A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Time for fishing helmets



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 10th 19, 08:15 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,398
Default Time for fishing helmets

On 10/06/2019 16:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:22, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the
crash.

You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those opposing
the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the latter on
the basis that they did not want such use to be more widely accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head
injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as
counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were never
fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces" and another
to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving those of us who
are not immediately familiar with such items to the sole logical
conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet would manage to keep
his head the crucial couple of centimetres away from collision with
the asphalt or street furniture, with a force-field indeed being the
only means of protection.

Simple mechanics provides the explanation - for those with a
comprehension of simple mechanics. For those that don't, it might as
well be a force field.


So you are right and all the professional advice is wrong?


What professionals?


That's more like it: deny, deny, deny.

Asking for a friend.


Obviously.


Ads
  #12  
Old June 10th 19, 08:22 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,398
Default Time for fishing helmets

On 10/06/2019 18:15, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:32:24 GMT, TMS320 wrote:

On 10/06/2019 15:22, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the
crash.

You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those opposing
the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the latter on
the basis that they did not want such use to be more widely
accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head
injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as
counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were never
fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces" and
another to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving those of
us who are not immediately familiar with such items to the sole
logical conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet would manage
to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres away from
collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a force-field
indeed being the only means of protection.

Simple mechanics provides the explanation - for those with a
comprehension of simple mechanics. For those that don't, it might as
well be a force field.

So you are right and all the professional advice is wrong?


What professionals?

Asking for a friend.


Obviously.


A proper response:
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1100.html
(slightly dated; but data trumps anecdote)


Thank you for that.

QUOTE:
Data for the year 2002/3
Hospital admissions for head injury:

All causes: 30,533
Cyclists: 2,183
Cycling represents 7.1% of all head injuries

Proportion of all injuries that involve head injury:

All causes: 34.2%
Cyclists: 37.6%
Pedestrians: 43.7%

Serious head injuries:

All causes: 5,875
Cyclists: 385 - 550 *
Pedestrians: 4,564
Cycling represents 6.5% of all serious head injuries
ENDQUOTE

I'm not quite sure of how all those figures hang together (eg, cycling
head injuries are 7.1% of all head injuries but 37.6% of all injuries
which involve head injury). Perhaps there's a statistical distinction
between hospital admissions and out-patient treatment and perhaps
there's a further distinction in counting as between pure head injuries
and head injuries accompanied by other injuries in the same incident
(the latter of which seems the more likely when one considers that most
people will attempt to protect themselves in one way or another).

But either way, I still, instinctively, find myself in opposition to the
compulsory use of cycling safety helmets by adult cyclists.
  #13  
Old June 10th 19, 08:24 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,398
Default Time for fishing helmets

On 10/06/2019 18:36, Simon Jester wrote:

On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 12:38:51 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash.


You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those opposing the
compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the latter on the basis
that they did not want such use to be more widely accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head injuries
in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as counter-intuitive as
that may be). The mechanics of this were never fully explained (pace a
reference to "rotational forces" and another to the thickness of the
helmet structure), leaving those of us who are not immediately familiar
with such items to the sole logical conclusion that the cyclist without
a helmet would manage to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres
away from collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a
force-field indeed being the only means of protection.

And who knows? It could be right, I expect.


I have no idea what you are trying to say but the phrase:
'Hook, line, sinker, rod, keep net, waders, sandwiches, thermos and copy of Angling Times'
comes to mind.


You seem to inhabit a peculiar world of your own. You certainly are not
recalling the ukrc cycling helmet "discussions" with any degree of accuracy.
  #14  
Old June 10th 19, 09:16 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,668
Default Time for fishing helmets

On 10/06/2019 20:15, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 16:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:22, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the
crash.

You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those opposing
the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the latter on
the basis that they did not want such use to be more widely accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head
injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as
counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were never
fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces" and
another to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving those of
us who are not immediately familiar with such items to the sole
logical conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet would manage
to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres away from
collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a force-field
indeed being the only means of protection.

Simple mechanics provides the explanation - for those with a
comprehension of simple mechanics. For those that don't, it might as
well be a force field.

So you are right and all the professional advice is wrong?


What professionals?


That's more like it: deny, deny, deny.


It is impossible for me to deny something you haven't told me.

  #15  
Old June 10th 19, 09:18 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,668
Default Time for fishing helmets

On 10/06/2019 20:14, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 16:29, TMS320 wrote:

On 10/06/2019 00:40, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash.

Did the bigger boat have the nautical equivalent of fixed-wheel and
no brakes?

Perhaps the skipper believed that shouting "Get out of the way; I'm
not stopping" was sufficient?


I have learnt from this group that those that shout get vilified so it
is much better to keep silent.

"the 75-year-old told investigators he couldn’t see where he was
driving because he was sitting down and the dash of his boat was
blocking his view."


An interesting parallel (thank you for confirming it):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I0Zs1G1ri4

There is none so blind as he who will not see, of course.


It happens to be a common habit amongst drivers. (Many times a day.)
  #16  
Old June 10th 19, 09:48 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,296
Default Time for fishing helmets

On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 8:24:00 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 18:36, Simon Jester wrote:

On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 12:38:51 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash.

You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those opposing the
compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the latter on the basis
that they did not want such use to be more widely accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head injuries
in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as counter-intuitive as
that may be). The mechanics of this were never fully explained (pace a
reference to "rotational forces" and another to the thickness of the
helmet structure), leaving those of us who are not immediately familiar
with such items to the sole logical conclusion that the cyclist without
a helmet would manage to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres
away from collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a
force-field indeed being the only means of protection.

And who knows? It could be right, I expect.


I have no idea what you are trying to say but the phrase:
'Hook, line, sinker, rod, keep net, waders, sandwiches, thermos and copy of Angling Times'
comes to mind.


You seem to inhabit a peculiar world of your own.


And it's so much better than Nugentworld.

You certainly are not recalling the ukrc cycling helmet "discussions" with any degree of accuracy.


Certainly I am. If a cyclist is killed whilst wearing a helmet it proves the helmet saved his life.

  #17  
Old June 10th 19, 10:13 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mr Pounder Esquire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,363
Default Time for fishing helmets

Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 8:24:00 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 18:36, Simon Jester wrote:

On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 12:38:51 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the
crash.

You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those
opposing the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the
latter on the basis that they did not want such use to be more
widely accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head
injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as
counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were
never fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces" and
another to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving those
of us who are not immediately familiar with such items to the sole
logical conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet would manage
to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres away from
collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a force-field
indeed being the only means of protection.

And who knows? It could be right, I expect.

I have no idea what you are trying to say but the phrase:
'Hook, line, sinker, rod, keep net, waders, sandwiches, thermos and
copy of Angling Times' comes to mind.


You seem to inhabit a peculiar world of your own.


And it's so much better than Nugentworld.

You certainly are not recalling the ukrc cycling helmet
"discussions" with any degree of accuracy.


Certainly I am. If a cyclist is killed whilst wearing a helmet it
proves the helmet saved his life.


Prick.


  #18  
Old June 11th 19, 02:27 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,398
Default Time for fishing helmets

On 10/06/2019 21:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 20:14, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 16:29, TMS320 wrote:

On 10/06/2019 00:40, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the
crash.

Did the bigger boat have the nautical equivalent of fixed-wheel and
no brakes?

Perhaps the skipper believed that shouting "Get out of the way; I'm
not stopping" was sufficient?

I have learnt from this group that those that shout get vilified so
it is much better to keep silent.

"the 75-year-old told investigators he couldn’t see where he was
driving because he was sitting down and the dash of his boat was
blocking his view."


An interesting parallel (thank you for confirming it):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I0Zs1G1ri4

There is none so blind as he who will not see, of course.


It happens to be a common habit amongst drivers. (Many times a day.)


Drivers ride bikes into the backs of parked cars because they aren't
looking where their bike is headed?

Really?

I didn't know that. You can learn something everyday.

  #19  
Old June 11th 19, 02:31 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,398
Default Time for fishing helmets

On 10/06/2019 21:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 20:15, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 16:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:22, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the
crash.

You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those
opposing the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the
latter on the basis that they did not want such use to be more
widely accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head
injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as
counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were
never fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces" and
another to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving those
of us who are not immediately familiar with such items to the sole
logical conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet would manage
to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres away from
collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a force-field
indeed being the only means of protection.

Simple mechanics provides the explanation - for those with a
comprehension of simple mechanics. For those that don't, it might
as well be a force field.

So you are right and all the professional advice is wrong?

What professionals?


That's more like it: deny, deny, deny.


It is impossible for me to deny something you haven't told me.


You are well aware of the official advice that cyclists should wear
safety helmets when cycling. You are well aware that doctors'
organisations recommend the same thing, and for the same reasons.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

https://helmets.org/bmareport.htm

But don't worry too much. Many people (including myself) support your
right not to "look like a tit".




  #20  
Old June 11th 19, 03:56 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,296
Default Time for fishing helmets

On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 2:31:47 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 21:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 20:15, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 16:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:22, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ

If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen.
Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the
crash.

You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those
opposing the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the
latter on the basis that they did not want such use to be more
widely accepted).

Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head
injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as
counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were
never fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces" and
another to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving those
of us who are not immediately familiar with such items to the sole
logical conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet would manage
to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres away from
collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a force-field
indeed being the only means of protection.

Simple mechanics provides the explanation - for those with a
comprehension of simple mechanics. For those that don't, it might
as well be a force field.

So you are right and all the professional advice is wrong?

What professionals?

That's more like it: deny, deny, deny.


It is impossible for me to deny something you haven't told me.


You are well aware of the official advice that cyclists should wear
safety helmets when cycling. You are well aware that doctors'
organisations recommend the same thing, and for the same reasons.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

https://helmets.org/bmareport.htm

But don't worry too much. Many people (including myself) support your
right not to "look like a tit".




In 2004 eggs and avocados were poison because of their high cholesterol.
Now eggs and avocados are a superfood.
Science advances and leaves religion behind.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do helmets go bad over time? RS Techniques 22 July 13th 06 12:54 PM
Do helmets go bad over time? Stan Cox UK 7 July 13th 06 12:54 PM
Helmets - mean time betweef failures flyingdutch Australia 4 January 16th 06 02:41 AM
time trial helmets Katharine & Paul Australia 5 August 4th 04 08:21 AM
time trial helmets Katharine & Paul Techniques 8 August 2nd 04 10:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.