admit, I don't understand your intent when you berate a parent for making their child wear a cycle helmet. This sort of mentality must be beyond my understanding.

marmitedog

biscuitdunker wrote: »

That's entirely your choice, at the moment. Several countries have made it law though, you never know!

1) The law puts off people who might otherwise be tempted to try cycling and puts off casual cycling.
2) Less cyclists means increased risk for those that remain.
3) %age of cyclists presenting with head injuries increases.

Law of unintended consequences in action.

Remember, the safest countries to cycle in are those without hi-vis and helmets, namely Denmark, Netherlands and Germany.

Chippy_Minton_2

biscuitdunker wrote: »

I only know all this because he has lectured my entire family several times about why we should wear helmets when we cycle. He has a particularly gruesome story about having a cyclist come in with a large skull injury and brain matter landing on his shoes when he worked in an A&E. That pretty much convinced me not to cycle without a helmet.

Just what you want over Christmas dinner.:eek:

biscuitdunker

marmitedog wrote: »

1) The law puts off people who might otherwise be tempted to try cycling and puts off casual cycling.
2) Less cyclists means increased risk for those that remain.
3) %age of cyclists presenting with head injuries increases.

Law of unintended consequences in action.

Remember, the safest countries to cycle in are those without hi-vis and helmets, namely Denmark, Netherlands and Germany.

Having cycled in Amsterdam, I don't think their lower levels of cycling related deaths is down to the lack of helmets and hi vis. They have an entirely different situation to us, cyclists are respected by motorists, cycling is part of their national culture and often cyclists are kept entirely separate from cars. If we had all this, perhaps we could safely cycle without helmets, but unfortunately, we don't live in a utopian cyclist friendly society.

Tiddlywinks

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

I fell off my bike while off-roading the other day, dropped 5 feet into a stream hitting a branch on the way down. I only survived because I landed back-first in bracken and water. If it wasn't for that water, I might have broken my back.

Therefore I'm now going to carry a 10 gallon container of water and bracken on my back, in case it happens again.

:mad::mad:What makes you feel it is appropriate to joke like this in response to my post talking about the death of a member of my family?:mad::mad:

You are an absolute idiot - I hope you NEVER come to find out that your clever theories fail in practice..... as it will be your family that will have to cope with the resulting pain and loss.

The_Banker_5

biscuitdunker wrote: »

That's entirely your choice, at the moment. Several countries have made it law though, you never know!

I still wouldnt wear one even if they made it law.

Chippy_Minton_2

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

:mad::mad:What makes you feel it is appropriate to joke like this in response to my post talking about the death of a member of my family?:mad::mad:

You are an absolute idiot - I hope you NEVER come to find out that your clever theories fail in practice..... as it will be your family that will have to cope with the resulting pain and loss.

:rotfl:

Maybe he saw it as a bit of light relief as he actually has a sense of humour, unlike you.:p





Well if they follow Martin’s advice, his family will invest the life insurance money well.:cool:

Tiddlywinks

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

:rotfl:

Maybe he saw it as a bit of light relief as he actually has a sense of humour, unlike you.:p

Well if they follow Martin’s advice, his family will invest the life insurance money well.:cool:

:mad::mad:Another idiot typing before engaging brain - thanks for your utter lack of care as to how I might feel about someone making a joke out of the death of my relative.:mad::mad:

biscuitdunker

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

:rotfl:

Maybe he saw it as a bit of light relief as he actually has a sense of humour, unlike you.:p





Well if they follow Martin’s advice, his family will invest the life insurance money well.:cool:

Really sickening stuff. Not nice at all.

Chippy_Minton_2

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

:mad::mad:Another idiot typing before engaging brain - thanks for your utter lack of care as to how I might feel about someone making a joke out of the death of my relative.:mad::mad:

If you actually read what you quoted him on then you'll find he made a joke of his own situation and not about your relative.