As for me, I'll wear one. I was hit by a car in late May of this year. I suffered no really bad injuries. ((Hurt wrist and strained back)) Bike was a total loss though. The helmet did absolutely NO good as I didn't hit the pavement.
Now, the DRIVERS insurance company made a HUGE deal out of what I was wearing at the time. THEY wanted to know if I was wearing a helmet, gloves, long pants, what kind of shoes. They basically climbed up my butt with a microscope. Fortunately for me the Police Officer was a FORMER bicycle cop that KNEW what would be coming from the insurance company so he took photos and wrote down all that I had on and the damage to the bike and myself.
Best thing that happened was the fact that the person that hit me LEFT THE SCENE and had to be located, cited AND arrested.
That's just ONE incident where I was glad to have the "lid" on!!!!!
"Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
As for me, I'll wear one. I was hit by a car in late May of this year. I suffered no really bad injuries. ((Hurt wrist and strained back)) Bike was a total loss though. The helmet did absolutely NO good as I didn't hit the pavement.
Now, the DRIVERS insurance company made a HUGE deal out of what I was wearing at the time. THEY wanted to know if I was wearing a helmet, gloves, long pants, what kind of shoes.
What were they looking for in term so of long pants and shoes? If you had been wearing shorts, would they have made an issue of that?
Yes, I think that they would have made an issue out of shorts. Fortunately, I was on the way to work and was wearing long pants at the time. As for the shoe thing I had on my high-top shoes. Maybe they figured that was enough.
Actually I think they were just looking for any excuse to prolong things. Took them four months to come and take photos of the damaged bike.
Roger Zoul said:
"Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
As for me, I'll wear one. I was hit by a car in late May of this year. I suffered no really bad injuries. ((Hurt wrist and strained back)) Bike was a total loss though. The helmet did absolutely NO good as I didn't hit the pavement.
Now, the DRIVERS insurance company made a HUGE deal out of what I was wearing at the time. THEY wanted to know if I was wearing a helmet, gloves, long pants, what kind of shoes.
What were they looking for in term so of long pants and shoes? If you had been wearing shorts, would they have made an issue of that?
Yes, I think that they would have made an issue out of shorts. Fortunately, I was on the way to work and was wearing long pants at the time. As for the shoe thing I had on my high-top shoes. Maybe they figured that was enough.
Actually I think they were just looking for any excuse to prolong things. Took them four months to come and take photos of the damaged bike.
I think your second paragraph hits it on the nail...
In the UK it's been common for insurance companies to go for the contributory negligence front, but that's really just a bit of delay and bluster, both of which it makes sense for them to do. There are no actual cases in the UK where contributory negligence has been agreed in court, and in the UK the Cyclists' Defence Fund is well aware of that, and works very hard to make sure it remains the case.
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] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Now, the DRIVERS insurance company made a HUGE deal out of what I was wearing at the time. THEY wanted to know if I was wearing a helmet,
The use of a helmet as PPE for fending of insurance company weasel lawyers is probably the only rational reason for wearing one for routine road riding. I used to wear one for just that that reason, but fortunately the UK courts do not seem to be believing the contributory negligence line wrt helmets, so I've stopped wearing it.
As for me, I'll wear one. I was hit by a car in late May of this year. I suffered no really bad injuries. ((Hurt wrist and strained back)) Bike was a total loss though. The helmet did absolutely NO good as I didn't hit the pavement.
Now, the DRIVERS insurance company made a HUGE deal out of what I was wearing at the time. THEY wanted to know if I was wearing a helmet, gloves, long pants, what kind of shoes. They basically climbed up my butt with a microscope. Fortunately for me the Police Officer was a FORMER bicycle cop that KNEW what would be coming from the insurance company so he took photos and wrote down all that I had on and the damage to the bike and myself....
My point exactly on why one should wear a bicycle foam hat in the US - land of uneducated and emotional jurors (a reflection of the general population).
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter
In message <[email hidden]> "Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska)" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
But here in Nebraska a bicycle has the right of way in almost EVERY situation. Exceptions being when you are riding in traffic lans. There you must obey the same laws that a car has to.
wow!
Thanks for lettind us know; pity Bush doesn't lead with this in his Bali talks.
Must make Nebraska a boom cycling town and vacation attraction.
-- Charles Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park LCC; CTC.
any impact at a higher speed and I am sure that injuries sustained would have been much greater. THAT'S why I CHOOSE to wear a helmet.
Though rates of serious head injury don't go down as helmet wearing rates go up. You may be sure, but the Real World isn't. I used to wear one for the same reasons you give above, but not since I read up on what actually happens, as opposed to what I was sure /ought/ to.
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] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Yeah right...>>SARCASM<< From here, if you drive for 2 hours....you STILL have 2 hours to go before you get anywhere decent enough to be called a vacation. And I am sure there are those that disagree.
But we DO have an amazing bicycle path system in this town.
Quoted message said:
In message <[email hidden]> "Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska)" <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
But here in Nebraska a bicycle has the right of way in almost EVERY situation. Exceptions being when you are riding in traffic lans. There you must obey the same laws that a car has to.
wow!
Thanks for lettind us know; pity Bush doesn't lead with this in his Bali talks.
Must make Nebraska a boom cycling town and vacation attraction.
any impact at a higher speed and I am sure that injuries sustained would have been much greater. THAT'S why I CHOOSE to wear a helmet.
Though rates of serious head injury don't go down as helmet wearing rates go up. You may be sure, but the Real World isn't. I used to wear one for the same reasons you give above, but not since I read up on what actually happens, as opposed to what I was sure /ought/ to.
Damn it Pete, stop confusing the faith based community with fact based reality!!! Sheesh!!!
-- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter
