Cycloslalomeur
Veteran
I'm glad I'm not the only one that found the authors' prose utterly baffling.
Glad it's not just me then ....I appreciate that English may not be their first language, but you're right. The prose is weird and the 'science' execrable.
To clarify, my pleasure.Not my "point". just asking for a clarification.
Are these head injuries less painful, less traumatic or have less effect on family than those incured by cyclists, why not prevent them as well after all....none of it counts for a bean on the day that despite all this you do still actually fall off and start augering head first towards the floor.
Just wondered if you could explain why these head injuries are acceptable and not worth preventing as well?
ok , if we accept that a helmet will not protect you from say 99.9% of all causes of death or injury in the world
- why were they invented if they are so utterly irrelevant ?
I can,t agree with that - I look far cooler in a cycle helmet than in my natural finish - bald head with a sweatbandTo make cyclists look uncool.
I can,t agree with that - I look far cooler in a cycle helmet than in my natural finish - bald head with a sweatband
I look like a boiled egg on a bike without my helmet on.
hey were did you get the photo of me from ! - I love it
I'd get that looked at if I were you. Mine's the normal Purple colour last time I checked ....mines a sexier helmet - its red.
ok , if we accept that a helmet will not protect you from say 99.9% of all causes of death or injury in the world
- why were they invented if they are so utterly irrelevant ?
... or if we accept that they save from injuries and are so relevant, why limit the benefit to the group that benefits least?