Cyclone Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) In bold - because it is stupid to venture out without a helmet. You dont know what is going to happen whilst out on your bike? Someone could start pelting you with hard rocks? You could fall & hit your head on the concrete? You didn't bother to read this then? For anyone who is interested, there is a lot about cycle helmets here, http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html which includes links to lots of supporting information. And don't actually understand that issue at all... I choose not to wear a helmet whilst commuting. I prefer not to encourage drivers to pass me even more closely. I prefer not to increase the risk of torsional injury and I prefer not to hamper my peripheral vision and hearing. Why riding downhill I wear one though as the chance of landing on my head is higher. Edited April 28, 2015 by Cyclone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
small_hall Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) You didn't bother to read this then? And don't actually understand that issue at all... read what? My own post? ETA - Just spotted the above extra bit added in. Edited April 28, 2015 by small_hall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EODM83 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Just a s a genuine question - about riders in the country side riding in "packs" (apologies if this is the wrong term! I lived in the countryside for many years and had many frustrations - tractors, slow lorries etc. My friends and i would often go out on our mopeds and whoever was leading would always check behind them, if their was a considerable amount of traffic building up behind us, maybe three or four cars, or someone seemed to be in a hurry - we'd pull over, let the traffic clear and then continue on our journey. i just wandered if anyone had ever witnessed cyclists doing this? it would seem the sensible option and safer for all involved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 (edited) Taken from your previous post :- In bold - because it is stupid to venture out without a helmet. You dont know what is going to happen whilst out on your bike? Someone could start pelting you with hard rocks? You could fall & hit your head on the concrete? ????? You're not remotely troubling by the fact that your 'argument' applies equally to going out for a walk? Do you wear a helmet when walking around outside? Why not- Someone could start pelting you with hard rocks? You could fall & hit your head on the concrete? Do you wear a helmet in the bath/shower? Way more people slip and bang their heads in the bath/shower than on bikes. Edited April 28, 2015 by onewheeldave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 The pedestrian crossing on the Shalesmore/Penistone road junction is a prime example. I rarely see a cyclist obey the lights there. Here: https://goo.gl/maps/DSC1D I rarely see a driver take note of the fact that Penistone Road has a 30mph speed limit rather than being a 40. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EODM83 Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 ????? Do you wear a helmet in the bath/shower? Way more people slip and bang their heads in the bath/shower than on bikes. Ludicrous comparison - when i'm in the bath their arent all these metal boxes travelling around me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 My main point is that the knee-jerk claim that any cyclist without a helmet is reckless/stupid is utter rubbish. Given there's no evidence showing that helmets are usefull, some evidence showing that they encourage car drivers to drive closer and overwhelming evidence to show that where compulsory helmet laws are enacted, injuries rise (probably due to the lowered number of cyclists on the roads post helmet law introduction): only a fool would continue to criticize cyclists for not wearing them. ---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 13:35 ---------- It's a good bit of lateral thinking. However, I think it's unlikely as cranial gunshot wounds have never figured highly in the cycling injury stats. There might be a few car drivers on here who'd like the chance to inflict a few cranial gunshot wounds on cyclists, just to reduce the numbers. One of the interesting developments in the helmet controversy is the view that the health benefits of cycling far outweigh any risk of injury (the de Jong work in the cyclehelmets site) and that anyone being dissuaded from cycling is a health disadvantage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Ludicrous comparison - when i'm in the bath their arent all these metal boxes travelling around me. it was in reply to- Taken from your previous post :- In bold - because it is stupid to venture out without a helmet. You dont know what is going to happen whilst out on your bike? Someone could start pelting you with hard rocks? You could fall & hit your head on the concrete? as you'll may observe, being pelted with hard rocks and/or falling on concrete, also do not involve metal boxes. It's called 'context'- it would be worth your while when looking for posts to criticize, having a quick look at any posts they may be referring to, especially when they're directly quoted in the post in question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 Ludicrous comparison - when i'm in the bath their arent all these metal boxes travelling around me. The point is that cycling isn't that dangerous in the first place. But because some people started advocating and wearing helmets it gave the impression that it was somehow much more dangerous than, for example, walking, thus putting people off from cycling and in doing so losing out on the health benefits of cycling. In that respect, helmets can be seen as a specific health disadvantage, based on some research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
small_hall Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 it was in reply to- as you'll may observe, being pelted with hard rocks and/or falling on concrete, also do not involve metal boxes. It's called 'context'- it would be worth your while when looking for posts to criticize, having a quick look at any posts they may be referring to, especially when they're directly quoted in the post in question so no one else other than the person quoted is allowed to respond to a post made by a member? This is a forum - where people do chip in with their opinion. The sooner you realise that the better. ---------- Post added 28-04-2015 at 14:20 ---------- Ludicrous comparison - when i'm in the bath their arent all these metal boxes travelling around me. agreed ^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts