"Vain" helmetless riders risk head injury

"A lucky 40 per cent walked away with just cuts and bruises, one in ten broke their arm and 14 per cent hurt their leg. It's not just cyclists themselves that are getting injured as 16 per cent have hit someone, or just managed to avoid them, when on a bike, the survey by insurance firm Cornhill Direct revealed..."

Aye, 40% sounds like a real "lucky" number

now let me think: 40% plus 10% with broken leg plus 14% with hurt leg, that would be 64% with either cuts and bruises, or arm or leg injuries. Where would the helmet help?

Fecking numb-nutted twats.

[quote=Fecking numb-nutted twats.[/quote]

Survey by an insurance company: not exactly neutral. Biased article, vis "lazy", "lucky", "vain" etc. Rubbish journalism.

Most cycling falls are trivial. You're unlucky to take a serious knock, not lucky to avoid one. No discussion of any legitimate reasons a person may not wish to wear PPE to defend against equally lazy and dumbass drivers.

Can't write more, the froth is making my keyboard malfunction. But you get the gist. :evil:

I hope that's not a taste of Future's journalism in the future!

wideboydave wrote:

Very worrying that so many cyclists consider something as superficial as their appearance to be more important than self-preservation.

Well, it would be if that was why so many cyclists don't wear a helmet. I don't know what the reasons are, but I don't think it's entirely fair to blame it entirely on vanity.

hence the fact that they still support speed cameras, even though they have been conclusively shown not to make the roads safer.

Surely that's a problem with the execution, not the principle?
I'd find it difficult to believe that the average speed checks had no effect on road safety.

wideboydave wrote:

Very worrying that so many cyclists consider something as superficial as their appearance to be more important than self-preservation.

Or are aware of the evidence and have made an informed choice?

It shows that a lot of them consider safety to be less important than other things which in fact matter much, much less if at all.

Care clarify this ramble?

Safety is a whole spectrum of issues. Personally I would put a lot of safe riding techniques above helmet wearing.

Another thing that many cyclists erroneously rank above safety is the persecution of the motorist,

Wierd!

hence the fact that they still support speed cameras, even though they have been conclusively shown not to make the roads safer.

Care to put forward any peer reviewed references to back up this erroneous statement?

Butchers on two wheels. Saying that you support speed cameras is the same as drifting a knife into someone. Let's make support of death cameras as socially unacceptable as drink driving.

Why - Surely you are mistaken here - speeding is a better analogy.

Of course I could paraphrase this:

Butchers. Saying that you support cycle helmets is the same as drifting a knife into someone. Let's make support of cycle helmets as socially unacceptable as drink driving

After all it makes as much sense!



So there we have it wear a helmet and abolish speed cameras ans you will be never hav an accident.

wideboydave wrote:

Very worrying that so many cyclists consider something as superficial as their appearance to be more important than self-preservation.

[snip]

Another thing that many cyclists erroneously rank above safety is the persecution of the motorist, hence the fact that they still support speed cameras,

[snip]

Alas, I have never managed to get a speed camera to flash while riding my bike. I don't wear a helmet, so they should be able to get a good picture.

If I do get flashed, is there any way i could get a picture of myself, or would that be too dangerous. I understand they couldn't get me for speeding, but might for "riding furiously" or some such

Jeremy Parker

ajohn9 wrote:

Wildboydave
has been owned

Many times

He just loves it .

The article came from a press release and generated some heated debate within the team about the level of scepticism with which such things should be rewritten. (I'd have torn it to pieces; some of my colleagues are less rabid about hacking apart anti-cycling drivel masquerading as information ).

An advertorial is a paid-for feature. An advert that looks like editorial, hence the name. Nothing that you see presented as editorial on BikeRadar has been paid for.

wideboydave wrote:

Very worrying that so many cyclists consider something as superficial as their appearance to be more important than self-preservation.

Of course helmets are good are preventing certain kinds of head injury and nobody should allow superficial issues to interfere with self-preservation.......therefore it would be logical for all drivers and passengers in cars to wear helmets at all times - since there are a lot more of them than cyclists, and their potential to receive serious head injuries are much greater, the case is clear - helmets for all car users would prevent more injuries ;-)

Ah, but the debater in me loves a good counterpoint, whoever hears it ;-)

Tourist Tony wrote:

Carlos, no point in discussing with Wideboy---he's simply an SS troll.

And one whose account has been deactivated.

john_stevenson wrote:

Tourist Tony wrote:

Carlos, no point in discussing with Wideboy---he's simply an SS troll.

And one whose account has been deactivated.

Slightly off topic, there has been a spate of SS trolls surfacing here with older registrations. Are we looking at hacking, or are the sad obsessives really setting up "sleeper" registrations?
All very odd.

Do you want to have my children?