oooft

My_Teenage_Self":2ln4r4xw said:
I'd like to see the 'Helmets cause more injury than no helmet' crowd defend themselves against those pics! :LOL: :LOL:
At the risk of starting another helmet debate I don't think many non wearers would be doing that terrain at that speed. I know I wouldn't.

There are ways of minimising risk without resorting to polystyrene.
 
The Ken":i4k04eu7 said:
Not leaving the sofa?

As you know that is more dangerous than anything!

I know what T'UP is getting at, but if I think about motorbikes for a second, I had my worst tarmac kiss in the last three years doing about ten miles an hour or less, just happened to whack my head. Been off at forty plus and hurt much less.

Bike helmets (general use ones) are only tested to what? 12mph?

For downhill I would not wear less than a full face jobby.

When I had a HD I bought a wee skull cap helmet and goggles.

Only worn it once, just cannot bear the idea of what would happen if I hit the tarmac without protection for my chin.

If I had my way, helmets would be the law.

Lucky I don't have my way then.
 
I had the misfortune to catch a bit of Dancing on Ice the other week which got me thinking about helmets. Ice is very hard. They scoot round and the women get lifted up and spun around. Should they be wearing full body armour?

Speed skaters wear helmets. Skiers do. It's conceivable that a curler could slip and bang their head too. Where do you draw the line?
 
stewlewis":3dtlyg53 said:
Jesus! I reckon them bikes got scratched.

423712_10150661564661060_127066331059_11078429_1106836465_n.jpg
 
Joe Bar! Excellent!

Full face helmets and body armour also contribute to what JMC used to describe as invincibility - i.e. I can go faster than I should because it'll hurt less if I crash. Which itself is not totally true because the last time I broke a bone, no amount of body armour would have helped, unless I landed on a pile of it of course...
 
Back
Top