Do you 'engage' with cyclists?
Discussion
I'm now convinced a cyclist bummed his mum or his missus.otolith said:
Finlandia said:
Nobody is discouraging anything, cycle all you like, but wear a helmet. How can the need to use a helmet when cycling discourage people from walking, cross country skiing or any other form of exercise?
That is what happened when it was tried.http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.html
Finlandia said:
Nobody is discouraging anything, cycle all you like, but wear a helmet. How can the need to use a helmet when cycling discourage people from walking, cross country skiing or any other form of exercise?
Since when was cross-country skiing a viable form of exercise in this country?There is an incredibly strong inverse correlation between helmet wearing by cyclists and cycling participation. Countries where cycling is an everyday activity, such as Holland, don't use helmets.
If you want more cyclists to wear helmets, fewer people will cycle. It's just how it is, and there's no point in saying things like 'why would that put you off' - it might not put me, personally, off but it definitely deters people on a population level.
And if you are a tub of lard because you drive everywhere rather than walking or cycling, the chances of you participating in ANY form of physical activity is MUCH lower than somebody who cycles.
So yes, a compulsion to use a helmet when cycling would result in reduced levels of other forms of exercise.
Mr Will said:
Finlandia said:
otolith said:
Personally, I always wear a helmet for cycling, but I don't see how that's anyone's business but my own. Some real nanny staters round here.
I just find it odd that moped riders must wear a helmet and cyclists do not, same speed and not far off weight.
Nearly as fast as a cyclist, significantly heavier and often driven by elderly or infirm drivers. Shouldn't they wear helmets too?
on the Tour de France, 60 mph is seen fairly regularly.yonex said:
JagXJR said:
I will be fixing my cigarette lighter ASAP so I can use my dashcam again. That is my only mistake.
Yes, post a few clips up, like that other chap did. He successfully highlighted the fact that he no patience and then messed up the over take. Do you not think when all and sundry are pointing out that you could have had something to do with it that maybe.....Finlandia said:
1. I rarely walk at speeds of up to 30mph,
2. Why is it so difficult to understand that a helmet protects your head if an accident was to happen?
1. Get struck by a car at the right speed and you'll soon do so.2. Why is it so difficult to understand that a helmet protects your head if an accident was to happen?
2. What is difficult to understand is why only ordinary cyclists, who are at no more risk than pretty much anyone else, are picked out for wearing helmets. Stairs are a bigger source of head injury than utility bikes are, pedestrians are at the same risk. If you wore a helmet for ordinary cycling, why would you take it off?
Helmets may well protect your head in an accident but where does the idea that only cyclists heads are worth protecting?
Finlandia said:
It doesn't change the fact that wearing a helmet saves you from head injury.
A helmet saves you from head injury? Does it? In every case? I know people bestow miraculous properties upon these flimsy pieces of polystyrene, but making the absolute statement that helmets saves you from head injury really is going too far!Absolutely in line with those who exaggerate their properties though.
Quoted for posterity though, anyway. Finlandia, your debating skills just get worse and worse. I don't think you've said barely anything that is correct.
heebeegeetee said:
Finlandia said:
It doesn't change the fact that wearing a helmet saves you from head injury.
A helmet saves you from head injury? Does it? In every case? I know people bestow miraculous properties upon these flimsy pieces of polystyrene, but making the absolute statement that helmets saves you from head injury really is going too far!Absolutely in line with those who exaggerate their properties though.
Quoted for posterity though, anyway. Finlandia, your debating skills just get worse and worse. I don't think you've said barely anything that is correct.
Flimsy polystyrene is also the material used to pack stuff in boxes to prevent damage.
I would say only two things regarding helmets. One: wear one, don't wear one, it's entirely up to you and I have no views whatsoever on your reasoning behind that decision. Two: if you had an accident your chances of survival i would imagine are increased if you wear a helmet, assuming all things are equal and he only difference being whetherou wore a helmet or not.
Devil2575 said:
So do you have evidence that they don't?
Flimsy polystyrene is also the material used to pack stuff in boxes to prevent damage.
So why aren't we wearing them all the time? What is so precious about cyclists heads?Flimsy polystyrene is also the material used to pack stuff in boxes to prevent damage.
The decline in head injuries for cyclists mirrors the same for pedestrians, who don't wear helmets. The decline in head injuries for both groups began long before helmets became mandatory anywhere.
It's very hard to find any evidence anywhere that cycle helmet use for ordinary cyclists has improved public health. It's not hard to find evidence that health has worsened where these laws have been introduced. In the state of Victoria, mentioned in the links above, they're talking of a public health disaster, and since helmet laws the accident rates have gone up. http://www.cycle-helmets.com/victorian-auditor-hel...
heebeegeetee said:
Devil2575 said:
So do you have evidence that they don't?
Flimsy polystyrene is also the material used to pack stuff in boxes to prevent damage.
So why aren't we wearing them all the time? What is so precious about cyclists heads?Flimsy polystyrene is also the material used to pack stuff in boxes to prevent damage.
The decline in head injuries for cyclists mirrors the same for pedestrians, who don't wear helmets. The decline in head injuries for both groups began long before helmets became mandatory anywhere.
It's very hard to find any evidence anywhere that cycle helmet use for ordinary cyclists has improved public health. It's not hard to find evidence that health has worsened where these laws have been introduced. In the state of Victoria, mentioned in the links above, they're talking of a public health disaster, and since helmet laws the accident rates have gone up. http://www.cycle-helmets.com/victorian-auditor-hel...
I'm talking about the evidence that a helmet does no good if you fall off and hit your head on the ground.
Devil2575 said:
heebeegeetee said:
Finlandia said:
It doesn't change the fact that wearing a helmet saves you from head injury.
A helmet saves you from head injury? Does it? In every case? I know people bestow miraculous properties upon these flimsy pieces of polystyrene, but making the absolute statement that helmets saves you from head injury really is going too far!Absolutely in line with those who exaggerate their properties though.
Quoted for posterity though, anyway. Finlandia, your debating skills just get worse and worse. I don't think you've said barely anything that is correct.
Flimsy polystyrene is also the material used to pack stuff in boxes to prevent damage.
My LAZER helmet was wrecked when some silly bint knocked me flying. LAZER have a scheme wherein you get a significant discount if you return a bent helmet. As the original was team issue, I was a bit peed off at having it mangled. The bike was also a write-off.
A helmet can only save you in accidents that involve your head striking something, it won't save you from being side swiped or struck from behind, it infers absolutely no protection from a shattered pelvis or a collar bone fracture or ruptured spleen.
Having said that I never get on a bike without one because frankly I'm not psychic and don't know what lies ahead, it cost me an insignificant amount, is as comfortable as your trousers and just like those you don't really notice it's there.
I've needed one just once in 5000 miles and it was slow speed collision with a rider in front, the forward momentum being so low that our wheel touch left me swinging like a pendulum to the road. The helmet did it's job and spread the impact, cracking in the process as designed to do; without the helmet that was my head hitting the floor and my skull isn't quite so good at dissipating an impact, yes I can only guess at what the injury would have been but it would have been something between an 'egg' on my head to a fracture and an accompanying concussion at either end of the scale, any of which would have prevented me from completing the 30 miles back to my car I was able to achieve after a 5 minute sit and catch my breath.
Having said that I never get on a bike without one because frankly I'm not psychic and don't know what lies ahead, it cost me an insignificant amount, is as comfortable as your trousers and just like those you don't really notice it's there.
I've needed one just once in 5000 miles and it was slow speed collision with a rider in front, the forward momentum being so low that our wheel touch left me swinging like a pendulum to the road. The helmet did it's job and spread the impact, cracking in the process as designed to do; without the helmet that was my head hitting the floor and my skull isn't quite so good at dissipating an impact, yes I can only guess at what the injury would have been but it would have been something between an 'egg' on my head to a fracture and an accompanying concussion at either end of the scale, any of which would have prevented me from completing the 30 miles back to my car I was able to achieve after a 5 minute sit and catch my breath.
Last response to you on this thread. Since to quote Ray Liotta in a film "It's impossible you're this stupid" So you must be either borderline autistic or trolling. And I'm not sure it's wise to argue with an idiot. 
head. In the same way any road user who endangers other road users is a dick who should be banned. I'd quite like you defend a bad road users right to continue to use the roads. (Actually don't bother it will just be another incomprehensible tirade where your prejudices come out again)
and didn't even apologise. I wish a copper had seen it and had a word. You see, dheads regardless of our respective methods of travel annoy me. Who'd have thunk?!
To the others regarding Helmets.
I wear one every time. I race my bike so it seems pointless to train any different to how I race. But I'd wear one regardless to be fair. But I do accept it's up to the individual concerned to make their choice, or the choice for their children (if any)
Quite fancy a Giro Synthe in the near future.
Can't get on fit wise with the Spesh Evade
Anyone got a view on the Kask Infinity?
Johnnytheboy said:
.. Do you believe that anyone that argues with you is by definition a bad driver?
No. But I do believe that anyone that can't get past a cyclist without endangering them or breaking the highway code and/or law. Is a dhead. In the same way any road user who endangers other road users is a dick who should be banned. I'd quite like you defend a bad road users right to continue to use the roads. (Actually don't bother it will just be another incomprehensible tirade where your prejudices come out again)Johnnytheboy said:
.. It would be like saying anyone that wants gun control laws can't shoot, or vegetarians can't cook meat. It doesn't make any sense!
err. No you lost me. Again don't bother explaining.Johnnytheboy said:
.. I repeat that I always treat cyclists with all the courtesy I can,
Good. Keep it up.Johnnytheboy said:
.. I don't like cyclists blaming drivers for everything, therefore I must be a bad driver.
Now clearly some cyclists blame car drivers for everything. But that's just as retarded as vice versa. Context is everything. Sometimes it's the cyclists fault. Statistically it's normaly the other way, but nothing is every 100% clear cut or black n white. Though in Jag boys case. It WAS HIS FAULT and he's trying to blame other road users because they had a go at him and his fragile ego is offended and he hoped PH would back him regardless of the facts.Johnnytheboy said:
Ok, I get your point, you can't ride a bike without getting annoyed at other road users.
AS I SAID EARLIER! But you ignore. Clearly not all road users! Only the ones that endanger me. Whether I'm on the bike, on a motorbike or in a car. The rest are fine. I could care less about the majority who can drive around without risking others lives. Guy this evening in a Volvo undertook round a car that was turning right, swerved around the parked car and popped out right in front of me on my side of the road whilst I was driving home at 30-35ish. Que emergency stop! He was a stupid fat and didn't even apologise. I wish a copper had seen it and had a word. You see, dheads regardless of our respective methods of travel annoy me. Who'd have thunk?! To the others regarding Helmets.
I wear one every time. I race my bike so it seems pointless to train any different to how I race. But I'd wear one regardless to be fair. But I do accept it's up to the individual concerned to make their choice, or the choice for their children (if any)
Quite fancy a Giro Synthe in the near future.
Can't get on fit wise with the Spesh Evade
Anyone got a view on the Kask Infinity?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff