No Helmets Needed?



"Mike Rice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 16:11:54 -0600, "HH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>><snip>
>>.
>>> Only a savage and a barbarian like Frank K. would sink that low.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>I'm only guessing, but I'd bet Frank K. has never been called a savage and
>>a
>>barbarian in rec.bicycles.misc. Not even in one of their stupid helmet
>>threads.
>>
>>Tough crowd in the recumbent room.
>>
>
> Not really tough crowd, just one crusty coot behind the curtain doiing
> his best to scare off the villagers. ARBR has been at a low ebb,
> you'll not often find a crowd there as of late.
>
> Indiana Mike

I am enlivening the group which would otherwise expire of terminal boredom.
ARBR has been done in by a criminal vandal troll. That is because most of us
on ARBR are elderly men who do not have much stomach for combat. As you can
so plainly see, I am the exception.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
Mike Rice wrote:
> ...
> I knew Mr. Dolan was aware he was cross-posting, something he has
> claimed to never do. And now I see why. He thirsts for new blood,
> having successfully (in secret partnership with Mr. Ed Gin)...

Do you have DEFINITIVE PROOF, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, of Ed Gin's
involvement?

There are many Monkeys on The Island, and some have never posted using
their real names.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
 
"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> HH wrote:
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> <snip>
>> .
>> > Only a savage and a barbarian like Frank K. would sink that low.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I'm only guessing, but I'd bet Frank K. has never been called a savage
>> and a
>> barbarian in rec.bicycles.misc. Not even in one of their stupid helmet
>> threads.
>>
>> Tough crowd in the recumbent room.
>
> See
> <http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/12/save-recumbent-community-join-lamfra.html>
> for one person's opinion. ;)

If I went to this link and saw something I did not like (an obscenity for
instance) I would have to spend the next half dozen posts taking Mr. Sherman
to the woodshed. I am tired of doing that, so I won't bother going to his
links anymore than I would bother going to the links of Ed Gin (the criminal
vandal troll who destroyed ARBR).

Mr. Sherman has always had a very strange sense of humor which I have never
understood. Truth to tell I am not amused by anything anymore. That is for
kids and dunces.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> ...
>> One thing to bear in mind with 'bents is they have rather different
>> performance characteristics to typical uprights. You'll typically be
>> slower up hills, faster into headwinds and down hills. This can be a
>> problem for all concerned if you're on a group tour on a hilly, windy
>> circuit, depending on how much folk are happy to wait up and take it at
>> a slowest pace. Lower machines can make life a little more awkward to
>> speak to folk next to you, and the fact that other folk can't draft you
>> can be an annoyance to some, though it'll depend on the group.
>> Something to bear in mind if you're into group riding though.
>
> The most annoying thing on larger group rides is when a cluster of
> upright cyclists spread out and take up the whole road (or whole lane
> when there is oncoming traffic) on a descent. This forces the rider on
> an aerodynamic recumbent to ride the brakes all the way down the hill.
> I am sure these same upright riders would be "pissing and moaning"
> if a slow group of Fat Old Geezers (FOGs) on recumbents did the same on
> an uphill section.

Recumbent cyclists like to go as fast as they can downhill to make up for
their turtle pace going uphill. However, no matter how fast recumbents go
downhill, they can never make it up. They will inevitably fall behind
uprights. If you aren't fast going uphill, you are not in the game.
Elementary, my dear Watson!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> writes:

> If I went to this link and saw something I did not like (an obscenity for
> instance) I would have to spend the next half dozen posts taking Mr. Sherman
> to the woodshed.

Yeah, fantasy can be so grueling.

> I am tired of doing that,

Scared-y cat.

> so I won't bother going to his
> links anymore than I would bother going to the links of Ed Gin (the criminal
> vandal troll who destroyed ARBR).
>
> Mr. Sherman has always had a very strange sense of humor which I have never
> understood.

It's understandable that humour escapes you.

> Regards,
Be fruitful, multiply, and go forth.

While you're at it, I suggest designing/building yourself
a real recumbent instead of buying that off-the-shelf,
pre-made,stock stuff that inept lusers such as yourself
resort to. Maybe it'll help improve your self-image.
Especially if you can ride it around the block without
tbe wheels falling off in the first hundred yards.


--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
"Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]
> While you're at it, I suggest designing/building yourself
> a real recumbent instead of buying that off-the-shelf,
> pre-made,stock stuff that inept lusers such as yourself
> resort to. Maybe it'll help improve your self-image.
> Especially if you can ride it around the block without
> tbe wheels falling off in the first hundred yards.

You bet, nothing like reinventing the wheel. That is what idiots do all the
time.

The only reason to build your own recumbent is to save some money.
Otherwise, it is a waste of time and effort. Anyone on RBM build their own
bikes? Of course not. That is because they have more brains than do we
recumbent cyclists.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> writes:

> The only reason to build your own recumbent is to save some money.
> Otherwise, it is a waste of time and effort. Anyone on RBM build their own
> bikes? Of course not.

You'd be surprised. You've gotcher tallbikes & chopperz --
things that are boldly in-yer-face, unlike your recessive,
shy, shrinking-violet street luges that wanna get run over
in the blind spots in front of cement trucks while you
introvertedly avoid eye-contact or any other communication
with fellow road users. Such self-wrapped cocoonery!

> That is because they have more brains than do we
> recumbent cyclists.

Not brains. Balls.

Speaking of which -- you're not so great after all, are you?


--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 23:55:11 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Rice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 16:42:36 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>[...]
>>>By advocating that cyclists should not wear helmets they are in effect
>>>committing murder by proxy.
>>
>> Not true. By asking people to look a the data they are exposing the
>> truth about h*lmets...that they will not protect you in a major head
>> impact truama. 'Murder by proxy' sounds like you believe that a h*lmet
>> will save your life, when in fact any impact of sufficient force to
>> kill you will do so regardless of whether or not you remembered to don
>> your foil lined stryfoam hat.
>>
>> I'm not advocated not wearing h*lmets, and I'm not advocating wearing
>> them either. I do think one should not expect protection from anything
>> more serious than minor scrapes & bruises. Proper riding skills are
>> much more effective at saving one's bacon than are the foam hats.
>>
>> I have fallen down more on my recumbent than I ever did on my upright,
>> of course I have riden much more since making the change as well. Most
>> of my spills have been comical low speed events, and I have never come
>> close to hitting my head on anything.
>
>My main point was that I do not want lay folks like you and me making
>decisions based on our reading of the data and/or a statistic because we are
>not qualified to know what to think. We are not expert in the field of
>safety. My appeal is to authority. As in all walks of life, it is best to
>leave most things in their hands.
>
>It is very dangerous to think for yourself about most matters. It is far
>better and safer to rely on the experts (in their field of expertise only)
>to do our thinking for us. That way we will live longer and healthier.
>
>If it is possible that you and Frank K. are right, then it will be up to you
>to convince the powers that be that you are right. It may be that you could
>become one of those powers yourself and then dictate to the rest of us what
>we should think about the matter. But until that day arrives, I will go with
>the status quo, thank you very much!
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan

You are welcome to your styro hat, I almost always wear one as well.
But I know it is mainly a psychological comfort, and some protection
in case of low impact events only.

Be careful to which experts you defer your thinking Ed. In the case of
H*lm*ts, the most vocal experts in favor are the manufacturers. I
believe their primary interest is the $.

Do you feel it is irrelevant that the safest area in the world for
cycling (the Netherlands) has perhaps the lowest incidence of h*lm*t
use? And what is your answer to the experts who point out that no
population has ever shown a decrease in head impact injury when h*lm*t
use increased?

I'm sure you are aware that h*lm*t threads take on a life of their
own. You've seen it many times before. It is your kind of thread. Most
folks have closed minds and will not think at all.

Indiana Mike
 
On 6 Jan 2006 22:13:41 -0800, "Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Mike Rice wrote:
>> ...
>> I knew Mr. Dolan was aware he was cross-posting, something he has
>> claimed to never do. And now I see why. He thirsts for new blood,
>> having successfully (in secret partnership with Mr. Ed Gin)...
>
>Do you have DEFINITIVE PROOF, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, of Ed Gin's
>involvement?
>
>There are many Monkeys on The Island, and some have never posted using
>their real names.

Ooh-Ooh-Ooh! I stand corrected.

I freely admit I have only the most minor suspicion as to Mr. Gin's
collusion with Mr. Dolan in this regard. I have personally never met
either of the gentlemen in question, and only mentioned them in the
same breath in hopes of stirring up our very prolific resident thorn.

How many times are you going to ask me for this proof? I get awfully
tired of your sidestepping the real issue at hand, you know. I've been
locked in this windowless room with no doors for so long that I have
forgotten whatever the butler did anyway.

The gun is still smoking.

Indiana Mike
 
On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 00:15:36 -0600, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> HH wrote:
>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> <snip>
>>> .
>>> > Only a savage and a barbarian like Frank K. would sink that low.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> I'm only guessing, but I'd bet Frank K. has never been called a savage
>>> and a
>>> barbarian in rec.bicycles.misc. Not even in one of their stupid helmet
>>> threads.
>>>
>>> Tough crowd in the recumbent room.
>>
>> See
>> <http://highracers.blogspot.com/2005/12/save-recumbent-community-join-lamfra.html>
>> for one person's opinion. ;)
>
>If I went to this link and saw something I did not like (an obscenity for
>instance) I would have to spend the next half dozen posts taking Mr. Sherman
>to the woodshed. I am tired of doing that, so I won't bother going to his
>links anymore than I would bother going to the links of Ed Gin (the criminal
>vandal troll who destroyed ARBR).
>
>Mr. Sherman has always had a very strange sense of humor which I have never
>understood. Truth to tell I am not amused by anything anymore. That is for
>kids and dunces.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the (snipped)

Since I know you won't look at this, and I think yuou might
apprecriate this particular item I will describe it for you, Ed.

This page has nothing offensive, only an invitation to join LAMFRA. It
appears to be a flyer, legend reads:
"Sick of loudmouth fascistswith frozen brains ruining the recumbent
community with their crybaby whining and right wing diatribes? You are
not alone." appearing above a graphic with the slashed circle in red
over a figure with an upraised fist riding a recumbent, and wearing a
hat emblazoned with a swastika.

Beneath the image reads:
"join LAMFRA: Lowracers Against Minnesota Fascist Recumbent Assholes"

Indiana Mike
 

> Be careful to which experts you defer your thinking Ed. In the case of
> H*lm*ts, the most vocal experts in favor are the manufacturers. I
> believe their primary interest is the $.

Actually the most vocal group is pediatricians, followed by doctors in
general. The manufacturers tend to be less vocal, because it would be
seen as too self-serving.

> Do you feel it is irrelevant that the safest area in the world for
> cycling (the Netherlands) has perhaps the lowest incidence of h*lm*t
> use?

The reason for this has been explained many times. It's due to
differences in cycling road infrastructure, the attitudes of drivers
towards cyclists, the near 100% use of lighting at night, etc. If you go
to the Netherlands, you'll understand the difference.

> And what is your answer to the experts who point out that no
> population has ever shown a decrease in head impact injury when h*lm*t
> use increased?

The population studies do show that a) cycling is not a dangerous
activity, and b) compulsion laws are a bad idea. But don't fall for the
junk science promulgated by people from the anti-compulsion side. They
have taken spurious correlation to levels usually only seen in fake
studies for OTC medications, herbal remedies, and diet pulls.

> I'm sure you are aware that h*lm*t threads take on a life of their
> own. You've seen it many times before. It is your kind of thread. Most
> folks have closed minds and will not think at all.

That's fine, but what's sad is when the people with closed minds cause
other people to close their minds as well.
 
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 03:29:52 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>> Be careful to which experts you defer your thinking Ed. In the case of
>> H*lm*ts, the most vocal experts in favor are the manufacturers. I
>> believe their primary interest is the $.
>
>Actually the most vocal group is pediatricians, followed by doctors in
>general. The manufacturers tend to be less vocal, because it would be
>seen as too self-serving.

I have a friend who is a physical therapist. He has had patients who
suffered debilitating head injury while riding without h*lm*ts and
will never have a normal life as a result. He is a h*lm*t proponent.

>
>> Do you feel it is irrelevant that the safest area in the world for
>> cycling (the Netherlands) has perhaps the lowest incidence of h*lm*t
>> use?
>
>The reason for this has been explained many times. It's due to
>differences in cycling road infrastructure, the attitudes of drivers
>towards cyclists, the near 100% use of lighting at night, etc. If you go
>to the Netherlands, you'll understand the difference.

I agree that these factors should have a much larger effect on cycling
safety than H*lm*t use.

>
>> And what is your answer to the experts who point out that no
>> population has ever shown a decrease in head impact injury when h*lm*t
>> use increased?
>
>The population studies do show that a) cycling is not a dangerous
>activity, and b) compulsion laws are a bad idea. But don't fall for the
>junk science promulgated by people from the anti-compulsion side. They
>have taken spurious correlation to levels usually only seen in fake
>studies for OTC medications, herbal remedies, and diet pulls.
>
>> I'm sure you are aware that h*lm*t threads take on a life of their
>> own. You've seen it many times before. It is your kind of thread. Most
>> folks have closed minds and will not think at all.
>
>That's fine, but what's sad is when the people with closed minds cause
>other people to close their minds as well.

Point taken. I am not trying to be anti-h*lm*t, I wear one most of the
time myself. After all, minor injuries are far more common than major
injuries, and a h*lm*t may well prevent some uncomfortable scrapes and
such. I still do not want to hit my head on pavement, even when
wearing my styro hat. The h*lm*t could excaberate a rotational injury.

One post in this thread had a quote in the nature of 'A helmet is a
good idea if you can convince yourself it will offer only slight
protection.' (paraphrased). Can we agree this is a reasonable view?

Indiana Mike
 
Mike Rice wrote:

> I have a friend who is a physical therapist. He has had patients who
> suffered debilitating head injury while riding without h*lm*ts and
> will never have a normal life as a result. He is a h*lm*t proponent.

I have a relative that is also a PT, and she's has the same
perspective. However I don't believe that doctors or PT's, who only
deal with the injured patients, have a balanced view. It's fine for
them to explain how helmets reduce the severity of head injuries, and
certainly the ER and accident data shows this to be beyond question,
but the number of such injuries is sufficiently low that compulsion, at
least for adults, is not warranted. It's better to approach the issue
through education, which will not alienate people.

Ironically the biggest contribution toward more compulsion is the rash
of junk science papers and articles generated by the anti-compulsion
forces. The medical community feels obliged to respond in some way, and
they have the respectability that is necessary to get the compulsion
laws pushed through.
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
> "The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>Anyone who does not wear SOMETHING on their blasted head when in the
>>>great out of doors is uncivilized. If you were civilized you would know
>>>this much at least. But you are a barbarian and a savage who goes about
>>>the world uncovered. You belong in New Guinea, not the Western World.
>>>
>>>In the good old days, a gentleman of culture and leisure such as myself
>>>would not be caught dead out of doors without SOMETHING on his blasted
>>>head. I blame President Kennedy for setting in motion this penchant for
>>>not wearing anything on your blasted head. Frank, I urge you, put
>>>SOMETHING on that blasted head of yours, most especially when you are
>>>riding your bike. Otherwise, you will look like the dork and the jerk
>>>that you are.
>>>
>>>I am also of the notion that grown men should not be wearing baseball
>>>style of caps. They are for nerdy teenagers, not dignified men of the
>>>world. Go back to the 1930's if you would know what we should be wearing
>>>on our blasted heads.
>>
>>I suppose that means we need to wear a wool suit, tie and spats, with
>>Oxfords to go along with that fedora. I spend 6 months of the year
>>wearing a touque outside, typically wear a ball cap during the summer,
>>when being active. They keep the sun off your head, the sun out of your
>>eyes, work well for keeping rain out of your eyes as well.
>
>
> I do not like any kind of caps. Hats are what is called for for grown men.
> Caps are for kids. Men wearing caps look absurd. They look dorky and jerky.

In winter, I would rather be a warm dork, then, well there has never
been a proper hat, designed for winter use, except maybe those Russian
things made from dead animal fur. They are heavy, and really kind of ugly.

> But most men dress like slobs these days in every respect. Men who wear blue
> jeans are especially hideous.The fatter and uglier we get, the worse we
> dress. The only solution is the grave when the world will be rid of our
> loathsome presence.

There is, of course, a solution to that, more human powered miles, fewer
car miles. The more calories you burn, given the same amount of food,
the less weight you need to worry about.

> I refer you to the good old days of the 1930's and 1940's when men looked
> like men with proper hats on their heads. Apparently those days are gone
> forever and we are doomed to go into the future looking like very old kids
> with beanies on our heads and blue jeans on our asses. It is really quite
> laughable.

If one does no physical activity faster then a walk or cycles at less
then 7MPH, and does so only when the temperature is between 40F and 75F
then clothing from those days would make sense. Mind you the
practicality of denim outside of those temperature regions, also doesn't
make sense, because it chaffs in the summer, and since it's cotton, it
simply gets cold and wet in winter.

One thing we have really gained, recently is activity centred clothing,
where the way you dress, is indictive of activity, the stuffed shirt can
wear a shirt and tie. The cyclist can wear cycling clothes, the hiker
can wear hiking clothes (other then the pocket placement, and no need of
a chamios) this is similar to cycling clothing.

W
 
Mike Rice wrote:

> I have a friend who is a physical therapist. He has had patients who
> suffered debilitating head injury while riding without h*lm*ts and
> will never have a normal life as a result. He is a h*lm*t proponent.

Um, shouldn't you asterisk abusers also b*st*rdize the SUBJECT line?!?

<eg>

Bill "helmet h*ir" S.
 
Mike Rice wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 03:29:52 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> Be careful to which experts you defer your thinking Ed. In the case of
>>> H*lm*ts, the most vocal experts in favor are the manufacturers. I
>>> believe their primary interest is the $.
>> Actually the most vocal group is pediatricians, followed by doctors in
>> general. The manufacturers tend to be less vocal, because it would be
>> seen as too self-serving.
>
> I have a friend who is a physical therapist. He has had patients who
> suffered debilitating head injury while riding without h*lm*ts and
> will never have a normal life as a result. He is a h*lm*t proponent.

I have a relative who is also a PT, and has the same view. If you just
ask medical professionals, of course you're going to get mainly
pro-helmet views, since they are seeing the results of not wearing a
helmet. Very few people don't understand that in the event of head
impact accident, that the helmet wearer will fare better, the extent of
how much better is the real debate.

OTOH, the medical professionals have a skewed view of the issue, since
they are looking only at the tiny fraction of the population that had an
accident in the first place. Still, the medical professional's opinions
carry a lot of weight in public policy.

Ironically all the junk science promulgated by the anti-compulsion
forces plays a part in the efforts of the medical establishment for more
compulsion laws, and hurts the anti-compulsion cause when public policy
is being made. Who are you going to listen to as a policy maker, someone
who deals with injuries that could have been lessened or eliminated by
the use of a helmet, or someone that rants about walking and gardening
helmets?
 
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 07:26:24 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>the high voluntary
>compliance rate in my club was probably an anomaly due to its location
>in Silicon Valley, where most of the club members had high levels of
>education.

Yes, it's well known that dot commers are *much* smarter than the
Dutch.

Or perhaps it was exposure to relentless propaganda? No, surely
not...

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:09:36 -0800, SMS <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>It's a low level of education that makes people not understand the
>difference between causation and correlation.

Which would make it more likely that stupid people were wearers, then,
since that is the primary underpinning of pro-helmet research!

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
"Mike Rice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[...]
> I'm sure you are aware that h*lm*t threads take on a life of their
> own. You've seen it many times before. It is your kind of thread. Most
> folks have closed minds and will not think at all.

Yes, I have a closed mind on the subject and I refuse to entertain any new
thoughts on the matter. The bottom line for me is that I enjoy wearing a
helmet. Like I said before, I have to have SOMETHING on my head when I go
cycling, so it might as well be a helmet.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
"Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> The only reason to build your own recumbent is to save some money.
>> Otherwise, it is a waste of time and effort. Anyone on RBM build their
>> own
>> bikes? Of course not.
>
> You'd be surprised. You've gotcher tallbikes & chopperz --
> things that are boldly in-yer-face, unlike your recessive,
> shy, shrinking-violet street luges that wanna get run over
> in the blind spots in front of cement trucks while you
> introvertedly avoid eye-contact or any other communication
> with fellow road users. Such self-wrapped cocoonery!

The above is absurd. No upright cyclist builds their own bikes except for
extreme nut cases.

>> That is because they have more brains than do we
>> recumbent cyclists.
>
> Not brains. Balls.

Brains will win out over balls every time, except in case of war when you
really do require warriors, men who have balls and are willing to risk all.
Courage is the greatest of all virtues because it makes all other virtues
possible. That is why I respect the military. They are truly America's
finest.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Re: This is getting expensive (helmets)
Replies
15
Views
1K
Recumbent bicycles
Ozark Bicycle
O
P
Prymegear helmets
Replies
5
Views
1K
Recumbent bicycles
Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
J
E
Helmets
Replies
110
Views
3K
Recumbent bicycles
Buck
B
N
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
Replies
449
Views
12K
Recumbent bicycles
D2
D
F
  • Locked
How many TT helmets are CPSC legal?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Recumbent bicycles
Dave Larrington
D
Top Bottom Back