Crash helmet saved my life says cycling GP

Crash helmet saved my life says cycling GP

Crash helmet saved my life says cycling GP

First published in News

A DOCTOR is urging all cyclists to wear helmets after a serious crash left him in hospital.

Dr Krishna Chaturvedi cycles around Westcliff before starting work each day at his surgery in Southbourne Grove.

However, he was in collision with a car on the corner of Chalkwell Avenue and First Avenue and came off his bicycle.

The GP lost consciousness and injured his neck, back and face, particularly around his eye, but believes his life was saved by his cycle helmet.

He said: “I am gradually recovering from the injuries, but thank God there was no serious injury.

“The best protection for me was my helmet.

“What saved my life was wearing the helmet and having lights and a reflector jacket, but most importantly the helmet that I see so many cyclists do not wear.

“I checkedwith patients of mine who cycle regularly and surprisingly about 40 per cent do not wear one, which made me think to put out a message that a helmet must be worn.

“Without a helmet, I might not have survived and I want my experience to warn others.”

Police, an ambulance and paramedic rapid response car attended the crash shortly before 7am last Friday.

Dr Chaturvedi said: “I don’t really remember what happened. When I woke, I was on the road.

“The ambulance and police arrived so quickly.

“I want to express my gratitude towards the members of the public who stopped to help me and call the emergency services, who were excellent.

“They were not only prompt and efficient, but extremely courteous and attentive to my needs.

“Obviously I was at the time concussed and was taken to A&E where I found an extremely helpful nursing and medical team.

“I was in the right time at the right place for the right care.”

Dr Chaturvedi returned to work after a few days recuperation.

Police say the driver was reported for a motoring offence.

Adrian Turner, who is a clinical operations manager in Essex and a cycling paramedic, said: “The key things to stay safe when out cycling are your visibility, your road positioning and being wary of blind-spots on vehicles.”

Comments (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:14am Mon 20 Jan 14

a.nonnymouse says...

It should be illegal to sell a bike without a crash helmet as part of the package, along with lights and a bell. It's still the riders decision to wear the helmet, but if it's included in the cost of the bike, you're halfway there. It might not be or look cool to wear a helmet, but it's not cool being fed and having your nappy changed when you've had a serious head injury thats left you brain damamged.
It really is a 'no-brainer'

Hope the Dr makes a speedy recovery, could have been much worse..
It should be illegal to sell a bike without a crash helmet as part of the package, along with lights and a bell. It's still the riders decision to wear the helmet, but if it's included in the cost of the bike, you're halfway there. It might not be or look cool to wear a helmet, but it's not cool being fed and having your nappy changed when you've had a serious head injury thats left you brain damamged. It really is a 'no-brainer' Hope the Dr makes a speedy recovery, could have been much worse.. a.nonnymouse
  • Score: 2

7:23am Mon 20 Jan 14

abd123 says...

Whilst in The Netherlands recently I saw that hardly anybody wore a cycle helmet. This was in an old town with no cycle lanes. They do not seem to find a need for them. Having lights and a reflective jacket did not seem to assist the Doctor in this case.
Whilst in The Netherlands recently I saw that hardly anybody wore a cycle helmet. This was in an old town with no cycle lanes. They do not seem to find a need for them. Having lights and a reflective jacket did not seem to assist the Doctor in this case. abd123
  • Score: 5

7:48am Mon 20 Jan 14

DogsMessInLeigh says...

abd123 wrote:
Whilst in The Netherlands recently I saw that hardly anybody wore a cycle helmet. This was in an old town with no cycle lanes. They do not seem to find a need for them. Having lights and a reflective jacket did not seem to assist the Doctor in this case.
yes but they have a better quality of driver over there and they accept cycles, we got all the idiots.
i wouldn't feel right without a helmet now, it only takes one fool in his car and thats it and trust me the roads are full of them inc Bus drivers and other professional drivers.
[quote][p][bold]abd123[/bold] wrote: Whilst in The Netherlands recently I saw that hardly anybody wore a cycle helmet. This was in an old town with no cycle lanes. They do not seem to find a need for them. Having lights and a reflective jacket did not seem to assist the Doctor in this case.[/p][/quote]yes but they have a better quality of driver over there and they accept cycles, we got all the idiots. i wouldn't feel right without a helmet now, it only takes one fool in his car and thats it and trust me the roads are full of them inc Bus drivers and other professional drivers. DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: -4

8:22am Mon 20 Jan 14

burtthebike says...

Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also.

Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so.

The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative.

If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is.

Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org
Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also. Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so. The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative. If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is. Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org burtthebike
  • Score: 9

8:37am Mon 20 Jan 14

ColonelSpiffSpaff says...

Just ride on the pavement
Just ride on the pavement ColonelSpiffSpaff
  • Score: -27

8:54am Mon 20 Jan 14

Laughlust says...

I hope he has lights
I hope he has lights Laughlust
  • Score: -1

8:56am Mon 20 Jan 14

bazza 1 says...

I can't believe some of the cr** I am reading on here. It's a no brainer, to wear a safety helmet. If you come off your bike, you are going to get hurt. Wear a helmet and protect the most important part of you. Your brain. .....Glad the Doctor is OK. He did the right thing by wearing a helmet. End of. It doesn't matter how or why you come off a bike, the concrete is just as hard, and just as dangerous.
I can't believe some of the cr** I am reading on here. It's a no brainer, to wear a safety helmet. If you come off your bike, you are going to get hurt. Wear a helmet and protect the most important part of you. Your brain. .....Glad the Doctor is OK. He did the right thing by wearing a helmet. End of. It doesn't matter how or why you come off a bike, the concrete is just as hard, and just as dangerous. bazza 1
  • Score: 12

9:34am Mon 20 Jan 14

bazza 1 says...

burtthebike wrote:
Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also.

Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so.

The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative.

If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is.

Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org
Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time.
[quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also. Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so. The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative. If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is. Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org[/p][/quote]Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time. bazza 1
  • Score: 2

10:43am Mon 20 Jan 14

Benefit-Scrounger says...

I never wear a helmet when cycling and I go
In the road most of the time. Simply because there are uncomfy to wear, don't look cool, and mess your hair up. You could fall over when walking so perhaps people should be made to wear them when walking too.
I never wear a helmet when cycling and I go In the road most of the time. Simply because there are uncomfy to wear, don't look cool, and mess your hair up. You could fall over when walking so perhaps people should be made to wear them when walking too. Benefit-Scrounger
  • Score: -2

10:52am Mon 20 Jan 14

AliciaSS says...

Dr Chaturvedi is my doctor and has been since I was born! He's a lovely man, I am very glad he's made a speedy recovery. I'm not surprised that he returned to work after a few days, he's a very hard working man.

I hope people read this and realise that wearing a helmet is a must!
Dr Chaturvedi is my doctor and has been since I was born! He's a lovely man, I am very glad he's made a speedy recovery. I'm not surprised that he returned to work after a few days, he's a very hard working man. I hope people read this and realise that wearing a helmet is a must! AliciaSS
  • Score: 4

11:04am Mon 20 Jan 14

Laughlust says...

How long does it take to pass a cycle, at 30 MPH ? in a car, a second ? which makes a nonsense of the "give them a wide berth" advice. A good press on the horn works wonders for an amusing reaction.
How long does it take to pass a cycle, at 30 MPH ? in a car, a second ? which makes a nonsense of the "give them a wide berth" advice. A good press on the horn works wonders for an amusing reaction. Laughlust
  • Score: -6

12:39pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Eric the Red says...

I speak as a Club cyclist with 50+ years of racing/touring/commu
ting experience. The CTT (the largest cycling body in the country) has come out against compulsory helmet wear because – in a nutshell – the ‘jury is still out’ on this. The benefits are marginal, and will not save you in most kind of cycle/vehicle collisions (they are usually the fatal ones). I can honestly say that none of cycling friends that I’ve known killed over half a century would have been saved if wearing one.
As it is, I invariably DO wear one…as my choice. What I can’t stand is a bunch of sanctimonious non-cyclists propounding that it would be a good idea if we were compelled to wear one.
I speak as a Club cyclist with 50+ years of racing/touring/commu ting experience. The CTT (the largest cycling body in the country) has come out against compulsory helmet wear because – in a nutshell – the ‘jury is still out’ on this. The benefits are marginal, and will not save you in most kind of cycle/vehicle collisions (they are usually the fatal ones). I can honestly say that none of cycling friends that I’ve known killed over half a century would have been saved if wearing one. As it is, I invariably DO wear one…as my choice. What I can’t stand is a bunch of sanctimonious non-cyclists propounding that it would be a good idea if we were compelled to wear one. Eric the Red
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Eric the Red says...

bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also.

Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so.

The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative.

If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is.

Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org
Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time.
..and I don't think that I've seen so much dogmatic ignorance of the facts in one (yours) either.
[quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also. Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so. The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative. If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is. Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org[/p][/quote]Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time.[/p][/quote]..and I don't think that I've seen so much dogmatic ignorance of the facts in one (yours) either. Eric the Red
  • Score: 5

4:17pm Mon 20 Jan 14

burtthebike says...

bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also.

Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so.

The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative.

If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is.

Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org
Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time.
bazza, so sorry you think my comment is drivel. Perhaps you could point out a few of the factual errors I've made, and I'll gladly correct them.
[quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also. Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so. The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative. If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is. Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org[/p][/quote]Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time.[/p][/quote]bazza, so sorry you think my comment is drivel. Perhaps you could point out a few of the factual errors I've made, and I'll gladly correct them. burtthebike
  • Score: 12

4:49pm Mon 20 Jan 14

sjwilson says...

I actually came off my bike last tuesday and if it was not for my helmet I'm sure I would have been in a a coma or something, I came off my bike due to a white van and idiot driver speeding around a corner in Southend nr the college. It was quite a shock, and yes I agree half the drivers in Southend/Westcliff are nutters and should not hold a license. Yes I always use lights.
I actually came off my bike last tuesday and if it was not for my helmet I'm sure I would have been in a a coma or something, I came off my bike due to a white van and idiot driver speeding around a corner in Southend nr the college. It was quite a shock, and yes I agree half the drivers in Southend/Westcliff are nutters and should not hold a license. Yes I always use lights. sjwilson
  • Score: -3

5:37pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Benefit-Scrounger says...

sjwilson wrote:
I actually came off my bike last tuesday and if it was not for my helmet I'm sure I would have been in a a coma or something, I came off my bike due to a white van and idiot driver speeding around a corner in Southend nr the college. It was quite a shock, and yes I agree half the drivers in Southend/Westcliff are nutters and should not hold a license. Yes I always use lights.
Well, well done you. You sound like a role model to all cyclists. Blue Peter badge?
[quote][p][bold]sjwilson[/bold] wrote: I actually came off my bike last tuesday and if it was not for my helmet I'm sure I would have been in a a coma or something, I came off my bike due to a white van and idiot driver speeding around a corner in Southend nr the college. It was quite a shock, and yes I agree half the drivers in Southend/Westcliff are nutters and should not hold a license. Yes I always use lights.[/p][/quote]Well, well done you. You sound like a role model to all cyclists. Blue Peter badge? Benefit-Scrounger
  • Score: 4

6:00pm Mon 20 Jan 14

sjwilson says...

Dear Benefit-Scrounger

Really why are you so Mean to people, You know Karma will come back and bite you..

Nasty Troll!!!
Dear Benefit-Scrounger Really why are you so Mean to people, You know Karma will come back and bite you.. Nasty Troll!!! sjwilson
  • Score: 1

8:19pm Mon 20 Jan 14

bazza 1 says...

burtthebike wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also.

Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so.

The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative.

If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is.

Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org
Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time.
bazza, so sorry you think my comment is drivel. Perhaps you could point out a few of the factual errors I've made, and I'll gladly correct them.
Mate I would not know where to start. Sorry.
[quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also. Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so. The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative. If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is. Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org[/p][/quote]Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time.[/p][/quote]bazza, so sorry you think my comment is drivel. Perhaps you could point out a few of the factual errors I've made, and I'll gladly correct them.[/p][/quote]Mate I would not know where to start. Sorry. bazza 1
  • Score: -9

11:24pm Mon 20 Jan 14

burtthebike says...

bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also.

Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so.

The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative.

If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is.

Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org
Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time.
bazza, so sorry you think my comment is drivel. Perhaps you could point out a few of the factual errors I've made, and I'll gladly correct them.
Mate I would not know where to start. Sorry.
Just start, I can take it.

Or if you can't prove any of the facts I've stated to be wrong, then just admit it rather than making silly comments. And if you can't prove them wrong, then at least have the grace to admit that they are right and you are wrong.

Additional cojones can be purchased on line if you haven't got enough.
[quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also. Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so. The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative. If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is. Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org[/p][/quote]Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time.[/p][/quote]bazza, so sorry you think my comment is drivel. Perhaps you could point out a few of the factual errors I've made, and I'll gladly correct them.[/p][/quote]Mate I would not know where to start. Sorry.[/p][/quote]Just start, I can take it. Or if you can't prove any of the facts I've stated to be wrong, then just admit it rather than making silly comments. And if you can't prove them wrong, then at least have the grace to admit that they are right and you are wrong. Additional cojones can be purchased on line if you haven't got enough. burtthebike
  • Score: 7

7:53am Tue 21 Jan 14

Eric the Red says...

Burt – it appears that you and I are the only erudite and experienced cyclists in this ‘debate’. Strange how we have achieved so many ‘minuses’ from people who don’t want to put scientific research, corroborated statistics and reasoned arguments in the way of their ignorant dogma.
Burt – it appears that you and I are the only erudite and experienced cyclists in this ‘debate’. Strange how we have achieved so many ‘minuses’ from people who don’t want to put scientific research, corroborated statistics and reasoned arguments in the way of their ignorant dogma. Eric the Red
  • Score: 3

7:57am Tue 21 Jan 14

Interestedofessex says...

I have personally seen two cyclist helmets from cyclists that came off their bikes during the London to Brighton. Both helmets were a mess and both cyclists were unscathed (on their heads - their legs were a mess!) I don't think there is any harm in advising people it is a good idea to wear them - if there is a 1% chance it will help save you in an accident, then it's worth wearing it. Should it be made law - no. Personal choice, as should be the wearing of seat belts in cars. If people choose not to wear them, it simply assists in the process of Darwinism!
I have personally seen two cyclist helmets from cyclists that came off their bikes during the London to Brighton. Both helmets were a mess and both cyclists were unscathed (on their heads - their legs were a mess!) I don't think there is any harm in advising people it is a good idea to wear them - if there is a 1% chance it will help save you in an accident, then it's worth wearing it. Should it be made law - no. Personal choice, as should be the wearing of seat belts in cars. If people choose not to wear them, it simply assists in the process of Darwinism! Interestedofessex
  • Score: -3

8:37am Tue 21 Jan 14

burtthebike says...

Eric, you're right, we are the only two people who have any knowledge, and we are condemned by the ignorant.

I wrote a piece about cycle helmets for a transport magazine a few years ago, making the point that helmets have been proved to be ineffective, and it received four responses. Two were from road safety "experts" who admitted that they had not read anything about cycle helmets, and had no knowledge whatsoever, but despite their ignorance, they felt free to criticise me. The other two responses were from extremely well read individuals who had conducted their own peer-reviewed research, and they agreed with me.

The problem is that the helmet promoters have used propaganda to an overwhelming extent, using bad science and the common sense argument. They are ably supported in this by the media, especially the BBC which has been running a helmet promotion campaign for thirty years. The myth of helmet effectiveness is now so deeply embedded that the facts are impossible for most people to accept, and they just deny them. Most people have been so brainwashed that they won't even do the most basic checking to see whether what they assume is true.

It is truly shocking that in this age of such wide availability of scientific evidence that so many people can be misled so much by propaganda and don't even realise it.

For anyone who would like to check the facts, look at cyclehelmets.org
Eric, you're right, we are the only two people who have any knowledge, and we are condemned by the ignorant. I wrote a piece about cycle helmets for a transport magazine a few years ago, making the point that helmets have been proved to be ineffective, and it received four responses. Two were from road safety "experts" who admitted that they had not read anything about cycle helmets, and had no knowledge whatsoever, but despite their ignorance, they felt free to criticise me. The other two responses were from extremely well read individuals who had conducted their own peer-reviewed research, and they agreed with me. The problem is that the helmet promoters have used propaganda to an overwhelming extent, using bad science and the common sense argument. They are ably supported in this by the media, especially the BBC which has been running a helmet promotion campaign for thirty years. The myth of helmet effectiveness is now so deeply embedded that the facts are impossible for most people to accept, and they just deny them. Most people have been so brainwashed that they won't even do the most basic checking to see whether what they assume is true. It is truly shocking that in this age of such wide availability of scientific evidence that so many people can be misled so much by propaganda and don't even realise it. For anyone who would like to check the facts, look at cyclehelmets.org burtthebike
  • Score: 5

8:43am Tue 21 Jan 14

burtthebike says...

Interestedofessex wrote:
I have personally seen two cyclist helmets from cyclists that came off their bikes during the London to Brighton. Both helmets were a mess and both cyclists were unscathed (on their heads - their legs were a mess!) I don't think there is any harm in advising people it is a good idea to wear them - if there is a 1% chance it will help save you in an accident, then it's worth wearing it. Should it be made law - no. Personal choice, as should be the wearing of seat belts in cars. If people choose not to wear them, it simply assists in the process of Darwinism!
I'm afraid you're mistaking anecdote for data.

An interesting point about Darwinism though, even if you have got it completely the wrong way around. Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live longer, are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population. It is riskier not to ride a bike than to ride one.

In the middle of an obesity epidemic which will shorten millions of lives and is largely caused by a lack of exercise, helmet promotion like this which has the sole effect of reducing exercise levels, is frankly insane.
[quote][p][bold]Interestedofessex[/bold] wrote: I have personally seen two cyclist helmets from cyclists that came off their bikes during the London to Brighton. Both helmets were a mess and both cyclists were unscathed (on their heads - their legs were a mess!) I don't think there is any harm in advising people it is a good idea to wear them - if there is a 1% chance it will help save you in an accident, then it's worth wearing it. Should it be made law - no. Personal choice, as should be the wearing of seat belts in cars. If people choose not to wear them, it simply assists in the process of Darwinism![/p][/quote]I'm afraid you're mistaking anecdote for data. An interesting point about Darwinism though, even if you have got it completely the wrong way around. Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live longer, are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population. It is riskier not to ride a bike than to ride one. In the middle of an obesity epidemic which will shorten millions of lives and is largely caused by a lack of exercise, helmet promotion like this which has the sole effect of reducing exercise levels, is frankly insane. burtthebike
  • Score: 6

9:26am Tue 21 Jan 14

Interestedofessex says...

burtthebike wrote:
Interestedofessex wrote:
I have personally seen two cyclist helmets from cyclists that came off their bikes during the London to Brighton. Both helmets were a mess and both cyclists were unscathed (on their heads - their legs were a mess!) I don't think there is any harm in advising people it is a good idea to wear them - if there is a 1% chance it will help save you in an accident, then it's worth wearing it. Should it be made law - no. Personal choice, as should be the wearing of seat belts in cars. If people choose not to wear them, it simply assists in the process of Darwinism!
I'm afraid you're mistaking anecdote for data.

An interesting point about Darwinism though, even if you have got it completely the wrong way around. Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live longer, are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population. It is riskier not to ride a bike than to ride one.

In the middle of an obesity epidemic which will shorten millions of lives and is largely caused by a lack of exercise, helmet promotion like this which has the sole effect of reducing exercise levels, is frankly insane.
I'm afraid you are wrapped up somewhat in 'data', whereas I prefer real life. I know what I saw that day and I know if the damage caused to the helmets had been transferred to their heads, the injuries would have been severe. These are two pieces of data for you. Furthermore, if you attend large scale cycle events such as these, you will note that the vast majority of the 'proper cyclists' as oppose fund raisers with bikes - wear helmets. In fact, the majority of the overweight day trippers with their brand new bikes are the ones without the helmets - kind of turns your theory on its head. Sorry I am relying on my own eyes again, rather than believing propaganda, I mean data.....
Just a final anecdote, most of your account relates to how fit regular cyclists are and the fact they live longer etc etc. if the same regular cyclists wear helmets - does this mean they suddenly live shorter lives and get fact? I do agree that to cycle without a helmet is probably better for you than not cycling atall - but to promote the use (not legislate) of helmets, can only be a good thing - I would find it odd anybody who is against this as I've not seen a case of a helmet killing a cyclist.
[quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Interestedofessex[/bold] wrote: I have personally seen two cyclist helmets from cyclists that came off their bikes during the London to Brighton. Both helmets were a mess and both cyclists were unscathed (on their heads - their legs were a mess!) I don't think there is any harm in advising people it is a good idea to wear them - if there is a 1% chance it will help save you in an accident, then it's worth wearing it. Should it be made law - no. Personal choice, as should be the wearing of seat belts in cars. If people choose not to wear them, it simply assists in the process of Darwinism![/p][/quote]I'm afraid you're mistaking anecdote for data. An interesting point about Darwinism though, even if you have got it completely the wrong way around. Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live longer, are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population. It is riskier not to ride a bike than to ride one. In the middle of an obesity epidemic which will shorten millions of lives and is largely caused by a lack of exercise, helmet promotion like this which has the sole effect of reducing exercise levels, is frankly insane.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid you are wrapped up somewhat in 'data', whereas I prefer real life. I know what I saw that day and I know if the damage caused to the helmets had been transferred to their heads, the injuries would have been severe. These are two pieces of data for you. Furthermore, if you attend large scale cycle events such as these, you will note that the vast majority of the 'proper cyclists' as oppose fund raisers with bikes - wear helmets. In fact, the majority of the overweight day trippers with their brand new bikes are the ones without the helmets - kind of turns your theory on its head. Sorry I am relying on my own eyes again, rather than believing propaganda, I mean data..... Just a final anecdote, most of your account relates to how fit regular cyclists are and the fact they live longer etc etc. if the same regular cyclists wear helmets - does this mean they suddenly live shorter lives and get fact? I do agree that to cycle without a helmet is probably better for you than not cycling atall - but to promote the use (not legislate) of helmets, can only be a good thing - I would find it odd anybody who is against this as I've not seen a case of a helmet killing a cyclist. Interestedofessex
  • Score: -4

9:34am Tue 21 Jan 14

Interestedofessex says...

burtthebike wrote:
Eric, you're right, we are the only two people who have any knowledge, and we are condemned by the ignorant.

I wrote a piece about cycle helmets for a transport magazine a few years ago, making the point that helmets have been proved to be ineffective, and it received four responses. Two were from road safety "experts" who admitted that they had not read anything about cycle helmets, and had no knowledge whatsoever, but despite their ignorance, they felt free to criticise me. The other two responses were from extremely well read individuals who had conducted their own peer-reviewed research, and they agreed with me.

The problem is that the helmet promoters have used propaganda to an overwhelming extent, using bad science and the common sense argument. They are ably supported in this by the media, especially the BBC which has been running a helmet promotion campaign for thirty years. The myth of helmet effectiveness is now so deeply embedded that the facts are impossible for most people to accept, and they just deny them. Most people have been so brainwashed that they won't even do the most basic checking to see whether what they assume is true.

It is truly shocking that in this age of such wide availability of scientific evidence that so many people can be misled so much by propaganda and don't even realise it.

For anyone who would like to check the facts, look at cyclehelmets.org
I also find it interesting that in the same paragraph, you write about how people were quick to condem you when you wrote your article - yet start the paragraph with a ridiculous statement stating you and Eric are the only ones with knowledge and everybody else is ignorant - without knowing me or others that comment, would you not say that's a tab judgemental yourself?
[quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: Eric, you're right, we are the only two people who have any knowledge, and we are condemned by the ignorant. I wrote a piece about cycle helmets for a transport magazine a few years ago, making the point that helmets have been proved to be ineffective, and it received four responses. Two were from road safety "experts" who admitted that they had not read anything about cycle helmets, and had no knowledge whatsoever, but despite their ignorance, they felt free to criticise me. The other two responses were from extremely well read individuals who had conducted their own peer-reviewed research, and they agreed with me. The problem is that the helmet promoters have used propaganda to an overwhelming extent, using bad science and the common sense argument. They are ably supported in this by the media, especially the BBC which has been running a helmet promotion campaign for thirty years. The myth of helmet effectiveness is now so deeply embedded that the facts are impossible for most people to accept, and they just deny them. Most people have been so brainwashed that they won't even do the most basic checking to see whether what they assume is true. It is truly shocking that in this age of such wide availability of scientific evidence that so many people can be misled so much by propaganda and don't even realise it. For anyone who would like to check the facts, look at cyclehelmets.org[/p][/quote]I also find it interesting that in the same paragraph, you write about how people were quick to condem you when you wrote your article - yet start the paragraph with a ridiculous statement stating you and Eric are the only ones with knowledge and everybody else is ignorant - without knowing me or others that comment, would you not say that's a tab judgemental yourself? Interestedofessex
  • Score: -5

11:42am Tue 21 Jan 14

Eric the Red says...

Marvellous how I've survived 55 years'/350,000 miles of cycling (mostly sans helmet) isn't it?
Marvellous how I've survived 55 years'/350,000 miles of cycling (mostly sans helmet) isn't it? Eric the Red
  • Score: 4

12:02pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Eric the Red says...

Try this policy summary from the CTC - Britain's largest cycling body, representing 70,000+ members in the matters of cycling rights, safety and technical matters. CTC has long campaigned against helmet laws. Campaigners and politicians perenially attempt to make their name by proposing legislation to force people to wear helmets. CTC aims to prevent these moves by explaining the damage such legislation could bring.
However CTC is not only concerned about the harmful effects of mandatory helmet use. By creating exaggerated perceptions of the risks of cycling, even voluntary helmet promotion campaigns have been found to deter some people from cycling. Given that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by around 20:1 (one recent study put it at 77:1), it can be shown that only a very small reduction in cycle use is needed for helmet promotion (let alone helmet laws) to shorten more lives than helmets themselves could possibly save, regardless of how effective helmets might be.
On the other hand, CTC does not however take a view on whether or not it is beneficial for individual cyclists to wear helmets – in that respect, we are neither 'pro-' nor 'anti'-helmet. The evidence on this question is complex and contradictory, providing as much support for those who are deeply sceptical of helmets as for those who swear by them.
Whether or not it is a good idea to wear a helmet may depend on both the rider and the type of cycling they are doing. However, given the extent to which the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks involved, CTC's view is that it is more important to encourage people to cycle, than whether or not they wear helmets when doing so. Cycling should be promoted as an essentially safe, normal and enjoyable transport and leisure activity, which anyone can do in whatever clothes they prefer to wear, with or without helmets.
For more information, see CTC's campaigns briefing and our overview of the evidence on helmets
Try this policy summary from the CTC - Britain's largest cycling body, representing 70,000+ members in the matters of cycling rights, safety and technical matters. CTC has long campaigned against helmet laws. Campaigners and politicians perenially attempt to make their name by proposing legislation to force people to wear helmets. CTC aims to prevent these moves by explaining the damage such legislation could bring. However CTC is not only concerned about the harmful effects of mandatory helmet use. By creating exaggerated perceptions of the risks of cycling, even voluntary helmet promotion campaigns have been found to deter some people from cycling. Given that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by around 20:1 (one recent study put it at 77:1), it can be shown that only a very small reduction in cycle use is needed for helmet promotion (let alone helmet laws) to shorten more lives than helmets themselves could possibly save, regardless of how effective helmets might be. On the other hand, CTC does not however take a view on whether or not it is beneficial for individual cyclists to wear helmets – in that respect, we are neither 'pro-' nor 'anti'-helmet. The evidence on this question is complex and contradictory, providing as much support for those who are deeply sceptical of helmets as for those who swear by them. Whether or not it is a good idea to wear a helmet may depend on both the rider and the type of cycling they are doing. However, given the extent to which the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks involved, CTC's view is that it is more important to encourage people to cycle, than whether or not they wear helmets when doing so. Cycling should be promoted as an essentially safe, normal and enjoyable transport and leisure activity, which anyone can do in whatever clothes they prefer to wear, with or without helmets. For more information, see CTC's campaigns briefing and our overview of the evidence on helmets Eric the Red
  • Score: 6

1:00pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Benefit-Scrounger says...

sjwilson wrote:
Dear Benefit-Scrounger

Really why are you so Mean to people, You know Karma will come back and bite you..

Nasty Troll!!!
Because I'm just a mean person.
[quote][p][bold]sjwilson[/bold] wrote: Dear Benefit-Scrounger Really why are you so Mean to people, You know Karma will come back and bite you.. Nasty Troll!!![/p][/quote]Because I'm just a mean person. Benefit-Scrounger
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Benefit-Scrounger says...

sjwilson wrote:
Dear Benefit-Scrounger

Really why are you so Mean to people, You know Karma will come back and bite you..

Nasty Troll!!!
Because I'm just a mean person.
[quote][p][bold]sjwilson[/bold] wrote: Dear Benefit-Scrounger Really why are you so Mean to people, You know Karma will come back and bite you.. Nasty Troll!!![/p][/quote]Because I'm just a mean person. Benefit-Scrounger
  • Score: -1

2:09pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Matt - Kent says...

Wearing a helmet is a personal choice. I for one always have and always will wear one.
Wearing a helmet is a personal choice. I for one always have and always will wear one. Matt - Kent
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Tue 21 Jan 14

bazza 1 says...

burtthebike wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also.

Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so.

The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative.

If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is.

Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org
Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time.
bazza, so sorry you think my comment is drivel. Perhaps you could point out a few of the factual errors I've made, and I'll gladly correct them.
Mate I would not know where to start. Sorry.
Just start, I can take it.

Or if you can't prove any of the facts I've stated to be wrong, then just admit it rather than making silly comments. And if you can't prove them wrong, then at least have the grace to admit that they are right and you are wrong.

Additional cojones can be purchased on line if you haven't got enough.
Sorry mate, but why does any one need to prove you wrong by itemizing and discrediting your so called facts. You are using reasons that frankly have no bearing on the subject at hand. The doctor fell off his bike. He hit his head. His helmet saved him from serious injury. I have fallen from my bike (yes you are not the only cyclist on here) I hit my head. My helmet saved me from a fractured skull. These are facts I can relate to. I don't need to disprove yours. Also if you don't know the proper word, it is Testicles, and I already have some. Have a good day, and stay safe on your bike.
[quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also. Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so. The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative. If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is. Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org[/p][/quote]Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time.[/p][/quote]bazza, so sorry you think my comment is drivel. Perhaps you could point out a few of the factual errors I've made, and I'll gladly correct them.[/p][/quote]Mate I would not know where to start. Sorry.[/p][/quote]Just start, I can take it. Or if you can't prove any of the facts I've stated to be wrong, then just admit it rather than making silly comments. And if you can't prove them wrong, then at least have the grace to admit that they are right and you are wrong. Additional cojones can be purchased on line if you haven't got enough.[/p][/quote]Sorry mate, but why does any one need to prove you wrong by itemizing and discrediting your so called facts. You are using reasons that frankly have no bearing on the subject at hand. The doctor fell off his bike. He hit his head. His helmet saved him from serious injury. I have fallen from my bike (yes you are not the only cyclist on here) I hit my head. My helmet saved me from a fractured skull. These are facts I can relate to. I don't need to disprove yours. Also if you don't know the proper word, it is Testicles, and I already have some. Have a good day, and stay safe on your bike. bazza 1
  • Score: -6

5:48pm Tue 21 Jan 14

burtthebike says...

Interestedofessex wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
Interestedofessex wrote:
I have personally seen two cyclist helmets from cyclists that came off their bikes during the London to Brighton. Both helmets were a mess and both cyclists were unscathed (on their heads - their legs were a mess!) I don't think there is any harm in advising people it is a good idea to wear them - if there is a 1% chance it will help save you in an accident, then it's worth wearing it. Should it be made law - no. Personal choice, as should be the wearing of seat belts in cars. If people choose not to wear them, it simply assists in the process of Darwinism!
I'm afraid you're mistaking anecdote for data.

An interesting point about Darwinism though, even if you have got it completely the wrong way around. Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live longer, are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population. It is riskier not to ride a bike than to ride one.

In the middle of an obesity epidemic which will shorten millions of lives and is largely caused by a lack of exercise, helmet promotion like this which has the sole effect of reducing exercise levels, is frankly insane.
I'm afraid you are wrapped up somewhat in 'data', whereas I prefer real life. I know what I saw that day and I know if the damage caused to the helmets had been transferred to their heads, the injuries would have been severe. These are two pieces of data for you. Furthermore, if you attend large scale cycle events such as these, you will note that the vast majority of the 'proper cyclists' as oppose fund raisers with bikes - wear helmets. In fact, the majority of the overweight day trippers with their brand new bikes are the ones without the helmets - kind of turns your theory on its head. Sorry I am relying on my own eyes again, rather than believing propaganda, I mean data.....
Just a final anecdote, most of your account relates to how fit regular cyclists are and the fact they live longer etc etc. if the same regular cyclists wear helmets - does this mean they suddenly live shorter lives and get fact? I do agree that to cycle without a helmet is probably better for you than not cycling atall - but to promote the use (not legislate) of helmets, can only be a good thing - I would find it odd anybody who is against this as I've not seen a case of a helmet killing a cyclist.
I'm sorry interestedofessex, but if you are scientifically illiterate I don't see it as my job to educate you.
[quote][p][bold]Interestedofessex[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Interestedofessex[/bold] wrote: I have personally seen two cyclist helmets from cyclists that came off their bikes during the London to Brighton. Both helmets were a mess and both cyclists were unscathed (on their heads - their legs were a mess!) I don't think there is any harm in advising people it is a good idea to wear them - if there is a 1% chance it will help save you in an accident, then it's worth wearing it. Should it be made law - no. Personal choice, as should be the wearing of seat belts in cars. If people choose not to wear them, it simply assists in the process of Darwinism![/p][/quote]I'm afraid you're mistaking anecdote for data. An interesting point about Darwinism though, even if you have got it completely the wrong way around. Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live longer, are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population. It is riskier not to ride a bike than to ride one. In the middle of an obesity epidemic which will shorten millions of lives and is largely caused by a lack of exercise, helmet promotion like this which has the sole effect of reducing exercise levels, is frankly insane.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid you are wrapped up somewhat in 'data', whereas I prefer real life. I know what I saw that day and I know if the damage caused to the helmets had been transferred to their heads, the injuries would have been severe. These are two pieces of data for you. Furthermore, if you attend large scale cycle events such as these, you will note that the vast majority of the 'proper cyclists' as oppose fund raisers with bikes - wear helmets. In fact, the majority of the overweight day trippers with their brand new bikes are the ones without the helmets - kind of turns your theory on its head. Sorry I am relying on my own eyes again, rather than believing propaganda, I mean data..... Just a final anecdote, most of your account relates to how fit regular cyclists are and the fact they live longer etc etc. if the same regular cyclists wear helmets - does this mean they suddenly live shorter lives and get fact? I do agree that to cycle without a helmet is probably better for you than not cycling atall - but to promote the use (not legislate) of helmets, can only be a good thing - I would find it odd anybody who is against this as I've not seen a case of a helmet killing a cyclist.[/p][/quote]I'm sorry interestedofessex, but if you are scientifically illiterate I don't see it as my job to educate you. burtthebike
  • Score: 9

5:54pm Tue 21 Jan 14

burtthebike says...

bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also.

Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so.

The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative.

If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is.

Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org
Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time.
bazza, so sorry you think my comment is drivel. Perhaps you could point out a few of the factual errors I've made, and I'll gladly correct them.
Mate I would not know where to start. Sorry.
Just start, I can take it.

Or if you can't prove any of the facts I've stated to be wrong, then just admit it rather than making silly comments. And if you can't prove them wrong, then at least have the grace to admit that they are right and you are wrong.

Additional cojones can be purchased on line if you haven't got enough.
Sorry mate, but why does any one need to prove you wrong by itemizing and discrediting your so called facts. You are using reasons that frankly have no bearing on the subject at hand. The doctor fell off his bike. He hit his head. His helmet saved him from serious injury. I have fallen from my bike (yes you are not the only cyclist on here) I hit my head. My helmet saved me from a fractured skull. These are facts I can relate to. I don't need to disprove yours. Also if you don't know the proper word, it is Testicles, and I already have some. Have a good day, and stay safe on your bike.
Just admitting you were wrong would have done, without the transparently obvious failure to try to justify yourself. I post proven facts, you post unproven opinions and anecdotes. You claim my post was drivel but cannot disprove a single thing I've said.

Just try reading a bit on cyclehelmets.org and you might realise that you've been taken in by the propaganda. It's no shame, millions of people have been.
[quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also. Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so. The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative. If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is. Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org[/p][/quote]Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time.[/p][/quote]bazza, so sorry you think my comment is drivel. Perhaps you could point out a few of the factual errors I've made, and I'll gladly correct them.[/p][/quote]Mate I would not know where to start. Sorry.[/p][/quote]Just start, I can take it. Or if you can't prove any of the facts I've stated to be wrong, then just admit it rather than making silly comments. And if you can't prove them wrong, then at least have the grace to admit that they are right and you are wrong. Additional cojones can be purchased on line if you haven't got enough.[/p][/quote]Sorry mate, but why does any one need to prove you wrong by itemizing and discrediting your so called facts. You are using reasons that frankly have no bearing on the subject at hand. The doctor fell off his bike. He hit his head. His helmet saved him from serious injury. I have fallen from my bike (yes you are not the only cyclist on here) I hit my head. My helmet saved me from a fractured skull. These are facts I can relate to. I don't need to disprove yours. Also if you don't know the proper word, it is Testicles, and I already have some. Have a good day, and stay safe on your bike.[/p][/quote]Just admitting you were wrong would have done, without the transparently obvious failure to try to justify yourself. I post proven facts, you post unproven opinions and anecdotes. You claim my post was drivel but cannot disprove a single thing I've said. Just try reading a bit on cyclehelmets.org and you might realise that you've been taken in by the propaganda. It's no shame, millions of people have been. burtthebike
  • Score: 2

6:31pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Interestedofessex says...

burtthebike - what a shame you you chose to ignore all the points I made, yet seem to demand others listen to yours. Interestingly, I have been onto the website you promote so much and read some of the observations regarding the law being introduced in Australia - it does detail some of what you say, but also shows after an initial drop, the amount of those cycling to work increased again in certain areas and was attributed to these areas promoting cycle use. This shows that with the right education, there can be a take up of people cycling who do wear helmets - your 'scientific' website states this...
burtthebike - what a shame you you chose to ignore all the points I made, yet seem to demand others listen to yours. Interestingly, I have been onto the website you promote so much and read some of the observations regarding the law being introduced in Australia - it does detail some of what you say, but also shows after an initial drop, the amount of those cycling to work increased again in certain areas and was attributed to these areas promoting cycle use. This shows that with the right education, there can be a take up of people cycling who do wear helmets - your 'scientific' website states this... Interestedofessex
  • Score: -8

8:33pm Tue 21 Jan 14

bazza 1 says...

burtthebike wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also.

Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so.

The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative.

If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is.

Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org
Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time.
bazza, so sorry you think my comment is drivel. Perhaps you could point out a few of the factual errors I've made, and I'll gladly correct them.
Mate I would not know where to start. Sorry.
Just start, I can take it.

Or if you can't prove any of the facts I've stated to be wrong, then just admit it rather than making silly comments. And if you can't prove them wrong, then at least have the grace to admit that they are right and you are wrong.

Additional cojones can be purchased on line if you haven't got enough.
Sorry mate, but why does any one need to prove you wrong by itemizing and discrediting your so called facts. You are using reasons that frankly have no bearing on the subject at hand. The doctor fell off his bike. He hit his head. His helmet saved him from serious injury. I have fallen from my bike (yes you are not the only cyclist on here) I hit my head. My helmet saved me from a fractured skull. These are facts I can relate to. I don't need to disprove yours. Also if you don't know the proper word, it is Testicles, and I already have some. Have a good day, and stay safe on your bike.
Just admitting you were wrong would have done, without the transparently obvious failure to try to justify yourself. I post proven facts, you post unproven opinions and anecdotes. You claim my post was drivel but cannot disprove a single thing I've said.

Just try reading a bit on cyclehelmets.org and you might realise that you've been taken in by the propaganda. It's no shame, millions of people have been.
It still sounds like drivel to me mate. Sorry.
[quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also. Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so. The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative. If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is. Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org[/p][/quote]Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time.[/p][/quote]bazza, so sorry you think my comment is drivel. Perhaps you could point out a few of the factual errors I've made, and I'll gladly correct them.[/p][/quote]Mate I would not know where to start. Sorry.[/p][/quote]Just start, I can take it. Or if you can't prove any of the facts I've stated to be wrong, then just admit it rather than making silly comments. And if you can't prove them wrong, then at least have the grace to admit that they are right and you are wrong. Additional cojones can be purchased on line if you haven't got enough.[/p][/quote]Sorry mate, but why does any one need to prove you wrong by itemizing and discrediting your so called facts. You are using reasons that frankly have no bearing on the subject at hand. The doctor fell off his bike. He hit his head. His helmet saved him from serious injury. I have fallen from my bike (yes you are not the only cyclist on here) I hit my head. My helmet saved me from a fractured skull. These are facts I can relate to. I don't need to disprove yours. Also if you don't know the proper word, it is Testicles, and I already have some. Have a good day, and stay safe on your bike.[/p][/quote]Just admitting you were wrong would have done, without the transparently obvious failure to try to justify yourself. I post proven facts, you post unproven opinions and anecdotes. You claim my post was drivel but cannot disprove a single thing I've said. Just try reading a bit on cyclehelmets.org and you might realise that you've been taken in by the propaganda. It's no shame, millions of people have been.[/p][/quote]It still sounds like drivel to me mate. Sorry. bazza 1
  • Score: -12

10:18pm Tue 21 Jan 14

burtthebike says...

bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also.

Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so.

The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative.

If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is.

Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org
Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time.
bazza, so sorry you think my comment is drivel. Perhaps you could point out a few of the factual errors I've made, and I'll gladly correct them.
Mate I would not know where to start. Sorry.
Just start, I can take it.

Or if you can't prove any of the facts I've stated to be wrong, then just admit it rather than making silly comments. And if you can't prove them wrong, then at least have the grace to admit that they are right and you are wrong.

Additional cojones can be purchased on line if you haven't got enough.
Sorry mate, but why does any one need to prove you wrong by itemizing and discrediting your so called facts. You are using reasons that frankly have no bearing on the subject at hand. The doctor fell off his bike. He hit his head. His helmet saved him from serious injury. I have fallen from my bike (yes you are not the only cyclist on here) I hit my head. My helmet saved me from a fractured skull. These are facts I can relate to. I don't need to disprove yours. Also if you don't know the proper word, it is Testicles, and I already have some. Have a good day, and stay safe on your bike.
Just admitting you were wrong would have done, without the transparently obvious failure to try to justify yourself. I post proven facts, you post unproven opinions and anecdotes. You claim my post was drivel but cannot disprove a single thing I've said.

Just try reading a bit on cyclehelmets.org and you might realise that you've been taken in by the propaganda. It's no shame, millions of people have been.
It still sounds like drivel to me mate. Sorry.
You called my original post drivel, were then asked to justify your claims twice and failed to do so. I'm sure the readers will be able to discern where the drivel comes from.
[quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also. Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so. The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative. If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is. Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org[/p][/quote]Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time.[/p][/quote]bazza, so sorry you think my comment is drivel. Perhaps you could point out a few of the factual errors I've made, and I'll gladly correct them.[/p][/quote]Mate I would not know where to start. Sorry.[/p][/quote]Just start, I can take it. Or if you can't prove any of the facts I've stated to be wrong, then just admit it rather than making silly comments. And if you can't prove them wrong, then at least have the grace to admit that they are right and you are wrong. Additional cojones can be purchased on line if you haven't got enough.[/p][/quote]Sorry mate, but why does any one need to prove you wrong by itemizing and discrediting your so called facts. You are using reasons that frankly have no bearing on the subject at hand. The doctor fell off his bike. He hit his head. His helmet saved him from serious injury. I have fallen from my bike (yes you are not the only cyclist on here) I hit my head. My helmet saved me from a fractured skull. These are facts I can relate to. I don't need to disprove yours. Also if you don't know the proper word, it is Testicles, and I already have some. Have a good day, and stay safe on your bike.[/p][/quote]Just admitting you were wrong would have done, without the transparently obvious failure to try to justify yourself. I post proven facts, you post unproven opinions and anecdotes. You claim my post was drivel but cannot disprove a single thing I've said. Just try reading a bit on cyclehelmets.org and you might realise that you've been taken in by the propaganda. It's no shame, millions of people have been.[/p][/quote]It still sounds like drivel to me mate. Sorry.[/p][/quote]You called my original post drivel, were then asked to justify your claims twice and failed to do so. I'm sure the readers will be able to discern where the drivel comes from. burtthebike
  • Score: 12

2:49pm Wed 22 Jan 14

bazza 1 says...

burtthebike wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
bazza 1 wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also.

Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so.

The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative.

If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is.

Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org
Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time.
bazza, so sorry you think my comment is drivel. Perhaps you could point out a few of the factual errors I've made, and I'll gladly correct them.
Mate I would not know where to start. Sorry.
Just start, I can take it.

Or if you can't prove any of the facts I've stated to be wrong, then just admit it rather than making silly comments. And if you can't prove them wrong, then at least have the grace to admit that they are right and you are wrong.

Additional cojones can be purchased on line if you haven't got enough.
Sorry mate, but why does any one need to prove you wrong by itemizing and discrediting your so called facts. You are using reasons that frankly have no bearing on the subject at hand. The doctor fell off his bike. He hit his head. His helmet saved him from serious injury. I have fallen from my bike (yes you are not the only cyclist on here) I hit my head. My helmet saved me from a fractured skull. These are facts I can relate to. I don't need to disprove yours. Also if you don't know the proper word, it is Testicles, and I already have some. Have a good day, and stay safe on your bike.
Just admitting you were wrong would have done, without the transparently obvious failure to try to justify yourself. I post proven facts, you post unproven opinions and anecdotes. You claim my post was drivel but cannot disprove a single thing I've said.

Just try reading a bit on cyclehelmets.org and you might realise that you've been taken in by the propaganda. It's no shame, millions of people have been.
It still sounds like drivel to me mate. Sorry.
You called my original post drivel, were then asked to justify your claims twice and failed to do so. I'm sure the readers will be able to discern where the drivel comes from.
Ooops ! There you go again. Check out the votes mate. You might get a surprise. Have a good day, and stay safe on the bike.
[quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bazza 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: Such a shame that a doctor is quite so misinformed about cycle helmets. Nowhere with a rise in helmet wearing, whether due to laws or propaganda campaigns, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Drivers pass closer to cyclists wearing one, and helmeted cyclists have 14% more collisions. The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, so if the good doctor wishes to be consistent, he will wear a helmet while walking and encourage his patients to do so also. Regular cyclists, those most exposed to the risk, live two years longer, and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it is more dangerous not to ride than to do so. The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda like this, are a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets. Because the people deterred from cycling by the helmet propaganda then lose the overwhelming health benefits, they get sicker quicker and die earlier, so the population level effects are very large and very negative. If other places can make cycling safe without helmets, and the places with helmet laws aren't safer, why would anyone promote helmets as the answer to cycling safety? Helmets don't make you safer, controlling the risk caused by those lethal weapons, cars, is. Perhaps Dr Chaturvedi might like to check a few facts, which he can find at cyclehelmets.org[/p][/quote]Don't think I've read quite so much drivel in one comment in a long time.[/p][/quote]bazza, so sorry you think my comment is drivel. Perhaps you could point out a few of the factual errors I've made, and I'll gladly correct them.[/p][/quote]Mate I would not know where to start. Sorry.[/p][/quote]Just start, I can take it. Or if you can't prove any of the facts I've stated to be wrong, then just admit it rather than making silly comments. And if you can't prove them wrong, then at least have the grace to admit that they are right and you are wrong. Additional cojones can be purchased on line if you haven't got enough.[/p][/quote]Sorry mate, but why does any one need to prove you wrong by itemizing and discrediting your so called facts. You are using reasons that frankly have no bearing on the subject at hand. The doctor fell off his bike. He hit his head. His helmet saved him from serious injury. I have fallen from my bike (yes you are not the only cyclist on here) I hit my head. My helmet saved me from a fractured skull. These are facts I can relate to. I don't need to disprove yours. Also if you don't know the proper word, it is Testicles, and I already have some. Have a good day, and stay safe on your bike.[/p][/quote]Just admitting you were wrong would have done, without the transparently obvious failure to try to justify yourself. I post proven facts, you post unproven opinions and anecdotes. You claim my post was drivel but cannot disprove a single thing I've said. Just try reading a bit on cyclehelmets.org and you might realise that you've been taken in by the propaganda. It's no shame, millions of people have been.[/p][/quote]It still sounds like drivel to me mate. Sorry.[/p][/quote]You called my original post drivel, were then asked to justify your claims twice and failed to do so. I'm sure the readers will be able to discern where the drivel comes from.[/p][/quote]Ooops ! There you go again. Check out the votes mate. You might get a surprise. Have a good day, and stay safe on the bike. bazza 1
  • Score: -9

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree