So helmets work then!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...uck-crash.html

Clot wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...uck-crash.html

lots of people will be along to prove it was the helmet that caused the
accident and the injuries.

Clot wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...uck-crash.html



Looks like trick drivers' eyes don't

BugBear

bugbear wrote:
Clot wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...uck-crash.html



Looks like trick drivers' eyes don't

BugBear

perhaps he was riding assertively or he had no lights at night, or maybe the
truck driver was blinded by the reflections from the helmet, of course,
that is it, it was the helmet's fault, the whole thing.

"Clot" wrote in message
news:tuY1o.190248$U%7.168009@hurricane...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...uck-crash.html

"The Olympic rowing champion suffered a fractured skull, a gash to the back
of his head and bruising to his brain after being hit him from behind on a
quiet strip of road in Arizona."

"His life was saved by his crash helmet, which took the full force of the
impact."

"Despite his head injuries, described by medics as “moderate to severe”,
Cracknell did not lose consciousness and was able to talk to paramedics."

This won't be enough to convince the deniers. Nothing will.

Clot wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...uck-crash.html


Only if his head is sticking out of his backside.

"The Olympic rowing champion suffered a fractured skull... after being
hit from behind..

His life was saved by his crash helmet, which took the full force of the
impact."

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:31:46 +0100, Tony Raven
wrote:

Clot wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...uck-crash.html


Only if his head is sticking out of his backside.

"The Olympic rowing champion suffered a fractured skull... after being
hit from behind..

His life was saved by his crash helmet, which took the full force of the
impact."

Obviously everybody should be encased in 1" of polystyrene from head
to foot as this would absorb the full force of any conceivable impact.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

On 22 July, 17:07, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:31:46 +0100, Tony Raven
wrote:

Clot wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...s/7904182/Jame...

Only if his head is sticking out of his backside.

"The Olympic rowing champion suffered a fractured skull... after being
hit from behind..

His life was saved by his crash helmet, which took the full force of the
impact."

Obviously everybody should be encased in 1" of polystyrene from head
to foot as this would absorb the full force of any conceivable impact.

From the same article.
"The Olympic cyclist Steve Redgrave had a similar accident last month
in an attempt to cycle 3,000 miles across the US from Oceanside,
California to Annapolis, Maryland.

"The 48-year-old, who won a record five gold medals in rowing, was
thrown to the ground by a blow-out puncture in Maryland and suffered
broken ribs and a shattered cheek bone."
from the Telegraph.

Oh I get it, all bike accidents are just bike accidents. There
follows the reasoning why one person benefitted from wearing a helmet
means that every one riding a bike should. Imagine how those ribs
would be if he'd have been wearing/not wearing a helmet.

Riding into or against the light at dusk/dawn a cyclist should always
be on the lookout for others who fail to see. Wear black and you are
clearly picked out in sillouette. Use your tail light if riding into
sun and your front light if riding away from the sun. Of course it
is generally assumed that black is hard to see, but would you rather
be dead right in the eyes of the many?

Mrcheerful wrote:
Clot wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...uck-crash.html

lots of people will be along to prove it was the helmet that caused
the accident and the injuries.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:22:18 +0100, Clot wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...uck-crash.html

Can I just check I've got this right:

He was hit by a truck from behind, yet the helmet took the full force
of the impact.

He suffered a fractured skull, but escaped without any broken bones.

He suffered minor cuts, but the back of his head had a gash that
needed stapling.

He suffered a fractured skull and serious brain injury, yet this
proves the helmet worked.

Who writes this twaddle?

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|