Please don't wear helmets*!!

[david k]

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

Do people ever take issue with you insisting they wear sunglasses?
If you insisted on them wearing helmets many would take issue with you on here
Why is it different with glasses?

 

[Lemond]

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

Sarcasm. Awesome.

 

[Lemond]

Miraculous.

Looks like someone left the gate open this morning.

 

[Drago]

Do people ever take issue with you insisting they wear sunglasses?
If you insisted on them wearing helmets many would take issue with you on here
Why is it different with glasses?

I don't insist they wear sunglasses. I insist they wear safety glasses, and seeing as its me that pays the insurance premiums they can go get their training elsewhere if they don't like it. Not one person has ever objected or even questioned it, but if it happens ill be sure to let you know.

Seeing as I don't pay the insurance costs for anyone else on here I don't insist they wear helmets, gloves, Y fronts, chastity belts etc.

Sarcasm. Awesome.

Meeting sarcasm with sarcasm? Must try harder.

 

[Dan B]

Do people ever take issue with you insisting they wear sunglasses?
If you insisted on them wearing helmets many would take issue with you on here
Why is it different with glasses?

I'd suggest that the difference is that safety glasses are recognised as PPE

 

[Lemond]

Looks like someone cannot spot the obvious logical inconsistencies in what they write.

Logical inconsistencies? I would you ask you to explain your latest criticism, but actually I think I will exercise my right to really not give a fark.

 

[benb]

Neither impact damaged the helmet, so all good thanks.

If it didn't damage the helmet, it was unlikely to be going at a speed that would have made you fall off, don't you think?

 

[benb]

Do people ever take issue with you insisting they wear sunglasses?
If you insisted on them wearing helmets many would take issue with you on here
Why is it different with glasses?

Because safety glasses demonstrably protect the eyes against debris.

There's this useful concept called evidence, which is quite handy when deciding whether something is a useful intervention or not, you should try it some time.

 

[Lemond]

If it didn't damage the helmet, it was unlikely to be going at a speed that would have made you fall off, don't you think?

No, I don't. And as it happened to me and not you, I'd say that makes me the best qualified to make that judgement.

MOD EDIT: Content Removed.

 

[benb]

No, I don't. And as it happened to me and not you, I'd say that makes me the best qualified to make that judgement.

MOD EDIT: Content Removed.

It's a completely reasonable question, why are you getting arsey with me?

 

[Licramite]

Maybe the answer is don't cycle on roads ! , (although I met a log lorry the other day on my off road route) but generally it's much safer.
although I would still advise wearing a helmet, tree branches and brambles don't arf hurt when they bounce of your head.

 

[Lemond]

It's a completely reasonable question, why are you getting arsey with me?

Right back at you? How can give an opinion on how hard a stone struck me, when you weren't there? How can you say it was unlikely that I would have fallen off?

 

[benb]

Right back at you? How can give an opinion on how hard a stone struck me, when you weren't there? How can you say it was unlikely that I would have fallen off?

Because you said it didn't damage the helmet. Therefore it can't have been going with much force. Ergo, for you to claim that it would have made you fall off "without doubt" seems to be over-egging the pudding somewhat.

My question to you was completely reasonable and polite, yet you decided to get arsey in your reply. Why?

 

[Licramite]

actually if a stone hit you in the head, and you were not wearing a helmet , your natural reaction of dodge duck , ooch that hurt, would quite likely put you off your bike.
Just because it failed to damage the plastic shell of your helmet, - the skin shell of your head is much more fragile,
after all stones thrown up from cars can crack your windscreen - so there is a considerable force here, as you were not there to know how hard the stone bounced of the helmet just to assume because it was not damaged it would not have damaged an unguarded head is a bit dismissive of you.

I'm sure this is what he was saying in his reply. - but in different words

 

[Lemond]

Because you said it didn't damage the helmet. Therefore it can't have been going with much force. Ergo, for you to claim that it would have made you fall off "without doubt" seems to be over-egging the pudding somewhat.

My question to you was completely reasonable and polite, yet you decided to get arsey in your reply. Why?

You weren't there. The stone didn't hit your head. Stop telling me how much force was involved. Stop telling me I'm over-egging things. MOD EDIT: Content Removed.