One disadvantage of being a "disabled" cyclist, is that the smallest
fall on my least strong leg could result in a fracture. Any
recommendations of a knee pad or protector I could buy for the purpose?

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 14:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
bornfree  wrote:

> One disadvantage of being a "disabled" cyclist, is that the smallest
> fall on my least strong leg could result in a fracture. Any
> recommendations of a knee pad or protector I could buy for the
> purpose?

There are plenty of knee guards available for downhill but I doubt any
of them is going to be much good for regular cycling.  Something like
this http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=6996 might
offer a reasonable degree of protection at a reasonable price, but I
wouldn't want the hassle of wearing it on the off-chance that I might 
knacker my already knackered knee some more.  The last time I fell off
and broke a leg it wasn't my bad leg anyway.  :-)

bornfree wrote:
> One disadvantage of being a "disabled" cyclist, is that the smallest
> fall on my least strong leg could result in a fracture. Any
> recommendations of a knee pad or protector I could buy for the purpose?

A bit over the top compared to a simple pad, but a recumbent bike gives
you less far to fall and when you hit the deck the seat frame will take
the impact rather than your leg bones.  Guess how I know that...

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 p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On 7 Jul, 08:45, Peter Clinch  wrote:
> bornfree wrote:
> > One disadvantage of being a "disabled" cyclist, is that the smallest
> > fall on my least strong leg could result in a fracture. Any
> > recommendations of a knee pad or protector I could buy for the purpose?
>
> A bit over the top compared to a simple pad, but a recumbent bike gives
> you less far to fall and when you hit the deck the seat frame will take
> the impact rather than your leg bones.  Guess how I know that...
>
> 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 p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

My girlfriend got a helmet from Tesco for about £10 and so far, so
good. I spent about £30 and fell off only a month after I bought it
and had to ge a new one. Typical.
Anyway, in a serious non political answer, comfort and safety are
pretty much okay with a cheap one. Never buy second hand, but I'm sure
you know that already.

Nat  wrote:

> On 7 Jul, 08:45, Peter Clinch  wrote:
> > bornfree wrote:
> > > One disadvantage of being a "disabled" cyclist, is that the smallest
> > > fall on my least strong leg could result in a fracture. Any
> > > recommendations of a knee pad or protector I could buy for the purpose?
> >
> > A bit over the top compared to a simple pad, but a recumbent bike gives
> > you less far to fall and when you hit the deck the seat frame will take
> > the impact rather than your leg bones.  Guess how I know that...
> >
> > 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 p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
> 
> My girlfriend got a helmet from Tesco for about £10 and so far, so
> good. I spent about £30 and fell off only a month after I bought it
> and had to ge a new one. Typical.
> Anyway, in a serious non political answer, comfort and safety are
> pretty much okay with a cheap one. Never buy second hand, but I'm sure
> you know that already.

you've got the wrong thread there.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

Roger Merriman wrote:
> Nat  wrote:
>>My girlfriend got a helmet from Tesco for about £10 and so far, so
>>good. I spent about £30 and fell off only a month after I bought it
>>and had to ge a new one. Typical.
>>Anyway, in a serious non political answer, comfort and safety are
>>pretty much okay with a cheap one. Never buy second hand, but I'm sure
>>you know that already.

> you've got the wrong thread there.

Oh, I don't know. The analysis that produced 'helmets prevent 89% of 
brain injuries', also showed that they prevent 65% of knee injuries.

You know it makes sense!

Colin McKenzie

-- 
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at 
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as 
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Colin McKenzie said the following on 07/07/2008 17:16:

> Oh, I don't know. The analysis that produced 'helmets prevent 89% of 
> brain injuries', also showed that they prevent 65% of knee injuries.

A bit like one time I came off and damaged a knee and an elbow.  "Were 
you wearing a helmet?" I was duly asked.

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:54:22 +0100
Paul Boyd  wrote:

> Colin McKenzie said the following on 07/07/2008 17:16:
> 
> > Oh, I don't know. The analysis that produced 'helmets prevent 89%
> > of brain injuries', also showed that they prevent 65% of knee
> > injuries.
> 
> A bit like one time I came off and damaged a knee and an elbow.
> "Were you wearing a helmet?" I was duly asked.
> 
Because if you were that was obviously why you didn't have head
injuries, but if you weren't then you were a reckless fool, and lucky
to have survived ... or maybe they were just gathering stats for
cycle-related injuries regardless of outcome - they might even
manage to conclude that helmet wearers are more likely to crash,
leading to a ban on helmet wearing ...

On 7 Jul, 17:54, Paul Boyd  wrote:
> Colin McKenzie said the following on 07/07/2008 17:16:
>
> > Oh, I don't know. The analysis that produced 'helmets prevent 89% of
> > brain injuries', also showed that they prevent 65% of knee injuries.
>
> A bit like one time I came off and damaged a knee and an elbow.  "Were
> you wearing a helmet?" I was duly asked.

Err yeah.. I was asked that by 3 people on the week of my -knee-
accident.

In news:943a7235-0776-4301-9924-cc9999a5b0e3@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com,
bornfree  tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> On 7 Jul, 17:54, Paul Boyd  wrote:
>> Colin McKenzie said the following on 07/07/2008 17:16:
>>
>>> Oh, I don't know. The analysis that produced 'helmets prevent 89% of
>>> brain injuries', also showed that they prevent 65% of knee injuries.
>>
>> A bit like one time I came off and damaged a knee and an elbow. "Were
>> you wearing a helmet?" I was duly asked.
>
> Err yeah.. I was asked that by 3 people on the week of my -knee-
> accident.

I was astonished, following a recent off resulting in a seriously chewed-up 
knee, that I /wasn't/ asked about MartleHats.

Standards are slipping.

-- 
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Official: Living in a wardrobe can be injurious to one's health
<URL:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-
1567961,00.html>

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:54:22 +0100, Paul Boyd  said
in <g4thnu$b9j$2$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>:

>A bit like one time I came off and damaged a knee and an elbow.  "Were 
>you wearing a helmet?" I was duly asked.

Rightly so.  Helmets prevent 75% of lower limb injuries, it says so
in the Gospel according to Thompson, Rivara and Thompson.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound