First serious accident I have had on my bike. From what I have read Carbon Fibre frames are only designed to take stress in certain directions. One of my best mates who owned a bike shop for many years said he personally wouldn’t ride it again. He said stress fractures can be internal and not visible to the naked eye.
I think it is on house and contents. I’m going after both car drivers first, see if I can claim through their insurance. There seems to be lots of grey areas.
Nope, it’s supposed to do that. It demonstrates it has done it’s job. Rather a cracked helmet than a fractured skull.
The two things are not necessarily linked. The lowest injury rates are in areas with the least helmet use.
I know Very much depends on the type of roads, riders and drivers. Not many people wear them in Amsterdam (although more nowadays) but the roads are set up to provide cyclists with priority In my opinion though they don't do any harm
Let’s not derail the thread on helmet debates. Helmets are designed to do this rather than your skull. I for one am glad I was wearing one as I very much doubt I would be here if I wasn’t.
Any argument for wearing a helmet on a bike, is actually a stronger argument if the same logic is applied to pedestrians, and even car drivers. Would you advocate pedestrians wear helmets or in a car? According to the experts, they are only of use at speeds and impact forces where head injuries wouldn't occur anyway. They can increase the risk of injury directly, through strap or rotation, and they increase the overall false perception that cycling is dangerous, reducing the numbers of cyclists. They give a false sense of safety, increasing risk taking by the wearer, and also cause drivers to go nearer, and increase the risk of injury. Boxing withdrew head guards, as the net result was more head injuries. If the money spent on helmets had been put into meaningful road sharing awareness, then safety would be far better served than through wearing a plastic cup. EDIT: Just to add, another danger in making claims for helmets that the facts can't back up, is that it supports the claims for compulsory wearing, which have shown to reduce cycling as it gives the false perception that it is dangerous and increase the accident rate as it fools cyclists and drivers in to thinking they are protected.
Actually, the design doesn't claim that, and the Standards do not support that for any meaningful impact.
Neither group is an expert on the physics of helmet design. Their opinion, which is all that it is, is largely irrelevant. Court cases have shown that not wearing a helmet cannot be deemed a contributory factor in compensation claims, as the best legal minds of the insurance industry couldn't demonstrate that helmets are effective at anything other than low impact at a short distance. ie a toddler walking.
You don’t seem to have nailed poetry... Joking of course, I’m glad you’re on the mend, keep going buddy.
Best wishes GLP for a full recovery, good to hear your progress. Certainly puts footie and all the petty bickering that goes on in perspective. Good luck, all the best.
