Should cyclists legally wear a helmet ?

kajjal

Cygnus wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Without the helmet it is likely they would not be here now.

How do you know? Have you done a scientific test?

He literally landed vertically on the top of his head, given the damage to his helmet and how badly strained his neck / shoulders were I wouldn't fancy his chances without the helmet.

kajjal

weadmire wrote:

Kajjai,

You are making the claim "they wouldn't be here" - the question of scientific tests is for you not me. Have you done any, read any, have you ever come off? I can say, and I have already said I have likely had more whacks than anyone contributing to this thread and with regard to my personal science I can say yes I have done the tests. Wearing a helmet I always hit my head or the helmet. When I came off without a helmet I did not hit my head, with the exception of the two incidents I described. Had I been wearing a helmet when I was hit from behind by the van I would probably looked at the damage to the helmet and thought that would have been my head. In fact not so. in the event the cut to my head was very minor.

With regard to the potential energy of a head the higher it is the more it has. Something scientifically quantified by Newton. If you come off a bike and hit the ground as opposed to hitting some object otherwise in the way of your direction of travel your head will likely have less potential energy when you are on a bike in relation to the ground than it has when you are standing up because it will be lower when you are on a bike. When you are wearing a helmet the combination of your head and helmet will have more potential energy/kinetic energy because it will have more mass. F=ma, more from Newton.

Are you volunteering to be the subject of the test

weadmire

Kajjai,

"He literally landed vertically on top of his head"? No he didn't. To land on the top of his head he would have needed to jump off his bike and get into some sort of tuck/pike position to make the turn from head up to head down, put his arms back and intentionally put his head into the ground. He would have to be very skillful and very stupid to pull this off. I think it much more likely you are an exaggerator being economical with the truth to enhance your argument/justify your half baked posts to this thread.

Are you out of your depth here? I think you are. When in a hole best to stop digging as they say.

kajjal

weadmire wrote:

Kajjai,

"He literally landed vertically on top of his head"? No he didn't. To land on the top of his head he would have needed to jump off his bike and get into some sort of tuck/pike position to make the turn from head up to head down, put his arms back and intentionally put his head into the ground. He would have to be very skillful and very stupid to pull this off. I think it much more likely you are an exaggerator being economical with the truth to enhance your argument/justify your half baked posts to this thread.

Are you out of your depth here? I think you are. When in a hole best to stop digging as they say.

You have no idea how he ended up landing on his head and are making up a list of assumptions and insults. I was just sharing a nasty experience that would have been a lot worse had he not been wearing a helmet so others could learn from the experience.

Please try and conduct yourself in a more grown up manner on this forum as people come here for advice and to share experiences, not to trade insults. I will not respond to any further posts you make along those lines.

Franks2788

It should be made compulsary that if your on a bike a helmet should be worn at all times,

I was one for not wearing a helmet, but since getting a road bike i made sure i wore one, and in june this year i was involved in a crash were a 4x4 cut me up going down a very fast hill, the garmin recorded 45.7mph and as i collided with the 4x4 i flew and landed awkwardly. The helmet which cracked in 11 parts saved me from head injury, but the rest of my body was hurting, stitches in my arms, scans on my legs all came back clear, just very bad brusing, couldnt walk properly for a few weeks as the pain..

Always wear a helmet!!

gary.hounsome

weadmire wrote:

. Cycling helmets don't work,

it is possible they have no positive effect at all.

Generally helmets do not work

Cycling helmets do not protect you from much

By saying they generally don't work and also that they don't work it would seem you are quite unsure about the impact they have, which is why I will be leaving the discussion having aired my opinion, if your not sure how ineffective they are I cannot see any point in carrying on...especially as it seems rather easy to get your back up by having an opinion that isn't quite the same as your own.

slowbike

Kajjal wrote:

Cygnus wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Without the helmet it is likely they would not be here now.

How do you know? Have you done a scientific test?

He literally landed vertically on the top of his head, given the damage to his helmet and how badly strained his neck / shoulders were I wouldn't fancy his chances without the helmet.

I've done that - not from cycling though ... I'm still here ..

weadmire

Kajjal.

“You have no idea how he ended up landing on his head...”

Neither do you, probably because it didn't happen.

Newton's take on things:

Laws of motion:

First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame an object either is at rest or moves at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force.
Second law: The acceleration of a body is directly proportional to, and in the same direction as, the net force acting on the body, and inversely proportional to its mass. Thus, F = ma, where F is the net force acting on the object, m is the mass of the object and a is the acceleration of the object.
Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body.

In the absence of any details of the event from you let”s suppose your friend is about 195cms tall, weighs about 95kg with a head weighing about 5kg including his helmet. He will be riding a 60cm by 60 cm frame with a couple of handfulls of seat post between the saddle and the top tube. His head will be about 175cms above the ground when he has his hands on the hoods. There is some mechanical drama that causes a sharp deceleration, the bike stops, perhaps it drops, your friend continues forward. 1st law above.

Without the bike to support him he falls toward the ground at 1g, he hits the ground in milliseconds. 2nd law above.

All unsupported parts of the rider fall toward the ground at the same rate. How does his a*se get above his head? Put another way how does his head get under any part of his anatomy in a fall of 1.75m? Perhaps because of the extra weight of his helmet and its positioning at the extremity of his head his head has a more pronounced downward trajectory than might otherwise be expected but - unless there is some external force we do not know about - his head is likely to hit the ground at pretty much the same time as most of the rest of him not least because the rest of him or her will be closer to the ground.

In a simple fall from a bike, in a circumstance where a rider does not hit some obstruction in the way of his or her direction of travel, it is most likely they will not hit their head if they are not wearing a helmet. If they are wearing a helmet they will more likely hit it because the helmet increases the size and weight of their head making it more difficult for their reflexes to control the motion of the head and being bigger it offers a larger likelihood of impact.

To square this circle of improbability - the improbability of hitting your head on the ground in a fall from less than a couple of meters when not wearing a helmet - many “helmeteers”, for want of a better description for the pro helmet brigade, routinely wishing to exaggerate the drama in falls to enhance the effect of the case they wish to make mention kerbs and railings.

You would have experienced this had you ever fallen off. Have you ever fallen off? You still haven't told us.

Growing up.

In talking about growing up I think you are aware that this is what is happening to you right now. It is sometimes embarrassing if this happens in a public place as you are finding out. If you are concerned to give people advice best to know what you are talking about. This as opposed to presuming you know what you are talking about.

Cygnus

Franks2788 wrote:

Always wear a helmet!!

I'm offended by that statement.

weadmire

Franks2788,

Where did this happen? Are you pursuing the driver for damages? Did you hit anything apart from the ground after your contact with the car? What happened to your bike, was it badly damaged?

weadmire

Gary,

Would that you were as precise with your own language as you want to be with mine. What are you trying to say here - prior to launching your toys from the pram? That I am vacillating or contradicting myself? If so you will have to do better than the quotes you have come up with.

For the record what gets my back up is r soles with little or no experience seeking to impinge on my liberty and safety, and that of others, by promoting the nonsense of cycling helmets. Not to mention the complete bullsh*t that calls itself risk management in this world of ours. And as good an example as any other of the BS of risk management are traffic lights.

Now please tell us have you ever fallen off, or are you in a vicarious “friends” camp like Kajjal?

BTW in your threat to withdraw from this argument you alarm the pro helmet cadre you have tried and so far failed to represent. You assume a responsibility when you engage that you are now trying to avoid. It can't really be done, you will be seen to have lost unless you are able to substantiate your claims.

slowsider

weadmire wrote:

There is some mechanical drama that causes a sharp deceleration, the bike stops, perhaps it drops, your friend continues forward. 1st law above.

Without the bike to support him he falls toward the ground at 1g, he hits the ground in milliseconds. 2nd law above.

All unsupported parts of the rider fall toward the ground at the same rate. How does his a*se get above his head? Put another way how does his head get under any part of his anatomy in a fall of 1.75m?

Yep. Simply impossible, against the laws of physics, as demonstrated below

weadmire wrote:

This as opposed to presuming you know what you are talking about.

Whoosh

weadmire

Slowsider,

Is “whoosh” a forum declaration of triumph, a sort of vernacular QED? If so I think you are getting ahead of yourself.

The rider in the colour image will certainly contact the ground with his shoulder before he gets one to his head, most likely in the ear by the look of things. The rider in the black and white image looks a better bet from your “fallacious” point of view but even there I think Newton will win the day. This rider has been launched into the air by the bikes he has just ridden over and his left foot is influencing things by still being strapped to the pedal. And bear in mind here my speculative analysis was about a sudden Kajjal “mechanical” no mention from Kajjal about a vertical takeoff due to riding over a pile up. For that matter no details of said incident from Kajjal at all despite being asked. And similarly Franks, and Gary.

So nice try but no cigar.

Meanwhile back at the helmet fantasy factory: Yesterday the front page of The Standard had it a young women was saved by her helmet on Monday evening this week not 200m from my studio in Shoreditch. Ten men lifted a VW Golf off her head and rolled it on its side allowing the paramedics to treat her quickly. “If I hadn't been wearing my helmet.... I wouldn't ...” etc We know the rest. The story is repeated in yesterday's Torygraph. The reality is a little different. The traffic was rammed all the way back to the Old Street roundabout because the police were hand directing traffic at the Aldgate junction, the lights had failed. Coincidentally the junction where a young French woman was crushed and killed earlier this year. I expect the VW driver was seeking to escape the jam and turned down the side road forgetting cyclists were not restrained in the same way he had been. Someone I spoke to this morning said the cyclist had been trapped by the chin strap of her helmet the helmet being quite a bit bigger than her head and too big to fit under the car. When they tried to pull her out the helmet snagged the underside of the car and held her in place. Had she not been wearing one her head would have fitted into the gap between the car and the road without a problem. Put another way the car trapped her helmet not her head. Concussion, a collar bone and bruising seems to be the extent of the damage.

slowsider

weadmire wrote:

Slowsider,

Is “whoosh” a forum declaration of triumph, a sort of vernacular QED? If so I think you are getting ahead of yourself.

The rider in the colour image will certainly contact the ground with his shoulder before he gets one to his head, most likely in the ear by the look of things. The rider in the black and white image looks a better bet from your “fallacious” point of view but even there I think Newton will win the day. This rider has been launched into the air by the bikes he has just ridden over and his left foot is influencing things by still being strapped to the pedal.

So nice try but no cigar..

The Whoosh is the sound something makes when it goes over your head, and relates to your crack about knowing what you are talking about. The pics are in response to your comment :

How does his a*se get above his head? Put another way how does his head get under any part of his anatomy in a fall of 1.75m?

Regardless of the causative mechanism, they illustrate how. Whether or not his shoulder impacts the ground first, it's hard to see how he will avoid his head striking the ground too.

Additionally, Newton allows for the front wheel to stop suddenly and the bike and rider to rotate about the front axle. This will bring the head over the bars, the arse up in the air, and again provide for what you said cannot occur.

weadmire

Slowsider,

With regard to things whooshing over my head. The context of the comment of mine you quote was falling off. You seem to want to misrepresent what I said. I do not believe Kajjal knows very much about falling off and neither for that matter does Gary. I have asked them repeatedly whether either of them has had a fall, we are still waiting for an answer. Not having much experience of actually coming off is a common feature of people who are free and easy with their opinions about cycling helmets. Do I generally know what I am talking about with regard to coming off? I have had about fifteen serious whacks, half a dozen with a helmet and the rest without, one or two of these were only heavy bruising the rest were broken bones/concussion. I can reasonably say I know of what I speak. Kajjal and Gary, I am here to be corrected - show us you know what you are talking about - try and give slowsider his "whoosh".

With regard to Newton and my contention hitting your head is less rather than more likely if you are not wearing a helmet you are similarly misquoting me. My Newtonian analysis was in the context of Kajjal's claim: That after a "mechanical".. “He literally landed vertically on the top of his head, given the damage to his helmet and how badly strained his neck / shoulders were I wouldn't fancy his chances without the helmet.”

With regard to the images you posted: I disagree with you about the Milram rider, the one in the colour image, I don't think he will hit his head. But even if he did he certainly would not hit the top of it. So while his head might be below his a*se in the image his head could not be described as under his a*se, under as in beneath it. Below, under, beneath, what 's the difference? Quite a lot in the context of the word “vertical” in Kajjal's claim, the calim were are discussing. In the context of vertical below is not under or beneath, the distinction in below, under, beneath is similar to that of speed and velocity.

With regard to the monochrome image, sure the bike will pivot round the front axle and sure your head might follow that pivot but only for as long as you hold onto the bars. In my experience this head down motion is as quickly changed by your hands as it is established by them if you put them out to save yourself. With this in mind I doubt the rider in the monochrome image will land on his head either.

Perhaps we ought to have a poll of people who crash with the focus on a*se/torso damage rather than head damage to find out which consistently takes the biggest hit. In the majority of my whacks it was my a*se/torso. I think it will be the same for everyone else.

andrewc3142

To answer the OP, my view is:

It should be legal for cyclists to wear a helmet.

It should not be a legal requirement for cyclists to wear a helmet.

For the record, I don't wear one and I'm completely uninterested in persuading others not to, and also completely uninterested in people telling me I should.

smoggysteve

I dont think it should be compulsory, but insurance should be. If you ride on the road you must be insured. If you wear a helmet then your premiums come down. Still a choice but there is an added carrot to make you.

weadmire

Smoggysteve,

What cycling risk do you think you needs to be compulsorily insured?

slowbike

weadmire wrote:

Smoggysteve,

What cycling risk do you think you needs to be compulsorily insured?

any collision that is deemed the fault of the cyclist - be it into a pedestrian or into another vehicle (parked or moving).
A bike and rider can cause a significant amount of damage that may cause the victim significant financial hardship.

Not sure about compulsory insurance though - it would have a negative affect on the number of casual cyclists - BC or CTC memebership is cheap enough and includes £10m 3rd party insurance - it just needs to be publicised and encouraged a bit more.

weadmire

Slowbike,

You have replied on behalf of smoggysteve. Are you trying to promote CTC membership? Failing that are you in the habit of buying extended warranties, PPI, and the like?

If you are a buyer of these sorts of policy I would advise you to stop, the policies are largely worthless. The degree to which the CTC's policy, as it applies to third parties, is worthless could probably be gauged by the number of times their insurers have paid out on behalf of CTC members – I imagine the CTC's no claims record in this regard is better than mine in the case of my car insurance - ten years plus so far.

While someone riding a bike can do a lot of damage, mainly to themselves, and such collisions might even be the cyclist's fault from time to time, the likelihood of innocent third party damage is e'rso remote. I have hit a number of pedestrians and I always came off worst and they were always at fault. I would bet the aggregated value of a year's successful claims against cyclists would not be the value of the annual CTC bill for stationary or postage.

With regard to such policies just needing a little publicity and encouragement I would say you are similarly wrong. Both BC and The CTC bang on about their insurance endlessly – it's very profitable for them. Just like PPI and the banks and extended warranties for the likes of Dixons and Curries. But a few months on a bike will likely show you all you need to know about the value of the third party section of the policies The CTC and BC are selling.

slowbike

weadmire wrote:

Slowbike,

You have replied on behalf of smoggysteve. Are you trying to promote CTC membership? Failing that are you in the habit of buying extended warranties, PPI, and the like?

You patronising twat ...

weadmire

Slowbike,

With regard to “patronising” I think you are talking to yourself. With regard to “fool” for what reason? Not buying PPI, extended warranties, or third party cycling insurance?

slowsider

weadmire wrote:

I have hit a number of pedestrians and I always came off worst and they were always at fault. .

You sound like something of a slow learner, then.

weadmire

Slowsider,

Hard to know what to make of that. In Shoreditch and its hinterland texting/talking pedestrians fetching about not looking where they are going are quite common and hard to avoid. Although they only occupy a relatively small amount of road you will find you don't know which way they are going to jump when they see you. Perhaps you haven't had the experience. Hard to imagine if you cycle in London. Do you live in the country?

smoggysteve

Since I am here I think I will speak for myself

There was a case in the US of a cyclist killing an old man after he hit him on a crossing trying to beat a Strava time. Now I know this is America not the UK but the point is, cyclists can cause damage to themselves and others. The insurance should maybe only compulsory if you ride on roads that are deemed to be shared. If you are on a designated cycle path then maybe not so. We are at a point where the bad feelings towards cyclists, I feel, are contributing to a rise in accidents and deaths. Some drivers seem to take joy out of harassing and putting cyclists in danger almost in a prejudicial manner. It may be in the interests of everyone to only ride with insurance with the cost of health care and potential lawsuits for damage and injury. This is the world we live in.

To my earlier point. If you do not want to force people to wear them you have to find a way to encourage it in another way. 5 people die in London in 9 days. its not fiction its a real issue. Some of them fatalities may have been unavoidable with a helmet. Being hit by a truck is not going to do anyone any good no matter how good your helmet is, but if even one live was saved by it that would be worth it a million times over. The point of them is not whether you look cool or not or if you think you are safe enough, they save lives. Maybe not all the time, but they do enough times to make a difference. I wear one because I want to. If I want to race I am forced to or I am not allowed to compete. Why? for insurance. this is in a race or a TT so whats so shocking or absurd about making a road going cyclist be made to insure themselves. A car is, a bus is, a 50cc moped is. So a cyclist should be. Maybe that insurance money could go towards lowering the cost of other safety procedures. Cheaper Helmets and lights. Maybe if you drive you can stick it as an extra vehicle on your motor insurance for an extra 20 pound a year. Its worth investigating if it helps save lives and improves safety. It may even lessen the criticism from some drivers if they feel we are in a small way contributing.

slowmart

weadmire wrote:

Slowsider,

I

Meanwhile back at the helmet fantasy factory: Yesterday the front page of The Standard had it a young women was saved by her helmet on Monday evening this week not 200m from my studio in Shoreditch. Ten men lifted a VW Golf off her head and rolled it on its side allowing the paramedics to treat her quickly. “If I hadn't been wearing my helmet.... I wouldn't ...” etc We know the rest. The story is repeated in yesterday's Torygraph. The reality is a little different. The traffic was rammed all the way back to the Old Street roundabout because the police were hand directing traffic at the Aldgate junction, the lights had failed. Coincidentally the junction where a young French woman was crushed and killed earlier this year. I expect the VW driver was seeking to escape the jam and turned down the side road forgetting cyclists were not restrained in the same way he had been. Someone I spoke to this morning said the cyclist had been trapped by the chin strap of her helmet the helmet being quite a bit bigger than her head and too big to fit under the car. When they tried to pull her out the helmet snagged the underside of the car and held her in place. Had she not been wearing one her head would have fitted into the gap between the car and the road without a problem. Put another way the car trapped her helmet not her head. Concussion, a collar bone and bruising seems to be the extent of the damage.

You "expect" the VW driver performed that manoeuvre , but hasn't been established as fact?

The someone you spoke to? Emergency worker treating the casualty or someones cousins brother?

No doubt the reported concussion was minimised by wearing a helmet? Second guessing the potential injuries without the helmet is pointless without the facts.



Would you insist a child in your family wear a cycle helmet as you seem dubious about the benefits?

As for third party insurance, keep hitting pedestrians and you may find out what the costs are defending such an action. Regardless of who is right or wrong the very case, time in building a defence, the massive focus it will take in your personal life requires mitigating. Since it's a civil action the burden of proof is much lower which is a major concern. I detest the litigaious way our society is moving but only a fool buries their head in the sand. Take a wider view and the most concerning aspects here are the threshold of guilt and the facts which will be considered by a jury. Have you sat on a jury? Again the threshold isn't high for consideration. When the court clerk went through a power point presentation to all the potential jurors, including myself, about the processes of the court which lasted no more than three minutes I was amazed and saddened to hear such bone questions coming from fellow jurors who clearly hadn't listened to a very basic presentation . If they couldn't comprehend a simple presentation I doubt they had capacity for determining facts presented before a court. BTW I wasn't selected as the only pool I made I started to snigger at the charges being read out. Like I said, the threshold isn't that high!! Then take peoples prejudices, yes real world time. I consider myself fairly responsible, fair and open minded but when i saw the defendant i thought he looked an evil so and so. I was shocked with my reaction and made a mental note to keep the nut tightened. The defendant was a police officer!! Now being a cyclist what do you think you chances are after knocking over a pensioner, mum or any number of labels which will be used to paint a picture of an innocent run over by another cyclist?

A human head directly hitting a kerb or road furniture at 12mph is better off in a helmet than not? Can we agree that aspect. Freedom of choice is great, informed opinion is even better and heres my point. We all have differing levels of perceived risk and could be why so many old school roadies still don't wear helmets. The old school roadies didn't have todays volume of traffic nor the size of articulated vehicles and the dubious skill or lack of familiarity of drivers of left hand drive HGV's* to contend with. London traffic is awful and the drivers aggressive and erratic.

Fly your flag, shout about your rights to not wear a helmet but what we all should be shouting loudly and consistently is better skill sets for all road users which includes cyclists.


*http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/driving/left-hand-drive-hgvs.aspx

weadmire

Smoggysteve and Slowmart,

Please answer these questions:

On the front page of this “campaign” forum there are presently four topics about cycling helmets, there have been hundreds of such threads, perhaps thousands of them in cycling forums round the world. This one has been top or top three of all the campaign topics for some time and it is by some way the most active. If cycling helmets were clearly effective why would their use be controversial to the point of spawning thousands of posts to such forums?

Taking the helmet and head as one – something helmet promoters do all the time, as in if that hadn't been my helmet it would have been my head - do you acknowledge wearing a helmet is more likely to cause you to hit your helmeted head?

Slowmart, I see among the emotional dross of your last post a pearl: your acknowledgement that helmets will only protect heads up to an impact speed of 12mph. Would you expect to die in a real world circumstance if you hit your head at 12mph?

Dr Tom Crisp, among other things the one time orthopaedic consultant to the British Para Olympic squad, had his testimony that we have a hard wired reflex to protect our heads accepted in a significant legal case I was closely involved with. Do you accept this is so?

Do you accept that wearing helmets might modify both the behaviour of the wearer of said helmet and drivers who observe helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists?

smoggysteve

are you suggesting a driver might think twice before tw@tting a cyclist with his car based on whether or not he has a helmet on? And also, are you suggesting a cyclist will react to incidents different depending on this factor. So he neither values his bike nor the rest of his body?

slowmart

weadmire wrote:

Smoggysteve and Slowmart,

Please answer these questions:

On the front page of this “campaign” forum there are presently four topics about cycling helmets, there have been hundreds of such threads, perhaps thousands of them in cycling forums round the world. This one has been top or top three of all the campaign topics for some time and it is by some way the most active. If cycling helmets were clearly effective why would their use be controversial to the point of spawning thousands of posts to such forums?

Personal opinions are just that. I don't believe we all agree on the same issues at any one time. So why should helmets for cyclists be different

Taking the helmet and head as one – something helmet promoters do all the time, as in if that hadn't been my helmet it would have been my head - do you acknowledge wearing a helmet is more likely to cause you to hit your helmeted head?

Because of perceptions of reduced risk or that the circumference of the helmet means it more likely your helmeted head will hit the ground?



Slowmart, I see among the emotional dross of your last post a pearl: your acknowledgement that helmets will only protect heads up to an impact speed of 12mph. Would you expect to die in a real world circumstance if you hit your head at 12mph?

Don't be so literal. The speed was only an example and in no way was I suggesting helmets are only effective up to speeds of 12mph. Speed is only one aspect. Other aspects to consider is the angle and site of impact. Too many variables to provide an informed opinion. But you fail to answer the question I put to you. Why and instead concoct something which wasn't stated?

Dr Tom Crisp, among other things the one time orthopaedic consultant to the British Para Olympic squad, had his testimony that we have a hard wired reflex to protect our heads accepted in a significant legal case I was closely involved with. Do you accept this is so?

In the same context diminished damages are also applied where cyclists forgo helmets; Smith v. Finch, Jorgensen v. Moore. You derided other users on this forum for non specifics and I would enquire what was the "significant legal case" you were closely involved with. Then I can provide an informed answer?

Do you accept that wearing helmets might modify both the behaviour of the wearer of said helmet and drivers who observe helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists?

I would dance a jig naked if road users actually noticed cyclists let alone note said cyclist is wearing a helmet. And again its down to personal risk perception. Yes I agree, with a helmet the perception of risk could be diminished. Which in itself is a circular argument as surely the faster you are travelling when an accident occurs the higher the likelihood of injury?

So rather than put words in my mouth RE 12mph is there a chance of answering the questions I put forward?

And your take on insurance is interesting as well but is void of the changing landscape around us. Both road wise and legally. Do you still accept third party insurance isn't required?

Colinthecop

slowsider wrote:

weadmire wrote:

Yep. Simply impossible, against the laws of physics, as demonstrated below

This might be a better one -




Not that i'm suggesting a thread full of pics of cyclists hurting themselves is more interesting than a debate about the merits of helmet wearing, however I am now heading off to google/image to find some more. :roll: