Giro helmets - huge appreciation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Exactly! However I can live without another ferral ball like that again.

AND returning to my original point, you loose the £30 for the helmet, but thanks to Giro's policy you only have to waste another £15 on your second life. What's not to like!?

But what if, as the evidence suggests, you were actually at greater risk of brain injury or death because you were wearing a helmet? You were lucky this time but that £30 could cost you your life.

"bicycle-related fatalities are positively and significantly associated with increased helmet use"
A re-evaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use. Rodgers, GB. J. Product Liability. Vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 307-317. 1988.
 

threebikesmcginty

Corn Fed Hick...
Location
...on the slake
we cannot get another you, but we can buy another helmet and cat

I'm prepared to sacrifice him in the name of science, just let the poor puddy-tat live.
 

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
But what if, as the evidence suggests, you were actually at greater risk of brain injury or death because you were wearing a helmet? You were lucky this time but that £30 could cost you your life.

"bicycle-related fatalities are positively and significantly associated with increased helmet use"
A re-evaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use. Rodgers, GB. J. Product Liability. Vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 307-317. 1988.
So we have established that helmets are dangerous why are the advocated by the powers that be?
 

benb

Evidence based cyclist
Location
Epsom
So we have established that helmets are dangerous why are the advocated by the powers that be?

  1. It's counter-intuitive
  2. Most people believe helmets must do some good
  3. Politicians don't like to look at or take any notice of the evidence, if it contradicts what they already want to do
 
OP
OP
tigger

tigger

Über Member
"bicycle-related fatalities are positively and significantly associated with increased helmet use"
A re-evaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use. Rodgers, GB. J. Product Liability. Vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 307-317. 1988.

Thats just a statement...
 

david k

Hi
Location
North West
Exactly! However I can live without another ferral ball like that again.

AND returning to my original point, you loose the £30 for the helmet, but thanks to Giro's policy you only have to waste another £15 on your second life. What's not to like!?



its almost worth crashing and saving your life with the helmet.

if you want another colour ride into a cat?
 

lukesdad

Guest
But what if, as the evidence suggests, you were actually at greater risk of brain injury or death because you were wearing a helmet? You were lucky this time but that £30 could cost you your life.

"bicycle-related fatalities are positively and significantly associated with increased helmet use"
A re-evaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use. Rodgers, GB. J. Product Liability. Vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 307-317. 1988.

Thats Bollox !
 
So we have established that helmets are dangerous why are the advocated by the powers that be?

Probably civil service inertia and media pressure. Its clearly not the powers that be - its quite obvious what the views of Dave, Boris, Norman Baker are - but a) they face a media storm every time it comes up and b) its probably far too far down the priority scale for them to try redirecting the civil service machine.

15596616.jpg


03a_14_boris_415x275.jpg


transport-ministers-cycli-007.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom