Forum Topic

" It is interesting how 'some' cycling campaigners don't wear hrlmets, not sure what the reasoning is behind that."This is not new  Why should they ?The reasoning behind it, is that the main proponents of cycling helmets have always been helmet manufacturers; using dubious stastistics mainly concerning Australian children; Along witn celebrity endoprsements from hard-of-thinking "nouveau's"; who were clearly cycling too fast for their middle-age reflexes to cope withIf you check I doubt you'll find few if any fatalities inmajor professional cycling races the tours or the classics going back to the start resulting from head injuries alone.Of the four fatalities which have occured during the 121 year history of the Tour De France for instance none were the result of head injuries.Nowadays the professionsls do what they're told to do by the teams and the sposnsors as they've always done in the past. So they were their helmets as orderdWith the result that head injuries are still a problemin the sport only nowadays its called concussion. Which is recoverable This is the result of the brain moving around inside the skull which even an impact absorbing helmet seemingly can't prevent.Helmets always show damage becaue that's exactly what they're designed to do. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the much tougher human skull would sustain similar damage  Ramsay's bruise is interesting. I recieved a similar bruise on my left arm solely as a result of stretching out and grabbing hold of a lampost for balance while stationary at some  traffic lights; and tearing a muscle in te process While cycling campaigners it seems are still insisting on the right of cyclists to ride along on on the inside of large vehicles going around left hand bends and corners where they are most likely to be unseen by the driver.Seeming totally unaware of the first rule of safe cycling; never assume that the person in the other vehicle can, or has necessarily seen you.michael adams   

Michael Adams ● 157d