Forum menu
[i]exactly what I was thinking, and I'm sure I read something about very low speed impacts being dangerous due to the high angle of incidence (ie straight down)...[/i]
Like when you were a baby?
- I wear one to protect against the minor injuries that they work for when the Risk is high of having a minor injury
ah, [b]now[/b] I understand - it's like your infallible weather sense - some of us can never tell when we're more likely to be injured, having experienced harmless high speed offs and low speed broken bones, and also being aware that one is more careful in obviously dangerous conditions and reckless in safe ones...
Like when you were a baby?
just as well really, if I were any cleverer I'd be insufferable 🙂
What about adding high-vis clothing to the list?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8692359.stm
[i]simonfbarnes - Member
Like when you were a baby?
just as well really, if I were any cleverer I'd be insufferable [/i]
Quality reply...sfb, I salute you..
NO SFB - once again you simply do not understand but chose to mock something youdon't understand
Cycling is very safe. Accident rates are low. Some forms of cycling have higher risk than others.
Level of risk is easily estimated. It remains a probability not an absolute but it is easy to do.
Going off jumps at high speed clearly is a more risky pursuit than wandering along an old railway line.
Risk assessment can be done in many ways but on cycle helmets folk seem incapable of any rational assessment of risk.
[img] 
[/img]
[b]what is actually needed is an attitude [/b]change in drivers where they stop thinking of cyclists as nuisance freeloaders, and until that happens, I'm not sure those things will make much difference. Also cyclepaths are not currently compulsory
And the insurance idea would do just that, adjust attitudes. At the moment, broad brush / sweeping generalisation, granted, the attitude is "i'm covered unless i rear end another vehicle"
If drivers were forced to assess situations, where as the lower powered vehicle or even pedestrian would be the victim in the eyes of the law, regardless of fault, i.e. - drunk jaywalking pedestrian on way home from pub walks in front of car, driver gets prosecuted...
Drivers would soon learn to be more observant, adjust speed, reduce risk of collision or face very serious consequences, such as incarceration, fines or increased insurance premiums.
Adapt or get off the road.
NO SFB - once again you simply do not understand but chose to mock something you don't understand
forgive me, but isn't it bootless to speculate about what I do or don't understand ? I'm not antagonistic to your suggestions, but I'd like to see the arguments tested, not just defended by bluster.
Cycling is very safe. Accident rates are low. Some forms of cycling have higher risk than others.
Level of risk is easily estimated. It remains a probability not an absolute but it is easy to do.
K...
Going off jumps at high speed clearly is a more risky pursuit than wandering along an old railway line.
but only a risk of minor, helmet-compatible injuries ?
Risk assessment can be done in many ways but on cycle helmets folk seem incapable of any rational assessment of risk.
I think I rate risk assessment similarly to weather forecasting and astrology - you cannot usefully estimate the unknowable and random except in the most vague of terms. Doing jumps is probably more risky than pootling around, but I'm not sure to what conclusions that knowledge can usefully lead, especially when the former is more fun (for those able)
And the insurance idea would do just that, adjust attitudes
I think you may be right. Put the assumption of fault with the driver unless proved absent beyond reasonable doubt - after all, driving is an oft abused privilege, not a necessity.
I will always wear a helmet, my kids and wife will always wear helmets and thats all that matters to me. So I don't really care what the law is.
At the end of the day a helmet is only there to make you look stupid.
Sometimes I'll wear one, sometimes I won't.
I quite like having freedom of choice.
I got through my childhood without ever wearing a helmet whilst on my bike.
The minor knocks you get to your helmet could be serious when not wearing a helmet and end up costing the NHS money or even support for you brain damage.
Enforcing helmet-wearing reduces the number of people riding bikes. This costs the NHS more long-term.
SFB - I really can't be bothered attempting to explain this when you have basic concepts confused and your mind is so closed.
I have explained the points many times - why do you want it repeated?
Risk assessment is a useful tool - as you equate weather forecasting to astrology it shows how little you understand probabilities. all riskl assessment gives you is a probability.
but only a risk of minor, helmet-compatible injuries ?
I don't know why you keep saying this - its not a part of my argument and its not something I have said.
I believe helmets offer good protection against minor injuries but little against major injuries.
When the risk of any injury is high I wear one, when its low I don't.
these are two separate issues not connected in any way.
I got through my childhood without ever wearing a helmet whilst on my bike.
You can't have done. Anyone riding a bike without a helmet dies an instant and horrific death!
I must be a zombie too then.
Does this make my wife a necrophiliac?
SFB said
just as well really, if I were any cleverer I'd be insufferable
Sorry to disagree with you Mr Barnes but your current IQ is more than sufficient 😉
It's like bloody groundhog day on here sometimes 🙄
OH FFS is there anyone who is unsure about their position on this issue?Should I wear my helmet what does STW think?
Hopefully ,soon, we can go back to just discussing lights and agree helmets rule because it is easier to helmet mount a light than bolt it to your skull.
Will it protect you if I bang your heads together 😉
SFB - I really can't be bothered attempting to explain this when you have basic concepts confused and your mind is so closed.
and you don't seem to be able to understand that I'm actually supporting you and I'm quite open to actual information as opposed to handwaving 🙂 My criticism is of the bits that don't seem to make sense.
Risk assessment is a useful tool - as you equate weather forecasting to astrology it shows how little you understand probabilities. all riskl assessment gives you is a probability.
useful for what, apart from filling in forms though ? I've been riding a bike for a long time and had many, many crashes and injuries, and the only conclusion I've reached is that I don't know when or how hard the next one will be. On the balance of probability, I'll wear a helmet and demand those I lead do the same (or at least, make an informed choice), but I don't support compulsion.
I believe helmets offer good protection against minor injuries but little against major injuries.
but you never know which is going to happen next, so on its own this info is useless.
Sorry to disagree with you Mr Barnes but your current IQ is more than sufficient
why thankyou, that's the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day :o)
Junkyard - I have installed two m6 bolts in my skull for mounting lights on
- I have installed two m6 bolts in my skull for mounting lights on
he means his neck...
to TandemJeremy and sinmonfbarnes....
[b]GET A ROOM[/b]
actually I fancy Woody more - he says nice things and his name implies...
to TandemJeremy and sinmonfbarnes....GET A ROOM
Nooo, I'm going to have nightmares now... 😡
Where is the mind bleach, I have to purge that image from my mind.
Remember, pushing back is heemersex