need a few pics to convince my nephew to wear a helmet
Comments
-
bigbenj_08
Damn right. No-one should ever go anywhere or do anything. We should all stay home in full body armour and moto helmets at all times.
Safety first people!John Stevenson0 -
It's funny, when I first started riding years ago ( and we're talking late 80s !) no one wore lids, then they started appearing. My first lid was a specialized one with a Lycra stretch cover , it looked so ghey but it was about all that was available LOL! Eventually they caught on and now I would never go on a ride without one0
-
appy wrote:right just need to persuade him that Crewe Alexandra are a far better team than Man UTD lol ...any ideas ??? ha ha
I think he might need a bump on the head before that would happen :roll: Though for a Utd fan it'd be worth it :P-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Mongoose Teocali
Giant STP0
Why are MTB economics; spend twice as much as you intended, but only half as much as you wish you could afford? :roll:0 -
-
Can anyone explain how the average helmet is going to prevent any of these injuries?
l
Or are we now advocating ful face helmets only?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
These injuries are all aesthetic, skidding on their faces etc. People who don't wear a helmet and hit their heads hard on rocks and things die, hence you don't get to see the post-accident shots.0
-
FFS here we go again.... :roll:0
-
-
Toasty wrote:These injuries are all aesthetic, skidding on their faces etc. People who don't wear a helmet and hit their heads hard on rocks and things die, hence you don't get to see the post-accident shots.
Such an educated well thought out post, it would be interesting to see your evidence that facial and jaw injuries are "aesthetic" as you claim.
You have heard of "breathing"one assumes and are aware of the fact that blood, teeth and swelling / malformation can compromise this?
To most people this is far from "aesthetic" and certainly life threatening to the average person
If you increase the risk of accident by travelling off road where there are "rocks and things" then full face helmets are not only appropriate, but surely only common sense
To paraphrase your wonderful post...and give absolutely incontrovertible evidence on the need for full face helmets....
[/quote]People who don't wear a full face helmet and hit their face hard on rocks and things choke to death, hence you don't get to see the post-accident shots.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
dave_hill wrote:FFS here we go again.... :roll:
The OP wants to provide facial injury protection.... surely suggesting full face helmets is appropriate as it is the only way to fulfil his aim?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:Toasty wrote:These injuries are all aesthetic, skidding on their faces etc. People who don't wear a helmet and hit their heads hard on rocks and things die, hence you don't get to see the post-accident shots.
Such an educated well thought out post, it would be interesting to see your evidence that facial and jaw injuries are "aesthetic" as you claim.
I don't think anyone in these shots are choking exactly are they, I stated these images shown, all of which look pretty aesthetic to me. I know lots and lots of people who have fallen off, your head jack knifes around as it's the further part away from the pivot, your wheel, and smashes into things hard, breaking the helmet.
A normal trail helmet wouldn't have stopped any of the injuries shown, I agree. It does however factor out a massive amount of potentially fatal accidents. Breaking your neck or back is still fairly easy, this doesn't mean everyone has to ride in full platemail.0 -
Ah good, the timeless "helmet/No Helmet" argument is back again. Just what we needed. :roll:
Move along now, nothing to see here!
For the second time in 2 days I get to use my fave pic:
As you were gentlemen0 -
-
Don't push the safety issue too much this just might scare him & at that age cycling should be all about fun. My son is 7 + half & very much into his offroad & BMX biking. To him wearing a helmet is just the cool thing to do & makes him feel grown up as other kids his age generally don't wear one. Let him choose his own helmet (it might cost but it will make a difference) & make sure any adults cycling with him are also wearing a lid aswell.0
-
Toasty wrote:Use SPDs and ride a full sus, they're far better on all fronts!
surely by that logic full sus is better at the back, rather than the front......if you believe that type of thing
Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
-
Toasty wrote:A normal trail helmet ... does however factor out a massive amount of potentially fatal accidents.
Except that the evidence says it doesn't.
When helmets became mandatory in Australia the death rate for cyclists dropped. But so did the death rate for pedestrians, by almost exactly the same amount.
Helmet mandation was accompanied by a raft of other measures, especially far stricter enforcement of blood alcohol limits by random testing, that actually save lives.
Whatever helmets do - I suspect it's limited to protecting you from a nasty headache and a visit to A&E in a minor spill - it doesn't include saving lives.John Stevenson0 -
John Stevenson wrote:Whatever helmets do - I suspect it's limited to protecting you from a nasty headache and a visit to A&E in a minor spill - it doesn't include saving lives.
And that's a subjective assessment, John, no more valid than others who are convinced they might be saved from something more serious than a headache.0 -
John Stevenson wrote:Toasty wrote:A normal trail helmet ... does however factor out a massive amount of potentially fatal accidents.
Except that the evidence says it doesn't.
When helmets became mandatory in Australia the death rate for cyclists dropped. But so did the death rate for pedestrians, by almost exactly the same amount.
Helmet mandation was accompanied by a raft of other measures, especially far stricter enforcement of blood alcohol limits by random testing, that actually save lives.
Whatever helmets do - I suspect it's limited to protecting you from a nasty headache and a visit to A&E in a minor spill - it doesn't include saving lives.
Trouble is, these studies and statistics all talk about road riding....I am unaware of any that specifically target off-road use....
add....it would be nice to see correlation with head injuries and helmet use whist riding off-road....I know that the NRIE is studying how Glentress is impacting the NHS, but am unsure on the details of how that will be split into head injury alongside helmet use....
It would certainly be intersting to see, as generally offroad, we don't ride as fast as our roadie counterparts (so probably well within the supposed 12mph speed limit of helmet efficacy)....
A good study would be intersting to see.Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
Toasty wrote:Cunobelin wrote:Toasty wrote:These injuries are all aesthetic, skidding on their faces etc. People who don't wear a helmet and hit their heads hard on rocks and things die, hence you don't get to see the post-accident shots.
Such an educated well thought out post, it would be interesting to see your evidence that facial and jaw injuries are "aesthetic" as you claim.
I don't think anyone in these shots are choking exactly are they, I stated these images shown, all of which look pretty aesthetic to me. I know lots and lots of people who have fallen off, your head jack knifes around as it's the further part away from the pivot, your wheel, and smashes into things hard, breaking the helmet.
A normal trail helmet wouldn't have stopped any of the injuries shown, I agree. It does however factor out a massive amount of potentially fatal accidents. Breaking your neck or back is still fairly easy, this doesn't mean everyone has to ride in full platemail.
You decided that a "wear a helmet or die" approach was the way to go, this is unproven and unsubstantiated by any evidence. It is scaremongering in the extreme. I simply decided to apply your method to facial injuries as well, in order for a fair comparison.
The argument is surely a "no brainer" full face helmets should be compulsory as they would combine the head proection and facial protection. How can anyone possibly argue against such common sense?
What argument can be offered against full face ?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
I ride for fun, it'd be less fun and limit my breathing, the same reason I don't wear leg/arm padding. I don't even like wearing a camelbak to be honest. Head bumping isn't rare, I even nut branches out of my way on a regular basis as I'm 6'6" and most trails seem to neglect this
My trail helmet in no way inhibits my riding, you can barely notice it's there once you've got used to it. A lot of people don't wear helmets because they think they look silly, these people could do with "extreme scaremongering", I can't see what harm it'll do them.
This isn't really about helmets though is it, aren't you a bitter roady getting annoyed at being told what to do in other threads? To be honest I don't think helmets are as important on the road, comedy offs onto rocks are far more rare and being hit by a car a helmet may be of no help what-so-ever.0 -
John Stevenson wrote:Toasty wrote:A normal trail helmet ... does however factor out a massive amount of potentially fatal accidents.
Except that the evidence says it doesn't.
When helmets became mandatory in Australia the death rate for cyclists dropped. But so did the death rate for pedestrians, by almost exactly the same amount.
This isn't about pedestrians/commuters though is it? Given this was on the MTB general forum I was keeping it in an MTB context. How often does a commuter go over the bars, slide out on a root, mid judge off camber ground etc?
I certainly don't think it should be compulsary. I don't think riding with no helmet should be bigged up as being an equally safe way to ride. You can't quote dazzling facts and figures about this as pretty much every avid mountain biker wears a helmet, as it's common sense.0 -
Today in Swinley, I came across a couple riding the Labyrinth and Babymaker areas with no helmets. In fact I almost collided with the girl in the babymaker as she was stationary and certainly wasn't.
I suggested they invest in helmets when riding in areas like this, but the reaction towards my advice was a little like feeding strawberries to pigs.. no appreciation at all...0 -
Toasty wrote:I ride for fun, it'd be less fun and limit my breathing, the same reason I don't wear leg/arm padding. I don't even like wearing a camelbak to be honest. Head bumping isn't rare, I even nut branches out of my way on a regular basis as I'm 6'6" and most trails seem to neglect this
My trail helmet in no way inhibits my riding, you can barely notice it's there once you've got used to it. A lot of people don't wear helmets because they think they look silly, these people could do with "extreme scaremongering", I can't see what harm it'll do them.
This isn't really about helmets though is it, aren't you a bitter roady getting annoyed at being told what to do in other threads? To be honest I don't think helmets are as important on the road, comedy offs onto rocks are far more rare and being hit by a car a helmet may be of no help what-so-ever.
How does leg and arm padding limit your breathing?
How do the professionals manage breathing with full face helmets with the exertion levels they reach?
Not particularly strong arguments against the protection a full face helmet would offer you
You have still not come up with a valid reason for not wearing full face, "it is less fun" is no more rational or coherent as an argument then the "it looks silly" you deride..
The scientific evidence on facial injury reduction with full face helmets is far stronger than the evidence that they reduce head injury, yet you choose to ignore this advice, Your decision of course but given that you wish to bully and scare people into wearing helmets it is a little strange that you are willing to compromise the protection on the risible "it is less fun"
Here is my problem, you feel entitled to make decisions about your safety, but then wish to refuse others that freedom to decide.
The point is that a full face helmet would increase the protection offered to riders with little or no performance penalty.Surely wearing one is simply the "common sense" ?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
This is been done to death many times over, and always ends up with the same arguments.
It is upto the individual to decide on the level of protection that best suits them based on how risky they think the activity will be.
If you don't want to risk injury, don't ride. If you want to reduce the risk of head injury, wear a helmet.0
This discussion has been closed.
