Over the bars and saved by his crash helmet

The father-of-two was cycling along a lane on the Blorenge Mountain,
near Govilon, at around 8pm on August 8 when his tyre slipped from the
concrete and he catapulted over the handlebars and through the air.

He said: “I wasn't going fast, maybe around 25mph, but I must have been
thrown at least 20 feet, and remember thinking this will really hurt.”

“I landed straight onto the concrete, helmet first in a crumpled heap.”

He obviously doesn't know about risk compensation, rotational injuries
or overheating heads, etc. etc/
http://www.freepressseries.co.uk/new...nny_cyclis t/

A minor incident compared with http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-23970047

On 05/09/2013 10:56, wrote:
A minor incident compared with http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-23970047

did a bicycle cause it?

Neither can possibly happen. We have been told this by the psycholists.

On 07/09/2013 18:45, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
The father-of-two was cycling along a lane on the Blorenge Mountain,
near Govilon, at around 8pm on August 8 when his tyre slipped from the
concrete and he catapulted over the handlebars and through the air.

He said: “I wasn't going fast, maybe around 25mph, but I must have
been thrown at least 20 feet, and remember thinking this will really
hurt.”

“I landed straight onto the concrete, helmet first in a crumpled heap.”

He obviously doesn't know about risk compensation, rotational injuries
or overheating heads, etc. etc

Worse still, he is quoted making positive remarks about helmets. This
might encourage other cyclists to start using helmets and surviving bad
accidents. It cannot be permitted.

That's remarkably honest of you! You want to see men, women and children
leave their homes in the morning and be killed for no other reason than
that they ride a bike.

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...
On 07/09/2013 18:45, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
The father-of-two was cycling along a lane on the Blorenge Mountain,
near Govilon, at around 8pm on August 8 when his tyre slipped from the
concrete and he catapulted over the handlebars and through the air.

He said: “I wasn't going fast, maybe around 25mph, but I must have
been thrown at least 20 feet, and remember thinking this will really
hurt.”

“I landed straight onto the concrete, helmet first in a crumpled heap.”

He obviously doesn't know about risk compensation, rotational injuries
or overheating heads, etc. etc

Worse still, he is quoted making positive remarks about helmets. This
might encourage other cyclists to start using helmets and surviving bad
accidents. It cannot be permitted.

That's remarkably honest of you! You want to see men, women and children
leave their homes in the morning and be killed for no other reason than
that they ride a bike.

Zapp is a cyclist. He is hardly going to want that is he? You are being
silly Brian.

"John Benn" wrote in message ...

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...
On 07/09/2013 18:45, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
The father-of-two was cycling along a lane on the Blorenge Mountain,
near Govilon, at around 8pm on August 8 when his tyre slipped from the
concrete and he catapulted over the handlebars and through the air.

He said: “I wasn't going fast, maybe around 25mph, but I must have
been thrown at least 20 feet, and remember thinking this will really
hurt.�

“I landed straight onto the concrete, helmet first in a crumpled heap.�

He obviously doesn't know about risk compensation, rotational injuries
or overheating heads, etc. etc

Worse still, he is quoted making positive remarks about helmets. This
might encourage other cyclists to start using helmets and surviving bad
accidents. It cannot be permitted.

That's remarkably honest of you! You want to see men, women and children
leave their homes in the morning and be killed for no other reason than
that they ride a bike.

Zapp is a cyclist. He is hardly going to want that is he? You are being
silly Brian.

But that's normal, isn't it?

On 08/09/2013 01:14, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...
On 07/09/2013 18:45, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

“I landed straight onto the concrete, helmet first in a crumpled heap.”

He obviously doesn't know about risk compensation, rotational injuries
or overheating heads, etc. etc

Worse still, he is quoted making positive remarks about helmets. This
might encourage other cyclists to start using helmets and surviving bad
accidents. It cannot be permitted.

That's remarkably honest of you! You want to see men, women and
children leave their homes in the morning and be killed for no other
reason than that they ride a bike.


Brian, can I suggest that before you clump into a thread with your pious
infantile moralising you should spend a little while understanding what
is being discussed first. Cycling safety is a complex issue, and you
won't achieve anything by ignorant and offensive interjections. Like
we used to say BITD, "lurk moar".

I will explain, this time....

Cycle helmets are clearly a good idea, they offer some protection in
collisions and falls. In some cases, perhaps the one we are discussing
here, they save lives. Unfortunately there is a radical minority in
cycling who consider that the use of helmets should be actively
discouraged and discredited. They invent risks from helmet-wearing (as
in Cheerful's satirical remark), and derisively scorn "plastic hats" as
worthless.

The reason for this is that they believe that the public are less likely
to cycle if helmets become popular (or even mandatory). They believe
it is in the public interest to accept some preventable accident deaths,
as long as cycling becomes more widespread. The preventable deaths of
a few dozen nonentities is mere collateral damage. The end justifies
the means.

I think that position is contemptible, so I replied in the same
satirical theme as Cheerless. Every regular poster on URC would
understand that. My personal view incidentally is that I do not support
compulsory helmets, but I think they should be positively encouraged.
I want cyclists to survive.

Now please reflect on this, and stop to think before you make assumptions.

You missed out your middle name, 'Patronising'.

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 08/09/2013 01:14, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...
On 07/09/2013 18:45, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message

“I landed straight onto the concrete, helmet first in a crumpled heap.”

He obviously doesn't know about risk compensation, rotational injuries
or overheating heads, etc. etc

Worse still, he is quoted making positive remarks about helmets. This
might encourage other cyclists to start using helmets and surviving bad
accidents. It cannot be permitted.

That's remarkably honest of you! You want to see men, women and
children leave their homes in the morning and be killed for no other
reason than that they ride a bike.


Brian, can I suggest that before you clump into a thread with your pious
infantile moralising you should spend a little while understanding what
is being discussed first. Cycling safety is a complex issue, and you
won't achieve anything by ignorant and offensive interjections. Like
we used to say BITD, "lurk moar".

I will explain, this time....

Cycle helmets are clearly a good idea, they offer some protection in
collisions and falls. In some cases, perhaps the one we are discussing
here, they save lives. Unfortunately there is a radical minority in
cycling who consider that the use of helmets should be actively
discouraged and discredited. They invent risks from helmet-wearing (as
in Cheerful's satirical remark), and derisively scorn "plastic hats" as
worthless.

The reason for this is that they believe that the public are less likely
to cycle if helmets become popular (or even mandatory). They believe
it is in the public interest to accept some preventable accident deaths,
as long as cycling becomes more widespread. The preventable deaths of
a few dozen nonentities is mere collateral damage. The end justifies
the means.

I think that position is contemptible, so I replied in the same
satirical theme as Cheerless. Every regular poster on URC would
understand that. My personal view incidentally is that I do not support
compulsory helmets, but I think they should be positively encouraged.
I want cyclists to survive.

Now please reflect on this, and stop to think before you make assumptions.

You missed out your middle name, 'Patronising'.

I would say it is "helpful", not "patronising". If you take some advice
meant in good faith as something less than that, it says more about you than
you can imagine. Once again proving that you are a lost cause, and have
become a figure of (unintended)fun.