[Closed] Court in shocker common sense cyclist injury verdict

jakester - cant see the detail of that could you copy and paste the bit of the finding that refers to the speed and contributory component to injury please? Thanks.

I personally thing that everyone should ware a helmet, for the safety of them selves and others, I have been out on ride with a friend that refused to ware a helmet and fell off on to a rock head first (don’t worry the rock was fine) he now wares a helmet all the time, but the ride was spoiled, if he had a helmet on we could have continued with the ride.

So I think it should be law to ware a helmet...

Nezbo

Common sense often occurs in court rulings, it just tends not to be reported as much as the dumb stuff

I personally thing that everyone should ware a helmet, for the safety of them selves and others, I have been out on ride with a friend that refused to ware a helmet and fell off on to a rock head first (don’t worry the rock was fine) he now wares a helmet all the time, but the ride was spoiled, if he had a helmet on we could have continued with the ride.

And I know of a rider who went head first into a car when she wasn't "wareing" a helmet. She hurt her shoulder. I don't thing everyone should ware a helmet.

[i]Any thoughts?[/i]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

for the safety of them selves and others

go on then, how does it affect the safety of others?

[i]And I know of a rider who went head first into a car when she wasn't "wareing" a helmet. She hurt her shoulder. I don't thing everyone should ware a helmet. [/i]

My granfather smoked 30 a day his whole life and lived until he was in his 90's. That doesn't mean it's same to smoke.

I "thing" everyone should be made to wear helmets.

Helmets are great in fairly minor incidents, and stop them becoming more serious - hit a vehicle at speed and an inch of polystyrene won't save you.

I always wear a helmet (as much to set an example to my kids), but I don't like wearing a helmet. I wouldn't want it to be compulsory, provided riders understand and accept the risk they choose to run AND the civil damages implications if they get involved in an RTA.

thank you swadey - hence my request for the bit about contribution to injury and speed - how did the court phrase it, was there a technical bounday made?

you chaps can all all go and have your helmet debate somewhere again if you must, but how about listening to what a court that had the facts presented to it had to say?

Apologies, I wasn't sure whether it would work. Here's the case summary:

The court was required to determine liability in a claim for damages for personal injuries brought by the claimant cyclist (S) against the defendant motorcyclist (F) following a road traffic accident. S had sustained serious head injuries when his bicycle collided with F's motorcycle. S had no memory of the event and F was the only witness. The speed limit where it occurred was 30 mph. S's case was that F had ridden his motorcycle along the road at an excessive speed, failed to keep a proper look out and failed to see S, who was on the proper side of the road at all times. F made a Part 20 claim against S for personal injury, contending that he had not been driving at excessive speed, and that S had pedalled out of a side road into his path and had given him no reasonable opportunity to avoid a collision. Further, F claimed that S's injuries had been sustained wholly or partly because he had not been wearing a helmet, which was contributory negligence on S's part.

HELD: (1) On the balance of probabilities, F had been travelling at a speed well in excess of the 30 mph restriction and the collision occurred as he tried to overtake S. He was entirely to blame for the collision by virtue of his excessive speed and his riding much too close to S as he tried to overtake. It was apparent that F had not told the truth about the collision: his account was designed to shift the blame. He had not given any credible and reliable evidence in support of his Part 20 claim or in establishing any contributory negligence on S's part to the circumstances of the accident. (2) It did not matter that there was no legal compulsion for cyclists to wear safety helmets because there could be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet might expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury; such a failure, like the failure of a car-user to wear a seatbelt, would not be sensible and so, subject to causation, any injury sustained might be the cyclist's own fault, Froom v Butcher (1976) QB 286 CA (Civ Div) applied. On the balance of probabilities, S had hit the ground at a speed greater than 12 mph so the wearing of a helmet would have made no difference to the injuries sustained. Moreover, the scalloped shape of most modern helmets would probably not have prevented S's injuries, given the location of the impact on the back of his head. Even if the impact speed had been low enough for a helmet to have afforded protection, F had adduced no medical evidence to support his case that S's injuries would have been reduced or prevented by his wearing a helmet. Accordingly, F had failed to discharge the burden of proving contributory negligence.

Can't Nezbo to spell? Or perhaps he's fallen off his bike whilst not WEARING a helmet and damaged his head...

No helmet compulsion, as that will stop people going for a little bimble in the park where it probably isn't really necessary to WEAR a helmet, but you're mad if you don't WEAR one for anything more knarly!

Looks to me like a victory for common sense.

Now contrast that with the claim against All Terrain and the damaged handlebar case...

where is TJ when you need him

I'm not too sure where the 'common sense' comes in. If you work on your premise that wearing a helmet is safer than not wearing one, then you'd expect to see injury rates proportionally lower in pro-helmet countries such as the USA and UK than anti-helmet countries such as most of mainland Europe.
But you don't, you find the opposite.

thanks jakester.

SO interestingly the Fs lawyers could find no medical/technical research to prove that the helmet would have helped in that case REGARDLESS of the speed involved (due to impact location) - and they sure as hell woul dwould have looked hard for it. And although the court havent specified a speed beyond which a helmet's contribution to protection would be nill, 12mph is a good benchmark and to some extent reflects what a lot of people have mentioned as a gut feel speed.

Now contrast that with the claim against All Terrain and the damaged handlebar case...

the law is always full of common sense - except when you don't like the outcome.

That all sounds very sensible and it's good that the courts seem to be up to date with the research on helmet use. It would have been crap if the cyclist had been penalised for not wearing a helmet when the accident wasn't even her fault.

Oh this old canard again.

Cycling is a safe pursuit. Only a very small number of people get head injuries each year. ( less than a dozen) and only some of these would be mitigated by helmets. Do you wear a helmet when you are walking? You are more likely to get a head injury as a pedestrian than as a cyclist.

Helmet wearing should and must remain voluntary while helmets are manufactured to such low standards that there is no proof of them doing much good - and in some cases can do harm

Couple this with the effect of putting people off cycling and the illhealth that causes - see the Australian experience where post helmet compulsion cycling rates decreased but head injury rates did not.

Better designed helmets without the major flaws that the current designs had is what you should be agitating for, not cmpulsory helmet wearing.

IanMunro - Member
I'm not too sure where the 'common sense' comes in. If you work on your premise that wearing a helmet is safer than not wearing one, then you'd expect to see injury rates proportionally lower in pro-helmet countries such as the USA and UK than anti-helmet countries such as most of mainland Europe.
But you don't, you find the opposite.

I was referring more to the consideration of causation and rejection of the Defendant's contention that the failure to wear a helmet was contributory negligence.

Stoner - I wouldn't say "couldn't find", rather failed to adduce - which are two different things.

[i]I wouldn't say "couldn't find", rather failed to adduce [/i]

he should sue his counsel then! 🙂

TJ - actually, I found the case interesting because it showed that the court discounted the failure to wear a helmet as a causative factor in the injuries...

[i]I was referring more to the consideration of causation and rejection of the Defendant's contention that the failure to wear a helmet was contributory negligence.[/i]

Cheers Jakester, now i understand. I typed my response in on my iphone, and it took so long that I completely missed your full quote of the court verdict.
The perils of reading singletrack on the bog 🙂

I'm more interested in knowing whether it's safe to go onto the forum without first completing a higher education course in English. Failure to do so will obviously render your opinions worthless and expose you high levels of ridicule. Although the irony of those who ridicule whilst being themselves guilty of glaring mistakes, is not lost on me.

recon you can save yourself from injuries ar fairly quick speeds, not just gentle tumbles.

I've fallen on my head twice from about 8ft (well 8ft + 6ft), once on the bike wearing a helmet, and once walking home in the dark. On the bike the helmet was written off, but everything was otherwise ok. Without the helmet i had a horrendous headache and a nice big permanent scar to show for it.

At high speed I've written off a helmet on Bamford clough, given the crash (40+ mph, over the step) I'd happily say theres no way i'd be typing this if i hadn't been wearing a helmet.

Have to confess to not wearing one on the road yesterday as it was so cold and couldnt find the skull cap!

while helmets are manufactured to such low standards that there is no proof of them doing much good - and in some cases can do harm

Well you know very well that's not true. There is 'evidence' for AND against. Throwing in the word 'proof' is just your own personal propaganda biased towards your personal view. Just to dissect your statement further and to avoid ambiguity.. would you say there is 'proof' that a helmet can do harm? And if the answer is yes to that would you still posit there is no 'proof' that they do 'much good'.. And what do you mean 'much..?' is that an admission that although they don;t do 'much' good they still do 'some' good? And if so do you then admit that even 'some' does mean helmets do provide positive benefits?

Guaranteed 100 Poster!!

Aye, this one's going to run...

recon you can save yourself from injuries ar fairly quick speeds, not just gentle tumbles.

I've fallen on my head twice from about 8ft (well 8ft + 6ft), once on the bike wearing a helmet, and once walking home in the dark. On the bike the helmet was written off, but everything was otherwise ok. Without the helmet i had a horrendous headache and a nice big permanent scar to show for it.

At high speed I've written off a helmet on Bamford clough, given the crash (40+ mph, over the step) I'd happily say theres no way i'd be typing this if i hadn't been wearing a helmet.

You're saying we should ban helmets? Without helmets, people wouldn't be doing silly, dangerous things like riding bikes off-road at high speed!

Oh this old canard again.

And once again you spout your old crap. Quoting ONE studie in australia. I too could quote original studies TJ. There is one where they managed to link the fact that people not wearing helmet are far more likely to commit road offences. So helmet compulsory = less cyclist comminting offences on the road = better respect from the car drivers...

See that is called a tjism. As for your comment about helmet, I for once (that must be the first time) agree with mark.

Mark - maybe my use of language was poor but you miss the point by miles.

Cycle helmets are tested in a very unrealistic way and to a very low standard. No testing of retention, not testing in oblique impacts no testing in high speed inpacts

There is no evidence of them doing much good ( ie doing anything than preventing minor injuries) across populations wearing helmets may actually increase injury rates.

Using the phrase "personal propaganda biased towards your personal view" is doing what yo accused me of. I am in favour of more research into helmets and helmet design but against compulsion. I wear one sometimes but not others. I don't expect a helmet to save me from serious injury.

All that can be said with certainty is

Wearing helmets can reduce some injuries, can make some injuries worse and in many accidents are irrelevant.

Juan - tell me what is crap in what I say?

Always wear a helmet!

I have worn one since a mate went to Chamonix 10 yrs ago whereupon he was advised to get one. The next day he came off splitting the helmet in two. Saved his life - no question.

All scenarios warrant the use of a hat.

Juan - tell me what is crap in what I say?

There is no evidence of them doing much good ( ie doing anything than preventing minor injuries) across populations wearing helmets may actually increase injury rates.

Juan - that unfortunately is the truth. Several studies have shown exactly those two issues. The construction of helmets to meet current regulations mean that they are not much use in major impacts and several studies around the world show that there are real questions about what happens accross populations when helmet wearing is made compulsory. You save one head injury and get three heart attacks instead

Can't Nezbo to spell?

no, but he doesn't like the matter drawn to attention. However on the upside, his grammar may be better than yours 🙂

Several studies have shown exactly those two issues

Cycling is a safe pursuit.

I'd agree with that. In my case, it's pretty much the only regular exercise I do, so it's certainly safer than the alternative.

Only a very small number of people get head injuries each year. ( less than a dozen).

I assume you mean for mountain biking. If that's true then surely it has something to do with the fact that helmet use for off-road cycling is the norm. I've had personal experience of two accidents over the last year which involved impacts to rider's heads. Either me and my mates are uber gnarly, or that mode of accident is fairly common in off-road cycling.

Do you wear a helmet when you are walking? You are more likely to get a head injury as a pedestrian than as a cyclist.

Again, I wonder why that should be. The speeds involved in cycling are higher and it's a much less intuitive action that walking. The only explanations are that people are wearing the appropriate protective gear, or that you're deliberately citing the statistics in a misleading way.

Overall I'd agree with what Mark said. It's perfectly possible to be anti helmet compulsion without citing iffy "research" to back your case up. Although where would the fun be in that?

Glad to see it really was common sense - was worried by the OP that they had ruled that it was contributory negligence not to wear a helmet. The wording in the middle about it not being sensible not to wear a helmet is a little worrying though.

I'm more interested in knowing whether it's safe to go onto the forum without first completing a higher education course in English. Failure to do so will obviously render your opinions worthless and expose you high levels of ridicule. Although the irony of those who ridicule whilst being themselves guilty of glaring mistakes, is not lost on me.

Well said GG.

aracer - Member
Glad to see it really was common sense - was worried by the OP that they had ruled that it was contributory negligence not to wear a helmet. The wording in the middle about it not being sensible not to wear a helmet is a little worrying.

Well, it noted that not wearing a helmet may be akin to not wearing a seatbelt [b]in certain circumstances[/b], but in this case the failure to wear a helment did not automatically give rise to the presumption that the cyclist had been negligent.

Law student in "posting a link to a ruling but not undertsanding that the item he is focussing on is only obiter dictum* and thus demonstrating he oufght to go an spend some more time studying" shocker.

Read the summary of the judgement properly, jakester. And then go and do your latest land law essay.

OMITN (not convinced this demonstrates "common sense" either way)

*A comment in the judgment that does not become binding law, and remains a moot point.

Juan - properly researched and peer reviewed. I cannot get the full text of some the studies. I have read a lot around this subject and I do acknowledge that some of the research is of poor quality. Thus all one can do is read the research and consider the evidence giving suitable weight to the methodology and then draw your own conclusions.

One of many studies on the conundrum about helmet use across populations concludes: "It is apparent that mass helmet use is not contributing to the reduction in cyclist fatalities, at least not in any measurable way. The results suggest that traffic authorities should refocus to put their efforts into other proven measures."Several studies show the same effect. None that I know of show any reduction in casualties as a result of wearing helmets.

[url] http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/fatals.html [/url]

This webpage has a decent summing up of the actual evidence - quoting stuff from all sides of the arguments both pro and anti and plenty of reference to original research - note the long list of references at the end.
[url] http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html [/url] I have read quite a few of these papers and it does make very interesting reading.

I again say I believe in the fundamental right for everyone to make informed choices. I wear a helmet sometimes and not others - and my prefered helmet is a pisspot as from my reading of the evidence I believe them to be more effective.

You save one head injury and get three heart attacks instead

This much I do agree with. However making the leap from this to "helmets are useless and/or dangerous" is pretty feeble and not borne out by most people's experience of them.

ourmaninthenorth - Member
Law student in "posting a link to a ruling but not undertsanding that the item he is focussing on is only obiter dictum* and thus demonstrating he oufght to go an spend some more time studying" shocker.

Read the summary of the judgement properly, jakester. And then go and do your latest land law essay.

OMITN (not convinced this demonstrates "common sense" either way)

*A comment in the judgment that does not become binding law, and remains a moot point.

Actually, I think I probably do know what I'm talking about:

http://tinyurl.com/aasx9b

If you knew what you were talking about you'd know full well that obiter statements can be relied upon ...

I thought obiter dicta meant something that wasn't binding, but could be persuasive. In any case, it's an interesting indication of which way the wind is blowing.

Mr Agreeable - I have never said helmets are useless and or dangerous.

[i] Mr Agreeable - Member

Cycling is a safe pursuit.

I'd agree with that. In my case, it's pretty much the only regular exercise I do, so it's certainly safer than the alternative.

Only a very small number of people get head injuries each year. ( less than a dozen).

I assume you mean for mountain biking. If that's true then surely it has something to do with the fact that helmet use for off-road cycling is the norm. I've had personal experience of two accidents over the last year which involved impacts to rider's heads. Either me and my mates are uber gnarly, or that mode of accident is fairly common in off-road cycling.

Do you wear a helmet when you are walking? You are more likely to get a head injury as a pedestrian than as a cyclist.

Again, I wonder why that should be. The speeds involved in cycling are higher and it's a much less intuitive action that walking. The only explanations are that people are wearing the appropriate protective gear, or that you're deliberately citing the statistics in a misleading way.

Overall I'd agree with what Mark said. It's perfectly possible to be anti helmet compulsion without citing iffy "research" to back your case up. Although where would the fun be in that? [/i]

To answer those points:

All cyclists in the uk. I cannot remember the actual figures and can't be bothered googling but it is a surprisingly small number of folk who get squashed heads. A dozen or two not all of whom would be saved by helmets.

The figure about walking being more dangerous. Its just another one of the counterintuative bits of evidence out there.

In the light of jandem temery's admission the other day of extensive crystal meth use, his posts now actually seem to have some relevance.

Don't take drugs kids, you'll end up like tittylip - raving semicoherently as soon as someone mentions the 'special words', now if only thuperthtar would bring out a bicycle helmet.........
😆

I have never said helmets are useless and or dangerous.

To quote from your first post: "helmets are manufactured to such low standards that there is no proof of them doing much good - and in some cases can do harm". Let's not split hairs here.

it is a surprisingly small number of folk who get squashed heads. A dozen or two not all of whom would be saved by helmets.

Has it occurred to you that this might be because helmet use is pretty prevalent among cyclists, particularly in branches of the sport which tend to feature regular falls and crashes?

The figure about walking being more dangerous. Its just another one of the counterintuative bits of evidence out there.

Pretty much everyone who can use their legs walks (unless they are tribal chieftains who get carried around in a litter). You don't say whether this figure is adjusted to take account of the fact that there are way more people walking than cycling. So it's a pretty useless bit of information.

Hilldodger - you cow! :sulks:

Woot! Lawyer bitchfight! Jakester was admitted in 2006! So he knows his shi'ite maaan!

😉

This was inevitable. It is probably reasonable enough. It still doesn't mean you have to wear a helmet, just that the law is now that it's a bit silly not to, because it can help sometimes. We all knew that anyway.

🙂

Without going into the debate about whether helmets do actually help protect you, can some one please tell me if their was an accident where someone got a head injury (no helmet worn and 100% vehichle drivers fault) could a court reduce the claim (they are not compulsory like seat belts so why should you be penalised for not wearing one).Them if a claim was reduced where does that end (full body armour for going for some milk)

P.S.sorry for any spelling mistakes or improper use of grammar (ill educated Scot)

Actually, I think I probably do know what I'm talking about:

http://tinyurl.com/aasx9b

If you knew what you were talking about you'd know full well that obiter statements can be relied upon ...

Hee hee!

😉

Mark

It goes like this:

- was the accident the cyclist's fault? (here, no)
- was the cyclist hurt because of the accident? (here, yes)
- should the cyclist have been wearing a helmet? (in general, yes, it's a sensible thing to do)
- In this case, did the fact that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet make his injuries worse? (in this case, no, wearing a helmet wouldn't have helped)

In a different case, involving a low speed fall and a skull fracture to an area which would have been covered by the helmet, say, we can expect to see awards of compensation reduced by a significant percentage if the victim is not wearing a helmet. This all depends on what conclusion the court comes to on the particular facts, but that is the mechanism.

🙂

Why the winky BigDummy ? Doesn't being admitted into the Law Society automatically mean that 'you know your stuff' ? Or is it all just meaningless ?

😕

Without going into the debate about whether helmets do actually help protect you, can some one please tell me if their was an accident where someone got a head injury (no helmet worn and 100% vehichle drivers fault) could a court reduce the claim (they are not compulsory like seat belts so why should you be penalised for not wearing one).Them if a claim was reduced where does that end (full body armour for going for some milk)

Well, you're in Scotland, so you're essentially lawless anyway....

Er, what jakester was trying to point out - until I wound him and his "I'm TWO years qualified, you know" up - is that, this doesn't definitiely say that you will automatically be held partly responsible for any injuries sustained, but that it might be the case that someone will suggest to you that you ought to have been wearing a helmet and that had you done so you wouldn't have been as injured as you are. The reality is that this is something that any court was liable to say at some time, just that because it was effectively mentioned in apssing in the Court of Appeal, more weight will be lent to those words in future cases.

It's all about risk - we cannot eliminate it, but we can help to reduce it. The sentiment of this case is that cycle helmets can reduce it, but only within the confines of measured informaiton (hence the 12mph reference).

As BD says, it tells us a little more of what we already know. So, if you want to wear body armour to get a pint of milk, do. It may or may not actually save you from injury caused by a tool in/on a motor vehicle....

Could I suggest that proponents on both sides of this argument read John Adams book 'Risk'. It's a fantastic read for exactly this sort of subject.

You can see bits of it to get a feel on google books
[url] http://tinyurl.com/djfr6k [/url]

Er, what jakester was trying to point out - until I wound him and his "I'm TWO years qualified, you know" up - .

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to prove.

You don't know me, you don't know anything about me, but leapt to a whole raft of incorrect conclusions, that one above actually being one more.

I thought that it might prove an interesting talking point. I've also in the past tried to highlight other interesting cases - the ATB Sales one as well.

Why are people on the internet such dicks?

Falkirk mark. IIRC its a tactic often claimed by insurance companies to attempt to reduce their liabilities. I think cases have gone both ways - but the argument that the injured person was not at fault and no contributory negligence so they still get 100% of the comp appears to be winning. The case that set precedent [i]IIRC[/i] had 2 or 3 neurosurgeons questioned in the dock as expert witnesses. None would say that a helmet [b]would[/b] have reduced or prevented injury - only that it [b] could or might have done[/b] as the injury and impact in question was far greater than a helmet is designed for.

With seatbelts the situation is much clearer - apart from anything else more research has been done.

I think we as a group of cyclists should be agitating for more and better research into safety and accident rates and into helmet design and usage. there are serious question marks over the design and testing of cycle helmet but MORE GOOD RESEARCH IS NEEDED!

Cycling remains a safe pursuit. the sky won't fall on your head if you go for a pootle on a sunny day without your hat. I wouldn't go jumping and zooming around at a trailcentre without a good helmet properly fitted and secured.

Fair enough points BD and OMITN but it just seems a dangerous pecedent that if you get T-boned (drivers fault 100%) and end up in a wheelchair it could possibly be argued that if you had back protection you may not be entitled to a proper claim as you were (negligent).

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to prove.

I'm pulling your p*sser, which is amusing (to me at least).

Now get over yourself!

😀

ourmaninthenorth - Member

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to prove.

I'm pulling your p*sser, which is amusing (to me at least).

Now get over yourself!

So you're trolling? Well, I suppose with the downturn in M&A you've got to do something to keep yourself amused...

In fairness, I think it's an interesting judgement, not least because it's in the Court of Appeal. I admit my initial point was sarcastic, but I still hold that an obiter judgement isn't binding, only persuasvie. I recall that much from law school....

However, it did amuse me when you posted the link to the Law Soc website, which suggested you were being a little precious about the extent to which you were qualified (in any sense) to opine on this.

M&A is down, but f*** me I've got a shedload of JV's and renewable energy work on....

So, in the spirit of no longer winding you up, cheers for the link., Useful. It tells me that the balance of risk is moving against me, even if there is no binding law (common or legislative) yet (but, by inference, it's only a matter of time before there is).

wearing helmets is a very emotive issue,
from my knowledge there is no conclusive evidence that wearing a helmet reduces the number of deaths on the road.
the type of accident that a helmet is designed for is very specific,
and in most cases/accidents a helmet is irrelevant,

a helmet wouldnt do anything being crushed under the wheels of a lorry turning left into you!

countries that have made helmets compulsory have not seen a reduction in road cyclist deaths, so that does seem fairly conclusive in my eyes,

i do wear a helmet i believe that there is no harm in it, i would always wear one mountain biking so why not on the road which is probably more dangerous,

i firmly believe that it should be an individuals decision,

edit missed a lot of the comments

if not wearing a helmet is contributory negligence does that mean not wearing a stab jacket mitigates an assailant ? I wear a helmet to protect me from my own rash choices...

It doesn't make sense to look at the low number of people who has had their heads squashed and then say that the helment wouldn't have made much difference to most of them. The point is (and speaking from experience) the accidents that happen where people are wearing helmets and because they are wearing helmets aren't serious enough to report or make it into statistics is the relevant thing to look at. My husband would have been dead if he hadn't worn a helmet on his commute. He was going at full speed (20mph) in a cycle/buss lane when a car pulled in front of him with no warning at all. He was catapulted through the air and landed on the back of his head on the other side of the car. The helmet was completely broken but his head was intact and dispite a minor concussion he didn't even need to see medical attention and never ended up in the statistics. If he hadn't worn a helmet I'm sure they would have said that wearing a one probably wouldn't have made much difference but that fact is it saved his life.

I don't think wearing a helmet should be compulsory but it's stupid not to wear one.

One area that I firmly believe more research needs to be done and thatthe design of cycle helmets could be much improved is the protection from or reduction in rotational injuries. Cycle helmets perform much worse in this aspect than other types of sports helmets and it is clear that these types of injuries can and do happen. Nothing proven yet in this area but questions have been raised.

[url= http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1182.html ]Web discussion on the subject[/url]
I am sure that that webpage needs to be treated with caution but follow the links to the research and make your own conclusions.

[i]but it's stupid not to wear one. [/i]

Sometimes.... 🙂

Well No_discerning_taste has a very good point, case when helmet prevent an injury are not counted into statistic because there is no injuries.

I would like to know for example the number of crash replacement giro and met perform every year in UK.

Oh and indeed TJ's new helmet design, because apparently he can do better than helmet manufacturers.

TJ surely the design of the average bike helmet (an excess of vents)lends itself to help promote rotational injury. The other point being other helmets worn in sports are generally to protect from a specific source (ball generally) or do not incur higher speeds that have to protect against whatever it may come in contact with.(obviously excluding motorsports)Only helmets I can think of just now are rock climbing ,cricket
One I have just thought about is Kayaking which is probably as near to mountain biking (from an impact perspective as you would get)

My husband would have been dead if he hadn't worn a helmet on his commute.

that fact is it saved his life.

"It is a surprisingly small number of folk who get squashed heads. A dozen or two not all of whom would be saved by helmets."

Has it occurred to you that this might be because helmet use is pretty prevalent among cyclists, particularly in branches of the sport which tend to feature regular falls and crashes?

Juan - I despair - you are supposed to be a scientist. You cannot extrapolate anything from that incident You just doo not know what would have happened. - and he had an injury ( concussion) that is not in the stats.

Go read some of the dozens of links to real evidence rather than mock because I challenge your prejudices. Think - use that mind and education.

Not "TJs" design - but a series of ideas about reducing rotational impact. Motorcycle helmets are already designed with this in mind and designs have altered over the years to reflect this. Go read the evidence. I have. Helmet design contributes to rotational injuries, cycle helmets perform worse than other types of helmet ( motorcycle, ski, snowboard, ice hockey}

I knew someone would totally mock this - ta Juan. Myself I like to look at the evidence.

Enough!

Despite mocking TJ, I reckon he's right on this one 😯

Rotational injury to the spine is what we should be protected against and bike helmets offer approximately zero protection and by increasing the effective radius of the skull, as well as providing all those vents to 'hook up' on any irregularities, arguably increases the risk of rotational injury.

The only real reason I wear a helmet off road is to prevent being ****ted by head level branches which I think is the main significant protection they offer....

Aracer, of course I haven't got any REAL evidence for the helmet saving his life. All I know is that the witnesses to the accident couldn't believe that he actually wasn't dead having seen the impact. Of course I know that the helmets are suppose to break and if it hadn't broken I would have been very worried that it wasn't working properly.

The debate is quite strange here, people who don't for one reason or another want to wear helmets seem to feel the need to do them down and people who wear helmets swear they are really good and do the thing they are suppose to do. All I know is that I always seems to bruise/cut my knees and shins when I'm not wearing my bodyarmour, so I'm not going to tempt fate by not wearing my helmet!

I once saw a bloke (about 15 years ago)who had put an upside down colander attached by rubber bands on his head as a helmet while cycling....

I headbutted a tree at approx 10mph without a helmet on, it ****in hurt and sounded like a mallet knocking a coconut. Worst damage though was to my shoulder and my spine bending the "wrong" way, neither of which would have been helped by wearing a helment. I always wear a helmet now though FWIW.

You cannot extrapolate anything from that incident You just do not know what would have happened.

True... however it work both way TJ, so when you say the helmet is of no use how can you prove it?

One thing is that if the kinetic energy of an impact is dissipated by the crumpling of the helmet, it's less energy dissipated by your head, hence less damages to the head/brain. That is pure physics (conservation of the energy) TJ nothing is lost nothing is gain...
I have an idea of something: What if we put your head in a bike helmet and have a weight fall on it (probably something within the ranges of standard in bicycle helmet testing). Then we do the same without helmet. If what you keep banging is true (helmet do not reduced injuries) you should be safe?

Have a look at this. It's the Html version of a peer-reviewed journal: [url] http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/8/1/47 [/url].
But then I am waiting for you to tell me that this is wrong because you have read it somewhere in the internet...

There are other designs available

[img] [/img]

why do loads of research when we spend so little of helmets and protection compared to all the other stuff?

seems loads of new bikes and loads of old helmets that have had loads of crashes in

main point seems to be to ride fast all the time above 12mph and don't brake in crash situations.

the reseach must be all true about walking being more dangerous! You try walking downstairs in a full face helmet!

Juan - get real.

I do despair. I have not said what you claim I have. The article you quote I can only get to a meaningless abstract of a population survey, helmets are tested by being dropped not by having weights dropped on them. No helmet is designed with side to side rigidity so drop a tonne on a helmeted or unhelmeted head they both get squashed. I have been interested in this subject for years - probably since you are born and have read a lot around it. I have quoted you lots of real research.

I am simply trying to make two related points.

Current cycle helmet designs and testing mean limited usefulness and serious questions have been asked about some aspects of their performance.

Cycling is safe overall. No health benefits across populations have been demonstrated by making helmets compulsory. The research is often contradictory and counter-intuitive.

The debate is quite strange here, people who don't for one reason or another want to wear helmets seem to feel the need to do them down and people who wear helmets swear they are really good and do the thing they are suppose to do.

I suspect I don't have quite the same viewpoint as TJ, as I'm mildly pro helmet, but vehemently anti compulsory helmet use (and that includes compensation being reduced due to contributory negligence).