Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

helmets

freddiegrubbfreddiegrubb Posts: 448
edited January 2014 in The cake stop
W ill Mr. Schumacher's accident end the helmet debate, discuss
«1

Posts

  • W ill Mr. Schumacher's accident end the helmet debate, discuss
  • NeXXusNeXXus Posts: 854
    Not a chance
    And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 53,327 Lives Here
    Not the best way to start a thread. Makes you sound like you just want the argument than having an opinion.

    Try again.
  • VTechVTech Posts: 4,736
    No, simply because its down to common sense and not everyone is meant to have it.
    Living MY dream.
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 6,525
    Happy New Year
    AFC Mercia women - sign for us
  • Mikey23Mikey23 Posts: 5,306
    ... Was wondering if someone would do this one

    Happy new year
  • gethincerigethinceri Posts: 1,159
    There ought to be a law against it.
  • arran77arran77 Posts: 9,260
    image.jpg
    "Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity" :lol:

    seanoconn
  • ProssPross Posts: 26,028
    I'm sure Schumacher was skiing and not riding a bike :?
  • CygnusCygnus Posts: 1,879
    Sounds like someone wants to be the proud owner of a really long thread.
  • DavdandyDavdandy Posts: 571
    He`s alive isn't he.Without the helmet he would be dead.End of discussion.
    Cannondale CAAD 8 105
    Rockrider 8.1
  • gethincerigethinceri Posts: 1,159
    Only if he'd landed vertically.
  • GiantMikeGiantMike Posts: 3,139
    No. And No.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Schumacher's not yet ok is he, so a bit premature ?

    discussing whether wearing a crash hat is a safety feature or not is a bit like saying wearing a cxndom does not "help" prevent std's, unwanted pregnancies etc
    in other words a personal decision and not really up for a debate anymore, its been done to death!
  • arran77arran77 Posts: 9,260
    mamba80 wrote:
    its been done to death!

    Might be again if Schuey doesn't make it :P
    "Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity" :lol:

    seanoconn
  • RideOnTimeRideOnTime Posts: 4,712
    arran77 wrote:
    image.jpg

    He needs a helmet for that surely.

    Where's buxom Santa gone.... aw...
  • There should be a helmet law – if you don’t wear a helmet you should legally have to fill out a Donor Card.
  • VTechVTech Posts: 4,736
    There should be a helmet law – if you don’t wear a helmet you should legally have to fill out a Donor Card.

    Here here,

    Likewise drunks should pay for hospital treatment after accidents.
    Why should average joe pay for the foolishness of idiot joe ?
    Living MY dream.
  • Some actual evidence... Turns out that it's complicated and there are no easy answers. Can we just leave it there?
  • deswellerdesweller Posts: 5,271
    VTech wrote:
    There should be a helmet law – if you don’t wear a helmet you should legally have to fill out a Donor Card.

    Here here,

    Likewise drunks should pay for hospital treatment after accidents.
    Why should average joe pay for the foolishness of idiot joe ?

    1. It's 'Hear, hear'.
    2. Not sure how donor cards qualify as payment.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    On Strava.{/url}
  • pdstsppdstsp Posts: 1,264
    You do know he was skiing not cycling don't you?
  • arran77arran77 Posts: 9,260
    RideOnTime wrote:

    Where's buxom Santa gone.... aw...

    New year, new avatar :wink:
    "Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity" :lol:

    seanoconn
  • ProssPross Posts: 26,028
    pdstsp wrote:
    You do know he was skiing not cycling don't you?

    I made the same point up thread.

    Presumably Schumacher has been saved from certain death by his harness when crashing in his F1 days so I'm surprised no-one started a thread then suggesting it was conclusive proof that cyclists ought to wear seat belts. Then again logic / reason go out he window on both sides when the 'h' word gets mentioned.
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 6,525
    What is interesting is that reading about the Schumacher accident there are studies which suggest the uptake of ski helmets is not reducing the level of serious brain injuries at a population level. Mirrors some of what you read about helmet use on bikes.
    AFC Mercia women - sign for us
  • airbagairbag Posts: 201
    There should be a helmet law – if you don’t wear a helmet you should legally have to fill out a Donor Card.

    F**k you. I would post a reasoned argument elaborating, but you haven't, so why should I?

    The reason people hates these threads is because of people like you. If you're not going to post a well-reasoned argument, the sort of thing that at least acknowledges other people disagreeing and explains, properly, why those disagreements are false, don't bother posting anything.

    All you're doing is being annoying, since anyone who doesn't agree with you has to spend a lot more time than you did responding or let it be implied that there is no response, when there is. I bothered arguing with people like you in a civilised way, once, but after the thousandth time I just can't be bothered anymore.
  • Mikey23Mikey23 Posts: 5,306
    nope, the reason people hate these threads is that there is no reasoned argument that hasnt been done to death a thousand times. it seems that @thegreatdivide has made a statement that you dont agree with. c'est la vie old chap
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 53,327 Lives Here
    airbag wrote:
    There should be a helmet law – if you don’t wear a helmet you should legally have to fill out a Donor Card.

    F**k you. I would post a reasoned argument elaborating, but you haven't, so why should I?

    The reason people hates these threads is because of people like you. If you're not going to post a well-reasoned argument, the sort of thing that at least acknowledges other people disagreeing and explains, properly, why those disagreements are false, don't bother posting anything.

    All you're doing is being annoying, since anyone who doesn't agree with you has to spend a lot more time than you did responding or let it be implied that there is no response, when there is. I bothered arguing with people like you in a civilised way, once, but after the thousandth time I just can't be bothered anymore.

    And you're saying f*ck you to people, so who is worse?
  • diamonddogdiamonddog Posts: 3,402
    Non helmet wearer person probably. :shock:
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    airbag wrote:
    There should be a helmet law – if you don’t wear a helmet you should legally have to fill out a Donor Card.

    F**k you. I would post a reasoned argument elaborating, but you haven't, so why should I?

    The reason people hates these threads is because of people like you. If you're not going to post a well-reasoned argument, the sort of thing that at least acknowledges other people disagreeing and explains, properly, why those disagreements are false, don't bother posting anything.

    All you're doing is being annoying, since anyone who doesn't agree with you has to spend a lot more time than you did responding or let it be implied that there is no response, when there is. I bothered arguing with people like you in a civilised way, once, but after the thousandth time I just can't be bothered anymore.

    firstly, I d have a donor card law BUT not a pro helmet law but why r the arguments false dude?

    it doesn't take an Einstein to realise that a helmet, gloves, eye protection or a flak jacket, whatever, is better than nothing - hit by a truck? dead - but low speed fall on ice, say, and maybe that ringing in your head will be replaced by a fractured skull ?
    ok you ll say but I read this study or other but on the 'net any argument can be "proved"

    btw... you do sound very civilised, like "get out my f ing way or I ll glass you" sort of civilised.
  • Stick8267Stick8267 Posts: 154
    What is interesting is that reading about the Schumacher accident there are studies which suggest the uptake of ski helmets is not reducing the level of serious brain injuries at a population level. Mirrors some of what you read about helmet use on bikes.

    This lies at the core of a real problem in medicine. While a lot of beneficial health interventions have little effect on a population level injuries and diseases happen to individuals. So if something only saves one life in 100 000 there is no justification in spending on it or making it compulsory. However, if you are the one then the success rate was 100% and not 0.001%. This is why a drug like Herceptin for breast cancer wasn't approved but caused so much anguish amongst patients and relatives.

    Helmets may not make much difference to the population but do make incredible differences to individuals. To that end it seems ridiculous to make them compulsory but eminently sensible to advise people to wear them.

    One problem with the statistics is that we may be looking at the wrong thing. We don't do nearly enough MRI scans on people with head injuries or have nearly enough understanding of the risks of concussion on long term function. This has become a major issue in American Football with some significant law suits and is being slowly mirrored in rugby and more recently football (Spur's goalkeeper) in the UK. It may well be that helmets have no impact on survivability from major injuries but a significantly beneficial effect on minor concussion and post-concussion syndromes. I am not aware of any work in this direction but am happy to be pointed in the right direction if anyone knows of any.
Sign In or Register to comment.