Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[Red Light]

I have had an off on the track, and the helmet bore witness to the impact. It pushed the chin piece into my sternum and produces a large circular bruise on my chest (was doing 45-50mph at the time) see pic - other damage of course, but my head impacted with the ground.

Come to think of it every single accident I've had on a motorcycle in the 35 years of riding has resulted in the helmet sustaining some form of damage. Had the helmet not been there, I have no doubt that my head would have picked up some damage as a result.

Your suppostion that they don't hit the road is quite frankly rubbish.

This is not anecdotal evidence. The crash helmet he was wearing was severely damaged in the impact with the visor mechanism ripped off as well as extensive flaking of the paint around the compression point when he hit the ground, I was close behind him on the blue bike in the picture (i clocked the impact speed at 60mph), saw him bounce off the car and then hit the road head first also.

His left side connected with the the rear quarter of the car mk 1 Focus and had the car light cluster plastic from it embedded in his arm through his leathers. He broke his hip socket, his femur mid length (which is why the doc is supporting his leg to stop the blood supply being cut off), as well as extensive tendon and ligament damage in his knee. He also had 6 breaks in his radius and ulna, and nerve damage which paralysed his arm from the shoulder down for about 4 months. He did however suffer no head or neck injuries as previously stated. The lid did its job.


Now I would put to you that you have a vivid imagination which bears little relevance to the actual events which I was witness too.

Your helmet pictures show's a light glancing slide along the ground. And I have more of a good understanding of impact biomechanics than a vivid imagination. That helmet does not show a head but impact at 60mph.

You are correct though to pick me up on the use of the word never.

 

[Norm]

Your helmet pictures show's a light glancing slide along the ground. And I have more of a good understanding of impact biomechanics than a vivid imagination. That helmet does not show a head but impact at 60mph.

Your imagination is so vivid that it obscures stuff that is put before you.

Linford's mate head-butted the ground. The lid in the photo was Linford's. Two incidents.

 

[Red Light]

Your imagination is so vivid that it obscures stuff that is put before you.

Linford's mate head-butted the ground. The lid in the photo was Linford's. Two incidents.

Still doesn't show an impact of 45-50mph. There has been just enough sliding abrasion to remove the paint and its difficult to tell without examining it but it looks like superficial if any abrasion of the underlying shell material.

 

[Linford]

Your helmet pictures show's a light glancing slide along the ground. And I have more of a good understanding of impact biomechanics than a vivid imagination. That helmet does not show a head but impact at 60mph.

It doesn't slide so much at 50mph as bounce. However, the surface of the lid is shiny to allow as much sliding as possible. This helps to reduce the risk of it snatching and creating as torsional injury to the neck and spine.

Now imagine that bounce being an unprotected head and what do you get ?

DO NOT OPEN THE LINK BELOW IF YOU FEEL EVEN SLIGHTLY SQUEEMISH, IT IS 'NSFW'

It is something which will not stick in your mind

WARNING - A VERY GRAPHIC IMAGE which irrefutably demonstrates the result of a slower moped rider who would have been moving at somewhere near cycling speeds, (not faster motorcyclist as I'm more used to dealing with) who obviously thought he knew better when it came to protecting his head

As well as riding motorcycles, I also keep horses. Good practice for handling them is actually to wear a riding hat to protect the handler from a proper big knock on the head if the horse and handler knocks heads, as a horses head has about 25mm of bone thickness compared to about 3mm for a human head.
A horses head whilst being very heavy, and very hard is still nowhere near as heavy and hard as a bang on a head from a connection with the road or kerb.

Anyone who feels head protection has no value when moving at speed is IMO just playing Russian roulette with both the lives of themselves and anyone who might give a toss about them....

 

[Linford]

Still doesn't show an impact of 45-50mph. There has been just enough sliding abrasion to remove the paint and its difficult to tell without examining it but it looks like superficial if any abrasion of the underlying shell material.

It isn't the shell which is doing the the clever bit, it is the controlled deformation of the lining which absorbs the energy of the impact to the head and its contents - but then you'd know that being a bio mechanical engineer wouldn't you..

 

[ufkacbln]

It doesn't slide so much at 50mph as bounce. However, the surface of the lid is shiny to allow as much sliding as possible. This helps to reduce the risk of it snatching and creating as torsional injury to the neck and spine.

Now imagine that bounce being an unprotected head and what do you get ?

DO NOT OPEN THE LINK BELOW IF YOU FEEL EVEN SLIGHTLY SQUEEMISH, IT IS 'NSFW'

It is something which will not stick in your mind

WARNING - A VERY GRAPHIC IMAGE which irrefutably demonstrates the result of a slower moped rider who would have been moving at somewhere near cycling speeds, (not faster motorcyclist as I'm more used to dealing with) who obviously thought he knew better when it came to protecting his head

That is not the case at all, this simply i not irrefutable demonstration of anything!

That injury is inconsistent with a simple motorcycle accident type impact, I would suggest that this victim has been hit or run over by a following vehicle to cause the type of deformation and damage shown here.

Could you please post the further details of the accident that would prove or disprove this?

Anyone who feels head protection has no value when moving at speed is IMO just playing Russian roulette with both the lives of themselves and anyone who might give a toss about them....

Car drivers die frequently from head injuries (IIRC some three times the KSI of cyclists).. surely anyone who feels head protection has no value when moving at speedl is just playing Russian roulette with both the lives of themselves and anyone who might give a toss about them....

 

[Linford]

That is not the case at all, this simply i not irrefutable demonstration of anything!

That injury is inconsistent with a simple motorcycle accident type impact, I would suggest that this victim has been hit or run over by a following vehicle to cause the type of deformation and damage shown here.

Could you please post the further details of the accident that would prove or disprove this?
.

You did ask didn't you. Now what makes you think I'd post something like this up if there was no other corroborating evidence to offer ?

This is one of the series of pictures from the accident scene.

THIS LINK IS NSFW - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

Car drivers die frequently from head injuries (IIRC some three times the KSI of cyclists).. surely anyone who feels head protection has no value when moving at speedl is just playing Russian roulette with both the lives of themselves and anyone who might give a toss about them....

Car drivers also average about 97km for every 1km travelled in the UK by cycle (IIRC).

I'd say that is a fairly good record on the part of vehicle construction and use where cars are concerned......

 

[Red Light]

That is not the case at all, this simply i not irrefutable demonstration of anything!

That injury is inconsistent with a simple motorcycle accident type impact, I would suggest that this victim has been hit or run over by a following vehicle to cause the type of deformation and damage shown here.

I agree. And I could show you come equally graphic images of people who have fallen over on foot and hit their heads.

 

[Linford]

I agree. And I could show you come equally graphic images of people who have fallen over on foot and hit their heads.

If you could, I'd be interested to see them and would be happy to stand corrected if you can.
His grey matter isn't so far from him, and shown no evidence of any tyre tracks through it.
The problem is your ego is getting in the way of your objectiveness.

Man up and acknowledge you aren't going to win this one.....

 

[ufkacbln]

You did ask didn't you. Now what makes you think I'd post something like this up if there was no other corroborating evidence to offer ?

This is one of the series of pictures from the accident scene.

THIS LINK IS NSFW - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

We seem to have different definitions of the word "corroborate" to me the word mean:

to confirm or support (facts, opinions, etc.), esp by providing fresh evidence

All you have done is post more images of the accident and failed to provide anything new at all. As with the "irrefutable" claim the clam that you have in any way provided "other information" that has "corroborated" is unfounded- you simply have not done so!
Without the mechanism of the accident, whether there was another vehicle involved or the victim was run over or struck by another vehicle the fact remains the same, the "irrefutable evidence" is simply conjecture.... do you have any detail of what actually happened in this accident?

Even more interesting is that the website makes no claims, and gives no details yet you claim to know about the incident?

Car drivers also average about 97km for every 1km travelled in the UK by cycle (IIRC).

I'd say that is a fairly good record on the part of vehicle construction and use where cars are concerned......

You posted that :

Anyone who feels head protection has no value when moving at speed is IMO just playing Russian roulette with both the lives of themselves and anyone who might give a toss about them....

The point I made and still stands is in reference to this post. Does a head injury to a car driver hurt less, or have any less effect on thse who care about them than if the injury occurred to a cyclist?

Hospital admissions for head injuries in car drivers are consistently higher than for cyclists... why accept these head injuries. surely the responsibility to alleviate the severity still exists ?

 

[Linford]

All you have done is post more images of the accident and failed to provide anything new at all. As with the "irrefutable" claim the clam that you have in any way provided "other information" that has "corroborated" is unfounded- you simply have not done so!
Without the mechanism of the accident, whether there was another vehicle involved or the victim was run over or struck by another vehicle the fact remains the same, the "irrefutable evidence" is simply conjecture.... do you have any detail of what actually happened in this accident?

Well, you'd make a rubbish accident investigator wouldn't you

There are a few clues as to how the accident panned out.

Firstly, the proximity of the motorbike and the rider in pic 1 - My mate parted company with his bike at 60mph. When he came to a halt, I had to lift the bikes back wheel off his foot and that was after both of them travelling many metres. This dude looks like he was barely moving - well maybe 10mph or 15mph. The bike is right next to him
Secondly, if a vehicle had run his head over, his grey matter would have been properly mashed and not in one place - as it is, his head looks like an open ketchup bottle which the contents has been ejected by a fairly forcible impact.

As for the assertion that many more car drivers end up in hospital than cyclists, you really playing a ridiculous game on this one.

Take a look at the graph on page one of this link to see how many miles are travelled by each mode in the UK - it is fairly basic, but very irrefutable that the car dominates in terms of mileage per mode by a massive margin.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/olympic-britain/olympicbritain.pdf#page=139


I think you are just being obtuse, and blinded by your own stubbornness.

 

[ufkacbln]

Well, you'd make a rubbish accident investigator wouldn't you

There are a few clues as to how the accident panned out.

Firstly, the proximity of the motorbike and the rider in pic 1 - My mate parted company with his bike at 60mph. When he came to a halt, I had to lift the bikes back wheel off his foot and that was after both of them travelling many metres. This dude looks like he was barely moving - well maybe 10mph or 15mph. The bike is right next to him
Secondly, if a vehicle had run his head over, his grey matter would have been properly mashed and not in one place - as it is, his head looks like an open ketchup bottle which the contents has been ejected by a fairly forcible impact.

So I was correct - your irrefutable evidence is in fact your own interpretation of photographs on a website... hardly irrefutable.

We do not know what happened - and we will never know.......... your claim is absurd

As for the assertion that many more car drivers end up in hospital than cyclists, you really playing a ridiculous game on this one.

Take a look at the graph on page one of this link to see how many miles are travelled by each mode in the UK - it is fairly basic, but very irrefutable that the car dominates in terms of mileage per mode by a massive margin.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/olympic-britain/olympicbritain.pdf#page=139


I think you are just being obtuse, and blinded by your own stubbornness.

Which is really again your avoidance of the point.

A driver has an accident and ends up with a head injury, a cyclist has an accident and ends up with a head injury.

Why prevent one and not the other?

The mileage one or the other does is not going to make it less painful, traumatic or have less of an effect on the family.... not even you can claim that!

Dear Mrs Smith, I am sorry to tell you that your son has been involved in a accident, he is seriously ill but it is OK because he travels more miles each year than a cyclist

I am sur Mrs Smith will be feeling reassured bythat!

 

[dellzeqq]

[QUOTE 1968539, member: 45"]That motorbike riders are imagining things and never land on their head is nonsense.
[/quote]yebbut, nobbut
- do we care?
- would it make a difference?

 

[Linford]

So I was correct - your irrefutable evidence is in fact your own interpretation of photographs on a website... hardly irrefutable.

We do not know what happened - and we will never know.......... your claim is absurd

The website clearly states that it was caused by a fall from a motorcycle. You would not see this form of injury if he were wearing a helmet - at least he didn't suffer

A driver has an accident and ends up with a head injury, a cyclist has an accident and ends up with a head injury.

Why prevent one and not the other?

Sorry, but you are more than 30 times more likely to sustain a serious head injury cycling than driving. I think that this level of disparity warrants closer attention. Cyclists are being let down by lack of compulsion.
This argument could easily be applied to speed limits for cyclists - there aren't any at the moment, but any fall from speed increases risk.

I can hit over 40mph going into a 30 limit on a cycle on one of the roads into my town (even with my clunker). The law is not just there for my safety, but for the others there as well who may not see or hear me coming.

Now you might find the notion unpalettable, but that doesn't mean it is without merit. I do feel your bias colours your perspective on these things.....

 

[Linford]

Measured on what basis?

number of kms travelled in total each year in the UK by each mode.