That’s the trouble, without independent witnesses, you’re often ****

I have to say that the one thing that “pleased” me about the whole incident was the seriousness with which the police took it. None of the “only a cyclist” or “he was asking for it, being on the road” shizzle that I was expecting. They took it seriously and once they had witness statements “were on the side” of the cyclist… it might help that they do their beat on bikes round here sometimes (with helmets, bike ones not just tits)

Hello! You called?

had an off, without a helmet, when I was about 14. Bag in the front wheel halfway down the fastest local hill, catapulted out of the saddle in perfect arc body rigid landed full square on the top of my head. Luckily someone was walking up the pavement at the time and witnessed it and called the ambulance. No external injuries at all but i was in and out of conciousness (apparently I would come round and swear about how my head hurt and pass out again) for a couple of days followed by a week of splitting headaches. I have no memory of the incident or the week before.

No need for you today, TJ – the discussion is coming along just fine 😉

Congrats on the new job though 🙂

The police we very nice when I got hit and the ambulence arrived really quickly. I just got the impression the police had bigger things to deal with (which maybe they did)

Thats actually one of the most convincing photos / stories I have heard on here

GrahamS – Member
1) I don’t think even TJ would say that a helmet never helps.

Is about the only one to get what I have said right tho I do rather like

hilldodger – Member

: reverse TJ argument :

given the apparent propensity for ‘over biked weekend warriors’ to get ‘all storm troopered up’ does anyone think that donning bike protective kit may actually encourage some people to take up cycling ????

I think armoured up people have more crashes.

TandemJeremy – Member

I think armoured up people have more crashes.

quite possibly, but I reckon the donning of ‘battle gear’ may actually encourage some people to take up healthy bicycle based activity which counterbalances their extra injuries, maybe……

The insurance companies will certainly try to reduce any pay out if you aren’t wearing a helmet.

Raymond – Member
The insurance companies will certainly try to reduce any pay out if you aren’t wearing a helmet.

Really? Why would helmet use make any difference to insurance payment on a bike broken in an RTC/RTA (whatever it’s called this week)?

I like the ‘effect on others’ argument for wearing a helmet – NHS costs, loved ones, etc.

Mainly because exactly the same argument can be made for making it compulsory to use a bike instead of a car for all journeys under a couple of miles, for mandatory helmet wearing for car drivers and passengers, for making alcohol illegal, and so on…

Ok, I have a helmet almost as bad from a high speed crash off road. Quite frankly after destroying my third you would have to be an imbecile to ride off road without one. I feel quite naked riding without one, its just instinctive now.

Sounds like you need to be more careful when riding off-road. Three smashed helmets in how long? Even with the protective effect of the helmet, you’re still exposing yourself to the risk of head injury.

Really? Why would helmet use make any difference to insurance payment on a bike broken in an RTC/RTA (whatever it’s called this week)?

Didn’t a court decide there was some contributory negligence from a cyclist, in respect to the head injuries they sustained? The driver was at fault, but because the cyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet their compensation was reduced.

Which is ridiculous, but I think that’s what happened.

The insurance companies will argue that compensation should be reduced if you don’t fully comply with highway code. So the right lights, reflectors at the correct height etc. For helmets they just say that any head injury would have been less serious if a helmet was worn.

Looks like you’re right:

Cyclist hit by car on wrong side of the road

Mr X suffered serious head injuries when he was knocked off his bicycle by a car driven by the Defendant. Liability was in dispute throughout. His injuries included frontal lobe injuries which resulted in language and communication difficulties and some intellectual impairment. There were no independent eye witnesses to the accident. Our investigations found a tyre mark on the road which showed that the defendant’s car was on the wrong side of the road at the time of impact. Following negotiations, the claim settled for £350,000.00, which took into account Mr X’s failure to wear a cycle helmet.

http://www.boltburdonkemp.co.uk/en/services-bolt-burdon-kemp-no-win-no-fee-solicitors/personal-injury-bolt-burdon-kemp-no-win-no-fee-solicitors/road%20accident%20claims/success%20stories.aspx

TJ, I’d be interested in your opinion on this?

Tree – same case on your link?

We obtained evidence from an independent cycle helmet expert and using calculations to determine the speed of the car, established that because of the speed and position of impact a helmet would not have made a significant difference to Mr W’s injuries.

thats the general position. If it can be shown that a helmet would reduce injuries you can reduce damages. however usually this cannot be estabilished indeed the case above is the first I hve heard and I don’t know if its binding.

Many cases insurance companies try to reduce damages on these grounds – the vast majority of cases they

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5180 fail

mandatory helmet wearing for car drivers and passengers

I’ve often thought it would be very interesting to compare the annual number of car occupants suffering serious head injuries to the number of cyclists with similar injuries.

My suspicion is that the greater number of participants, higher speed impacts and close proximity to hard surfaces means that compulsory car helmets would save many more lives than compulsory bike helmets.

But no one seems keen to tackle that one for some reason. 😀

Graham – compulsory helmets for in car use, pedestrians and drinker would all save far more lives – without the negative effects on public health

WOW. Glad that you’re OK.

I never wear a helmet, this has made me think about it though 😕

Graham – compulsory helmets for in car use, pedestrians and drinker would all save far more lives – without the negative effects on public health

Yep. I believe you, but it’d be a bit more compelling with some hard figures though.

I like throwing figures around, particularly when poking the anti-cyclist brigade on local news forums.

I recently countered the usual “damn cyclists are a danger to pedestrians” argument by pointing out that on average cyclists kill 1 pedestrian every two to three years; cars kill 1 pedestrian every day*. Difficult to argue against that.

* Source: DfT Road Casualties

graham – I think you will find numbers on cyclehelmets.org

I recently countered the usual “damn cyclists are a danger to pedestrians” argument by pointing out that on average cyclists kill 1 pedestrian every two to three years; cars kill 1 pedestrian every day. Difficult to argue against that.

Very easy to argue – how many cyclists are there compared to car drivers?

Very easy to argue – how many cyclists are there compared to car drivers?

I think that, even on a per mile used basis, cars kill far far more people than bikes.

compulsory helmets for in car use, pedestrians and drinker would all save far more lives – without the negative effects on public health

Hang on a minute, I thought your mantra was that there was no proof that helmets saved any lives at all?

😀

Across populations for bikes

Hang on a minute, I thought your mantra was that there was no proof that helmets saved any lives at all?

Proper car crash helmets do though – because they are designed for far larger impacts and are generally worn with neck braces.

Very easy to argue – how many cyclists are there compared to car drivers?

New bikes outsell new cars roughly two to one. 🙂

Yes, three helemets broken!

Nr 1: is a cop out ….mum drove over in the car when I was a kid, fell off the shelf in the garage!

Nr 2: Went over the handlebars night riding in Dalby, not significant damage but enough to require retiring it.

Nr 3: Not long ago on a rocky decent from New Mills Golf Course in the Peak. High Speed crash and landed on shoulder/head. Helmet almost as bad as the OP but poly outer remained intact. No headache or concussion but I’m damm sure it would have been a lot worse had I not been wearing the helmet.

I’m not in favour compulsion to wear helemts, I just think its sensible …and you really don’t notice them (well I feel uncomfortable when riding on or off road without one tbh).

….and based on my experience you would have to be an idiot not to wear one on technical off road terrain.

Proper car crash helmets do though

oh I see, peds and drinkers in F1 Schuberths?

Incidentally, I’ve destroyed two bike helmets 😀

1: fleeing down a steep hill on a quiet road at a fair rate of knots. My mate ahead pulls into a side road. So do I. Somehow I didn’t see the car park barrier was down until it was enthusiastically pressed against my head tube and I was flying over it in a state of some puzzlement.

2: some feral kids thought it would be mightily amusing to drop a big potato from a railway bridge onto my head as I cycled under it. 😳 very amusing, but split the helmet in two places and broke my glasses.

oh I see, peds and drinkers in F1 Schuberths?

If it saves lives then surely it’s a price worth paying? 😀

Ah go on then I’ve done a bit of research. 😉

According to the always useful Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2009: Annual Report, (Table 6c: type and Proportion of road casualties with injury and age group: HES 2009)

37% of the 7,164 pedal cyclists admitted to hospital had head/face injuries versus 32% of the 12,506 car occupants.

Therefore 2,644 cyclists versus 4,001 car occupants suffered head/face injury.

Even if we assume that none of those cyclists were wearing helmets (unlikely) then it still seems pretty clear that compulsory helmets in cars would prevent greater numbers of head/face traumas.

😀

grahamS that must have been a big potato

Damn that was a comedy pic of a giant potato.