The full quote was From which I read that whilst a lack of helmet might indeed make the injuries 'worse', they do not significantly alter the outcome. Hence 'benefit is marginal at best', particularly at real world speeds, 'cycle helmets aren't actually much good when hit with any reasonable force'. So I see no contradiction whatsoever. If you don't like wearing a helmet, but do so most of the time, that is your decision, and it is better than nowt, but from my reading of Camelfarmer's post it is unlikely to significantly alter the outcome in the event of a serious crash. It is a bit like the link I posted from Canada re ski helmets, despite widespread adoption of ski helmets there has been no significant change in the number of people being seriously injured or killed whilst skiing. The benefit comes from a reduction in the extent of minor injuries in slow speed collisions but in a high speed collision the level of protection offered will be overwhelmed and the outcome will remain a serious injury or death.
re the helmets thing: they are pretty useless, but having said that, they do distribute the shock through the shell to some extent and maybe take some of the impact away. They do need to fit tho - some of the infrequent riders have them so far back on their head that they'd be useless in many scenarios. And they need to be replaced regularly too.
I'm only giving my experience of working in A&E for a few months... This is not to be considered evidence to support helmets or otherwise. My point was - if you fall off at let's say 10mph and hit your head (the bit covered by the helmet) : it will decreased the force to that point and lessen the injury. This could make the difference between a mild injury and a severe injury. If you get hit in the face - the bit not covered by the helmet, it's not gonna make any difference. If you get hit by a van at 40mph - you're fucked either way. The bits inbetween are marginal either way. It's obvious that motocycle helmets are built to protect at higher speeds and hence are much safer. As with motorcycle helmets, different varieties and brands offer vastly different levels of protection. I always tell people to wear the best helmet they can afford at all times. Although it may not help in all collisions, it will help in most, and almost never cause any harm beyond a messed up hairdo.
You had to mention hairdos, didn't ya. Let me tell you mister, losing your hair is like losing a limb, I can still feel my hair blowing around in the breeze sometimes. I still catch myself blowing a long lost fringe out of my eyes:frown:
Mixed opinions on benefits of junctions. http://m.scotsman.com/news/transport/drivers-face-100-fines-for-invading-cyclist-space-1-3196431 IMHO the cyclist politely informs the car driver he is where he should not be. He is actually trying to save the guy £100. The drivers reaction is prett aggressive in the way he controls his car. So for me, he is the one who aggravated the situation. No real surprise the cyclist chased him. The car passenger is lucky the other cyclists didn't haul him back out the car. Having said that, given the number plate and video evidence I expect the car driver and passenger have both been spoken to and dealt with by the police/courts. I would hope so.
Meant to add this link to the above http://m.scotsman.com/news/transport/drivers-face-100-fines-for-invading-cyclist-space-1-3196431
i didn't realise that cyclists were law enforcers…..wouldn't the better and more adult thing of been to ignore the car and let it go…and if required report it to the authorities with the video evidence rather than chase the car down …..albeit run off with his tail between his legs at the end….:wink:
I think it's a bit hypocritical of cyclists to be judging car drivers, seeing as they break far more road laws on a much more regular basis.
