This is a helmet debate

[ufkacbln]

How about answering the point about helmet specifications and testing against what you are expecting them to do?

There is a whole regulatory and legal system in place to deal with that. Mainly because people kept making their personal judgements and getting it wrong resulting in death and injury.
​

There are lots of things people have done based on personal experience and then changed their views when the evidence has shown it to be misplaced. Smoking is a good example although there is still a hard core of people who assert smoking does not cause cancer and is good for you.

I use to wear a helmet on the assumption basis but then started to look into the research and stopped wearing one as a result. The fact that I can't know everything should not prevent me responding when I do. My diet is quite different to what it used to be, my exercise regime is too, I don't smoke and I don't wear a helmet. All based on research evidence. I am sure there are many other things I do that are not achieving what I think they are.

Your attitude seems to be that since you can't evaluate everything there is no need to evaluate anything.



I'm sure the tobacco lobby are the same about their belief that smoking is healthy.

The other comparison between head injuries and smoking is even simpler.......

You accept that there is a health problem, but then only deal with one small section of the problem.

You then dismiss any comment about the other sections as irrelevant, off topic, simply ignore the evidence or allow these sections to choose to continue to expose themselves to the risk.

Then finally you deem the 99% of related ill health that remains as acceptable.

 

[ianrauk]

Helmets saves lives!!

 

[Fletch456]

something relating to safety, being a helmet n all

I am not going to read all the posts on this long and emotive thread beyond the pages I've read to see if this definitive answer has been posted.

They insist David because in the early '90s, 1993 or 1994 a man did die of head injuries - a pro on a final stage of the tour de france. It became illegal to do any other, I believe from then on. Hence it being in the rules as others said in their early replies.

It is also often stipulated in club TT's along with a sign at the start saying 'look up' because people get hurt and die during these more than many other event due to nature of aero bars and the inclination to look down. Now having just bought a pair I can understand the inclination.

 

[steve52]

why spoil it? keep em hear and send me[QUOTE 1399303"]
Anyone who doesn't wear a helmet is an idiot, and should be put on the next boat out to Australia.
[/quote]

 

[Smokin Joe]

They insist David because in the early '90s, 1993 or 1994 a man did die of head injuries - a pro on a final stage of the tour de france. It became illegal to do any other, I believe from then on. Hence it being in the rules as others said in their early replies.

The incident you refer to was when Fabio Casartelli crashed on a mountain descent during the 1995 TdF. He hit his head on the edge of a concrete roadside marker at 90kph. The inquest concluded that a helmet would have been ineffective at that speed. Compulsory helmet wearing didn't come in till 2003.

 

[Fab Foodie]

your wearing it wrong

 

[jack cameron]

mac b ...don't think i said every rider in the tour....i did say the ones in a particular crash i had seen......no luck mate

 

[Fletch456]

The incident you refer to was when Fabio Casartelli crashed on a mountain descent during the 1995 TdF. He hit his head on the edge of a concrete roadside marker at 90kph. The inquest concluded that a helmet would have been ineffective at that speed. Compulsory helmet wearing didn't come in till 2003.

I stand corrected. I perhaps wasn't paying close attention when I heard it recently but the rider name rings a bell.

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 1399303"]
Anyone who doesn't wear a helmet is an idiot, and should be put on the next boat out to Australia.
[/quote]

With devastating scientific insight and debate such as this - why bother with evidence when we have this level of reassurance

How can we disagree.......... .

Anyone who doesn't wear a helmet is indeed an idiot,and failing to take reasonable precautions to protect themselves..............but it won't be Australia they are being shipped to!.

 

[Norm]

With devastating scientific insight and debate such as this - why bother with evidence when we have this level of reassurance

Maybe reading the next post before reaching for the Dictionary of Sarcasm would have answered your question...

[QUOTE 1399304"] Anyone who wears a helmet is an idiot, and there isn't any brain in there to protect. [/quote]

 

[jack cameron]

MacB, I think your mistaken my friend, let me help you. If you read on in the same paragraph it says "It can work both ways and I try to avoid it" on the subject of extremes



I dont need anything other than my own experiences to form my decision, I dont feel compelled to look through lots of conflicting evidence or reports, I simply put a helmet on. If you need evidence before making a decision for yourself then I suggest you do your own research, I wont be doing it for you. If you dont want to wear a helmet thats fine, dont worry, just dont wear one, simples

 

[jack cameron]

David k.....well said......mac b wants you to look for evidence for him ..lolol does he go on or what >>lol lol unreal.You kicked him right into touch....what a bore....well done mate

 

[Smokin Joe]

David k.....well said......mac b wants you to look for evidence for him ..lolol does he go on or what >>lol lol unreal.You kicked him right into touch....what a bore....well done mate

The only kicking David K did was in constantly scoring own goals.

 

[Crackle]

Why do pro's wear helmets? - because they have to to race.


Can someone please close this thread now. We must have hit the helmet thread quota for this month Pleeeeeeaaassssssse?

 

[Spin City]

david k

I've previously tried to raise the level of debate concerning the merits (or not) of wearing a helmet.

I think I have come to the conclusion that there is a group of forummers (if that's a word) who have such rigid views on the helmet debate that the discussion really struggles to get above the level of mud-slinging.

My view is that these forummers will not tolerate a standpoint that is different to theirs and this means that reasoned debate cannot take place. However, I think this is probably just the nature of debates on forums.

Your thread seems to have unfortunately succumbed to this (and I feel I'm going to get some stick for posting this.)