Please don't wear helmets*!!

[young Ed]

It is OK, no one really thinks that it is always the car driver's fault. The issue is more complex than that but has unfortunately been dragged into literalism.

i have met a few cyclists who are extreme in such a way that they really do think that the cyclist never is at fault!
Cheers Ed

 

[broadway]

always the car drivers fault? i would disagree. what if a cyclist hopping a red light gets hit by on coming traffic with right of way and no chance to see said cyclist? that is a hypothetical situation but a very possible one but this one's 100% real

i have a very dear friend who at the age of 10 was stopped at a crossing on her bike along with another un connected lady and as the car at the front of a queue of cars was sitting still at a green light my friend and the other lady assumed the car had stopped to let them cross, so they crossed and as they did so the driver of said stopped car looked up from her phone saw the green light and put pedal to the metal killing my friend and putting the other lady in a wheel chair for life.
so who was at fault here, the driver for fiddling with phone and not looking before taking off or my friend and the other lady for crossing when the car traffic light was on green? were neither at fault, or both?

i forget what the judge ruled and what , if anything the driver received in court
Cheers Ed

The driver for not looking at what was in front of the car before moving.

 

[david k]

I'm only asking about a post made in this thread, by yourself, highlighted above. Not something you said four years ago. If something was never said, in theory it would be impossible to "put it the same way again".
Any other question, asked by me, has been answered.

I didn't write what was claimed, I wrote something else, and I would write it like that again? seriously is that difficult to follow, only you seem to have an issue following the thread and have derailed it with continual questions that make little sense such as

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

Maybe you could have pointed to the actual part you were referring to at the beginning to save everyone having to read this rubbish for the last 3 pages

 

[classic33]

I didn't write what was claimed, I wrote something else, and I would write it like that again? seriously is that difficult to follow, only you seem to have an issue following the thread and have derailed it with continual questions that make little sense such as



Maybe you could have pointed to the actual part you were referring to at the beginning to save everyone having to read this rubbish for the last 3 pages

I did do, you chose to ignore it and evade answering the question, whilst claiming you'd answered it. Now you're saying you never did either. Which version is true?

I answered it, what's so hard to understand?

 

[Profpointy]

oh ffs the pair of you. Are you married by chance? .....To each other I mean

 

[Poacher]

It's actually a ménage à trois with @doog. I'm counting the minutes to his return.

 

[ufkacbln]

Can we not count David K as a success for the forum?

Four years ago he was of a pro compulsion stance, claiming that helmets were wide enough to prevent facial injuries and wishing to impose helmets on his friend

Reading helmet threads has obviously been enlightening and resulted in a more moderate stance.

Lets celebrate that

 

[classic33]

oh ffs the pair of you. Are you married by chance? .....To each other I mean

Not that I'm aware, why?

 

[david k]

I did do, you chose to ignore it and evade answering the question, whilst claiming you'd answered it. Now you're saying you never did either. Which version is true?

No you didnt

 

[mjr]

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.

Why not? Don't your sunglasses pass the EN for impact protection like my cycling glasses do? ...but it amazes me when people get all fussy about protecting hard skull yet leave soft squishy eyeballs unprotected and lots do that. Is crash helmet promotion overshadowing more worthwhile protective equipment?

 

[mjr]

That's a bit disparaging towards cyclists who don't wear helmets, but must be true because a study said so lol

I don't think you should describe not being white as disparaging!

 

[classic33]

Why not? Don't your sunglasses pass the EN for impact protection like my cycling glasses do? ...but it amazes me when people get all fussy about protecting hard skull yet leave soft squishy eyeballs unprotected and lots do that. Is crash helmet promotion overshadowing more worthwhile protective equipment?

In parts, yes.

 

[ufkacbln]

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.

This is another controversy

If the impact was such that it was felt and you susected it was sufficient to damage the helmet, then it should probably be replaced. Unseen damage to the helmet is an issue

 

[Lemond]

This is another controversy

If the impact was such that it was felt and you susected it was sufficient to damage the helmet, then it should probably be replaced. Unseen damage to the helmet is an issue

Neither impact damaged the helmet, so all good thanks.

 

[Drago]

Lemond is famous for being able to see through solid material to examine its internal structure.

Why not? Don't your sunglasses pass the EN for impact protection like my cycling glasses do? ...but it amazes me when people get all fussy about protecting hard skull yet leave soft squishy eyeballs unprotected and lots do that. Is crash helmet promotion overshadowing more worthwhile protective equipment?

Very true. In 8 years of cycle training I've never had any one suffer a head injury, but several with eye injuries from low hanging branches, grit, insects etc. I insist on eye protection for my students if teaching an off road element, and always wear it myself off road.

I don't wear them on road. I'm a sweaty betty and suffer with them steaming, so its a choice of an eye injury or getting killed because I couldn't see where I was going. Off road, lower speeds, less physical exertion, doesn't seem to be a problem.