I was wearing one

"Niv" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:TomCc.166$UF6.5@newsfe3-gui...

Quoted message said:

...a helmet that is, when something fell off a tree and
bounced off my head. Don't think it was large but
certainly made a loud thud! Anyway, let's keep helmets
optional, stop all this compulsory nonsense.

Niv.

...

So that's helmets for pedestrians as well then?

Or anyone else who stands around under trees?

Soon to be compulsory.....in a park near you.

Curious

...

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:19:38 +0100, Dr Curious <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

...

So that's helmets for pedestrians as well then?

Or anyone else who stands around under trees?

Soon to be compulsory.....in a park near you.

I'm more inclined to wear a helmet when going through parks
(and country paths/tracks) not because of things falling on
me but because of tree branches, twigs, brambles etc
sticking out in my path. At pedestrian speeds they're easily
avoidable or non-dangerous but my helmet has taken quite a
few *clunks* and *slaps* when encountering overgrown
vegetation that my skull and face wouldn't have enjoyed.

Not an argument for compulsory wearing of helmets though.

Frink

--
Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail' See his mind
here : cmp.liv.ac.ukfrinkOpen ↗ Annoy his mind here :
pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook "No sir, I didn't like
it!" - Mr Horse

"Doctor J. Frink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dr Curious said:

...

So that's helmets for pedestrians as well then?

Or anyone else who stands around under trees?

Soon to be compulsory.....in a park near you.

I'm more inclined to wear a helmet when going through
parks (and country paths/tracks) not because of things
falling on me but because of tree branches, twigs,
brambles etc sticking out in my path. At pedestrian speeds
they're easily avoidable or non-dangerous but my helmet
has taken quite a few *clunks* and *slaps* when
encountering overgrown vegetation that my skull and face
wouldn't have enjoyed.

Not an argument for compulsory wearing of helmets though.

During childbirth my skull wasn't quite fully formed .. how
about a small snip, place a tiny helmet and then natural
childbirth? Do I sound like the craziest in the room?

In message <TomCc.166$UF6.5@newsfe3-gui>, Niv
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

...a helmet that is, when something fell off a tree and
bounced off my head. Don't think it was large but certainly
made a loud thud! Anyway, let's keep helmets optional, stop
all this compulsory nonsense.

Roll on the conker season!

--
Sue ];(🙂

Quoted message said:

...a helmet that is, when something fell off a tree and
bounced off my head. Don't think it was large but
certainly made a loud thud!

Another kamikaze squirrel?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Mark Thompson
> ...a helmet that is, when something fell off a tree and

Quoted message said:

bounced off my head. Don't think it was large but
certainly made a loud thud!

Ban trees! Thats what I say.

Doctor J. Frink said:

Dr Curious said:

...

So that's helmets for pedestrians as well then?

Or anyone else who stands around under trees?

Soon to be compulsory.....in a park near you.

I'm more inclined to wear a helmet when going through
parks (and country paths/tracks) not because of things
falling on me but because of tree branches, twigs,
brambles etc sticking out in my path. At pedestrian speeds
they're easily avoidable or non-dangerous but my helmet
has taken quite a few *clunks* and *slaps* when
encountering overgrown vegetation that my skull and face
wouldn't have enjoyed.

Any that wouldn't have touched you at all had you not been
wearing a helmet?

Quoted message said:

Not an argument for compulsory wearing of helmets though.

--
Keith Willoughby flat222.orgkeithOpen ↗ There's a song
about Alice

On 23/6/04 11:05 pm, in article [email hidden],

Doctor J. Frink said:

I'm more inclined to wear a helmet when going through
parks (and country paths/tracks) not because of things
falling on me but because of tree branches, twigs,
brambles etc sticking out in my path. At pedestrian speeds
they're easily avoidable or non-dangerous but my helmet
has taken quite a few *clunks* and *slaps* when
encountering overgrown vegetation that my skull and face
wouldn't have enjoyed.

I tend to use my eyes when cycling so that I can see
branches and other obstructions. I then ride so that I don't
hit them. I find that to be an effective way of avoiding
head injuries from overhanging vegetation.

Anyway, Many many years ago I was riding through my local
neighbourhood when I heard a loud thud on the helmet. A
brace of conkers had fallen off a tree and conked me on
the conk..

A few weeks later a similar thing happened except that they
missed my head and hit my knee instead, drawing blood from
the wound.

..d

David Martin said:

I tend to use my eyes when cycling so that I can see
branches and other obstructions. I then ride so that I
don't hit them.

All very well in theory, but if practice involves, say, an
MTB descent through woods then practice might not be so
easy. You could always roll around corners at speeds where
you can always pull up, but that may well be taken to be No
Fun At All.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111
ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382
640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net
[email hidden] dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Niv said:

...a helmet that is, when something fell off a tree and
bounced off my head. Don't think it was large but
certainly made a loud thud! Anyway, let's keep helmets
optional, stop all this compulsory nonsense.

Not another guano-related incident, surely?

Regards,

-david, seagull poo free (for now)

"Doctor J. Frink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm more inclined to wear a helmet when going through
parks (and country paths/tracks) not because of things
falling on me but because of tree branches, twigs,
brambles etc sticking out in my path. At pedestrian speeds
they're easily avoidable or non-dangerous but my helmet
has taken quite a few *clunks* and *slaps* when
encountering overgrown vegetation that my skull and face
wouldn't have enjoyed.

Not an argument for compulsory wearing of helmets though.

...

No it certainly isn't. What you choose to do in the
course of your activities when traumatising wildlife
should in no way impact on the activities of those of us
who choose to make use of the most efficient and non
polluting means of transport yet devised. On surfaces set
aside for that purpose.

Curious

...

Quoted message said:

Frink

--
Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail' See his mind
here : cmp.liv.ac.ukfrinkOpen ↗ Annoy his mind here
: pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook "No sir, I didn't
like it!" - Mr Horse

Peter Clinch said:

David Martin said:

I tend to use my eyes when cycling so that I can see
branches and other obstructions. I then ride so that I
don't hit them.

All very well in theory, but if practice involves, say, an
MTB descent through woods then practice might not be so
easy. You could always roll around corners at speeds where
you can always pull up, but that may well be taken to be
No Fun At All.

Fair enough.. I was thinking utility cycling through
parks/along cyclepaths and so on.

Ever ridden the green circular route? lots of overhanging
branches to avoid there..

..d

David Martin said:

Ever ridden the green circular route? lots of overhanging
branches to avoid there..

Bits of it. Alongside Riverside Drive to the dump they're
not so much overhanging as barging you off from the side...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111
ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382
640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net
[email hidden] dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Keith Willoughby said:

Doctor J. Frink said:

I'm more inclined to wear a helmet when going through
parks (and country paths/tracks) not because of things
falling on me but because of tree branches, twigs,
brambles etc sticking out in my path. At pedestrian
speeds they're easily avoidable or non-dangerous but my
helmet has taken quite a few *clunks* and *slaps* when
encountering overgrown vegetation that my skull and face
wouldn't have enjoyed.

Any that wouldn't have touched you at all had you not been
wearing a helmet?

Maybe a small fraction, but a lot is at face-height (when on
the bike). It's very simple to just dip the head, take the
*thwap* on the helmet and carry on unscathed.

Maybe I should ride around with a hedgetrimmer clamped to my
handlebars.

Frink

--
Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail' See his mind
here : cmp.liv.ac.ukfrinkOpen ↗ Annoy his mind here :
pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook "No sir, I didn't like
it!" - Mr Horse

David Martin said:

On 23/6/04 11:05 pm, in article
[email hidden], "Doctor J. Frink"

Quoted message said:

I'm more inclined to wear a helmet when going through
parks (and country paths/tracks) not because of things
falling on me but because of tree branches, twigs,
brambles etc sticking out in my path. At pedestrian
speeds they're easily avoidable or non-dangerous but my
helmet has taken quite a few *clunks* and *slaps* when
encountering overgrown vegetation that my skull and face
wouldn't have enjoyed.

I tend to use my eyes when cycling so that I can see
branches and other obstructions. I then ride so that I
don't hit them. I find that to be an effective way of
avoiding head injuries from overhanging vegetation.

So do I... when I can see them coming. A particular trait of
the redways round here is blind corners. I can either crawl
round them and give myself time to avoid vegetation or just
go round at a sensible speed and take a *boink* if
necessary. Or on canal paths where to avoid the overhangers
is to attempt divine sporting prowess (cycling on water).

Also hard to avoid if there's traffic (other bikes, peds)
coming the other way.

This is just my personal experience on some of the
routes I take.

Frink

--
Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail' See his mind
here : cmp.liv.ac.ukfrinkOpen ↗ Annoy his mind here :
pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook "No sir, I didn't like
it!" - Mr Horse

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:23:23 +0100, Dr Curious <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Doctor J. Frink" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm more inclined to wear a helmet when going through
parks (and country paths/tracks) not because of things
falling on me but because of tree branches, twigs,
brambles etc sticking out in my path. At pedestrian
speeds they're easily avoidable or non-dangerous but my
helmet has taken quite a few *clunks* and *slaps* when
encountering overgrown vegetation that my skull and face
wouldn't have enjoyed.

Not an argument for compulsory wearing of helmets though.

...

No it certainly isn't. What you choose to do in the course
of your activities when traumatising wildlife should in no
way impact

I don't traumatise wildlife. I'm an amateur wildlife
photographer so the last thing I want to do is scare off the
wildlife. There's precious little wildlife beyond urban
birds in places where I have need to get clonked on the head
by branches.

Quoted message said:

on the activities of those of us who choose to make use of
the most efficient and non polluting means of transport
yet devised.

That'd be me then wouldn't it, seeing as I'm utilising one
of these things and it is my only form of transport.

Quoted message said:

On surfaces set aside for that purpose.

That's exactly what I'm using when utilising cycleways and
shared use tracks, as well as Her Majesty's highways.

Frink

--
Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail' See his mind
here : cmp.liv.ac.ukfrinkOpen ↗ Annoy his mind here :
pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook "No sir, I didn't like
it!" - Mr Horse

On 24/6/04 2:51 pm, in article [email hidden],

Doctor J. Frink said:

So do I... when I can see them coming. A particular trait
of the redways round here is blind corners. I can either
crawl round them and give myself time to avoid vegetation
or just go round at a sensible speed and take a *boink* if
necessary.

And what about pedestrians and other cyclists? Do you just
boink them off your helmet too?

..d

"Doctor J. Frink" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dr Curious said:

"Doctor J. Frink" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm more inclined to wear a helmet when going through
parks (and

country

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

paths/tracks) not because of things falling on me but
because of tree branches, twigs, brambles etc sticking
out in my path. At pedestrian speeds they're easily
avoidable or non-dangerous but my helmet has

taken

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

quite a few *clunks* and *slaps* when encountering
overgrown

vegetation

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that my skull and face wouldn't have enjoyed.

Not an argument for compulsory wearing of helmets
though.

...

No it certainly isn't. What you choose to do in the
course of your activities when traumatising wildlife
should in no way impact

I don't traumatise wildlife. I'm an amateur wildlife
photographer so the last thing I want to do is scare off
the wildlife. There's precious little wildlife beyond
urban birds in places where I have need to get clonked on
the head by branches.

...

That's an interesting observation. So how do they keep the
wildlife away ? If there are trees one would imagine there'd
be other types of wildlife present as well. How can you be
so confident that you're simply not scaring all the wildlife
away with your approach?

The point being that before the utilisation of ATB's,
Scrambler bikes and FWD vehicles, disturbance of the off-
road countryside was limited to those sufficiently
determined to expend the energy to walk to these places.
Now it isn't.

As it isn't strictly necessary*, I personally regard all
such activity as intrusive and an unnecessary impostion on a
precious resource. Both for humans and wildlife.

Curious

* Strictly unecessary i.e sports and leisure cycling on
public roads and paths etc is entirely different because
that impact is forseen.

Quoted message said:

Frink

--
Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail' See his mind
here : cmp.liv.ac.ukfrinkOpen ↗ Annoy his mind here
: pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook "No sir, I didn't
like it!" - Mr Horse

David Martin said:

On 24/6/04 2:51 pm, in article
[email hidden], "Doctor J. Frink"

Quoted message said:

So do I... when I can see them coming. A particular trait
of the redways round here is blind corners. I can either
crawl round them and give myself time to avoid vegetation
or just go round at a sensible speed and take a *boink*
if necessary.

And what about pedestrians and other cyclists? Do you just
boink them off your helmet too?

I don't go flying round corners at 30mph. If there was a
cyclist on that side of the path then

e) they would be in the wrong because the rules of the
redways is you keep on the right hand side of the paths
f) I'd slam on the brakes

With pedestrians I would have more time to react and would
again brake to stop, or enough to go round them. There are
simply too many corners to be slowing to a crawl, I take
them fast enough to get me from A to B in a sensible time
but slow enough to stop if I have to. I'm not an idiot.

All I am saying is that I don't have to take sudden
diversions or brake suddenly just to avoid vegetation that's
heading towards my face. It gets the helmet treatment. And
yes, there are also some times when I just haven't seen the
offending branch (thin but often nastily thorny) until far
too late to stop.

This is a consequence of the paths I take round here and the
inability of the council to keep them well maintained.

Frink

--
Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail' See his mind
here : cmp.liv.ac.ukfrinkOpen ↗ Annoy his mind here :
pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook "No sir, I didn't like
it!" - Mr Horse