Please don't wear helmets*!!

[w00hoo_kent]

Not a chance.

I am intrigued.

 

[Lemond]

I am intrigued.

How so?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

As mentioned, I've never been hit by any flying debris I'd consider needing protection against. When I raced MX we wore chest armour against roosts of stones from the bike in front but even that rarely got used. I get the very rare windscreen strike in the car, but again nothing really at head height. To have had two in the past year seems really bad luck. Do you habitually ride near a gravel quarry, were they flicked up by dumper trucks (or flung out from between the double wheels at the back?) I'm presuming they cracked in to the helmet each time, so you're on your third this year. It just seems like there must be a couple of interesting stories there.

Hence.

Intrigued.

 

[classic33]

That was before someone found the link, I can see the actual post now which proves Adrian has been misquoting for years to justify swearing at me, this is the bloke newt thinks is great and defends regardless of what he does

Doesn't explain why or how you'd say the same thing as you said you never said in the first place though.

 

[Profpointy]

not a piss-take but I can't help noticing that the helmet wearers / advocates (term intended to be neutral) do seem to hit their heads a lot - which I've never done. Anecdote maybe, but is there something in this - obviously head bigger, but maybe more risk taking - not necessarily due to wearing the hat but maybe they're more reckless to start with. Perhaps we (sensibly) self-select helmets according to how careful we are.

Conversely I gather one of the flaws in "That Paper"was, I believe, the opposite sample bias in that reckless and irresponsible kids from the rough estates didn't wear helmets to ride on buys inner city roads, whilst nice middle class sensible kids wore helmets on safe racks the park. (I paraphrase)

As balance I never.hit.my head when I wore one admittedly.

 

[Lemond]

As mentioned, I've never been hit by any flying debris I'd consider needing protection against. When I raced MX we wore chest armour against roosts of stones from the bike in front but even that rarely got used. I get the very rare windscreen strike in the car, but again nothing really at head height. To have had two in the past year seems really bad luck. Do you habitually ride near a gravel quarry, were they flicked up by dumper trucks (or flung out from between the double wheels at the back?) I'm presuming they cracked in to the helmet each time, so you're on your third this year. It just seems like there must be a couple of interesting stories there.

Hence.

Intrigued.

No special circumstances and not particularly interesting. I just happened to have two stones (I assume that's what they were) fly up and hit me in the head. All I was ever really aware of was the impact. Both hit front and to the right hand side as far as I could tell. No damage done to the helmet, so all good there. Had I been wearing a hat rather than a helmet I would have come off the bike, of that there's no doubt in my mind. It would have chuffing hurt. As for being unlucky I would suggest the opposite. A couple of inches lower and I could have caught both in the face, and I doubt my sunglasses would have offered much in the way of protection.

 

[david k]

Doesn't explain why or how you'd say the same thing as you said you never said in the first place though.

Glad you cleared that up with plain English

 

[Lemond]

not a piss-take but I can't help noticing that the helmet wearers / advocates (term intended to be neutral) do seem to hit their heads a lot - which I've never done. Anecdote maybe, but is there something in this - obviously head bigger, but maybe more risk taking - not necessarily due to wearing the hat but maybe they're more reckless to start with. Perhaps we (sensibly) self-select helmets according to how careful we are.

Conversely I gather one of the flaws in "That Paper"was, I believe, the opposite sample bias in that reckless and irresponsible kids from the rough estates didn't wear helmets to ride on buys inner city roads, whilst nice middle class sensible kids wore helmets on safe racks the park. (I paraphrase)

As balance I never.hit.my head when I wore one admittedly.

Actually I reckon the number is probably quite small. But people tend to talk about things that have happened, rather then reporting another day of uneventful riding. Now that would make for one boring thread!

 

[Mugshot]

It's protected me from two flying stones and one low branch; in all three instances I suffered no pain, no injury and most importantly I didn't lose control of the bike for a second. I stayed upright and was able to cycle on.

Some of our paths are pretty overgrown at the moment, I rode home with my buddy the other day and managed to pick the side with the low branches and overhanging bushes. I seemed to be constantly ducking and dodging them, not always successfully either, on a couple of occasions I barrelled through half a tree which decided to leap out at me at the last second.
Amazingly I managed to get to the end of the path, around 7 miles, unscathed and still in the saddle.

 

[classic33]

Glad you cleared that up with plain English

Twice the question has been asked, and twice you've sidestepped answering it. Why?

 

[david k]

Twice the question has been asked, and twice you've sidestepped answering it. Why?

What was the question? Think you have got yourself confused, read the thread again and if you still don't follow try asking in plain English

 

[Mugshot]

I don't know, a few years ago I was following a friend on a fast descent on the South Downs Way, which is chalk with embedded flint. His rear tyre pinged up a flint which put a chip right in the middle of the lens.

Did you immediately fall off and as a consequence get horribly maimed by following vehicles?

 

[classic33]

not a piss-take but I can't help noticing that the helmet wearers / advocates (term intended to be neutral) do seem to hit their heads a lot - which I've never done. Anecdote maybe, but is there something in this - obviously head bigger, but maybe more risk taking - not necessarily due to wearing the hat but maybe they're more reckless to start with. Perhaps we (sensibly) self-select helmets according to how careful we are.

Conversely I gather one of the flaws in "That Paper"was, I believe, the opposite sample bias in that reckless and irresponsible kids from the rough estates didn't wear helmets to ride on buys inner city roads, whilst nice middle class sensible kids wore helmets on safe racks the park. (I paraphrase)

As balance I never.hit.my head when I wore one admittedly.

I've only hit the head once whilst riding a bike, the actions of another road user was the cause. If I'd gone the other way, I'd have been under the vehicle. Left shoulder took the main impact on the upper half of the body. The left leg taking the majority of the overall impact.
Medical opinion at the time of treatment was that the helmet actually made the injury to the neck worse than they would have been had no helmet been worn. Neither wearing one or not wearing one would have prevented the injury to the leg.

I've done more damage to the skull off the bike than on it.

 

[classic33]

What was the question? Think you have got yourself confused, read the thread again and if you still don't follow try asking in plain English

Easy enough. You claim you never said something, but you'd say it the same way again. How is it possible to say something the same way again, if as you claimed(in the same post) you never said it in the first place!

No confusion on my part, just a simple questioning of a post you made, that you don't want to answer. Three times of asking, with no response other than put downs & evasive answers.
Something you have said others
are guilty of.

 

[david k]

Easy enough. You claim you never said something, but you'd say it the same way again. How is it possible to say something the same way again, if as you claimed(in the same post) you never said it in the first place!

No confusion on my part, just a simple questioning of a post you made, that you don't want to answer. Three times of asking, with no response other than put downs & evasive answers.
Something you have said others
are guilty of.

Not evasive at all, I didn't have the quotes when I first responded so was going from memory.

Now we have the actual posts we don't need to make assumptions, there for all to see

Put downs lol, get over yourself, I've been abused and others have avoided numerous questions yet you fixate on me, jumping on the band wagon?