How many cyclists have been killed by their helmets?

On 14/09/2013 13:14, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 10:09:15 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

However, my position is this. The health benefits of regular cycling
outweigh the risk by so much that not cycling can be considered more
dangerous than cycling whether cyclists wear helmets or not. If cycle
helmets were to be made compulsory, it is likely that many people, as
has happened elsewhere in the world, would simply stop cycling. Less
cycling suggests more premature deaths, and so it could be claimed
that cycle helmets would lead to a great many premature deaths. The
idea of "killer helmets" does not then appear to be so ridiculous.

It remains ridiculous when you remember that for most bicycle riders
the health benefits are minimal or none. The significant benefit, as
with all physical activity, occurs only when the exercise is very
vigorous. Cycling gently to work so as to avoid arriving as a sweaty
heap has no measurable health benefit and is somewhat inferior to
walking as a form of exercise. Less people cycling would most
probably have no discernable effect upon the numbers of premature
deaths.


Recent research is leading many experts to move towards the idea that
less vigorous exercise (ie just activity really) has more health
benefits than the more strenuous version.

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 14/09/2013 10:36, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...
On 14/09/2013 09:24, Mrcheerful wrote:
I cannot find any figures for this, it is often claimed that 'foam hats
kill, so can anyone point to any cases? Road cyclist kiled because his
helmet killed him?

You really are a pitiful and sick individual, aren't you? You are sat
at your computer researching the deaths of people for no other reason
than your own spite and a burning desire to prevent people cycling.

Phil Lee recently wrote that :

" Nobody has ever been able to prove that a life has been saved by a
foam hat. Sadly there have been a number of cases where it has been
proved that a life has been lost by the use of a foam hat."

What is your view, Brian?



My view is that my life has 'possibly' been saved by the use of a helmet
on two occasions.

Oh don't - you'll make your leader (Phil Lee) very angry!

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 18:00:10 +0100, brianrob1961
wrote:

Recent research is leading many experts to move towards the idea that
less vigorous exercise (ie just activity really) has more health
benefits than the more strenuous version.

Then we should be encouraging people to walk and fidget a lot. Cycling
as form of exercise is expensive and inefficient. A company with
about 100 employees I was associated had very few cyclists on its
staff (less than 5) but over 3 years the cyclists took more sick leave
than all the other staff combined. In all cases it was caused by them
falling off bikes by themselves and as a result having broken bones,
infections from skin abrasions, bad backs and both the immediate
absence and need for ongoing treatment for their antics.

On 14/09/2013 18:23, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 18:00:10 +0100, brianrob1961
wrote:

Recent research is leading many experts to move towards the idea that
less vigorous exercise (ie just activity really) has more health
benefits than the more strenuous version.

Then we should be encouraging people to walk and fidget a lot. Cycling
as form of exercise is expensive and inefficient. A company with
about 100 employees I was associated had very few cyclists on its
staff (less than 5) but over 3 years the cyclists took more sick leave
than all the other staff combined. In all cases it was caused by them
falling off bikes by themselves and as a result having broken bones,
infections from skin abrasions, bad backs and both the immediate
absence and need for ongoing treatment for their antics.


I think on that one, Peter, I simply don't believe you.

On 14/09/2013 18:18, Catrap wrote:


"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 14/09/2013 10:36, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...
On 14/09/2013 09:24, Mrcheerful wrote:
I cannot find any figures for this, it is often claimed that 'foam hats
kill, so can anyone point to any cases? Road cyclist kiled because his
helmet killed him?

You really are a pitiful and sick individual, aren't you? You are sat
at your computer researching the deaths of people for no other reason
than your own spite and a burning desire to prevent people cycling.

Phil Lee recently wrote that :

" Nobody has ever been able to prove that a life has been saved by a
foam hat. Sadly there have been a number of cases where it has been
proved that a life has been lost by the use of a foam hat."

What is your view, Brian?



My view is that my life has 'possibly' been saved by the use of a helmet
on two occasions.

Oh don't - you'll make your leader (Phil Lee) very angry!

I am sure that any cyclist would agree that on some occasions a piece of
foam could protect someone during low impact collisions.

In article ,
Peter Parry wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 18:00:10 +0100, brianrob1961
wrote:

Recent research is leading many experts to move towards the idea that
less vigorous exercise (ie just activity really) has more health
benefits than the more strenuous version.

Then we should be encouraging people to walk and fidget a lot. Cycling
as form of exercise is expensive and inefficient. A company with
about 100 employees I was associated had very few cyclists on its
staff (less than 5) but over 3 years the cyclists took more sick leave
than all the other staff combined. In all cases it was caused by them
falling off bikes by themselves and as a result having broken bones,
infections from skin abrasions, bad backs and both the immediate
absence and need for ongoing treatment for their antics.

Anecdotal - and quite probably completely fabricated - 'statistics' are
worthless. The health benefits of cycling are well-documented: it is
low-impact (and thus easier on the joints than running), and the NHS
estimates that an 80 kg person burns around 650 calories an hour [1].
That's compared to 198 calories per hour, walking [2]. Its effects on
cardiovascular and muscular health are also no longer debated.

Except by stupid ****s like you, of course.

Oh, well.

*plonk*

[1] http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/fitness/Pages/Cycling.aspx
[2]
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/getting-s...ting-started-w
alking.aspx

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 14/09/2013 18:18, Catrap wrote:


"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...

On 14/09/2013 10:36, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...
On 14/09/2013 09:24, Mrcheerful wrote:
I cannot find any figures for this, it is often claimed that 'foam hats
kill, so can anyone point to any cases? Road cyclist kiled because his
helmet killed him?

You really are a pitiful and sick individual, aren't you? You are sat
at your computer researching the deaths of people for no other reason
than your own spite and a burning desire to prevent people cycling.

Phil Lee recently wrote that :

" Nobody has ever been able to prove that a life has been saved by a
foam hat. Sadly there have been a number of cases where it has been
proved that a life has been lost by the use of a foam hat."

What is your view, Brian?



My view is that my life has 'possibly' been saved by the use of a helmet
on two occasions.

Oh don't - you'll make your leader (Phil Lee) very angry!

I am sure that any cyclist would agree that on some occasions a piece of
foam could protect someone during low impact collisions.

I told you - he'll be very cross with you for admitting that!

"Andy Watson" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Peter Parry wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 18:00:10 +0100, brianrob1961
wrote:

Recent research is leading many experts to move towards the idea that
less vigorous exercise (ie just activity really) has more health
benefits than the more strenuous version.

Then we should be encouraging people to walk and fidget a lot. Cycling
as form of exercise is expensive and inefficient. A company with
about 100 employees I was associated had very few cyclists on its
staff (less than 5) but over 3 years the cyclists took more sick leave
than all the other staff combined. In all cases it was caused by them
falling off bikes by themselves and as a result having broken bones,
infections from skin abrasions, bad backs and both the immediate
absence and need for ongoing treatment for their antics.

Anecdotal - and quite probably completely fabricated - 'statistics' are
worthless. The health benefits of cycling are well-documented: it is
low-impact (and thus easier on the joints than running), and the NHS
estimates that an 80 kg person burns around 650 calories an hour [1].
That's compared to 198 calories per hour, walking [2]. Its effects on
cardiovascular and muscular health are also no longer debated.

Except by stupid ****s like you, of course.

Look out, foulmouth's back!

(Actually, we've got both foulmouth (1) and foulmouth (2) dancing at the
moment!

On 14/09/2013 18:45, Catrap wrote:


"Andy Watson" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Peter Parry wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 18:00:10 +0100, brianrob1961
wrote:

Recent research is leading many experts to move towards the idea that
less vigorous exercise (ie just activity really) has more health
benefits than the more strenuous version.

Then we should be encouraging people to walk and fidget a lot. Cycling
as form of exercise is expensive and inefficient. A company with
about 100 employees I was associated had very few cyclists on its
staff (less than 5) but over 3 years the cyclists took more sick leave
than all the other staff combined. In all cases it was caused by them
falling off bikes by themselves and as a result having broken bones,
infections from skin abrasions, bad backs and both the immediate
absence and need for ongoing treatment for their antics.

Anecdotal - and quite probably completely fabricated - 'statistics' are
worthless. The health benefits of cycling are well-documented: it is
low-impact (and thus easier on the joints than running), and the NHS
estimates that an 80 kg person burns around 650 calories an hour [1].
That's compared to 198 calories per hour, walking [2]. Its effects on
cardiovascular and muscular health are also no longer debated.

Except by stupid ****s like you, of course.

Look out, foulmouth's back!

(Actually, we've got both foulmouth (1) and foulmouth (2) dancing at the
moment!

What is about motorists that makes them unable to grasp the basics of
using quotation marks?

"brianrob1961" wrote in message
...
On 14/09/2013 09:24, Mrcheerful wrote:
I cannot find any figures for this, it is often claimed that 'foam hats
kill, so can anyone point to any cases? Road cyclist kiled because his
helmet killed him?

You really are a pitiful and sick individual, aren't you? You are sat at
your computer researching the deaths of people for no other reason than
your own spite and a burning desire to prevent people cycling.

It is a valid question from Mr Cheerful. Some cyclists make the
extaordinory claim that wearing a helmet can increase the risk of injury.
Are you one of them?