Cycle h*lm*t saved my life (again)

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270

More bull****.

But hang on, he's a policeman so it _must_ be true.

Don't BIT's stats claim they prevent leg injuries too though?

Confusing isn't it?

--

Peter Grange

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:02:37 GMT, Peter Grange
wrote:

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270

More bull****.

But hang on, he's a policeman so it _must_ be true.

Don't BIT's stats claim they prevent leg injuries too though?

Confusing isn't it?



I didn't realise you were a witness - or perhaps the paramedic who
attended the accident - or were you the doctor who operated on him?

Oh - no - you're a ****wit cyclist who can't see that there may be
some truth in the story.

You are of course right - no-one should ever wear a cycle helmet
because they never do any good.

Roll on compulsory training for all cyclists and compulsory helmets.

(Give us a laugh - what's your view on riding on pavements and
ignoring red lights?)

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:16:33 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:02:37 GMT, Peter Grange
wrote:

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270

More bull****.

But hang on, he's a policeman so it _must_ be true.

Don't BIT's stats claim they prevent leg injuries too though?

Confusing isn't it?



I didn't realise you were a witness - or perhaps the paramedic who
attended the accident - or were you the doctor who operated on him?

You have just been "caught" by a troll - not even a cyclist could
believe that helmets never do any good - he must have posted it just
for an argument.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:16:33 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:02:37 GMT, Peter Grange
wrote:

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270

More bull****.

But hang on, he's a policeman so it _must_ be true.

Don't BIT's stats claim they prevent leg injuries too though?

Confusing isn't it?



I didn't realise you were a witness - or perhaps the paramedic who
attended the accident - or were you the doctor who operated on him?

Oh - no - you're a ****wit cyclist who can't see that there may be
some truth in the story.

You are of course right - no-one should ever wear a cycle helmet
because they never do any good.

Roll on compulsory training for all cyclists and compulsory helmets.

(Give us a laugh - what's your view on riding on pavements and
ignoring red lights?)

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)


"but when the cyclist veered to the right he was struck by the
Vauxhall Astra van."

So why did he veer to the right ....surely that contributed to him
getting hit ?

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:54:01 +0100, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:16:33 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:02:37 GMT, Peter Grange
wrote:

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270

More bull****.

But hang on, he's a policeman so it _must_ be true.

Don't BIT's stats claim they prevent leg injuries too though?

Confusing isn't it?



I didn't realise you were a witness - or perhaps the paramedic who
attended the accident - or were you the doctor who operated on him?

Oh - no - you're a ****wit cyclist who can't see that there may be
some truth in the story.

You are of course right - no-one should ever wear a cycle helmet
because they never do any good.

Roll on compulsory training for all cyclists and compulsory helmets.

(Give us a laugh - what's your view on riding on pavements and
ignoring red lights?)

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)


"but when the cyclist veered to the right he was struck by the
Vauxhall Astra van."

So why did he veer to the right ....surely that contributed to him
getting hit ?


It probably did - that is not the point of the thread - the OP was
rubbishing that the helmet may have saved his life.


--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:21:06 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:54:01 +0100, wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:16:33 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:02:37 GMT, Peter Grange
wrote:

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270

More bull****.

But hang on, he's a policeman so it _must_ be true.

Don't BIT's stats claim they prevent leg injuries too though?

Confusing isn't it?



I didn't realise you were a witness - or perhaps the paramedic who
attended the accident - or were you the doctor who operated on him?

Oh - no - you're a ****wit cyclist who can't see that there may be
some truth in the story.

You are of course right - no-one should ever wear a cycle helmet
because they never do any good.

Roll on compulsory training for all cyclists and compulsory helmets.

(Give us a laugh - what's your view on riding on pavements and
ignoring red lights?)

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)


"but when the cyclist veered to the right he was struck by the
Vauxhall Astra van."

So why did he veer to the right ....surely that contributed to him
getting hit ?


It probably did - that is not the point of the thread - the OP was
rubbishing that the helmet may have saved his life.



Err...well excuse me for breathing !!!

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:16:33 +0100, judith wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:02:37 GMT, Peter Grange
wrote:

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270

More bull****.

But hang on, he's a policeman so it _must_ be true.

Don't BIT's stats claim they prevent leg injuries too though?

Confusing isn't it?



I didn't realise you were a witness - or perhaps the paramedic who
attended the accident - or were you the doctor who operated on him?

Oh - no - you're a ****wit cyclist who can't see that there may be some
truth in the story.

You are of course right - no-one should ever wear a cycle helmet because
they never do any good.

Roll on compulsory training for all cyclists and compulsory helmets.

(Give us a laugh - what's your view on riding on pavements and ignoring
red lights?)

Have you actually tried one of these helmets on? I must say that when
wearing one it still leaves you feeling very vulnerable as the lower 3/4
of the head is still completely exposed. I suppose they may offer some
protection in a limited number of low speed impacts but anything other
than that they would be completely useless. You'd could get the side/front
or back of your head (stoved in/whatever) as those parts are completely
unprotected. Only an idiot would feel that he had any protection while
wearing one. If anything they are a hindrance, at the very least annoying.
You should try one on.

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

"Dead Paul" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:16:33 +0100, judith wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:02:37 GMT, Peter Grange
wrote:

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270

More bull****.

But hang on, he's a policeman so it _must_ be true.

Don't BIT's stats claim they prevent leg injuries too though?

Confusing isn't it?



I didn't realise you were a witness - or perhaps the paramedic who
attended the accident - or were you the doctor who operated on him?

Oh - no - you're a ****wit cyclist who can't see that there may be some
truth in the story.

You are of course right - no-one should ever wear a cycle helmet because
they never do any good.

Roll on compulsory training for all cyclists and compulsory helmets.

(Give us a laugh - what's your view on riding on pavements and ignoring
red lights?)

Have you actually tried one of these helmets on? I must say that when
wearing one it still leaves you feeling very vulnerable as the lower 3/4
of the head is still completely exposed. I suppose they may offer some
protection in a limited number of low speed impacts but anything other
than that they would be completely useless. You'd could get the side/front
or back of your head (stoved in/whatever) as those parts are completely
unprotected. Only an idiot would feel that he had any protection while
wearing one. If anything they are a hindrance, at the very least annoying.
You should try one on.

The problem is that you would never get pedal cyclists to wear full face
motorcycle crash helmets - too big, heavy, clumsy, expensive, etc. The type
of helmet made for pedal cyclists, skate-boarders, et al, is a good
compromise - it affords a decent level of protection but is lightweight,
fairly inexpensive, and leaves the ears clear so that cyclists can hear what
is going on around them.

Whilst it does leave the lower part of the head unprotected, its design
means that it will still provide good levels of protection in most pedal
cycling accidents - ie hitting a kerb and flying over the handlebars. The
way in which the head is attached to the body means that when skidding along
the ground the head will definitely be protected.

Many people have died following a non fatal punch when they have fallen over
backwards and hit their heads on the ground. A cycle helmet would
dramatically reduce the chances of head injury in such a fall. I am not
advocating that everyone should walk around wearing cycle helmets in case
they are assaulted - merely pointing out that in any scenario where the head
is likely to come into contact with the ground (and the risk is far higher
when cycling than when walking), then a pedal cycle helmet *will* provide
good head protection. To argue otherwise is simply stupid - a bit akin to
the nonsense arguments made against car seat belts when they became
compulsory.

Ret.

"Peter Grange" wrote

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270

More bull****.

Especially when the vehicle had faulty "breaks".

On 23 Aug, 13:53, "DavidR" wrote:
"Peter Grange" wrote

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270

More bull****.

Especially when the vehicle had faulty "breaks".

And:-
"PC Bell said: “I do feel sorry for Mr Cox because he has had to live
with this for the last 10 months as well."

And sadly limped away.