Forum menu
no one has a clue where they’re going on a bike.
There is a pretty good cycleway down through Sussex to Brighton, seemingly well signposted, and yet you still see folks cycling down the A23.
Thanks for confirming it’s the a625 Eccy rd roundabout. I always use the underpass there. Still the driver’s fault though. Atrocious driving
I think I’m pretty confident on a bike when commuting but I avoid that roundabout at all costs. If I HAD to go near it I’d be in the underpass for sure, though that always feels a bit dodgy when dark.
But as @docrobster says, it doesn’t excuse the appalling driving, I’m constantly amazed at people barely being able to see beyond the end of their bonnet.
Shocking what other people are saying about compensation payouts being lower if people don’t wear helmets or have lights on in the day, when neither are a legal requirement.
When I was hit by a car, one of the first things the Police man asked me when I reported it was “were you wearing a helmet”. I said that wasn’t a legal requirement, he then said “the insurance company would claim that I wasn’t being responsible for my safety if I wasn’t. I was.
Many years ago I was dropping into the old quarry on the Chase and went straight OTB. Dropped about 3 meters onto my head, helmet was in pieces and pretty sure it saved me serious injuries or worse.
The helmet hung up in Richardsons Cycles in Wolves for years.
did you not want anyone to answer or just me specifically?
Well, I answered him but not a sound, so I think he didn't really want an answer to the question 🙂
For example – a systematic review of bicycle helmet research throws up this science-based tidbit:
This review included five well conducted case‐control studies and found that helmets provide a 63–88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets were found to provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%). Furthermore, injuries to the upper and mid facial areas were found to be reduced by 65%
Just FYI - that link you posted is from 2007 and is a reivew of other reviews.
Those reviews are also reviews of other reviews.
In fact, you have to all the way back to 1989, 34 years ago, to find the origin for the "80% reduction in risk" statistic.
It's from a paper by Thompson. It's pretty terrible. There's a breakdown here
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html
It's been quoted over and over and over again for decades.
Yes from memory that Thompson paper was flawed. Something about helmet wearers in safe suburbs with inner city kids not wearing helmet. The difference being due largely to the environment not the helmets.
As per the above link
Well, I answered him but not a sound, so I think he didn’t really want an answer to the question
I also answered but they didn't like my answer as it questioned their question and they couldn't address my question.
I am going to go with no they don't really want to know why people don't wear a helmet but to sum up just in case they did want to know after all;
- Risk no higher than other activities wear helmets are never worn
- Comfort/hassle
As for the insurance angle, do claims get lowered for head injuries in cars if the driver has not chosen to wear a helmet? As helmets are not legally required on bicycle or in car is that not the same argument (IANAL)
do claims get lowered for head injuries in cars if the driver has not chosen to wear a helmet?
Not in the highway code unsurprisingly.
The Highway Code says pedestrians should
Help other road users to see you. Wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions. When it is dark, use reflective materials (eg armbands, sashes, waistcoats, jackets, footwear), w
Any Peds had their claims reduced?
As far as I am aware this "reduction" is a try on that has never actually gone to court - certainly not a high enough court to set precedent
it’s the roundabout at the end of a625 Ecclesall road
For balance, I use that roundabout most days. It’s intimidating in that it’s busy but it doesn’t feel particularly dangerous to me - I definitely have more fear re: someone pulling out of a side junction down the rest of Eccy Rd…
I don’t like the underpass - I always think I’m going to run someone over.
As far as I am aware this “reduction” is a try on that has never actually gone to court – certainly not a high enough court to set precedent
Read the lawyer links on page 1 - it's gone to court and is pretty standard for these things. Parallels in all sorts of compensation awards - e.g. the employee didn't wear the helmet provided, but the company hadn't trained or insisted on it being worn enough. The blame is therefore 'shared' in a proportion and any compensation is also awarded to this proportion.
I was just surprised that the legal precedent is there for a car Vs a polystyrene bunnet. But it is.
Matt - that appears to be decisions going both ways and none in a high enough court to set precedent?
The principle is there and insurers try it on but they would have to show in court that a helmet would have reduced injuries. Hard to prove.
IANAL but I believe if a claimant rejected the 15% deduction and went to court they would be liable for costs if they lost.
So take 15% cut or risk huge costs oout of the 85%?
https://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/personal-disputes/resolving-disputes-the-cost-of-rejecting-offers/
So you may struggle to get anyone to go to court over 15%
Another one here in Aus…
Hit by a truck, helmet saved his life.
Dashcam footage is brutal:
Anyone else wondering how he was "crushed"? Yes, he was quite obviously knocked off but I see no crushage going on
Stanley Johnson just been interviewed about this on GMB.
He's not been knocked down in 50 years, so helmets are obviously not necessary.
The 'debate' was more about mandatory Hi-Viz where the poll gave 85% of people in favour of it for cyclists. That is why you should never have referendums.
Should have got Chris Boardman on for a proper discussion on why mandatory Hi-Viz is BS but guessing he would decline it as it is such a click baity sort of show.
Evidence based practice!
Helmets are not shown to provide much if any protection across populations - because the deterrent to cycling effect of them is there, the helth benefits of cycling are huge and the protective effects of helmets are marginal
Follow that Cycling UK link to understand these population level effects
He’s not been knocked down in 50 years, so helmets are obviously not necessary.
I've had numerous knocks on the head, only one of those happened on my bike. They ALL happened after I taken a varying number of alcoholic drinks, though.
I did think, 'Maybe I should start wearing a helmet when I riding home from the pub.'
Then I though, 'OR, I could stop riding my bike when I'm drunk!'
People should wear a helmet if they are drinking. Cycling, not so much.