I have my mind changed about helmets!

[snailracer]

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?

IIRC EuroNCAP even has a pedestrian safety rating, now.

 

[2Loose]

Anecdotal evidence where not wearing a helmet saved me (some) injury. <forgive me

>

A few years ago I locked up the front and rear heading down hill towards a cross roads with the lights on red. It was a hot day and there was surface dust on the road (my brakes have never worked that well before or since!). I was probably doing over 35mph when I locked up.

I was in the left lane, moving cars were on my right. I had a split second choice - splash down in the middle of the carriageway, or try and get out of the way of any traffic. I instinctively chose the latter, my back wheel fishtailed out to the right almost alongside me at this point and I headed towards the kerb.

Impact with the kerb, still doing well over 20mph imho. I released the bars, stamped my left foot into the tarmac and tucked and rolled. I really don't know how, but the only physical damage I had was a grazed left shoulder and the heel of my right hand. A little blood. Nothing touched my head, somehow I had tucked it out of the way. A few bits of grit in my skin, but nothing that an efficient nurse couldn't get out of me with a scrubbing brush. Ow.

I seriously believe that had I got my helmet on at that time, that I wouldn't have completed that roll. Perhaps it would have stopped the roll being completed and I would have slid on my helmet, possibly meaning a more stretched out body impacting the pavement.

Perhaps the helmet would have been badly damaged and it would be me shouting 'A helmet saved my life'.

Either way, if my head (or helmet) had made contact with the floor, I seriously think that I would have hit the ground a hell of a lot harder. An impact like that should have broken bones. I believe that it is only the way in which I rolled that minimised the injuries. It was only because I could tuck my head out of the way that allowed me to roll like that in that situation. I believe that not wearing a helmet saved me a lot of pain.

Since then, I have only bothered to wear my lid when SWMBO dictated it, or when it is raining (it has a little peak!).

I've also been on a ride where I took away a work colleagues helmet because he was showing early signs of heat stroke and needed to cool down quickly.

I do think that the emphasis should be on preventing the cause of injury, rather than making it all go away by using the placebo effect. Training, education and enforcement. Not a plastic head cover.

Until someone can show me a proper study of 20 mph cycle helmet versus 40mph cars situation, all of this means precisely nothing to me.

 

[snailracer]

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?

A judge said "no helmet = contributory negligence", for cyclists. No judge has applied the same reasoning for pedestrians, AFAIK. That is how things stand in the world of personal injury compo. If you're now talking about entitlement to NHS treatment, well that's a different kettle of fish I chose not to answer in my first reply or this one.

 

[MacB]

Would there be some sort of sliding scale re contributory negligence or is it hard and fast? As in, say you get taken out by a drunk or speeding driver?

 

[slowmotion]

Anecdotal evidence where not wearing a helmet saved me (some) injury. <forgive me

>

A few years ago I locked up the front and rear heading down hill towards a cross roads with the lights on red. It was a hot day and there was surface dust on the road (my brakes have never worked that well before or since!). I was probably doing over 35mph when I locked up.

I was in the left lane, moving cars were on my right. I had a split second choice - splash down in the middle of the carriageway, or try and get out of the way of any traffic. I instinctively chose the latter, my back wheel fishtailed out to the right almost alongside me at this point and I headed towards the kerb.

Impact with the kerb, still doing well over 20mph imho. I released the bars, stamped my left foot into the tarmac and tucked and rolled. I really don't know how, but the only physical damage I had was a grazed left shoulder and the heel of my right hand. A little blood. Nothing touched my head, somehow I had tucked it out of the way. A few bits of grit in my skin, but nothing that an efficient nurse couldn't get out of me with a scrubbing brush. Ow.

I seriously believe that had I got my helmet on at that time, that I wouldn't have completed that roll. Perhaps it would have stopped the roll being completed and I would have slid on my helmet, possibly meaning a more stretched out body impacting the pavement.

Perhaps the helmet would have been badly damaged and it would be me shouting 'A helmet saved my life'.

Either way, if my head (or helmet) had made contact with the floor, I seriously think that I would have hit the ground a hell of a lot harder. An impact like that should have broken bones. I believe that it is only the way in which I rolled that minimised the injuries. It was only because I could tuck my head out of the way that allowed me to roll like that in that situation. I believe that not wearing a helmet saved me a lot of pain.

Since then, I have only bothered to wear my lid when SWMBO dictated it, or when it is raining (it has a little peak!).

I've also been on a ride where I took away a work colleagues helmet because he was showing early signs of heat stroke and needed to cool down quickly.

I do think that the emphasis should be on preventing the cause of injury, rather than making it all go away by using the placebo effect. Training, education and enforcement. Not a plastic head cover.

Until someone can show me a proper study of 20 mph cycle helmet versus 40mph cars situation, all of this means precisely nothing to me.

That is a great post. Thank-you.

 

[ufkacbln]

A judge said "no helmet = contributory negligence", for cyclists. No judge has applied the same reasoning for pedestrians, AFAIK. That is how things stand in the world of personal injury compo. If you're now talking about entitlement to NHS treatment, well that's a different kettle of fish I chose not to answer in my first reply or this one.

Total misinterpretation on your part I am afraid!

The original post was by Screenman:

Did I ever say I am certainly against compulsion for helmet wearing, 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.

My reply was pointed out that if one accepted this ludicrous suggestion then

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?

This served it's purpose as it showed the original statement was indefensible, when I pointed out that the question was being avoided I was and still am correct.

I do however note that you have been more honest in stating that you refuse to discuss this point, and divert away into other areas.

 

[Red Light]

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.

I was sloppy in my wording. Yes, a judge has set the precedent that cyclists can be found to be contributory negligent for not wearing a helmet BUT in that case and all the cases since, no judge has found the helmet would have made any difference so did not reduce the compensation. So not wearing a helmet does not mean contributory negligence.

It will be interesting to see if a judge ever does find contributory negligence because you only need to point out the EN1078 test standard to rule out the vast majority of situations.

 

[classic33]

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?

Thats 162% not including children not wear Thudguards.
Does this mean that there are car occupants, over 65 who may fall getting out of the car because they have had a drink?

 

[youngoldbloke]

High cheese consumption is IMHO far more dangerous than not wearing a helmet and should be legislated against. I myself have suffered serious health issues as a result of consuming large quantities of cheddar and other tasty cheeses, and as a result cannot cycle as far or as fast as I would have been able to if my freedom to do so had been resticted. I know this to be true! So please stop tempting me and other vulnerable users by publishing cheese porn on this thread.

 

[abo]

To quote my Carrera manual:

'WARNING: Failure to wear a helmet when riding may result in serious injury or death.'

So even the mere act of riding the bike could kill you if you don't wear a lid, let alone crashing! Do as Halfords say and wear a helmet!!!

 

[abo]

To quote my Carrera manual:

'WARNING: Failure to wear a helmet when riding may result in serious injury or death.'

So even the mere act of riding the bike could kill you if you don't wear a lid, let alone crashing! Do as Halfords say and wear a helmet!!!

 

[tyred]

To quote my Carrera manual:

'WARNING: Failure to wear a helmet when riding may result in serious injury or death.'

So even the mere act of riding the bike could kill you if you don't wear a lid, let alone crashing! Do as Halfords say and wear a helmet!!!

I hope they recommend something in Halfords helmet range.

 

[abo]

To quote my Carrera manual:

'WARNING: Failure to wear a helmet when riding may result in serious injury or death.'

So even the mere act of riding the bike could kill you if you don't wear a lid, let alone crashing! Do as Halfords say and wear a helmet!!!

 

[ufkacbln]

Thats 162% not including children not wear Thudguards.
Does this mean that there are car occupants, over 65 who may fall getting out of the car because they have had a drink?

Well done- you have got it absolutely right!

However no-one has yet answered why cyclist without helmets should be disenfranchised from the NHS yet these groups aren't?

 

[ianrauk]

Well done- you have got it absolutely right!

However no-one has yet answered why cyclist without helmets should be disenfranchised from the NHS yet these groups aren't?

You don't really expect anyone to answer that question do you?