I have my mind changed about helmets!

[Spin City]

In a previous helmet thread I commented as follows:

"I cannot recollect similar anecdotal 'evidence' stating that not wearing a helmet was beneficial in an incident where a cyclist has hit their head on a hard object. If you are one of these cyclists then please post this 'evidence' so there is some balance in the debate."

It's good to see that in this thread at least two people have posted about not wearing a helmet in incidents where it would be common for people to expect a helmet to provide some protection.

Mickle says he/she went head first through a car windscreen at 40mph and was treated for a leg injury so I am imagining that his/her head wasn't injured in this incident.

Mad@urage says he/she was involved in a head-on collision with a car's wing/windscreen at a combined speed of 60mph (30mph bike plus 30mph car). In this incident there was no fracture to the skull but I'm not sure if the contact with Mad@urage's head was just a glancing blow or something more or less significant.

I hope I have recounted the incidences you were involved in accurately.

Finally, I have to say that if I imagine hitting a hard and stationary object with my head at either 40mph or 60mph I can only think that I would sustain some serious injuries so it really is hats off to these two posters to come away with such negligible injuries (or so I am led to believe) in the circumstances of their collisions.

 

[mickle]

It's good to see that in this thread at least two people have posted about not wearing a helmet in incidents where it would be common for people to expect a helmet to provide some protection.

Mickle says he went head first through a car windscreen at 40mph and was treated for a leg injury so I am imagining that his head wasn't injured in this incident.

My head hurt for sure - I destroyed a windscreen with it after all - but there was no blood, and I had no concussion. Was I injured either permanently or temporarily? Possibly in ways I am unable to specify from a brain damage point of view. Who knows, I might have been better able to string a sentence together if the incident hadn't happened.

But I know I'd have wrecked a helmet if I'd been wearing one!

 

[classic33]

In a previous helmet thread I commented as follows:

"I cannot recollect similar anecdotal 'evidence' stating that not wearing a helmet was beneficial in an incident where a cyclist has hit their head on a hard object. If you are one of these cyclists then please post this 'evidence' so there is some balance in the debate."

It's good to see that in this thread at least two people have posted about not wearing a helmet in incidents where it would be common for people to expect a helmet to provide some protection.

Mickle says he/she went head first through a car windscreen at 40mph and was treated for a leg injury so I am imagining that his/her head wasn't injured in this incident.

Mad@urage says he/she was involved in a head-on collision with a car's wing/windscreen at a combined speed of 60mph (30mph bike plus 30mph car). In this incident there was no fracture to the skull but I'm not sure if the contact with Mad@urage's head was just a glancing blow or something more or less significant.

I hope I have recounted the incidences you were involved in accurately.

Finally, I have to say that if I imagine hitting a hard and stationary object with my head at either 40mph or 60mph I can only think that I would sustain some serious injuries so it really is hats off to these two posters to come away with such negligible injuries (or so I am led to believe) in the circumstances of their collisions.

Involved in one accident in 2005. Left leg trapped between bike frame & the front end of the still moving vehicle. Head did impact on the bonnet with sufficient force to leave a dent in it. Full face helmet in use at the time, side impact protection given.

Other than the injury to the leg & lower torso the other major injury was a whiplash injury to the neck. Caused in part by the helmet being worn at the time. When the police attended/or didn't attend I was made remove the helmet, against medical advice & common sense, so that they could talk to me. Whiplash confirmed by the hospital, but taking it off in the first place against medical advice made the fact one was being worn a waste of time.

Yes I still wear the same type of helmet, on two wheels. But that is my choice, not the choice of someone else to make for me.

 

[Red Light]

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.

There have been several cases since which have gone through the Courts and in each case they decided that the helmet would not have made any difference to the outcome. So its been tested far more than you suggest and so far concluded "no helmet =/ contributory negligence"

 

[ufkacbln]

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.

Nicely avoiding the question.....

If as in the post I replied to a cyclist without a helmet is no longer entitled to NHS care because "they could have reduced the injury", why should these other groups nor also lose entitlement for the same reasons?

 

[ufkacbln]

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.

Seprately we could (and should) be seeking greater damages where a driver chooses to inflict greaer damage or injury on a pedestrian, cyclist or other road user?

If you are hit by a vehicle with a EuroNCAP rating of 4 or 5 stars then the injuries will be less than an identical accident with a vehicle with no stars. By making the informed choice to inflict greater injury the driver should be penalised more?

 

[mickle]

Seprately we could (and should) be seeking greater damages where a driver chooses to inflict greaer damage or injury on a pedestrian, cyclist or other road user?

If you are hit by a vehicle with a EuroNCAP rating of 4 or 5 stars then the injuries will be less than an identical accident with a vehicle with no stars. By making the informed choice to inflict greater injury the driver should be penalised more?

Brilliant.

 

[Mad at urage]

In a previous helmet thread I commented as follows:

"I cannot recollect similar anecdotal 'evidence' stating that not wearing a helmet was beneficial in an incident where a cyclist has hit their head on a hard object. If you are one of these cyclists then please post this 'evidence' so there is some balance in the debate."

It's good to see that in this thread at least two people have posted about not wearing a helmet in incidents where it would be common for people to expect a helmet to provide some protection.

Mickle says he/she went head first through a car windscreen at 40mph and was treated for a leg injury so I am imagining that his/her head wasn't injured in this incident.

Mad@urage says he/she was involved in a head-on collision with a car's wing/windscreen at a combined speed of 60mph (30mph bike plus 30mph car). In this incident there was no fracture to the skull but I'm not sure if the contact with Mad@urage's head was just a glancing blow or something more or less significant.

I hope I have recounted the incidences you were involved in accurately.

Finally, I have to say that if I imagine hitting a hard and stationary object with my head at either 40mph or 60mph I can only think that I would sustain some serious injuries so it really is hats off to these two posters to come away with such negligible injuries (or so I am led to believe) in the circumstances of their collisions.

The blow was direct enough for (presumably) the wipers to gouge a line out of my Bolles, break their frame and rip a line out of my right eyebrow (15 stitches worth). Pretty sure that would have wrecked a helmet designed to take no more than 100 joules; [speculation] catching one side like that with sharp metal may well have caused rotational injury [/speculation], that's as provable as all the 'helmet saved a life' stories we hear.

 

[Red Light]

Seprately we could (and should) be seeking greater damages where a driver chooses to inflict greaer damage or injury on a pedestrian, cyclist or other road user?

If you are hit by a vehicle with a EuroNCAP rating of 4 or 5 stars then the injuries will be less than an identical accident with a vehicle with no stars. By making the informed choice to inflict greater injury the driver should be penalised more?

I think it should also be if the car is not covered in an inch of polystyrene foam to protect cyclists and pedestrians and is not painted in hi-viz

 

[italiafirenze]

... the surgeon said that if he had been wearing a helmet then his head injuries would have been far less extensive...

You realise the surgeon is no more qualified to make that assessment than you or I?

 

[just jim]

Can we get back to the cheese? It looks delicious!

 

[400bhp]

Still no-one died yet?

 

[screenman]

Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

 

[blubb]

Who let the health and safety horde out of their cage?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-p7-gzZkBw...dBQuVOLY/s1600/totalsafetysuit_fortheblog.PNG

 

[snailracer]

There have been several cases since which have gone through the Courts and in each case they decided that the helmet would not have made any difference to the outcome. So its been tested far more than you suggest and so far concluded "no helmet =/ contributory negligence"

That was true of those particular cases, where the accident parameters were such that a helmet was not considered effective. That doesn't rule out contributory negligence in those cases that may be contested where the accident parameters are different and could make a difference.

http://www.telegraph...g-a-helmet.html

In this case, the Judge ruled that contributory negligence applied as a principle - it just didn't apply in this specific case, due to the excessive speed of the impact. Would it apply in the case of a slower impact? I think yes, going by what the judge said.