Helmets cramp my Style - part n+1
#251
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by meanwhile
No. People's needs are actually pretty similar. Which is why most bicycles, for example, look rather alike and don't have to be custom made. Ditto clothes, shoes, houses, cars, pharmaceuticals, insurance - there's quite a list.
No. People's needs are actually pretty similar. Which is why most bicycles, for example, look rather alike and don't have to be custom made. Ditto clothes, shoes, houses, cars, pharmaceuticals, insurance - there's quite a list.
In the end, all the arguments and statistics in the world will not change the fact that everyone's wants and needs are completely unique and imposing one person's will on another's should not be taken lightly.
However, even the title of this thread implies that any argument against helmet laws is superficial.
#252
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Swannanoa, NC
Posts: 87
Bikes: 2011 Felt Z85, 1986 Fuji Del Rey
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
No, the risk for the same distance comes out the same. My point is that the journey is not the same if the distance is covered on a bike vs. on foot, because the bike journey covers the ground at significantly greater speed. As a statistic, fatalities or mishaps per mile tells us nothing about this difference because it does not incorporate time. The per hour statistic incorporates events, distance, and time and so is a much more useful tool for making meaningful comparisons between the two activities.
#253
Senior Member
If a serious injury is considered brain trauma or other horrific injury and a helmet won't help with that, so be it, but there are plenty who will benefit if they're in a wreck which results in less than serious head injuries. Lacerations, abrasions, contusions--stuff requiring stitches, road rash on yo head(!), etc.--is stuff that many probably might want to avoid in hind-sight, after an accident or assault.
Even if they won't "save lives, prevent concussions, protect in collisions with motor vehicles," they are still handy to have if you go down and end up scraping your head along the pavement and other objects.
And aside from any protection provided based on what they are designed to do, there's still public perception: reporters mention if automobile accident participants are wearing seatbelts; they also report on whether bike accident participants are wearing helmets. Godz help you if you even think of taking someone to court over injuries sustained while riding without a helmet...
#254
Senior Member
Helmets are not designed to protect from serious injuries and outside studies support this. Shocker. Yet ya'll insist on pointing at both depending on the context to support your point. Like it's two separate issues. Keep them together, use an "and" conjunction, and yer all set.
#255
Senior Member
... I wear my helmet because it is mandatory in British Columbia-even though it is not really enforced. BUT, if I were to get into an accident with a vehicle while riding without a helmet I would be in serious trouble and found partially at fault even if the car was clearly in the wrong. I dealt with the insurance company with my car accident and no way would I ever want to be on the wrong side of law with them...
If challenged, the insurer would have to prove to the court that their claim of probable reduction of injury via a bicycle helmet is reasonable. AFAIK, few, if any plaintiffs have done this in BC and from looking at the issue for some time, I know this challenge is a legitimate one. I just posted a news story of a claim of negligence against a helmet manufacturer that was dismissed based on the prior knowledge of injury while wearing helmets and the extensive warnings that come with helmets about their inability to prevent the injury the plaintiff suffered.
So would I. The tests helmets currently go through provide little resemblance to real life impacts.
#256
Senior Member
And the no-helmet brigade is quick to jump on those with personal experience anecdotes about how a helmet probably worked as intended, saving the wearer from a less than serious injury, inferring that a helmet did not work as intended. Ya'll ever had open wounds scrubbed down with a stiff-bristle brush by a nurse who doesn't appreciate your (prejudice on their part...) lack of concern for your own safety? Think that same treatment on your scalp will be any fun? And bald riders would be way ahead of the majority here--hairless legs are one thing; scalp full o' hair mixed with heinous abrasions another.
If a serious injury is considered brain trauma or other horrific injury and a helmet won't help with that, so be it, but there are plenty who will benefit if they're in a wreck which results in less than serious head injuries. Lacerations, abrasions, contusions--stuff requiring stitches, road rash on yo head(!), etc.--is stuff that many probably might want to avoid in hind-sight, after an accident or assault.
Even if they won't "save lives, prevent concussions, protect in collisions with motor vehicles," they are still handy to have if you go down and end up scraping your head along the pavement and other objects.
If a serious injury is considered brain trauma or other horrific injury and a helmet won't help with that, so be it, but there are plenty who will benefit if they're in a wreck which results in less than serious head injuries. Lacerations, abrasions, contusions--stuff requiring stitches, road rash on yo head(!), etc.--is stuff that many probably might want to avoid in hind-sight, after an accident or assault.
Even if they won't "save lives, prevent concussions, protect in collisions with motor vehicles," they are still handy to have if you go down and end up scraping your head along the pavement and other objects.
And aside from any protection provided based on what they are designed to do, there's still public perception: reporters mention if automobile accident participants are wearing seatbelts; they also report on whether bike accident participants are wearing helmets. Godz help you if you even think of taking someone to court over injuries sustained while riding without a helmet...
And, yes a helmet-less cyclist can successfully sue an at fault motorist for injuries sustained in a collision. It happens all the time.
#257
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
'll ever had open wounds scrubbed down with a stiff-bristle brush by a nurse who doesn't appreciate your (prejudice on their part...) lack of concern for your own safety? Think that same treatment on your scalp will be any fun? And bald riders would be way ahead of the majority here--hairless legs are one thing; scalp full o' hair mixed with heinous abrasions another.
...
Godz help you if you even think of taking someone to court over injuries sustained while riding without a helmet...
...
Godz help you if you even think of taking someone to court over injuries sustained while riding without a helmet...
Neither of the scenarios which you imagine ( I'll bet you like watching horror movies, documentaries about the holocaust and Formula-1 crashes) has any bearing in reality and instead are an expression of your vicious hostility towards those that don't conform to your view of reality.
Seeing as you like anecdotes: I know at least one helmeted person with a nice head of hair who had scalp lacerations (after being tossed over the bonnet of a hit and run) and was treated very nicely by the normal, professional ER staff.
Now, where is the court case which shows that not wearing a helmet will tilt liability against one? On the contrary there are court cases in which the opposite viewpoint has expressly been upheld (read e.g. the second page of Brian Walker's article "Heads Up" where he recounts his experience in failing to uphold your viewpoint in the High Court) and others in which the attempt by a motorized vehicle driver's defence team to use the "wasn't wearing a helmet" line was abandoned: https://cyclehelmets.org/1054.html
In short, your postings are reflective of nasty, scaremongering ninnyism.
#258
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well.
Personal choice is paramount in my opinion. My reasons for making choices are completely unique. For someone else to say that they know what's best for me when that choice does not affect them i.e. wearing a helmet is utterly ridiculous.
I don't understand how pointing out the bias in this thread's title is hypocritical.
Personal choice is paramount in my opinion. My reasons for making choices are completely unique. For someone else to say that they know what's best for me when that choice does not affect them i.e. wearing a helmet is utterly ridiculous.
I don't understand how pointing out the bias in this thread's title is hypocritical.
#259
cowboy, steel horse, etc
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: The hot spot.
Posts: 44,783
Bikes: everywhere
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12736 Post(s)
Liked 7,645 Times
in
4,054 Posts
And the no-helmet brigade is quick to jump on those with personal experience anecdotes about how a helmet probably worked as intended, saving the wearer from a less than serious injury, inferring that a helmet did not work as intended. Ya'll ever had open wounds scrubbed down with a stiff-bristle brush by a nurse who doesn't appreciate your (prejudice on their part...) lack of concern for your own safety? Think that same treatment on your scalp will be any fun? And bald riders would be way ahead of the majority here--hairless legs are one thing; scalp full o' hair mixed with heinous abrasions another.
Bike riding should be compared to ice skating if you ask me. Some styles lend themselves to more protection than others. It's up to the individual participant to gauge what level of protection is necessary.
To some extent the level of necessary protection might go against some folks' sense of reason. For example, I think any ride on the average MUP is much more helmet worthy than a solo ride down the road at a moderate pace on a well maintained bicycle piloted by an experienced rider.
#260
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
To some extent the level of necessary protection might go against some folks' sense of reason. For example, I think any ride on the average MUP is much more helmet worthy than a solo ride down the road at a moderate pace on a well maintained bicycle piloted by an experienced rider.
#261
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Except when it's deliberate distortion, as you were practising when you altered the context of a quote to make yourself look smarter...
When people do that they say "Hey! I was wrong about this and I now believe X." They don't try to "win" a lost argument by editing it.
And rather than reiterate something and be some kind of stuck in the mud kind of person, I'll adjust my views based on feedback I receive from other sources
#262
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
And so we should be. Concluding that because you fell off a bicycle moving at 15mph and lived that a foam hat is responsible is stupid. 15mph falls rarely kill people! Nor do 20mph ones, or even ones at 30mph where no car is involved. Surviving a fall off a bicycle a is quite normal.
#263
Bike Pilot
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 182
Bikes: Oh, yes
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Actually, I have been using the fact that I have survived many falls from bicycles while wearing fedoras, berets, and cowboy hats as anectotal evidence that hats like these saved my life. I'm living proof!
#264
Bicikli Huszár
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I have not wrecked and/or injured myself.
Ergo, hats (perhaps only flatcaps) prevent accidents from happening in the first place.
Good God, you're right!
#265
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#266
Senior Member
It's always struck me as funny how people who think they're right never look at others who have a different experiences and opinions and think there might be something to that opinion.
Mike Rubbo is a film maker from down under and has posted several films on the helmet law in Australia.
The most recent one I've seen is on the problems Melbourne is having with it's bike share system that could be to blame in part to the requirement for share patrons to wear helmets.
A bit into the film, Mike asks people if they think that maybe exempting bike share users from this requirement might be a good thing to help the system be more successful but everyone said no, cycling is too dangerous without a helmet.
They say this even when these systems have had very few injuries to users when the riders do not wear helmets.
Mike Rubbo is a film maker from down under and has posted several films on the helmet law in Australia.
The most recent one I've seen is on the problems Melbourne is having with it's bike share system that could be to blame in part to the requirement for share patrons to wear helmets.
A bit into the film, Mike asks people if they think that maybe exempting bike share users from this requirement might be a good thing to help the system be more successful but everyone said no, cycling is too dangerous without a helmet.
They say this even when these systems have had very few injuries to users when the riders do not wear helmets.
#267
Bicikli Huszár
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#268
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The Wall Street Journal weighs in
"Using surveys of parents, the professors find that about 650,000 fewer children ride bikes each year after helmet laws go into effect. That's about 81,000 fewer riders for every life saved."
"Using surveys of parents, the professors find that about 650,000 fewer children ride bikes each year after helmet laws go into effect. That's about 81,000 fewer riders for every life saved."
#269
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The Wall Street Journal weighs in
"Using surveys of parents, the professors find that about 650,000 fewer children ride bikes each year after helmet laws go into effect. That's about 81,000 fewer riders for every life saved."
"Using surveys of parents, the professors find that about 650,000 fewer children ride bikes each year after helmet laws go into effect. That's about 81,000 fewer riders for every life saved."
The result: A new helmet law reduces bicycle deaths among the affected age group by about 19%. It doesn't affect older riders. Since serious bicycle accidents are rare, however, the absolute numbers are still small, about eight fewer deaths a year among kids 5 to 15 than would otherwise occur in the states with helmet laws. "It's not a ton of lives when you compare it to something like wearing your seat belt," says Prof. Stehr.
One reason for the drop is, of course, that more kids wear helmets when they get into accidents. But another is that many give up cycling altogether. Using surveys of parents, the professors find that about 650,000 fewer children ride bikes each year after helmet laws go into effect. That's about 81,000 fewer riders for every life saved. Helmets may save lives, but the dork factor also takes its toll.
One reason for the drop is, of course, that more kids wear helmets when they get into accidents. But another is that many give up cycling altogether. Using surveys of parents, the professors find that about 650,000 fewer children ride bikes each year after helmet laws go into effect. That's about 81,000 fewer riders for every life saved. Helmets may save lives, but the dork factor also takes its toll.
#270
Senior Member
Is the Carpenter & Stehr paper really so simple-minded that it looks at the absolute drop rather than the proportion of injuries to the population?
At least the WSJ article emphasizes that the absolute numbers are still absolutely tiny, a point made by John Allen Paulos about many medical studies.
At least the WSJ article emphasizes that the absolute numbers are still absolutely tiny, a point made by John Allen Paulos about many medical studies.
What people do and what they say they do are often two different things and as well, there is significant differences between what the parents say their children do and the self reported data. For instance, Carpenter and Stehr associated helmet laws with an increase in "always or almost always wears helmet" when cycling of 34.9% (on parental report) or 9.7% (self-report)
Further, there is no exposure information. We don't know if the trips these people are taking are one block, one mile or twenty miles each. The authors do make this point and make a note in the study,
Although we estimate that bicycling participation fell by about 5 percent, it is likely that overall bicycling miles travelled fell even more. Unfortunately, neither the YRBSS nor the BRFSS asked consistent questions about bicycling intensity over the full sample period. As noted previously, however, the YRBSS did ask about the number of instances of bike riding from 1991 to 1997. We estimated equation (1) on this outcome (using the midpoints of the ranges and coding the top category as 50 instances) and found that helmet laws reduced bicycling among high school youths age 15 and under by 2.34 instances, or about 11 percent relative to the pre-reform mean of 21.32 instances. This suggests that the true overall reduction in bicycling miles travelled – and thus exposure to potential bicycling accidents – is larger than our bicycling participation estimates in Tables 3 and 4. These estimates are of course based on fewer state changes and as such are less precise than the results for bicycle riding, which we observe over the entire sample period from 1991 to 2005 in the YRBSS
#271
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Useful -
Dr Chinn's opinion was accepted by the court.
https://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...cyclists-20250
In this case, Mr Smith, who was 51 at the time, was involved in a collision with a Yahama 600cc motorcycle in Brightlingsea, Essex, while on his way to an amateur operatics rehearsal in June 2005. He wasn't wearing a helmet and suffered serious head injuries, leaving him with no recollection of the accident .
He claimed damages from the motorcyclist, Michael Finch, for personal injuries, and the biker then brought a counterclaim, claiming that Mr Smith was liable for his own injuries because he had a helmet but had not worn it. The court heard Mr Smith considered the area around his home in Brightlingsea to be safe so he only wore his helmet for longer journeys.
Mr Justice Griffith Williams found the motorcyclist primarily liable, saying that on the balance of probabilities Mr Finch, who was 26 at the time of the crash, had been speeding and riding too close to Mr Smith as he tried to overtake. The judge then considered whether Mr Smith had contributed to his own injuries by failing to wear a helmet. He heard that Mr Smith's injuries were caused both by him hitting the back of his head on the ground and also from rapid rotation of the skull as he came off his bike, causing blood vessels to rupture.
Helmet expert Dr Bryan Chinn examined Mr Smith's helmet, which was about 20 years old, and told the court that neither that model nor a more modern one would have prevented Mr Smith's injuries because he hit the ground in excess of 12mph. He said the scalloped shape of most modern helmets would not have prevented Mr Smith's injuries, given the location of the impact on the back of his head.
In this case, Mr Smith, who was 51 at the time, was involved in a collision with a Yahama 600cc motorcycle in Brightlingsea, Essex, while on his way to an amateur operatics rehearsal in June 2005. He wasn't wearing a helmet and suffered serious head injuries, leaving him with no recollection of the accident .
He claimed damages from the motorcyclist, Michael Finch, for personal injuries, and the biker then brought a counterclaim, claiming that Mr Smith was liable for his own injuries because he had a helmet but had not worn it. The court heard Mr Smith considered the area around his home in Brightlingsea to be safe so he only wore his helmet for longer journeys.
Mr Justice Griffith Williams found the motorcyclist primarily liable, saying that on the balance of probabilities Mr Finch, who was 26 at the time of the crash, had been speeding and riding too close to Mr Smith as he tried to overtake. The judge then considered whether Mr Smith had contributed to his own injuries by failing to wear a helmet. He heard that Mr Smith's injuries were caused both by him hitting the back of his head on the ground and also from rapid rotation of the skull as he came off his bike, causing blood vessels to rupture.
Helmet expert Dr Bryan Chinn examined Mr Smith's helmet, which was about 20 years old, and told the court that neither that model nor a more modern one would have prevented Mr Smith's injuries because he hit the ground in excess of 12mph. He said the scalloped shape of most modern helmets would not have prevented Mr Smith's injuries, given the location of the impact on the back of his head.
#272
Full Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Closetbiker, I know you're passionate about this. But, I've dealt with ICBC, have you? I know what they will do if you were in a cycling accident without a helmet. The x amount of benefits you SHOULD receive will be dwindled well beyond the reduction of damages and they will attack you viciously. My husband was hit by a truck while cycling. He had a helmet on, he had done everything correctly, had the right of way etc.. The police looked at his bike. The brake pads were a bit worn-so he was found partly at fault for negligence! Years of cycling experience and it goes on file that he acted with negligence.
I was in a head on collision in a motor vehicle accident and I was a passenger in the car that got hit(not our fault in anyway)but was the only one really injured. Sound bad enough? We had to remember if the headrests were in the correct position and things like that. As if that helped! my ex couldn't remember anything while I relive the accident to this day so the lawyers tried to find holes anywhere. My case lasted 5 years due to all the injuries and various complications. In the end hearing, the ICBC lawyer dwindled my intended settlement an astonishing amount. He attacked me on every front, my life choices(I was in my early 20's was in art school-how terrible!), dug into medical records, personally attacked me and treated me like crap. It was appalling. I was a passenger! ICBC have spies-luckily I was out of province after the car accident, but they had their ways. Do not think for one minute that they will be nice to you, that you will have an ounce of leeway. If you take them on over the helmet laws be prepared to be roasted.
So, forgive me if I just wear a helmet.
I was in a head on collision in a motor vehicle accident and I was a passenger in the car that got hit(not our fault in anyway)but was the only one really injured. Sound bad enough? We had to remember if the headrests were in the correct position and things like that. As if that helped! my ex couldn't remember anything while I relive the accident to this day so the lawyers tried to find holes anywhere. My case lasted 5 years due to all the injuries and various complications. In the end hearing, the ICBC lawyer dwindled my intended settlement an astonishing amount. He attacked me on every front, my life choices(I was in my early 20's was in art school-how terrible!), dug into medical records, personally attacked me and treated me like crap. It was appalling. I was a passenger! ICBC have spies-luckily I was out of province after the car accident, but they had their ways. Do not think for one minute that they will be nice to you, that you will have an ounce of leeway. If you take them on over the helmet laws be prepared to be roasted.
So, forgive me if I just wear a helmet.
#273
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'd say that he's measured, reasonable and logical. He may be passionate, but we'll leave that up to those that actually know him to decide. It's very belittling of you to put it that way: it suggests hysteria, irrationality and hot-headedness. None of those traits are in evidence in his carefully reasoned, pleasant and well-researched replies.
That's because brakes have been proven to be effective in stopping your bicycle.
Helmets HAVE NOT been proven to be effective in stopping serious head injuries.
You are arguing a parallel between two completely different devices. One of them is effective at its job, the other isn't.
You don't need to ask forgiveness for doing whatever you choose to do. You should however plead forgiveness for your underhanded arguments.
My husband was hit by a truck while cycling. He had a helmet on, he had done everything correctly, had the right of way etc.. The police looked at his bike. The brake pads were a bit worn-so he was found partly at fault for negligence! Years of cycling experience and it goes on file that he acted with negligence.
Helmets HAVE NOT been proven to be effective in stopping serious head injuries.
You are arguing a parallel between two completely different devices. One of them is effective at its job, the other isn't.
You don't need to ask forgiveness for doing whatever you choose to do. You should however plead forgiveness for your underhanded arguments.
#274
Senior Member
well, I wouldn't say I'm passionate about this, but I do get irked when people spread false, misleading or incorrect information and want to correct them if the false, misleading or incorrect information can lead to worse outcomes for cycling
yes I have and I've done more than a bit of consultation with lawyers to understand that of which I wrote
I'm not sure that you really do
anything that could have been done to prevent the damage and was not done will work against a judgement. That's basic
that's the way the game works
If you take anyone on in anything you should be prepared. that's life.
hey, I have no problem if someone wants to or is wearing a helmet. That isn't the issue
But, I've dealt with ICBC, have you?
I know what they will do if you were in a cycling accident without a helmet.
The x amount of benefits you SHOULD receive will be dwindled well beyond the reduction of damages and they will attack you viciously. My husband was hit by a truck while cycling. He had a helmet on, he had done everything correctly, had the right of way etc.. The police looked at his bike. The brake pads were a bit worn-so he was found partly at fault for negligence! Years of cycling experience and it goes on file that he acted with negligence.
I was in a head on collision in a motor vehicle accident and I was a passenger in the car that got hit(not our fault in anyway)but was the only one really injured. Sound bad enough? We had to remember if the headrests were in the correct position and things like that. As if that helped! my ex couldn't remember anything while I relive the accident to this day so the lawyers tried to find holes anywhere. My case lasted 5 years due to all the injuries and various complications. In the end hearing, the ICBC lawyer dwindled my intended settlement an astonishing amount. He attacked me on every front, my life choices(I was in my early 20's was in art school-how terrible!), dug into medical records, personally attacked me and treated me like crap. It was appalling. I was a passenger! ICBC have spies-luckily I was out of province after the car accident, but they had their ways. Do not think for one minute that they will be nice to you, that you will have an ounce of leeway.
If you take them on over the helmet laws be prepared to be roasted.
So, forgive me if I just wear a helmet.
Last edited by closetbiker; 10-18-10 at 01:46 PM.
#275
Senior Member
When Anirudha Rao found that expanded polystyrene helmets only protect the users’ heads 16 percent of the time during a crash as polystyrene does little to absorb impact energy, the designer offered us a much effective alternative of cycling protections: ‘Kranium’.
Exhibited during London Design Week 2010 at Designersblock, the new helmet is made from cardboard and features several ribs that will flex and de-flex during a crash to absorb the energy of impact. When tested against British (EN 1078) standards at the imperial college, ‘Kranium’ was found to have the ability of absorbing four times the amount of impact energy as that of regular helmets. And we bet that exciting news will surely make ‘Kranium’ the most popular one on the helmet market.
Exhibited during London Design Week 2010 at Designersblock, the new helmet is made from cardboard and features several ribs that will flex and de-flex during a crash to absorb the energy of impact. When tested against British (EN 1078) standards at the imperial college, ‘Kranium’ was found to have the ability of absorbing four times the amount of impact energy as that of regular helmets. And we bet that exciting news will surely make ‘Kranium’ the most popular one on the helmet market.