I have my mind changed about helmets!

[400bhp]

People are free to choose how they live their life and what activities/lifestyle etc...

Up to a point they do.

It's where the line is drawn that there will always be debate.

 

[Red Light]

That one set the forum alight, now as to what tripled the death rate in racing, now could it have been increased speeds, more motorist, harder courses, better reporting and record keeping.

All of those things would have led to a gradual change over a number of years, not a sudden break as seen here. And this is professional races, not amateur, so things like reporting and record keeping should be consistently good - its hard to forget a dead body in a professional race - and a lot will be on closed roads.

 

[yello]

I thought this was fun thread. It was the last time I looked, several pages ago. Oh well....

As irritating as the helmet debate is, particular for those of us that have witnessed it time and time again, I guess it is important for people to feel they can debate it. I just wish there was something new to say on the subject. Perhaps us old hands shouldn't respond in future, perhaps only post a link to a previous debate. It's not like there's a shortage of them! Besides, saves repeating yourself. I wonder if that's my last word on the subject?

 

[classic33]

But is that really the case?

A "hair net" would have probably saved the skin flap and lacerations.

How would a "hair net" prevent the top of the head being cut opened or a cut just above the eye. Good after the fact but of little use before.

I didn't know either was going to happen so from that I take it one should be worn all the time?

 

[PpPete]

just feel that anyone who does not wear one and has an accident that damages their head should maybe pick up the repair bill themselves and not expect the rest of us to do so.

I had quite a serious accident on Saturday (details elsewhere). I was wearing:

I didn't hit my head, I don't have head injuries......are you seriously suggesting that I should pick the up the "repair bill" myself, because I wasn't wearing a helmet?

I'm sorry but you do the pro-helmet lobby no good at all with this kind of statement.

 

[400bhp]

I didn't hit my head, I don't have head injuries......are you seriously suggesting that I should pick the up the "repair bill" myself, because I wasn't wearing a helmet?

I'm sorry but you do the pro-helmet lobby no good at all with this kind of statement.

I suggest you read things properly.

 

[Crackle]

I suggest you read things properly.

The same principle applies, you just apply the, you must pay for the consequences, to anything you don't do yourself or you consider to be too risky. It's a seperate debate though, so I'll say no more, I just wanted to highlight it. Somebody can go and start it in P&L.

 

[tyred]

What I want to know is does a pelmet prevent injuries to the curtain rail in an accident like this for example....

 

[schlafsack]

Only if combined with hi-viz curtains.

 

[Red Light]

Only if combined with hi-viz curtains.

...and a segregated curtain track

 

[snailracer]

I would expect the same.....

Anyone who falls whilst having had a drink (60% of head injuries)
Anyone who has a simple fall (40% of head injuries)
Anyone over 65 (30% of head injuries)
Car occupants (32% of head injuries)
Any child not wearing a Thudguard

In all these cases it is extremely likely that a helmet could have prevented the injury so it is only right we follow your example and expect these groups to pay their way and not expect us to pick up the bill for their decision not to do so.

I assume you will be supporting this?

Is this the public's NHS bill, or the bill you send to the person you sue for damages after a collision?

Because if it's damages, your payout WILL likely be reduced if your injuries were more severe because you chose to not wear a helmet. Courts won't "penalize" pedestrians for not wearing a helmet in this situation, which, by your logic, is unfair, but that's too bad - the legal precedent has been set.

 

[Mad at urage]

Is this the public's NHS bill, or the bill you send to the person you sue for damages after a collision?

Because if it's damages, your payout WILL likely be reduced if your injuries were more severe because you chose to not wear a helmet. Courts won't "penalize" pedestrians for not wearing a helmet in this situation, which, by your logic, is unfair, but that's too bad - the legal precedent has been set.

Has it? I missed that. When and where?

 

[4F]

Is this the public's NHS bill, or the bill you send to the person you sue for damages after a collision?

Because if it's damages, your payout WILL likely be reduced if your injuries were more severe because you chose to not wear a helmet. Courts won't "penalize" pedestrians for not wearing a helmet in this situation, which, by your logic, is unfair, but that's too bad - the legal precedent has been set.

No it has not, but it was mentioned by a judge in his summing up as a possibility for the future.
Doddery old duffer.

 

[ferret fur]

No. This comes from more than one case. Most of the time it can't be proved that the helmet would have made a difference & the cyclist has to be riding in a hazardous situation... whatever that might mean. Threrefore no reduction in the vast majority of cases.

 

[snailracer]

No it has not, but it was mentioned by a judge in his summing up as a possibility for the future.
Doddery old duffer.

Doddery old duffer for sure, but, in England, obiter dicta summaries by a High Court Judge carry weight and influence other judges in other cases.

There may not have been an absolutely clear-cut case (yet) where the "no helmet = contributory negligence" principle has been fully applied. However, that's because the CTC wades in with its legal fund on those occasions when the insurance companies present the argument. As a legal fight with the CTC works out more expensive than paying a brain-damaged cyclist's piddling compo, the insurance companies settle without pressing the contributory negligence argument in court. IMO hardly a reassuring situation for the helmetless cyclist.