Anyone not wear glasses?
Comments
-
Yes, eyelids act to protect your eye but they are NOT sufficient protection against high speed objects or larger objects. Do you suggest that glasses are used for protection in all walks of life simply because people don't realise they have eyelids?joe2008 wrote:Your eyes have a unique protection system, it's called your eyelid and it works well, you blink in a fraction of a second. Glasses have large lenses, so will get a lot more stuff on them than would ever get near your eye..
Agreed, glasses are bigger so more can be expected to hit them. Conversely, it means less hits eyes not none. It actually means those who wear glasses are more aware of the risk even if they might overestimate the frequency slightly.
Optimism didn't protect your eye. You've perhaps been lucky. Plenty people ride all their lives without glasses and never have a serious eye injury. I don't fancy taking the chance. Also, as previously discussed, it's not all about safety. It's about comfort too.joe2008 wrote:apreading wrote:thegreatdivide wrote:Total nonsense.
Not 'total nonsense' but somewhat simplistic and optimistic at the very least...
Optimism that's served me well for 50 years on the bike, glasses free. Why over complicate stuff, it's a push bike you're riding.0 -
joe2008 wrote:apreading wrote:thegreatdivide wrote:Total nonsense.
Not 'total nonsense' but somewhat simplistic and optimistic at the very least...
Optimism that's served me well for 50 years on the bike, glasses free. Why over complicate stuff, it's a push bike you're riding.
I know people who have smoked for over 50 years, so all that talk of cancer and smoking being bad for your health is just complicating stuff?0 -
Really comparing smoking to not wearing glasses on a push bike?
I wondered when that would come up given the direction of the discussion.
Prolonged smoking is known to lead an array of problems of varying degrees with a high frequency. I don't have any stats but I strongly suspect cycling without glasses doesn't quite have the same devastating impact.
My attitude has been described as cavalier despite going out of my way to highlight I was totally unaware of the safety mindset. Having said that, I'm not apologising for my view, nothing on here has convinced me there is a high (or even significant) risk associated with glasses free riding.
But again, I think a lot of it is attitude to risk. I ref ice hockey, there are some very real dangers that are completely beyond my control. I've heard people play games like rugby and go cave diving too. It's not necessarily cavalier to accept a high level of risk. It is part of life, I guess we have to make informed choices.0 -
This thread is a wonderful idiot detector.0
-
Head injuries are very common
No, they really aren't.0 -
morstar wrote:Really comparing smoking to not wearing glasses on a push bike?
No - comparing anecdotal evidence of doing something for a long period without harm and contrasting it with the same argument in a context that it obviously didn't make sense to show that the first application of this as a form of 'evidence' is spurious. Not hard to understand, surely?0 -
cyd190468 wrote:
Precisely my point, you can think of one person that might have injured an eye from not wearing glasses while every year thousands of cyclists are hospitalised with head injuries. The comparisons being made between helmet wearing and glasses just don't make statistical sense. Head injuries are very common whereas eye injuries are almost unheard of.cougie wrote:cyd190468 wrote:I have one question though. Does anyone on here know anyone who has ever had permanent eye damage because they weren't wearing glasses on a bicycle. I have never even heard a story about someone being permanently injured, let alone seen an actual report.
What happened to Marcel Wust ? I dont know if he had glasses on for his accident but I know his eye was damaged.
In the most common cases, eye injuries will be unpleasant, painful or uncomfortable but no more, and probably short lived. Therefore they are unlikely to be reported. There is obviously the chance that they could be more serious or longer lasting, even permanent - the eye is a delicate body part. There is also the chance that disorientation or momentary loss of focus on the task of riding your bike could result in a further accident. The discomfort and inconvenience is common but just that, an inconvenience - but an avoidable one. The risk of something more serious is relatively low and probably not the motivating factor in wearing glasses, to be honest.0 -
Is that a fact or an opinion?cyd190468 wrote:...Head injuries are very common whereas eye injuries are almost unheard of.
Yes, head injuries get more attention, probably because the potential consequences can be anything from concussion to brain damage or death, but I've never had one nor have any of my friends or family cyclists or otherwise. Very common? - Depends what you mean by that.
On the other hand I've had two non-cycling related eye-injuries in my life and caused another (accidentally). These did not result in press releases just visits to the accident and emergency department. Have you considered that you consider eye injuries unheard of simply because you haven't been told about them? It doesn't mean they don't happen.
Regardless, I don't like wind, road spray or small insects in my eyes so I shall continue wearing glasses happy in the knowledge that I am also relatively safe from the much rarer dangerous stone or large insect. You may do as you wish.0 -
It's lame though. There is a clear cause and effect relationship between smoking and illness. Not so with glasses and cycling eye injuries I believe. Don't try to make me out to be hard of understanding. Its use as an argument in the context it was used was pretty spurious. The long term smoker who is in fine health is an anomaly. To draw parallels suggests the cyclist without glasses and no eye injuries is somehow an anomaly also or is completely irrelevant.apreading wrote:morstar wrote:Really comparing smoking to not wearing glasses on a push bike?
No - comparing anecdotal evidence of doing something for a long period without harm and contrasting it with the same argument in a context that it obviously didn't make sense to show that the first application of this as a form of 'evidence' is spurious. Not hard to understand, surely?
But for the record, the thread is going seriously awol. Apologies if I've somehow contributed to that. I suspect my early choice of the word vanity would have been better replaced by the less emotive phrase, image conscious, but, other than that I've tried to debate this in a sensible, honest and open minded manner.
I hardly think I can complain about abuse but, I have been accused of being cavalier and hard of understanding in the last couple of pages and earlier lumped into a group of glasses free fools effectively. It's a genuinely surprising thread to me.
I suddenly understand why the helmet debate goes so far south.0 -
While I agree that riding 50 years without glasses is not evidence that glasses serve no purpose, I think trying to draw any parallels with smoking is rather silly.apreading wrote:joe2008 wrote:apreading wrote:thegreatdivide wrote:Total nonsense.
Not 'total nonsense' but somewhat simplistic and optimistic at the very least...
Optimism that's served me well for 50 years on the bike, glasses free. Why over complicate stuff, it's a push bike you're riding.
I know people who have smoked for over 50 years, so all that talk of cancer and smoking being bad for your health is just complicating stuff?
Smoking has a continuous definite effect on health with a high percentage probablility of a serious long term impact up to and including death.
Not wearing glasses increases the chances of an eye injury but the probablility of occurance of a significant injury remains small. Glasses are passive protection in case of an event occurring. Smoking is active infliction of damage with a high level of probability that this will have serious long term impact.0
