Could Volvo and POC end the helmet debate? Swedish firms partner for "world first" car and cycle helmet crash tests (+ video)

Rapha Nadal wrote:

They definitely sound like communists.

LMAO!

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

They definitely sound like communists.

LMAO!

 

Big fan of Chairman LMAO.

ktache wrote:

I want graphs.  This is not a proper helmet debate without some graphs!

Further explanation needed.  Which group of squirrels was wearing helmets, and did they protect from 85% of injuries inflicted by the predators, as found in completely independent, utterly unbiased research by helmet salemen?

ktache wrote:

I want graphs.  This is not a proper helmet debate without some graphs!

I'm sorry, but that's racist (speciesist?).

Did you know that the Red squirrels in the British Isles are very definitely red, but the same species in Russia is usually gray and in the United States may be either gray or red?

hawkinspeter wrote:

ktache wrote:

I want graphs.  This is not a proper helmet debate without some graphs!

I'm sorry, but that's racist (speciesist?).

Did you know that the Red squirrels in the British Isles are very definitely red, but the same species in Russia is usually gray and in the United States may be either gray or red?

 

But are red squirrels communists?

Rapha Nadal wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

ktache wrote:

I want graphs.  This is not a proper helmet debate without some graphs!

I'm sorry, but that's racist (speciesist?).

Did you know that the Red squirrels in the British Isles are very definitely red, but the same species in Russia is usually gray and in the United States may be either gray or red?

 

But are red squirrels communists?

Well, squirrels are known to make shared nests (called Drey) to see them through the winter and they often share food as they can't remember exactly which squirrel buried what food.

However, red squirrels don't like sharing with the greys

Rapha Nadal wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

ktache wrote:

I want graphs.  This is not a proper helmet debate without some graphs!

I'm sorry, but that's racist (speciesist?).

Did you know that the Red squirrels in the British Isles are very definitely red, but the same species in Russia is usually gray and in the United States may be either gray or red?

 

But are red squirrels communists?

They used to be, but these days they are Republicans.  Though they are still secretly colluding with Russia, so there's still some continuity, which is nice.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

ktache wrote:

I want graphs.  This is not a proper helmet debate without some graphs!

I'm sorry, but that's racist (speciesist?).

Did you know that the Red squirrels in the British Isles are very definitely red, but the same species in Russia is usually gray and in the United States may be either gray or red?

 

But are red squirrels communists?

 

They used to be, but these days they are Republicans.  Though they are still secretly colluding with Russia, so there's still some continuity, which is nice.

.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Burt - you're (disc) breaking the quote tags again. With your comment editing you're removing one of the opening quote tags.

I'll put my helmet on.

alansmurphy wrote:

I'm a rare beast that has been converted by these threads, and like our latest troll, Gavalier, have a couple of anecdotes:

 

Hit from behind by car, hit tarmac, wearing helmet. Head didn't hit tarmac, hand injuries.

 

Hit by a car turning accross me (McDonald's was more important than my life), wearing helmet. Head hit nothing, arm injuries.

 

Neither event the helmet helped, neither have convinced me to wear a suit of armour.

 

Came off heading down Mt Ventoux, smashed shoulder and side of helmet on a ski pole, briefly lost conciousness, plates and fake ligaments now in shoulder. "The helmet saved my life" I decided. On further analysis (and whith video evidence) it's more likely the additional head circumference is what caused the helmet to hit the pole.

 

None of what i read or experience encourages me to wear a helmet whilst walking, wear full armour whilst riding, wear fire retardent clothing whilst cooking. However, it boils my piss that victim blaming tossers who drive the cause of cycling fatalities, cyclists like Gavalier and every other ill informed opinion puts the responsibility for all incidents on the clothing of the cyclist whilst ignoring all other dangers in their life.  

Why troll?

alansmurphy wrote:

I'm a rare beast that has been converted by these threads, and like our latest troll, Gavalier, have a couple of anecdotes:

 

Hit from behind by car, hit tarmac, wearing helmet. Head didn't hit tarmac, hand injuries.

 

Hit by a car turning accross me (McDonald's was more important than my life), wearing helmet. Head hit nothing, arm injuries.

 

Neither event the helmet helped, neither have convinced me to wear a suit of armour.

 

Came off heading down Mt Ventoux, smashed shoulder and side of helmet on a ski pole, briefly lost conciousness, plates and fake ligaments now in shoulder. "The helmet saved my life" I decided. On further analysis (and whith video evidence) it's more likely the additional head circumference is what caused the helmet to hit the pole.

 

None of what i read or experience encourages me to wear a helmet whilst walking, wear full armour whilst riding, wear fire retardent clothing whilst cooking. However, it boils my piss that victim blaming tossers who drive the cause of cycling fatalities, cyclists like Gavalier and every other ill informed opinion puts the responsibility for all incidents on the clothing of the cyclist whilst ignoring all other dangers in their life.  

Why troll?

The Gavalier wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

I'm a rare beast that has been converted by these threads, and like our latest troll, Gavalier, have a couple of anecdotes:

 

 

Why troll?

I'm not sure. Maybe because you enjoy it?

hawkinspeter wrote:

@Fluffy - there's now a trend of bringing back dangerous playgrounds: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/world/europe/britain-playgrounds-risk.html

Quote:

Now, Ms. Morris says proudly, “we have fires, we use knives, saws, different tools,” all used under adult supervision. Indoors, scissors abound, and so do sharp-edged tape dispensers (“they normally only cut themselves once,” she says).

I started teaching my own son how to use knives/hot pans when he was still in primary school (and an iron), my youngest grandson started using a kitchen knife when he was 5, my other grandson when he was 7(he's a bit hyperactive so gets a bit keen to wade right in).

My son cycled to school on a 60mph road from age of 10 sans helmet for 7 years, neither of my grandkids nearly 6 and 10 wear a helmet and they ride plenty. The small un is cycling mad and will happily launch himself down the grassy slopes at the park and prefers to ride on the roads with me given a choice though I strictly select when/where. He like my son is being taught how to cycle, what to watch for, what not to do and when he's had a crash reminded why he had a crash and he doesn't repeat the mistake.

Giving kids a chance to explore their boundaries and find out the hard way in some instances is not a bad thing, what is bad is creating an environment where due to external influences they completely lose any sight of the boundary and go beyond in a very big way and end up getting really badly hurt or worse. The studies that they have done on kids shows us that they are influenced significantly when they are wearing a safety aid/something that will protect them, this pretty much replicates the influence that occurs in competition with adults when they are pushing the boundaries very often.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

@Fluffy - there's now a trend of bringing back dangerous playgrounds: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/world/europe/britain-playgrounds-risk.html

Quote:

Now, Ms. Morris says proudly, “we have fires, we use knives, saws, different tools,” all used under adult supervision. Indoors, scissors abound, and so do sharp-edged tape dispensers (“they normally only cut themselves once,” she says).

I started teaching my own son how to use knives/hot pans when he was still in primary school (and an iron), my youngest grandson started using a kitchen knife when he was 5, my other grandson when he was 7(he's a bit hyperactive so gets a bit keen to wade right in).

My son cycled to school on a 60mph road from age of 10 sans helmet for 7 years, neither of my grandkids nearly 6 and 10 wear a helmet and they ride plenty. The small un is cycling mad and will happily launch himself down the grassy slopes at the park and prefers to ride on the roads with me given a choice though I strictly select when/where. He like my son is being taught how to cycle, what to watch for, what not to do and when he's had a crash reminded why he had a crash and he doesn't repeat the mistake.

Giving kids a chance to explore their boundaries and find out the hard way in some instances is not a bad thing, what is bad is creating an environment where due to external influences they completely lose any sight of the boundary and go beyond in a very big way and end up getting really badly hurt or worse. The studies that they have done on kids shows us that they are influenced significantly when they are wearing a safety aid/something that will protect them, this pretty much replicates the influence that occurs in competition with adults when they are pushing the boundaries very often.

I do enjoy a BTBS anecdote to prove a point - and it happens regularly.

It is especially entertaining on the threads where he rubbishes other arguments because they reference anecdotes.

It is OK for him to use this to validate his argument, but not for others if it doesn't fit his assumptions / prejudices / views (delete as applicable).

Sniffer wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

@Fluffy - there's now a trend of bringing back dangerous playgrounds: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/world/europe/britain-playgrounds-risk.html

Quote:

Now, Ms. Morris says proudly, “we have fires, we use knives, saws, different tools,” all used under adult supervision. Indoors, scissors abound, and so do sharp-edged tape dispensers (“they normally only cut themselves once,” she says).

I started teaching my own son how to use knives/hot pans when he was still in primary school (and an iron), my youngest grandson started using a kitchen knife when he was 5, my other grandson when he was 7(he's a bit hyperactive so gets a bit keen to wade right in).

My son cycled to school on a 60mph road from age of 10 sans helmet for 7 years, neither of my grandkids nearly 6 and 10 wear a helmet and they ride plenty. The small un is cycling mad and will happily launch himself down the grassy slopes at the park and prefers to ride on the roads with me given a choice though I strictly select when/where. He like my son is being taught how to cycle, what to watch for, what not to do and when he's had a crash reminded why he had a crash and he doesn't repeat the mistake.

Giving kids a chance to explore their boundaries and find out the hard way in some instances is not a bad thing, what is bad is creating an environment where due to external influences they completely lose any sight of the boundary and go beyond in a very big way and end up getting really badly hurt or worse. The studies that they have done on kids shows us that they are influenced significantly when they are wearing a safety aid/something that will protect them, this pretty much replicates the influence that occurs in competition with adults when they are pushing the boundaries very often.

I do enjoy a BTBS anecdote to prove a point - and it happens regularly.

It is especially entertaining on the threads where he rubbishes other arguments because they reference anecdotes.

It is OK for him to use this to validate his argument, but not for others if it doesn't fit his assumptions / prejudices / views (delete as applicable).

Ah, so you readily admit to not understanding the difference between ...

I fell/was knocked off my bike and survived ergo my helmet saved my life - something which is utterly unproven by every measure and replicated in many activities/sports globally.

 And, I taught my child/grandkids life skills in the normally accepted fashion were they learnt from mistakes whilst given freedoms to explore under adult supervision for the most part without 'safety' aids and not only survived but were not ever in any life endangering scenarios.

Okay champ, I bow to your superior understanding of these matters.

Rapha Nadal wrote:

Wonderful; yet another thread of folk shouting into the void.

You're missing the delicious irony of the headline positing an end to the helmet debate and the comments continuing it.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

Wonderful; yet another thread of folk shouting into the void.

You're missing the delicious irony of the headline positing an end to the helmet debate and the comments continuing it.

Believe me, the irony has not been missed here!  Has anybody mentioned disc brakes yet?

Rapha Nadal wrote:

You're missing the delicious irony of the headline positing an end to the helmet debate and the comments continuing it.

Believe me, the irony has not been missed here!  Has anybody mentioned disc brakes yet?

[/quote]

I for one, am a firm believer in a law forcing disc brakes to wear helmets.  I myself have had my own life saved because of them, and I personally know hundreds of other people who are similarly only alive today because their disc brake was wearing a helmet.  If it saves just one life......*

*Think I got most of the cliches in there, but please feel free to add.

burtthebike wrote:

 

 

*Think I got most of the cliches in there, but please feel free to add.

For the sake of a few quid why wouldn't your dic brakes wear helmets, I took my bike to an emergency bike mechaninc who said if my brake wasn't wearing a helmet the helmet break would definitely be a brake break... And something about hi viz...

burtthebike wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

You're missing the delicious irony of the headline positing an end to the helmet debate and the comments continuing it.

Believe me, the irony has not been missed here!  Has anybody mentioned disc brakes yet?

I for one, am a firm believer in a law forcing disc brakes to wear helmets.  I myself have had my own life saved because of them, and I personally know hundreds of other people who are similarly only alive today because their disc brake was wearing a helmet.  If it saves just one life......*

*Think I got most of the cliches in there, but please feel free to add.

[/quote]

Hmmmm, i really think we should add a Campag vs. Shimano debate into the mix.  And follow up with some hi-viz?

burtthebike wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

You're missing the delicious irony of the headline positing an end to the helmet debate and the comments continuing it.

Believe me, the irony has not been missed here! Has anybody mentioned disc brakes yet?

I for one, am a firm believer in a law forcing disc brakes to wear helmets. I myself have had my own life saved because of them, and I personally know hundreds of other people who are similarly only alive today because their disc brake was wearing a helmet. If it saves just one life......*

*Think I got most of the cliches in there, but please feel free to add.

I, for one, would be firmly in favour of mandating the fitting of disc brakes to most commenters here, if it would provide greater stopping power on their comments when it comes to helmet-related threads.

Rapha Nadal wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rapha Nadal wrote:

Wonderful; yet another thread of folk shouting into the void.

You're missing the delicious irony of the headline positing an end to the helmet debate and the comments continuing it.

Believe me, the irony has not been missed here!  Has anybody mentioned disc brakes yet?

that would bring the helmet bandwagon to a juddering halt causing everyone to catapult over the bars and land on their heads.