Profpointy
Legendary Member
Are you suggesting I shouldn't wear one to maintain free choice?
that's one of the reasons I don't wear one ! Not the only reason, granted
Are you suggesting I shouldn't wear one to maintain free choice?
And you replaced it after that impact?Just a minor contribution to the debate, cycling on a disused railrack in co Durham,, approx speed 18mph a low tree branch poking through the foliage near split my helmet open. I'm pleased I wore my cycling helmet that day
Did you consider ducking? Or did you assume it'd be just foliage with no branch holding it at head height??Just a minor contribution to the debate, cycling on a disused railrack in co Durham,, approx speed 18mph a low tree branch poking through the foliage near split my helmet open. I'm pleased I wore my cycling helmet that day
Riding a recumbent would have prevented that injury?Just a minor contribution to the debate, cycling on a disused railrack in co Durham,, approx speed 18mph a low tree branch poking through the foliage near split my helmet open. I'm pleased I wore my cycling helmet that day
Careful, common sense is not allowed here because you could have done that whilst walking home drunk from the pub.
Here is an equally likely outcome, without the helmet you might have missed the branch altogether or, you could equally have snagged the helmet on the branch and suffered whiplash or worse. Why is it that helmet wearers always seek justification. Non helmeteers don't go around telling everyone how they just missed a tree branch with their head. I really don't get it.Just a minor contribution to the debate, cycling on a disused railrack in co Durham,, approx speed 18mph a low tree branch poking through the foliage near split my helmet open. I'm pleased I wore my cycling helmet that day
@damj see what I mean........
No he was travelling at far less than 30 but still had an impact with a branch for whatever reason, and in his view his helmet helped avoid injury. Perhaps if it had been yourself you could have told us how much it hurt.We understand, he wasn't travelling at 30 mph...
Yes I understand it perfectly. It saved his head from an injury.Do you not understand this at all? The helmet is supposed to work by compression of the polystyrene foam absorbing energy. Where the helmet cracks, or splits in two, it is unlikely to have compressed very much at all. It won't have absorbed much energy and not done that which it was designed to do. Hence failed.
No he was travelling at far less than 30 but still had an impact with a branch for whatever reason, and in his view his helmet helped avoid injury. Perhaps if it had been yourself you could have told us how much it hurt.
Simples ... As in this case,....riding a recumbent would have saved my head from the injuryYes I understand it perfectly. It saved his head from an injury.
Why? It did save his head from an injury, it did the job didn't it?I am reaching the conclusion that you are just having a bit of a laugh here.
I haven't missed the point about prevention, but crystal balls don't really exist do they?I ride a recumbent... it would have been four feet below the branch, and therefore it would not have hurt at all
One of the points you have continually missed / denied.... preventing the injury is a far wiser and more sensible attitude than relying on a plastic hat to ameliorate the injury
Simples ... As in this case,....riding a recumbent would have saved my head from the injury
I haven't missed the point about prevention, but crystal balls don't really exist do they?
When I recently competed in a team time trial I was riding like that for 24 miles!Yes they do......
Lets use one now.....
Cyclist A is riding at 15 mph on an open road
Cyclist B is riding at 30mph plus, and far too close to the cyclist in front so that when that ride has a problem they are unable to stop or avoid a collision
Using the crystal ball, lets see if we can predict which one is going to be having the accident?