Helmet would have saved OAP cyclist

On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:03:24 AM UTC, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 25/01/2011 21:55, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:29:35 -0800
(PST) the perfect time to write:

On Jan 25, 2:37 pm, wrote:
On Jan 25, 2:18 pm, wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:57:14 -0000, "Mrcheerful"

wrote:
Get a helmet, you know it makes sense.

http://www.fleetwoodtoday.co.uk/news...lmet_would_hav...

Stand-by.

****wit magnet launched.

It's already attracted you!

And you also - The evidence is compelling for mandatory head
protection.....

Apart from the complete lack of any real-world benefits to cyclists of
increased helmet wearing rates.
Anywhere.
Ever.

There are two possibilities that may lead to this.
Either helmets don't actually make any real difference,
Or, they cause as much damage as they prevent.


Wearing a protective helmet causes damage? Of course it does dear.

**** me you become more stupid every day.

There were ****s like you arguing against compulsory seat belts in the
1980's. They used equally idiotic arguments that were entirely false.




So we wouldn't find you arguing against the compulsory use of helmets in cars?

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/atsb160.pdf

"The results of this investigation indicate that there is considerable
potential for reducing the severity and the consequence of brain
injuries by padding the upper interior of the passenger compartment.
However, an even greater level of protection is provided by the use of
protective headwear."

"The use of protective headwear by car occupants in Australia could potentially reduce the number of fatalities and cases of brain injuries to at least the same extent as the use of helmets by pedal cyclists and motorcyclists.. This is partly due to the higher level of exposure among vehicle occupants."

--
Dan

On 26/01/2011 08:39, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:03:24 AM UTC, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 25/01/2011 21:55, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:29:35 -0800
(PST) the perfect time to write:

On Jan 25, 2:37 pm, wrote:
On Jan 25, 2:18 pm, wrote:

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:57:14 -0000, "Mrcheerful"

wrote:
Get a helmet, you know it makes sense.

http://www.fleetwoodtoday.co.uk/news...lmet_would_hav...

Stand-by.

****wit magnet launched.

It's already attracted you!

And you also - The evidence is compelling for mandatory head
protection.....

Apart from the complete lack of any real-world benefits to cyclists of
increased helmet wearing rates.
Anywhere.
Ever.

There are two possibilities that may lead to this.
Either helmets don't actually make any real difference,
Or, they cause as much damage as they prevent.


Wearing a protective helmet causes damage? Of course it does dear.

**** me you become more stupid every day.

There were ****s like you arguing against compulsory seat belts in the
1980's. They used equally idiotic arguments that were entirely false.




So we wouldn't find you arguing against the compulsory use of helmets in cars?

Cars are a safe & viable form of transport. They have crumple zones,
airbags, seat belt tensioners etc.

Very hard to seriously injure yourself in a RTC. Very easy to injure
yourself falling off a push bike.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk