How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Mad at urage

New Member
I can only relate this little story. I organise a charity ride. The charity's insurers insisted on everybody wearing a helmet. I insisted that there would be no ride if this was the case. The insurers then changed tack and insisted that everybody be strongly advised to wear a helmet. The broker was candid about the reason behind this - he wanted to reduce liability. He had no opinion on risk.


If an impasse is created though ,might they just not bother to organize events which involved the use of any equipment. to avoid the hassle.
Hmmm, this explains a lot about CC : dellzeqq is one of them! :ohmy: :laugh:

Now I know why there's so many anti-helmet posts here: They are trying to persuade us the tin foil doesn't work :tongue:
 
No it does not make it less valid. Reading literature by faceless researchers producing skewed information depending on their agenda,whether future funding or comissions by pressure groups, or improving their reputation amongst their peers may be the driving force. May well be far less valid.

Are you really that naive.

Are you really that paranoid?
 

Mad at urage

New Member
No, I have a very open mind. Ive also read some of the reports.

Money talks and bullshit walks comes to mind.
Yeah, and there is so much money in telling the world that cycle helmets provide little to no protection to adults in collision with a vehicle.





Obviously there is no money at all in promoting sales of 50p worth of polystyrene for tens of pounds though! :rolleyes:
 

lukesdad

Guest
Yeah, and there is so much money in telling the world that cycle helmets provide little to no protection to adults in collision with a vehicle.





Obviously there is no money at all in promoting sales of 50p worth of polystyrene for tens of pounds though! :rolleyes:


Absolutely, but thats a different ball game alltogether isn t it ?
 

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
Absolutely, but thats a different ball game alltogether isn t it ?

As the link I posted goes some way to demonstrating there is certainly a desire not to be seen to rock the boat when it comes to certain issues requiring peer review.

As an OT aside. In a criminal trial a person is judged by a jury of his/her peers. So if that person is a crack addict why isn't the jury made up of crack addicts :biggrin: ?
 

lukesdad

Guest
Who do you think pays the researchers Mad@urage.

Sorry I forgot they do it for the good of humanity. :thumbsup:
 

lukesdad

Guest
HAve you? Oh goody, an informed debate!

Which ones have you read and what was your opinion of the methodology of each?


Well Ive covered this before, The australian for example. The fall in cycle use after they became mandatory was farcical. In particular the drop in teenage use.

The numbers pure and simlpe could not be construed as being representative.
 

Mad at urage

New Member
The ones that compile the reports that people seem to be so fond of quoting.
People have quoted all sorts of reports, if you give me a link I'll do what I can to find out what information is available.

To expect me to search out the links to reports most commonly quoted on here and to look up who has funded them, seems a bit - well, lazy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom