Helmets - mean time betweef failures

Tamyka Bell wrote:

Of course my rego would go into this fund every
year, and it would be a high interest account

Banks have a large range of high interest accounts, they're called Loans.

Theo

Theo Bekkers wrote:

If you do not have faith in the helmet manufacturers, or the AS
standard and are of the belief that cycling is completely safe,

What, spend money on what I believe to be an inferior product? A non
hard-shell helmet is, to me, an oxymoron. If you think cycling is unsafe,
why do you do it. Don't you think it's irresponsible with regards to your
family, society, and your insurance company to partake in dangerous
pastimes?


in the same vein, isnt it irresponsible on your behalf to not protect
yourself against harm, for your family, society and your insurance
company. Knives aren't dangerous in themselves, but would you give them
to toddlers to play with?

Name a few safety equipment things that work as well as they did,
twenty years on?

Hard shell bicycle helmets. :-)
so you believe,

I'm not a great believer in secondary safety, particularly when it takes
precedence over primary safety. Which do you think is more important in a
car, seatbelts and airbags, or a braking system, chassis design, and driver
training that enables you to avaiod that brick wall? For a cyclist, a road
awareness training session will be much more value in preventing accidents,
than a helmet will be of value in an accident that would be less likely to
happen after the training?

I thinks its acceptable to say that no helmet will protect you against
a vehicle running over you or drivers who are out to run you over.
However you are irresponsible to assume that these accidents could be
avoided by "a road awareness training session"
thats not what wearing a helmet is about, it about giving you a chance
to survive your head bouncing on the ground or against an object.

Whether you do this by making a misjudement or circumstance beyond your
control, wouldn't you want the best chance to survive this mishap? or
are you that irresponsible that you assume that nothng will ever happen
to you, or because "you know better" you'll never have an accident?


Am I wrong again in inferring that you consider my choices to be silly
choices? :-)
No but you might be considered to be irresponsible tho, esp to your
family, society, and your insurance company

I apologise not to be using your rulebook.
Not my rulebook! but as I said - YOUR CHOICE!

"EuanB" wrote in message
...

Rayc Wrote:

Bell ran an ad a couple of years ago in the US, something like $100
feet - $5 head
Crazy to think that we are quite happy to spend $1000+ for a bike,
$200+ on shoes, tyres all the time, constant servicing and on it goes
but not on a helmet! - madness.

That all depends on whether you believe helmets do the job they claim.

Consider: the chances of having an accident on a bicycle are about the
same as those of having an accident as a pedestrian. Out of all those
accidents approximately one percent involve a head injury. That's a
pretty low risk and for many people hardly worth taking measures
against.

Except when you do the basic risk management practice and also look at both
the potential consequences of such an injury and the cost to protect against
it.

Possible death or permanent disability v a $30.00 helmet.

As someone who has come off a bike totalled a $30.00 helmet in the process
and gotten away with a concussion and a missing 6 hours from my life, I'd
say the money was well spent.

BTW, I'd like to see a cite that suggests you are as likely to have an
accident as a cyclist as you are as a pedestrian - I suspect that you have
either guessed, misinterpreted or misread the statistics.

Bravo!,

I cant believe that people would rather save $100 or less a year on the
off chance that they wont have an acident. Usually they're not
something that you have control over.
I too have totaled a helmet or two in my time, ( due to my own bad
line choices)

but each time am so glad I had a newish ( less than two year old)
helmet on.

Dee Dub wrote:
Rayc Wrote:


It's not that I think we should all wear our helmets and need to swap
them over regardless every two years.
... the lifetime of a helmet is *quite defined * and lessened by
exposure to UV, and body oils and hair products.

...but a five year old helmet *most likely
will not provide the full impact absorbtion of a new helmet*, that's
my
point

I can understand these things may be possible, but where's the evidence
of this? When I ring to try to get my helmet repaired, I get the
"replace every 3 years" line. This sounds like the bike shop trying to
sell more helmets to me.

The mark up on a helmet is suprisingly low, *especially* on the
high-end helmets.

"Rayc" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bravo!,

I cant believe that people would rather save $100 or less a year on the
off chance that they wont have an acident. Usually they're not
something that you have control over.
I too have totaled a helmet or two in my time, ( due to my own bad
line choices)

but each time am so glad I had a newish ( less than two year old)
helmet on.



I'm not sure why I crashed (I suspect I made some bad choices), as I lost 30
mins before and about 6 hours after the accident - but I'm bloody glad I had
a new helmet on when I crashed, I might have lost a great deal more had the
helmet not done its job.

Rayc wrote:
Bravo!,

I cant believe that people would rather save $100 or less a year on the
off chance that they wont have an acident.

lol, obviously your life experiences are very, very, very limited. As
you grow older you may unfortunately come to understand very, very, clearly.

L'acrobat wrote:
"Rayc" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bravo!,

I cant believe that people would rather save $100 or less a year on the
off chance that they wont have an acident. Usually they're not
something that you have control over.
I too have totaled a helmet or two in my time, ( due to my own bad
line choices)

but each time am so glad I had a newish ( less than two year old)
helmet on.




I'm not sure why I crashed (I suspect I made some bad choices), as I lost 30
mins before and about 6 hours after the accident - but I'm bloody glad I had
a new helmet on when I crashed, I might have lost a great deal more had the
helmet not done its job.


Well it seems likely it saved you a cut or two. If you believe it saved
more than that, it is entirely your business. If you care to prove it
(annecdotal evidence does not meet my criteria of proof) then feel free
to do so.

Otherwise your opinion is noted

Dave

well, in my case, I feel it to be important that I at least give my
self the best chance of coming out of a blow to the head accident ok.
After all I have a loving partner, and family, and resposiblitlies to
them. Not to mention that I have financial responsibilities to my
partner in the form of a mortage.
Thats a resposible attitude no?

Why wouldnt I want to protect myself? and as for the price of $100
dollars - thats not much at all

"dave" wrote in message
...

Well it seems likely it saved you a cut or two. If you believe it saved
more than that, it is entirely your business. If you care to prove it
(annecdotal evidence does not meet my criteria of proof) then feel free to
do so.

Otherwise your opinion is noted

The doctor (a friend) who I consulted as soon as I realised where I was and
what had happened, was of the opinion (from the pattern of injuries) that
without a helmet, I'd have landed on my temple and probably would have died.

Of course whilst your medical opinion is noted, I'll go with that of a
Doctor.