Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience



Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>>>Are you suggesting that every single person posting here saying that they
>>>>are competent to understand the papers and that they started pro-helmet
>>>>actually secretly had an anti-helmet agenda all along? Because that's as
>>>>insulting as it is ridiculous.
>>>No - but are you 100% certain that this doesn't occur at all?
>>Why would I have to be?
>I'f you're going to use black and white thinking aguments with me, remember
>it works both ways.

No, it doesn't. I asked for an explanation for the actions of those people
who started pro-helmet. Obviously an insinuation that one of them might
have done something does not provide such an explanation.

>>Your insinuation only explains the people who started pro-helmet if you
>>are willing to accuse each and every one of them of having had a hidden
>>agenda all along.
>I dont accept your association with "pro helmet" people (whatever that
>means) - I am not seeking to explain the actions of them.

In that case you're talking total gibberish. Please try and actually
construct an argument, not merely some plausible-sounding rhetoric.

Start again. If you think experts may have a bias, how do you explain the
people who started pro-helmet and became otherwise as a result of reading
the literature? Why did they reach a conclusion against their bias? So far
you've managed an insinuation that they might secretly have had an
anti-helmet agenda all along. Either you are suggesting that applies to
all of them, which is insulting and ridiculous, or you haven't answered
the original question.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Tuesday, June.
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >
> > Let's see: minors can't vote, can't (legally) drink, can't (legally)
> > drive, can't (legally) have sex, etc. Do you think having to wear a
> > helmet on a motorcycle looms large on their horizon? Or do you think
> > that, unlike the dopey gang of UK AHZs, they might have bigger fish to
> > fry?
> >
>
> I guess USAians don't grow up as fast if you are a minor to age 21. In
> the UK it is 16 (drinking & sex), 17 (driving) and 18 (voting)
>

Choosing not to answer the questions, "Tony"?
 
David Damerell wrote:

<snipped>

-that UK education comes shining through!-

> Currently you have posted 40 articles to this thread. You posted 56 of 397
> articles to the "summary - the disk brake debate" thread - ie, nearly 1/5
> of the articles archived by GG from that thread.

Let's see: 1/5 = 20%, right? Where on earth does 56 come to 1/5 of 397?
Only in AHZ la-la land, I suspect. (It's more like 14%, lame-o)


> So, are you a lamer, a
> flamer, or just a hypocrite?

You qualify on all counts! Kudos!
 
Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>>I've answered your question, you just dont like my answer - that's not my
>>>problem.
>>No, you haven't.
>>The question was "Who do you suppose is _not_ aware of their vulnerability
>>when cycling?"
>>Now, you suggested male teenagers, but actually I pointed out clear
>>evidence of risk compensation in male teenagers.
>>I don't want to know who you suppose _stereotypically_ is not aware of
>>their vulnerability. I want to know who you suppose is _not_ aware of
>>their vulnerability.
>Well if you want a less generalised answer I cant provide that

So in fact you cannot say who is not aware of their vulnerability when
cycling.

>(and I doubt
>anyone can - makes me wonder the point of the question actually)

It illustrates neatly that your claim that you are aware of your own
vulnerability is not a respect in which you are particularly unusual.

>I have nevertheless answered your question.

No. You have answered another question which has no bearing on the point.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Tuesday, June.
 
Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>>>>>"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>I fail to see how winning the lottery has anything at all to do with a
>>>persons behaviour or psychology (as long as they buy a ticket) so self
>>>knowledge would be irrelevant here.
>>Just as self-knowledge is irrelevant in a case - like risk compensation -
>>where just about everyone's self-knowledge leads them to an erroneous
>>conclusion.
>It's good you mentioned "just about".

Just about everyone's self-knowledge, yes; rendering self-knowledge
_completely_ irrelevant because you have no way of knowing that you aren't
a member of "just about everyone".

>>No. You said you don't do it while riding a bike. Just like every other
>>special unique snowflake. What's different about you?
>You're not being constructive with language like that,

Constructive isn't the issue here. It's a perfectly effective send-up of
your position; that you insist you are somehow unique even though there is
no evidence to suggest that.

>>Because you're engaging in a cheap rhetorical trick to distract attention
>>from the point; that there is absolutely no reason to suppose you are any
>>different from the vast masses who risk compensate and think they don't.
>We disagree but even if you were right, don't be tricked then

I'm not; I'm not going to be drawn into comparisons of concluding that you
risk compensate with shooting people.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Tuesday, June.
 
Quoting Paul Murphy <[email protected]>:
>"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>I think I am, given the tremendous lack of evidence you've given for your
>>lack of risk compensation.
>It's not up to me to provide evidence, thinking something may be, doesn't
>make it a fact.

It's not up to me to provide evidence I've won the lottery. You should
accept my own personal self-knowledge. How dare you say the odds are
enormously against it? It's up to you to prove I haven't won it, and until
you do that you mustn't say it's ridiculous for me to say I've won it.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Tuesday, June.
 
Quoting Espressopithecus (Java Man) <[email protected]>:
>[email protected] says...
>>Quoting Espressopithecus (Java Man) <[email protected]>:
>>>Yes, if the thinking person is limiting his/her inquiry to the
>>>population level stats, and isn't inquiring about the details. You may
>>>have noted I was discussing what is under the population level stats.
>>But all you're doing there is idle speculation.
>I'm glad you've noticed. Speculating was exactly what I was doing.

And I've explained why that speculation is worthless for determining
whether or not one should use a helmet.

>Please note that I was also asking if anyone had any additional data
>that would help elucidate the range of cases that aggregates up to the
>population data.

While denying that, absent that additional data, it would be sensible to
base one's decision on the population-level stats.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Tuesday, June.
 
Quoting Espressopithecus (Java Man) <[email protected]>:
>[email protected] says...
>To make it plainer in case that's necessary, when ordinary cyclists say
>"my helmet saved me" or "my helmet hurt me" I believe they're likely to
>be correct ONLY BY LUCK.
>Is that clear enough for you?

Not quite. Do you or do you not believe that they are correct (by luck) in
any significant proportion of cases?

>>If you do disagree with that assertion, I'd very much like to see a
>>hypothetical case that agrees with the figures. Let's assume net
>>efficiency of helmets is overall zero for simplicity. Only one in every
>>few thousand cyclists can expect to die cycling; you can pick any value of
>>"few thousand" you please. One in every twenty helmet users has a "saved
>>my life" story; if you don't like twenty, pick another reasonable value.
>>You can divide up the net zero efficiency of helmets however you please,
>>even with patently ridiculous effects like helmets preventing all head
>>injuries. You'll probably need a figure for the proportion of fatal
>>accidents to unhelmeted cyclists involving fatal non-head injuries; make
>>it reasonable.
>At the other extreme, it's possible that helmets OFTEN help but MORE
>OFTEN make things worse. It's possible to have these two cases generate
>the same overall population statistics. "

I would still like to see a model of risk distribution based on the
paragraph above in which it is reasonable to say that helmets "often"
help; I don't suppose you can come up with such a thing at all.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Tuesday, June.
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > Tony Raven wrote:
> > > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > > Tony Raven wrote:
> > > > >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > > > >>> No national MHL anywhere on the close or distant horizon. If it comes
> > > > >>> up locally, I'll be there to oppose it; but we don't even have a
> > > > >>> motorcycle MHL here, so I think I can rest easy.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> You have an MHL for motorcyclists under 21
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > There are many age limited laws: drinking age, driving age, voting age,
> > > > > age of consent, etc., etc. Should we oppose them all? Or only the ones
> > > > > that come afoul of *your* social vision, Mr. Special Tony?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just pointing out that your statement "we don't even have a motorcycle
> > > > MHL here" was incorrect, nothing more.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Silly me, I thought we were talking about laws as applied to adults.
> >
> > Oh? Where was it mentioned that it had to apply to all ages?
> > It remains the case that you do have a MHL for motorcyclists under 21
> > (Some of whom would be considered adults in UK.)
> >
>
> Let's see: minors can't vote, can't (legally) drink, can't (legally)
> drive, can't (legally) have sex, etc. Do you think having to wear a
> helmet on a motorcycle looms large on their horizon? Or do you think
> that, unlike the dopey gang of UK AHZs, they might have bigger fish to
> fry?

Most of that is, like most of your posts, irrelevant or insubstantial.

Is there an MHL for motorcyclists in your jurisdiction or not? (note:
it was not qualified as to what proportion of motorcyclists it covered,
by you or by anyone else.)

Quit weaseling and just admit that, for once, you were wrong and got
caught being wrong.

...d
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >
> > Let's see: minors can't vote, can't (legally) drink, can't (legally)
> > drive, can't (legally) have sex, etc. Do you think having to wear a
> > helmet on a motorcycle looms large on their horizon? Or do you think
> > that, unlike the dopey gang of UK AHZs, they might have bigger fish to
> > fry?
> >
>
> I guess USAians don't grow up as fast if you are a minor to age 21. In
> the UK it is 16 (drinking & sex), 17 (driving) and 18 (voting)

Technically one can drive legally at 16 under certain circumstances.
That still isn't relevant to the original question which was whether Mr
O. Bicycle admits that there is a MHL for motorcyclists in his
jurisdiction ...

The adage appears to be true though: Some grow up, others just grow
old.

...d
 
In article <04g*[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Quoting Espressopithecus (Java Man) <[email protected]>:
> >[email protected] says...
> >>Quoting Espressopithecus (Java Man) <[email protected]>:
> >>>Yes, if the thinking person is limiting his/her inquiry to the
> >>>population level stats, and isn't inquiring about the details. You may
> >>>have noted I was discussing what is under the population level stats.
> >>But all you're doing there is idle speculation.
> >I'm glad you've noticed. Speculating was exactly what I was doing.
>
> And I've explained why that speculation is worthless for determining
> whether or not one should use a helmet.

Who said I was using it for determining whether or not one should use a
helmet? Once again, you have leapt to an erroneous conclusion. I hope
you wear appropriate protective equipment on these blind leaps.
>
> >Please note that I was also asking if anyone had any additional data
> >that would help elucidate the range of cases that aggregates up to the
> >population data.
>
> While denying that, absent that additional data, it would be sensible to
> base one's decision on the population-level stats.
>
You apparently have the bad habits of failing to fully read the
development of a thread, leaping to unfounded conclusions by looking at
only the last post or two (as illustrated above), and accusing others of
making "cheap shots" when you frequently do so yourself.

For example:

"Try to weasel away from the point with at least a modicum of subtlety,
I suggest."

"So, given the health effects, you had a large negative effect on that
child's life expectancy. Well done! Perhaps you should suggest she
takes up smoking, too?"

"In that case you're talking total gibberish. Please try and actually
construct an argument, not merely some plausible-sounding rhetoric."

"Why not? Are you somehow immune to head injuries at other times? That
must be very convenient."

I don't mind responding to your posts if you try to keep up, but please
don't waste my time by failing to read before responding. And please
drop the pretense that you are above taking "cheap shots".

Rick
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 30 May 2006 18:25:01 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> An idea popped up earlier, and I haven't seen it addressed anywhere - I
>> have read/heard that wearing a helmet improperly is worse than wearing
>> no helmet at all. So, if the folks new to helmet wearing just slap one
>> on their dome without regard to proper fitment, could this not be a
>> source of over-representation of helmet-wearing injureds in the data
>> set?
>
> This is interesting.
>

If you can believe anything that TRT publish, their data from an
investigation of helmet fit[1] was that 94% of helmets were good or
excellent fit, 2% fair and 4% poor fit. So a minor issue. They also
estimated an increased risk of head injury as for a poor fit helmet but
if you look at the numbers involved in that category and the confidence
intervals the difference is not significant over a good fit and marginal
over an excellent fit. So not a big issue, even using data from the
strongly pro-helmet camp.

[1] Fit of bicycle safety helmets and risk of head
injuries in children, Injury Prevention 1999;5:194–197


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
In article <bNs*[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Quoting Espressopithecus (Java Man) <[email protected]>:
> >[email protected] says...
> >To make it plainer in case that's necessary, when ordinary cyclists say
> >"my helmet saved me" or "my helmet hurt me" I believe they're likely to
> >be correct ONLY BY LUCK.
> >Is that clear enough for you?
>
> Not quite. Do you or do you not believe that they are correct (by luck) in
> any significant proportion of cases?
>
> >>If you do disagree with that assertion, I'd very much like to see a
> >>hypothetical case that agrees with the figures. Let's assume net
> >>efficiency of helmets is overall zero for simplicity. Only one in every
> >>few thousand cyclists can expect to die cycling; you can pick any value of
> >>"few thousand" you please. One in every twenty helmet users has a "saved
> >>my life" story; if you don't like twenty, pick another reasonable value.
> >>You can divide up the net zero efficiency of helmets however you please,
> >>even with patently ridiculous effects like helmets preventing all head
> >>injuries. You'll probably need a figure for the proportion of fatal
> >>accidents to unhelmeted cyclists involving fatal non-head injuries; make
> >>it reasonable.
> >At the other extreme, it's possible that helmets OFTEN help but MORE
> >OFTEN make things worse. It's possible to have these two cases generate
> >the same overall population statistics. "
>
> I would still like to see a model of risk distribution based on the
> paragraph above in which it is reasonable to say that helmets "often"
> help; I don't suppose you can come up with such a thing at all.
>
And I'd like to see a post in which you have actually READ and
comprehended what was written. AT ONE EXTREME = "reasonable"??

At least you've read it this time, but sadly, comprehension seems to be
lacking.

Rick
 
Quoting Espressopithecus (Java Man) <[email protected]>:
>[email protected] says...
>>And I've explained why that speculation is worthless for determining
>>whether or not one should use a helmet.
>Who said I was using it for determining whether or not one should use a
>helmet?

Well, you have _repeatedly_ said you wouldn't want to use the
population-level stats. What else is there, absent data?

>You apparently have the bad habits of failing to fully read the
>development of a thread, leaping to unfounded conclusions by looking at
>only the last post or two (as illustrated above), and accusing others of
>making "cheap shots" when you frequently do so yourself.

A cheap shot's fine when it makes a point. It's not fine when it's being
used to gloss over the lack of an argument.

>"Try to weasel away from the point with at least a modicum of subtlety,
>I suggest."

Which is fair enough; the person being replied to _was_ weaselling away
with the "only talking about cycling" approach.

>"So, given the health effects, you had a large negative effect on that
>child's life expectancy. Well done! Perhaps you should suggest she
>takes up smoking, too?"

I had no argument to answer there; the poster had done something stupid
and I pointed that out. Mocking the stupid's a perfectly reasonable
activity.

>"In that case you're talking total gibberish. Please try and actually
>construct an argument, not merely some plausible-sounding rhetoric."

This isn't any kind of cheap shot. Paul Murphy regularly cannot construct
any sort of coherent argument and equally regularly resorts to
plausible-sounding soundbites. I can't argue with what's not there.

>"Why not? Are you somehow immune to head injuries at other times? That
>must be very convenient."

Making the perfectly reasonable point that talking only about
cycling-induced head injuries is a bit silly - and becoming a deliberate
evasion.

>I don't mind responding to your posts if you try to keep up, but please
>don't waste my time by failing to read before responding.

Frankly it's pretty hard to respond to someone who spends all their time
saying "I wasn't saying that". Perhaps you could state definitely what
assertions you _are_ making.

>And please drop the pretense that you are above taking "cheap shots".

Never said I was. But I will say I don't use cheap shots to avoid actually
making a point; you won't see any equivalent to "you must not have
anything in your brain to protect" from me.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Tuesday, June.
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > On 30 May 2006 18:25:01 -0700, "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> An idea popped up earlier, and I haven't seen it addressed anywhere - I
> >> have read/heard that wearing a helmet improperly is worse than wearing
> >> no helmet at all. So, if the folks new to helmet wearing just slap one
> >> on their dome without regard to proper fitment, could this not be a
> >> source of over-representation of helmet-wearing injureds in the data
> >> set?
> >
> > This is interesting.
> >
>
> If you can believe anything that TRT publish, their data from an
> investigation of helmet fit[1] was that 94% of helmets were good or
> excellent fit, 2% fair and 4% poor fit. So a minor issue. They also
> estimated an increased risk of head injury as for a poor fit helmet but
> if you look at the numbers involved in that category and the confidence
> intervals the difference is not significant over a good fit and marginal
> over an excellent fit. So not a big issue, even using data from the
> strongly pro-helmet camp.
>
> [1] Fit of bicycle safety helmets and risk of head
> injuries in children, Injury Prevention 1999;5:194-197

That addresses fit issues, but not proper wearing issues. I have seen
folks earing helmets and the straps dangling.

"Was the subject wearing a helmet?"

"Yes."

No, I don't know if a pro-helmet group can put out a non-biased study.
My inclination would be to assume the negative, there.

E.P.
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:

> > Bingo. And, your protestations notwithstanding, I do not believe that
> > you have told the whole story.
>
> Indeed, he has not.
>
> > Without seeing all the exchanges from
> > all the participants, I'm guessing that there is a *significant* amount
> > of untold story. Most of which would cast you in quite a bad light,
> > unless I miss my guess.
>
> That's a good guess. I feel an obligation to protect sources. Absent
> that obligation, Fogel would never show himself here again.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to stop making allegations
against Carl in public, even fairly vague ones, unless or until you
feel able to substantiate them in public?

--
Dave...
 
On 30 May 2006 13:07:16 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On 30 May 2006 12:58:36 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> >Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >> >A sort of pot, kettle, black query from the likes of you, in any case.
>> >> >
>> >> >E.P.
>> >>
>> >> Dear Ed,
>> >>
>> >> You wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Hey, I'm curious - are you always such an asshole, or just one on the
>> >> >internet?
>> >>
>> >> Did I miss the posts where people began calling you such names?
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> Carl Fogel
>> >
>> >Carl "the Emily Post of Usenet" Fogel, says: "It's much better to be
>> >unctous, psuedo-polite and, above all, pedantic and passive aggressive,
>> >than it is to just be honest and direct."
>> >
>> >Forwarding private emails in pursuit of character assassination is also
>> >recommended by C.Emily Fogel.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec....3c12a95a4ab/d4283d388ca90bb8#d4283d388ca90bb8
>
>Scurry like a small mouse, little man.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent/msg/e9441d64ac695d39

Actually, Ozark does not show his name, despite his typical lie in the
post above, where he idiotically began "wondering" if "Tony" Raven was
real.

For the curious, here's Ozark's site (okay, it's just an ad), which
boasts that he's all service, no attitude (!):

http://www.ozarkbicycleservice.com/

Until Ozark changes his ad, his name doesn't appear on it--he's lying
in his reply to Tony.

I have no objection to people using psuedonyms, but it's typical that
Ozark chose to insinuate that Tony Raven was somehow not real (!) and
then lied about how he himself had an easy-to-find name.

[email protected]
 
On 31 May 2006 10:41:02 -0700, "dkahn400" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
>> > Bingo. And, your protestations notwithstanding, I do not believe that
>> > you have told the whole story.
>>
>> Indeed, he has not.
>>
>> > Without seeing all the exchanges from
>> > all the participants, I'm guessing that there is a *significant* amount
>> > of untold story. Most of which would cast you in quite a bad light,
>> > unless I miss my guess.
>>
>> That's a good guess. I feel an obligation to protect sources. Absent
>> that obligation, Fogel would never show himself here again.
>
>Don't you think it would be a good idea to stop making allegations
>against Carl in public, even fairly vague ones, unless or until you
>feel able to substantiate them in public?

Dear Dave,

Since Ozark is lying, all he can do is change his story.

Here's Ozark's first sentence in his blackmail effort:

"It is apparent from reading RBT today that you have breached certain
confidences contained in my private reply to your sole private email
to me."

http://groups.google.com/group/rec....3c12a95a4ab/d4283d388ca90bb8#d4283d388ca90bb8

Please find any post in RBT that supports his claim.

You can't. He's lying.

Read the thread. You'll see where I listed my recent posts. None of
them have any earthly connection to his blackmail effort.

Please figure out what confidences Ozark could have made to me that I
could have "breached," privately or in public.

You can't. He's lying.

I confided in him, not the other way around. My email and his reply
are in the thread. Read them. I'm not making up new stories and saying
literally "trust me" and telling demonstrable lies.

Ozark is.

Please find the post in that thread where he starts saying "trust me"
to other people.

You can. He's doing it again here--you just have to trust him that
he's got these "sources". Who on earth could he be protecting? He
posted a link to the two emails in question, with every name included.

He simply got angry about another post, changed his mind after writing
to thank me for warning him about an awkward potential problem, and
began lying.

This is probably the post that led him to start lying:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/129476d87056acb6

He hasn't stopped yet.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:



> You can't even accept the
> possibility that you might be wrong so have to resort to insult rather
> than arguement.
>

On the contrary, it is his preferred tactic.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> But as Frank Krygowski has said, lots of other people read these
> threads and can learn, both about the topic and about the sort of
> posters involved.

Indeed. And when you accept out-of-context quotes as the substance as
a means to support an already-arrived-at conclusion, things sew up so
nicely, don't they?

Of course, those quotes, every single one, come from a long-ago thread.

But they do prove something. With me, you can expect everything
up-front, no BS. I am sure the same cannot be said for you. I do not
hide my venom behind syrup and smarm, unlike you. And absolutely never
pretend that after engaging in that behavior, that I am completely
innocent. Unlike you.

With Dammerell, if I said the sky was blue, he'd find some reason to
snipe and say the color was actually closer to cerulean. All while
being a perfect asshole. That's OK - it explains his popularity here
(LOL) and his marital status. His offerings here are almost
universally flames and snipes, so it's easy to ignore his dribblings.

I've noticed you've deftly avoided my questions. Because you know
exactly where they'll lead.

Now, are the Special Olympics over yet?

E.P.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Re: How big is big? (was: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience)
Replies
35
Views
782
UK and Europe
Bill Sornson
B
S
Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience
Replies
0
Views
338
UK and Europe
Sorni
S
J
Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience
Replies
10
Views
362
UK and Europe
Mike Causer
M
S
Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience
Replies
0
Views
257
UK and Europe
Sorni
S
S
Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand Experience
Replies
0
Views
278
UK and Europe
Sorni
S
Top Bottom Back