Paper Helmets

[Linford]

Are you talking about post 295? My impression was that Linford posted it as a bit of a giggle. Do you honestly believe he was claiming it was a rated helmet or are you just stalking him? Either way it's extremely tedious.

Stalking....Yup, he cannot bear to give any ground in this debate....IMO, the real value in this thread is raising the profile of a very promising new piece of technology which makes claim to substantially reducing the level of injury in fallen cyclists going about their daily business ...and not that it has no value because it may or may not protect someone from being run over by a lorry travelling at 60mph.

Many people are risk averse, either through people around them telling them not to do something because aunty ethels youngest boy fell off once in the 50's and ended up banging his head, or that they don't really trust factors around them. If the anti compulsion people feel that cycling is safe enough with or without a lid, then they should not have a problem with people cycling with a lid if it gives them a bit more confidence to go out and do it.

 

[Linford]

It was pointed out that it was not a helmet and he continued to claim it was...... It is a standard ploy of his to make stupid posts and then claim they were jokes so he can flounce off and avoid the points ha has raised

FFS how old are you Cunobelin ?

You are just trolling now. Both you, I, and everyone else posting on this thread knows that I was yet again trying to introduce a bit of levity into our exchanges with something which is very obviously a tongue in cheek post of something I googled for.

How about debating the value of the OP instead ?

 

[ufkacbln]

Still avoiding answers?

 

[ufkacbln]

Let's post another question that Linford will avoid answering......

Linford clearly stated:

The real value in this thread is raising the profile of a very promising new piece of technology which makes claim to substantially reducing the level of injury in fallen cyclists going about their daily business ..

What he has avoided completely throughout this and other threads is simple....

Why is he not interested in "substantially reducing the level of injury in pedestrians going about their daily business"?

He continually avoids answering whether he feels that this helmet would decrease the severity of a pedestrian head injury

 

[Linford]

Let's post another question that Linford will avoid answering......

Linford clearly stated:



What he has avoided completely throughout this and other threads is simple....

Why is he not interested in "substantially reducing the level of injury in pedestrians going about their daily business"?

He continually avoids answering whether he feels that this helmet would decrease the severity of a pedestrian head injury

How many normal (physically fit, and well balanced) people do you know have picked up a life changing (brain injuring) head injury when walking ?

Also , do you yourself wear protective headgear when walking ?

A) Yes

B) No

 

[ufkacbln]

BUZZZZZZ.....

Avoidance (as predicted)

Care to answer?

Let's post another question that Linford will avoid answering......

Linford clearly stated:

The real value in this thread is raising the profile of a very promising new piece of technology which makes claim to substantially reducing the level of injury in fallen cyclists going about their daily business ..

What he has avoided completely throughout this and other threads is simple....

Why is he not interested in "substantially reducing the level of injury in pedestrians going about their daily business"?

He continually avoids answering whether he feels that this helmet would decrease the severity of a pedestrian head injury

 

[ufkacbln]

How many normal (physically fit, and well balanced) people do you know have picked up a life changing (brain injuring) head injury when walking ?

Having worked in A/E and Neurology CT departments, several hundred, and as in all the cohort studies, they outnumber the cyclist by a factor of 5:1 or more

Also , do you yourself wear protective headgear when walking ?

A) Yes

B) No

Sometimes - which is another point you have evaded and continually avoided - do you think that people should make their own risk assessments for these matters?

 

[MontyVeda]

[QUOTE 2880483, member: 45"]Less of the "let's". I think you're on your own with this particular line.[/quote]
less of the 'line'... this is a merry-go-round.

 

[Fab Foodie]

BUZZZZZZ.....

Avoidance (as predicted)

Care to answer?

*Ahem*

Linford, Cunobelin - might it be time to sit this one out?
There are some good bits here but your never -ending circular posts are really interfering with what at times is a quite sensible debate (and others alike). Either that or take this spat off onto it's own thread. It does nobody any good and is getting very wearisome.

Cheers
FF

 

[srw]

That's a good point, especially as there isn't an acceptable way to make helmets available to Boris Bike hirers, and as far as I know they have a very good record of not having accidents or being injured - better than people expected? (You'd know - I don't do statistics, as you know.)

I don't know. Better than people feared, I suspect. I don't know whether anyone bothered to think properly about the injury risk. Knowing just how safe London cycling really is (I'll let someone else post FF's link this time) it doesn't surprise me at all that the stats are very good.

It's very obvious in the West End and around Hyde Park that the Boris Bikes are a real draw for tourists - and IIRC there are plenty of examples of failed hire schemes in mandatory helmet countries.

 

[Fab Foodie]

I don't know. Better than people feared, I suspect. I don't know whether anyone bothered to think properly about the injury risk. Knowing just how safe London cycling really is (I'll let someone else post FF's link this time) it doesn't surprise me at all that the stats are very good.

It's very obvious in the West End and around Hyde Park that the Boris Bikes are a real draw for tourists - and IIRC there are plenty of examples of failed hire schemes in mandatory helmet countries.

IIRC there has been one fatality associated with Boris Bikes since their introduction.

 

[Linford]

*Ahem*

Linford, Cunobelin - might it be time to sit this one out?
There are some good bits here but your never -ending circular posts are really interfering with what at times is a quite sensible debate (and others alike). Either that or take this spat off onto it's own thread. It does nobody any good and is getting very wearisome.

Cheers
FF

If you'd not noticed my efforts to bring this back on track from Cunoblins incessant trolling, I'd be happy to have a separate debate from here to discuss the merits specifically of pedestrian headgear if he feels that worth while as I feel he is struggling to divide the requirements of both.

This pedestrian helmet argument versus cyclist compulsion which he has put forward to many people over the years (me just being the latest target in a long line of harangued) gives absolutely no credibility to avoiding compulsion with cyclists. He has used the example of the thudguard many times and asks why people here don't wear them....they are for babies...they have only ever been for babies...they will only ever be for babies.

@Moderators , would you consider this please as I'd rather devote my efforts on this thread with a worthwhile line of debate (the effectiveness of the Abus Kranium lid)

 

[Fab Foodie]

If you'd not noticed my efforts to bring this back on track from Cunoblins incessant trolling, I'd be happy to have a separate debate from here to discuss the merits specifically of pedestrian headgear if he feels that worth while as I feel he is struggling to divide the requirements of both.

This pedestrian helmet argument versus cyclist compulsion which he has put forward to many people over the years (me just being the latest target in a long line of harangued) gives absolutely no credibility to avoiding compulsion with cyclists. He has used the example of the thudguard many times and asks why people here don't wear them....they are for babies...they have only ever been for babies...they will only ever be for babies.

@Moderators , would you consider this please as I'd rather devote my efforts on this thread with a worthwhile line of debate (the effectiveness of the Abus Kranium lid)

Let it lie ... please?
You're never gonna square the circle on this one, the arguments are valid, we could put it to a vote but I don't think it will help your cause.
FF

 

[swansonj]

One fatality in July 2013 and a handful of injuries, and one case (that I could find) of a cyclist being knocked off his bike by the trailer being used to transport the Boris Bikes back to their docking stations.

When I was a student I had to go on a safety course before being allowed to use high-power lasers, and I remember being told five people had been killed by lasers in British universities. Four had been electrocuted when they opened it up to fiddle with the power supply, and the fifth killed when the laser fell on him when the crane lifting it up to a top-floor laboratory slipped.

 

[Linford]

I know I'm coming very late to this, and I've picked a post more or less at random to reply to. I appreciate there might be a link between helmet wearing and the view of politicians. But I suspect the correlation is weak, because policy is rarely made by evidence, it's made by pressure groups and emotion. Politicians are human like the rest of us, and they respond in human, irrational, emotional ways.

Yes, there are exceptions - seatbelts and motorbike helmets are possibilities (though it would be interesting to find out whether the emotion or the evidence came first - I suspect they were contemporaneous).

My best guess is that the success and the safety record of the Boris Bikes in London - in particular their success as a tourist attraction - has squished a mandatory helmet law for the foreseeable future. Any attempt to bring one in can be met with a simple statement - "You'll affect tourism." It doesn't have to be provable, as long as it's plausible.

Seatbelts and motorcycle lids do save lives. There is overwhelming evidence in both area's.

The early seat belts were just buckle and strap lap belt affairs, then the 3 point harness, crumple zones, collapsible steering columns, seat belt pre tensioners, then drivers and side air bags...the list goes on and on.

Motorcyclists also get very well looked after with safety gear. The market for this is nearly as big as the market for the bikes. The vast majority of bikers I know do not ride on very hot days if the gear is too hot to wear. It is called AGATT (All The Gear, All The Time) because the prospect of getting it wrong isn't pretty....you don't see many bikers who have binned it going back out without better quality gear they crashed in unless that gear did its job properly.
I used to ride in trainers, jeans and a a leather jacket. Sure you can get away with that up to about 20mph (still going to scar) , but beyond that...no it really hurts even with leathers on.

Because bikers have compulsion, they are also voting with their feet, and demanding the best which the biker clothing/lid industry can offer. This in turn means that the money is there to continuously improve the quality, and that means the odds shift just a little bit in their favour..one always hopes than they will never need the gear, but that in itself is playing the odds.. none of us know what is around the next corner and that is why when mixing with people on the roads who care less about my life than I do, I always buckle up, and at the very least always use a lid...