Calling helmet deniers: Geraint alive and well
Comments
-
Thank you for your blessing. It means so much to me.He actually thinks that he's added something worthwhile here, bless his little cotton socks. Such sweet delusion.
What is your opinion on helmets?
I don't like them in case you can't figure that one out.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Well I have lasted til the 9th page before posting. A new record for me.
Didn't see that stage (yet). I only got into it on the last 3 days. A holiday away from good internet access and no TVs with cycling on. I intend to work back on catch up if it is still up there. Was it a good crash, what I mean,was it a serious crash? Was G a big hero for getting up and carrying on? Kind of like those who break something then somehow last through the mountain stages.
There have been quite some crashes in the past, back in the day before helmets or when the helmets were little strips of leather padding. I remember one guy going off the cliff at the side of the road, somehow climbed back up and carried on with a new bike. For all I know the bike is still down there with all the burnt out and crashed cars. Was that Pantini or another climber about 10-15 years ago? Crashes happen and to say they saved the life is a matter of faith IMHO. Helmet wearing is a matter of faith that it will work the way you want it to work when you need something to save you. Faith! Perhaps I will stick with Allah, God, Jehovah, Buddha, etc. At least if I rely on Buddha I'll come back as someone wearing a helmet or something like that higher level of lifeform.
Why do we keep doing these helmet threads? When will we just learn to live together? We are all the same under the skin why the divisions?? Sorry, another plea for an end to religious division, sorry helmet division (the same thing).
It is getting a tired joke these debates, if that is what two diametrically opposed groups hurling posts at the opposing side is called. Over and out!0 -
Not wanting to be pedantic but he didn't head butt the pole, he met it backwards and appears to spread the load across his shoulders & back. A head butt is widely accepted as using the forehead to create an impact.I just don't have any confidence in cycling helmets, far too flimsy and no decent evidence that they work.
No, I'm sure Geraint Thomas would agree with you, no evidence whatsoever.
Except that small matter of the fact that he head butted a telegraph pole with the side of his head and was completely uninjured.
As usual the Bikeradar helmet debate diverts straight to the bun-fight of whether or not one should wear one, not the subject of "Do they protect you from injury or death?", which was the subject of this thread and the answer to which (a resounding "YES") even the majority of the trolls on this thread probably agree with.
Not wanting to be pedantic, and I appreciate that you're an expert witness, but in the words of Geraint Thomas:
"I remember seeing the pole at the side of the road and thinking 'where am I going to hit that?' I was just trying to avoid properly headbutting it, which I didn't quite manage to do. I took a good clout to the head..."
By the way, the issue of helmet wearing choice is (for the umpteenth time) a separate discussion, I was merely pointing to a superb example (Geraint Thomas) of a helmet making a massive difference to the health (and status of life vs death perhaps) of its wearer. Whether or not you choose to wear one I don't give two hoots about, but to deny that they actually protect you is nonsense.
Come on, chaps, stay on the subject, I'm trying to make it easy for you here.0 -
Thank you for your blessing. It means so much to me.He actually thinks that he's added something worthwhile here, bless his little cotton socks. Such sweet delusion.
What is your opinion on helmets?
I don't like them in case you can't figure that one out.
I feel such a fool, I'd assumed you were a guy. I do apologize sweet, it all makes perfect sense now.0 -
To assume is to presume.
Thank you for your blessing. It means so much to me.He actually thinks that he's added something worthwhile here, bless his little cotton socks. Such sweet delusion.
What is your opinion on helmets?
I don't like them in case you can't figure that one out.
I feel such a fool, I'd assumed you were a guy. I do apologize sweet, it all makes perfect sense now.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
On subject.
Not wanting to be pedantic but he didn't head butt the pole, he met it backwards and appears to spread the load across his shoulders & back. A head butt is widely accepted as using the forehead to create an impact.I just don't have any confidence in cycling helmets, far too flimsy and no decent evidence that they work.
No, I'm sure Geraint Thomas would agree with you, no evidence whatsoever.
Except that small matter of the fact that he head butted a telegraph pole with the side of his head and was completely uninjured.
As usual the Bikeradar helmet debate diverts straight to the bun-fight of whether or not one should wear one, not the subject of "Do they protect you from injury or death?", which was the subject of this thread and the answer to which (a resounding "YES") even the majority of the trolls on this thread probably agree with.
Not wanting to be pedantic, and I appreciate that you're an expert witness, but in the words of Geraint Thomas:
"I remember seeing the pole at the side of the road and thinking 'where am I going to hit that?' I was just trying to avoid properly headbutting it, which I didn't quite manage to do. I took a good clout to the head..."
By the way, the issue of helmet wearing choice is (for the umpteenth time) a separate discussion, I was merely pointing to a superb example (Geraint Thomas) of a helmet making a massive difference to the health (and status of life vs death perhaps) of its wearer. Whether or not you choose to wear one I don't give two hoots about, but to deny that they actually protect you is nonsense.
Come on, chaps, stay on the subject, I'm trying to make it easy for you here.
Geraint fell off his bike and bumped his helmet which probably saved him bumping his head.
This is true. End of story.
No one can say with any certainty that the helmet saved his life.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Of course you need to wear a helmet. Where are you supposed to put your helmetcam if you're not?Job: Job, n,. A frustratingly long period of time separating two shorter than usual training rides0
-
Ask Michael Schumacher when you get the chance.[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19669141#p19669141]steadyrollingman[/url] wrote:Of course you need to wear a helmet. Where are you supposed to put your helmetcam if you're not?
I would recommend on the bars.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
"Apparently this has been achieved through a reduction in the number of bicyclists involved in crashes (at least partly through a decrease in bicycle use by children and teenagers) and a reduction in the risk of head injury of bicyclists involved in crashes."The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I wouldn't say any of that stuff to a complete stranger. I might point it out to a friend/family member.You'll never convince the No Helmet Brigade to change their views
why do you want or need to?
do you tell fat people their diet might kill them?
do you tell smokers they might get cancer?
do you tell binge drinkers it might be bad for their health?
do you etc etc etc
let people make their own minds up on the risks involved in cycling.
Ill health does of course have an impact on more than just the individual concerned, doesn't it?0 -
I wouldn't say any of that stuff to a complete stranger. I might point it out to a friend/family member.You'll never convince the No Helmet Brigade to change their views
why do you want or need to?
do you tell fat people their diet might kill them?
do you tell smokers they might get cancer?
do you tell binge drinkers it might be bad for their health?
do you etc etc etc
let people make their own minds up on the risks involved in cycling.
Ill health does of course have an impact on more than just the individual concerned, doesn't it?
Yes, but are any of the people replying here friends or family?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
A reduction in the RISK.
As they were wearing helmets?"Apparently this has been achieved through a reduction in the number of bicyclists involved in crashes (at least partly through a decrease in bicycle use by children and teenagers) and a reduction in the risk of head injury of bicyclists involved in crashes."
Statistics and predictions that have no bearing on the individual.Once again laws are formulated for the masses so whether you personally are more or less likely to die with or without a helmet is irrelevant.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Think we should change the title of this thread to Calling all pedants:pedantry is alive and well and dedicate it those who have to have the last word in an argument
An art form generally considered to be in decline as you leave primary school, but undergoing a revival on forums across the world0 -
Think we should change the title of this thread to Calling all pedants:pedantry is alive and well and dedicate it those who have to have the last word in an argument
An art form generally considered to be in decline as you leave primary school, but undergoing a revival on forums across the world
0 -
Well, I don't wish to be pedantic, but pedantry is an obsession or excessive concern with minor details and rules.
I think it's at least arguable that lack of evidence falls outside that definition.
My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
Taking the words "risk of" out of the sentence above would change the meaning entirely.
So not pedantry at all really.
I could guess that the words were included deliberately as they couldn't accurately omit them.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I still think that you should try the previously suggested hammer experiment to ascertain the efficacy of helmets. Once with a helmet, once without. The exact steps are below as I think my last explanation may have somewhat gone over your head.
1. Get someone to hit you over the head with a lump hammer whilst wearing a helmet. It's probably best if you are sitting for this.
2. Before the second blow, the hammer wielder should remove the helmet from his head.
3. to be clear ( as you seem a little slow on the uptake ) at no point during this scientifically rigorous experiment should the helmet in the chair ( you ) be wearing a helmet.
I'm probably teaching grandma to suck eggs here as your previous plethora of pointless posts would seem to suggest that you have probably participated this experiment previously. You do seem to be a bit of a 1mm allen key...0 -
There is absolutely no requirement to carry out the experiment as outlined above.
What will prove more successful is simply not falling off your bike and bumping your head.
I am 40+ years into this experiment and have yet to the requirement for PPE.
Others may be at higher risk.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I still think that you should try the previously suggested hammer experiment to ascertain the efficacy of helmets. Once with a helmet, once without. The exact steps are below as I think my last explanation may have somewhat gone over your head.
1. Get someone to hit you over the head with a lump hammer whilst wearing a helmet. It's probably best if you are sitting for this.
2. Before the second blow, the hammer wielder should remove the helmet from his head.
3. to be clear ( as you seem a little slow on the uptake ) at no point during this scientifically rigorous experiment should the helmet in the chair ( you ) be wearing a helmet.
I'm probably teaching grandma to suck eggs here as your previous plethora of pointless posts would seem to suggest that you have probably participated this experiment previously. You do seem to be a bit of a 1mm allen key...
stupid posts like this really don't help your argument.
you remove the element of risk in your experiment and replace it with a definite hit to the head.
Do you hit your head every time you go cycling?
each individual weighs up the risk of injury and decides if the risk warrants wearing a helmet.
you obviously think the risk is high enough and no one is telling you not to wear a helmet, others do not think the risk is high enough.
The numbers of cyclist deaths or serious injury is pretty low for the numbers of people cycling so I guess the risk is pretty low in general.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Stupid posts in a facetious, pointless thread..............Whatever next ! :roll: You may just have missed the point Einstein0
-
Stupid posts in a facetious, pointless thread..............Whatever next ! :roll: You may just have missed the point Einstein
I missed the point? you seem bothered by what other people choose to wear on their head, I was pointing out how stupid this is.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Stupid posts in a facetious, pointless thread..............Whatever next ! :roll: You may just have missed the point Einstein
I missed the point? In my mind you seem bothered by what other people choose to wear on their head,(this might be because I'm very poor at English comprehension, or something else like confusing my own thoughts with external realities) I was pointing out how stupid this is.
You're welcome.0 -
Strikes me that these debates mostly attract , high-post-count, master-debaters..
You know the type, imagine Popeye with only one heavily muscled forearm. 
and yet this is your most active thread with almost half of your posts! how odd.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Oh dear a stalker, and not a terribly bright one at that.... I could explain where you're getting this wrong, but the level of sophistication evidenced by your "signature" and your previous misapprehensions tells me that would take quite some time..... :idea:0
-
Oh dear a stalker, and not a terribly bright one at that.... I could explain where you're getting this wrong, but the level of sophistication evidenced by your "signature" and your previous misapprehensions tells me that would take quite some time..... :idea:
Go on explain, I like reading all your long and unnecessary words, it helps me to learn. One day I hope to be as bright as you.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Yes dear...... Oh look an ice cream van ....0
-
Yes dear...... Oh look an ice cream van ....
But how will I learn? With someone as intelligent and quick witted as you in our midst I just want to learn. You have pointed out more than once that I am not very bright, please help me.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Careful how you cross the road, and don't run with that 99.......... 0
-
-
Awwwwww. There, you see, that wasn't so bad now was it....
0
This discussion has been closed.
