Bearing Thomas Crash

Batchy wrote:

Actually the question that I originally posted really required just two simple answers YES or NO. Fancy that it should create such a stir !

You forgot 'Maybe' because we'll never know, helmet certainly didn't look damaged in the post race interview, which it would of been had it done its job as designed.

Must be Mad wrote:

Quote:

I genuinely have NEVER seen anything written from that perspective. People are anti-compulsion, not anti-choice.

Try reading any of the many, many helmet debated on here! Plenty of people who scorn the very notion that a helmet might provide any help whatsoever.

I disagree. What does come up very often is people saying that other people are anti-helmet and then someone else says 'No, people are anti-compulsion' to which someone replies with 'No, lots of people on here are completely anti-helmet'.

Then someone has to chime in saying that they disagree and have to point out that what does come up very often is people saying that other people are anti-helmet and then someone else says 'No, people are anti-compulsion' to which someone replies with 'No, lots of people on here are completely anti-helmet'.

Then someone has to chime in saying that they disagree and have to point out that what does come up very often is people saying that other people are anti-helmet and then someone else says 'No, people are anti-compulsion' to which someone replies with 'No, lots of people on here are completely anti-helmet'.

Then someone has to chime in saying that they disagree and have to point out that what does come up very often is people saying that other people are anti-helmet and then someone else says 'No, people are anti-compulsion' to which someone replies with 'No, lots of people on here are completely anti-helmet'.

Then someone has to chime in saying that they disagree and have to point out that what does come up very often is people saying that other people are anti-helmet and then someone else says 'No, people are anti-compulsion' to which someone replies with 'No, lots of people on here are completely anti-helmet'.

Make the madness stop...

giff77 wrote:

It did look to me that his shoulder took the brunt of the collision. Even then at low speed. I would have been more concerned about the drop into the ditch

Strange - to me he appears to hit the back of his head as you see it rebound quite violently. It was plenty fast enough to be a concern with that kind of knock. Also bear in mind the footage is slowed down in the first part of that clip. Perhaps one's interpretation is influenced by one's views on helmets!

..but anyway he seemed to brush it off - testament to how hard the man is!

crikey wrote:

...and if we look at it objectively, for a change, he wasn't doing 30 mph. He had already slowed for the corner, then braked after getting clattered, then run over a garden chair, then hit a glancing blow on the pole.

In this instance the helmet did it's job; it protected him from the relatively low speed impact with the pole.

It doesn't imply that helmet use across a wide population should be mandatory, it demonstrates that if you are going to get side swiped by an over eager French chap while attempting to get around a corner in a big bike race, it would be useful to have one on.

I don't think that can be called a relatively low speed impact! Credit to Thomas for continuing after that - the guy is hard as nails and a legend.

700c wrote:

To answer the OP, the helmet probably helped, but we'd never know for sure, as I doubt he'll be wanting to repeat the 'off' without one for comparison purposes!

Either way, you won't convince anyone on here who's avidly pro or anti, if the past ten thousand odd posts on the subject are anything to go by!!

Probably, yes. This is the difference between anecdotal evidence and empirical evidence. Anecdotal evidence is still evidence given we cannot do the empirical experiments required to prove beyond doubt the efficacy of helmets; unless anyone wants to volunteer have their head dropped onto concrete?
Meanwhile I doubt GT would doubt that wearing one was a better idea than not in this case. Some of the anti-helmet-at-any-cost people do sound rather rabid at times with the level of evidence they demand, when they know that it does not and cannot exist. What better proof than to see GT ONLY lost 35s today.

bikeboy76 wrote:

Some of the anti-helmet-at-any-cost people...

I genuinely have NEVER seen anything written from that perspective. People are anti-compulsion, not anti-choice.