Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:57 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 333 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 34  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 8:13 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:18 pm
Posts: 3798
Location: Staffordshire
tintin40 wrote:
i see it never changes round here. Mention wearing helmets or not and it 'kicks' off Wear one if you want. Just don't tell me to.


Wow, never thought we would agree on anything, but it would appear we do!

Thanks for the tea and caffeine info! I was actually referring to the ranting of a tea loving forum member.

For the record. I don't like them. I have just purchased a new one. It is at least ten times better to wear than the one it replaced. I will be sure to wear it off road and I suppose retro road rides (official ones anyway.)

I have ridden with people who wear a helmet even if their bike is on the roof of the car, (I have my bike with me out of the house so I'll wear my helmet), and I really noticed a "Batfink's wings" mentality.

I wouldn't have gone around a blind corner on the wrong side of the road whatever protection I was wearing.

My final word on the thread is this. To the chap who called my a cock further up this page. I could take a blow to the head and I would still know the difference between "your" and "you're."


Last edited by Iwasgoodonce on Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 8:41 pm 
Gold Trader / MacRetro rider
Gold Trader / MacRetro rider
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 11:03 am
Posts: 18218
Location: Sunny Glasgow
technodup wrote:
Helmets are gay.

I don't know what the rest of you are doing but any time I come off a bike it's my hands that take most of the impact. Actually it was my hip the last time as I lost grip in a damp concrete skatepark but the point is the same. Should I be wearing full body armour for pootling around town? Should pedestrians wear helmets in case of being struck by cars? Should some people get off their high horse about the supposed merits of polystyrene hats?

Plus they look absolutely ridiculous.

I think i could make a better one with a swimming cap and a can of builders expanding foam :D Of course its likely to look like a pile of dog poo but that could be considered aesthetic beauty


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 8:45 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 7:13 pm
Posts: 2574
Location: The Cock Inn, Tillett, Herts
GrahamJohnWallace wrote:
Does the same 'contributory negligence' argument also apply to pedestrians?
Probably, if they have been, er, negligent and it can be shown that it, urm, contributed in some manner to their injuries.

I know its the same in other vehicles. Chap I know was unfortunate to crash a minibus, and the only passenger wearing a seatbelt got considerably moolah more for their bumps and bruises that his fellow passengers with worse injuries.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:20 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 1666
Location: Glasgow
daugs wrote:
Unless wearing a helmet is actually more dangerous than not wearing one (in which case I am surprised an enterprising lawyer has not had a go at the helmet manufacturers) then why not wear one.

Because they're expensive and make you look like a cretin?

It's all about context for me. If I was doing 30mph and jumping 10ft in the air on the Fort William downhill, or I'm Danny Mackaskill then protection makes sense. If however I am riding a canal towpath at 10mph then my 30 years of riding with no head impacts says that's a risk I'm willing to take.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:34 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:01 pm
Posts: 1290
Location: Looking at my bike from the comfort of my sofa!!
Iwasgoodonce wrote:
tintin40 wrote:
i see it never changes round here. Mention wearing helmets or not and it 'kicks' off Wear one if you want. Just don't tell me to.


Wow, never thought we would agree on anything, but it would appear we do!

Thanks for the tea and caffeine info! I was actually referring to the ranting of a tea loving forum member.

For the record. I don't like them. I have just purchased a new one. It is at least ten times better to wear than the one it replaced. I will be sure to wear it off road and I suppose retro road rides (official ones anyway.)

I have ridden with people who wear a helmet even if their bike is on the roof of the car, (I have my bike with me out of the house so I'll wear my helmet), and I really noticed a "Batfink's wings" mentality.

I wouldn't have gone around a blind corner on the wrong side of the road whatever protection I was wearing.

My final word on the thread is this. To the chap who called my a cock further up this page. I could take a blow to the head and I would still know the difference between "your" and "you're."


hahah...brilliant! Did I call YOU a cock.

And at least I know the difference between "me a cock" and "my a cock" 1-1

does this go to penalties???

or are we just going to get petty and trade insults all night....jeez!

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I was trying to inject some humour!...c'mon...handbags and all that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:39 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11107
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
technodup wrote:
daugs wrote:
Unless wearing a helmet is actually more dangerous than not wearing one (in which case I am surprised an enterprising lawyer has not had a go at the helmet manufacturers) then why not wear one.

Because they're expensive and make you look like a cretin?

It's all about context for me. If I was doing 30mph and jumping 10ft in the air on the Fort William downhill, or I'm Danny Mackaskill then protection makes sense. If however I am riding a canal towpath at 10mph then my 30 years of riding with no head impacts says that's a risk I'm willing to take.


I agree.

Yes I am a helmet advocate, but when on pootling about rides it often stays hung on my sac.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:42 pm 
MacRetro rider
MacRetro rider
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 7:25 pm
Posts: 4977
Location: Edinburgh
highlandsflyer wrote:

Yes I am a helmet advocate, but when on pootling about rides it often stays hung on my sac.


Doesn't that make your saddle slightly redundant?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:59 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:29 pm
Posts: 1877
Location: Somerset
If you headbutt someone not wearing a helmet whilst wearing a helmet, who does it protect more, and, assuming a probable similar level of pain, who would suffer more?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:22 pm 
Gold Trader
Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:28 pm
Posts: 3361
Location: The Admiral Benbow
gtRTSdh wrote:
If you headbutt someone not wearing a helmet whilst wearing a helmet, who does it protect more, and, assuming a probable similar level of pain, who would suffer more?


only one way to find out :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:41 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:25 pm
Posts: 924
Location: Near Wendover Bucks
Chopper1192 wrote:
GrahamJohnWallace wrote:
Does the same 'contributory negligence' argument also apply to pedestrians?
Probably, if they have been, er, negligent and it can be shown that it, urm, contributed in some manner to their injuries.

I know its the same in other vehicles. Chap I know was unfortunate to crash a minibus, and the only passenger wearing a seatbelt got considerably moolah more for their bumps and bruises that his fellow passengers with worse injuries.


There is a logic here that if I were to market a pedestrian helmet on eBay, then anyone not buying and wearing one could be accused of 'contributory negligence' if they ever suffered a head injury.

Of course it could be argued that if all people wore helmets all the time then the number and severity of head injuries would be reduced. But is it not better to control reduce risks instead of armouring people against them?

And if you are going to armour up against potential injury then the design of helmets should be optimised for real world scenarios. At present they appear to be designed in order to survive artificial testing rigs were the head form is is held rigid whilst impacted. In reality a head will usually move in reaction to an impact. Some scientists say that this is a fundamental error that results in the use of a much higher density linings than are actually required. There are also resolvable issues with some helmet shells gripping the ground on impact and so causing unnecessary severe neck injuries.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 333 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 34  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: godders, highlandsflyer, jm, Stick Legs and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group