helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Alex Potter on 12 Apr 2010 15:32 On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:24:42 -0700, Derek C wrote: > They are not "toys" but properly tested items of safety equipment. If only that were so. I'd be interested to see your proof of your statement. -- Alex
From: Roland Perry on 12 Apr 2010 15:29 In message <88963874-2dd9-435f-95b7-a8a22c1a2649(a)k33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, at 12:24:42 on Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> remarked: >> I agree, a toy helmet such as most cyclists wear isn't going to be much >> use for the majority of impacts that could be classified as "liable to >> cause serious head injuries". >> >> They may reduce some cases of "severe bruising" to "less severe >> bruising", but that's not the injuries referred to. > >I think you are underestimating the protection offered by cycle >helmets. They are not "toys" but properly tested items of safety >equipment. No, you are overestimating their effectiveness. -- Roland Perry
From: Derek C on 12 Apr 2010 15:59 On 12 Apr, 20:29, Roland Perry <rol...(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > In message > <88963874-2dd9-435f-95b7-a8a22c1a2...(a)k33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, at > 12:24:42 on Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> > remarked: > > >> I agree, a toy helmet such as most cyclists wear isn't going to be much > >> use for the majority of impacts that could be classified as "liable to > >> cause serious head injuries". > > >> They may reduce some cases of "severe bruising" to "less severe > >> bruising", but that's not the injuries referred to. They might also reduce a fractured skull to just bruising or mild concussion. > > >I think you are underestimating the protection offered by cycle > >helmets. They are not "toys" but properly tested items of safety > >equipment. > > No, you are overestimating their effectiveness. > -- I am not stopping you from riding bare headed and risking serious head injury, if that is what you want to do. Derek C
From: Roland Perry on 12 Apr 2010 16:10 In message <0942b120-74cc-4aa5-b36e-301e47e8b700(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, at 12:59:41 on Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> remarked: >> >> They may reduce some cases of "severe bruising" to "less severe >> >> bruising", but that's not the injuries referred to. > >They might also reduce a fractured skull to just bruising or mild >concussion. With a toy helmet - most unlikely. >> >I think you are underestimating the protection offered by cycle >> >helmets. They are not "toys" but properly tested items of safety >> >equipment. >> >> No, you are overestimating their effectiveness. >I am not stopping you from riding bare headed and risking serious head >injury, if that is what you want to do. And you can ride with a helmet and risk motorists paying you less attention because you are "protected". -- Roland Perry
From: Nick Finnigan on 12 Apr 2010 16:25
Derek C wrote: > On 12 Apr, 17:38, Nick Finnigan <n...(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >> soup wrote: >>> On 08/04/2010 07:49, Derek C wrote: >>>> because horses go at about the same speed as bikes! >>> Yes (up to a point, Canters are in the 10-17 MPH region whilst a gallop >>> is in the 25-30MPH region), but there are few bicycles where the saddle >>> is six feet from the ground. >> There are few horses where the saddle would be 18 hands from the ground >> if anyone were rash enough to try to mount one. > > A 'hand' AFAICR is 4 inches. So 18 hands is 72 inches which is 6 feet. > Isn't that what the previous poster said? No, he wrote that there are few bicycles where the saddle was that high, as though it was different for horses. |