You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Says Dan Walker.
Apologies if it's been posted already
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-64722710
Confident I was saved from serious injury any way
Saw this on my news feed earlier and for some reason my immediate thought was...
2 packs of custard creams, a large pot of tea, a flounce, a ban and a thread lock.
I'm very much pro helmet (rarely ride anywhere without) but given that the crash testing and standards are not designed around collisions with vehicles I'm still in the camp of questioning why the actual flip we are not sending a "driver nearly killed me" message on these stories instead of "wear a polystyrene hat that's not designed for vehicle collisions" message.
‘Hit by a car’ in breach of the guidance on how traffic collisions should be reported.
The Guardian article is an absolute shocker that doesn’t appear to have been written by an actual reporter.
[url= https://i.ibb.co/fr9mbqV/1b1.gi f" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/fr9mbqV/1b1.gi f"/> [/img][/url]
Bless, it's probably the blokes first fall/crash.
Totally angled wrong and something should have been said about the driver (although do we know whose fault). It's all media crap as he's there posing with the paramedics, having left the dried blood on his face for effect - bump your nose and it will bleed.
Sipping soup through a sraw, FFS, it's a bit of bruising and gravel rash. Certainly been handled wrongly, with the wrong angle being publicised.
His helmet has most likely saved him some nasty gravel rash on his scalp and a bit of concussion.
He's obviously face planted.
‘Hit by a car’ in breach of the guidance on how traffic collisions should be reported.
What is the correct terminology?
We don't know the circumstances, though it may have been the drivers fault. Either way, cars don't hit cyclists, cyclists and drivers hit each other, which is where the wording needs changing.
For balance, a club mate said something similar about helmets last week after coming off on some diesel. Rode home, got in the shower, passed out, fell, broke his jaw in two places and lost some teeth. Despite the helmet, he had concussion.
I wish I had the photoshop skills to get a pic of a full face shower cap for him.
I wish I had the photoshop skills to get a pic of a full face shower cap for him.
I can sort that. 😂
[url= https://i.ibb.co/sb5TwvB/9ef44fec7eaa93002548738f54d8c64a-jpg-2200x2200q80-jpg.web p" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/sb5TwvB/9ef44fec7eaa93002548738f54d8c64a-jpg-2200x2200q80-jpg.web p"/> [/img][/url]
I can sort that. 😂
Ping it over if you can!
Much debate about whether he will qualify for the crash of the year trophy at the next awards night, given that the injuries were sustained in the shower.
Being picky, I was hoping for a proper chin bar on the shower cap.
Unless someone has a removable one they no longer need, I could actually make him one! 🤣
Being picky, I was hoping for a proper chin bar on the shower cap.
Unless someone has a removable one they no longer need, I could actually make him one! 🤣
LEt me do an actual PS. I'll send it once I'm done.
@hardtailonly Here you go:
Key recommendation is no. 3 If you’re talking about a driver, say a driver, not their vehicle.
Also because of the HC changes and hierarchy of responsibility, it’s likely (but not a given) that the driver was at fault here.
LEt me do an actual PS. I’ll send it once I’m done.
That would be superb. Though I'm now quite keen on the idea of also making him a real one....
I can vouch for this, an hour ago I hit concrete going down a hill at 30mph (according to strava) head definitely hit the floor hard at some point
Currently being ferried to A&E with a (probably) broken thumb and a fair few grazes cuts and gashes
Fun times!
No tuck n roll there, he must have gone down like a sack of shitake mushrooms, OTB straight on his face.
‘Hit by a car’ in breach of the guidance on how traffic collisions should be reported.
I'm not sure 'breach' is the right word. I'm sure there may be all sorts of guidelines for writing all sorts of things but very few of them will be ruies that have to be complied with. Writers may or may not be aware of them even though its nice that there are people putting thought and effort into how information can be represented more fairly and accurately than it currently is. That PDF is full of well thought out advice but thats all it ... but it has no authority and theres no reason to believe any writer would be aware of it. A journalist isn't going to get penalty points on their writing license because they are in contravention of that code. The Active Travel Academy has no remit to prosecute.
So really the article has been written in ignorance of quite a good document someone wrote.
It’s all media crap as he’s there posing with the paramedics, having left the dried blood on his face for effect – bump your nose and it will bleed.
Why would they clean it off?
Sipping soup through a sraw, FFS, it’s a bit of bruising and gravel rash. Certainly been handled wrongly, with the wrong angle being publicised.
There are other photos where it shows how swollen his face was, it would be painful to open his jaw fully and chew.
It is NUJ guidance to be fair, but you’re right, it’s got no enforceable power.
When I was 14 (long time ago) I went onto and over the bonnet of a car that pulled out from a T-junction in front of me, between parked cars. I was very lucky and only damaged the car and my tennis racket. About 2 weeks later, my mate, who was a full-on jnr roadie went into the back of a van cos he could not stop in time. Copper and ambulance said he only survived thanks to his lid. I've worn one ever since, and I have a habit of hitting the deck as evidenced on Sunday gone, and ****ting my head off tree branches. YMMV and I make no judgement.
That would be superb. Though I’m now quite keen on the idea of also making him a real one….
Done! Check your DM's.
I’m very much pro helmet (rarely ride anywhere without) but given that the crash testing and standards are not designed around collisions with vehicles I’m still in the camp of questioning why the actual flip we are not sending a “driver nearly killed me” message on these stories instead of “wear a polystyrene hat that’s not designed for vehicle collisions” message.
I am just off the phone with an old friend. He was flattened by a car while stationary at a t-junction. He will not work again at age 55. He's lost his driving license. He's going to require care and therapy ongoing, although lives independently currently.
His financial settlement has come through after nearly 3 years of arguing. It's reduced by 15% as he was not wearing a helmet.
Apparently there's precedent for settlements being reduced by even more if protested, so he was told to take what was on offer.
I find it amazing that a court thinks that a helmet could have done much - he bounced off car and hit road head first.
Any legal folk able to give insight?
Copper and ambulance said he only survived thanks to his lid.
Not that I don't wear a lid myself but what made you think these people were at all qualified to make such a definitive statement?
The discussions have been had over and over but suffice to say cycling (with or without a lid) isn't half as dangerous as it's presented by our wonderful press, at the same time helmets are not shields of invulnerability...
Helmet wearer here but one of the funniest/saddest/wierdest/enraging things i've ever heard was a colleague, a very senior safety professional, chartered fellow and phd, opine on one of the deaths of a cyclist in london where they were left hooked by a 32 tonne tipper "she wasn't even wearing a helmet..."
It’s reduced by 15% as he was not wearing a helmet.
They tried to do that to my claim when I was taken out by a taxi, also tried to reduce it due to me not having lights even though it was broad daylight. The fact I had both and was claiming for their replacement cost managed to pass them by!
Another one here in Aus...
Hit by a truck, helmet saved his life.
Dashcam footage is brutal:
I've got a couple of very borked helmets in the shed, once landscape, once when head hit road courtesy of driver in mini taking me out.
All I can say is that, on both occasions, I'd rather not think about the outcomes if I hadn't been wearing them.
And as for getting cleaned up, I came out of A&E after 23 hours, with my face still bloodied. They were so busy they weren't fretting about superficials, just making sure my neck was in good shape, and splinting my borked knee
It’s reduced by 15% as he was not wearing a helmet.
Surely he should have argued this? Giro are on record stating their helmets aren't designed for impacts with cars. Why not reduce it 50% for not wearing a full face? If your friend was stationary at a T-junction he technically wasn't even cycling! Or does just being in the road mean you have to wear a helmet? Do we need them for crossing the road now?
I share similar questions.
But his legal team advised he took it - and shared with him some precedent cases why the reduction could be more if he argued it.
His final settlement is still mid 6-figures, and he already had interim payment made to his costs.
I’m pretty sure I’ve been saved from serious injury several times by wearing a helmet and have a collection of cracked and broken helmets to show for it!
Apparent footage of Dan Walkers accident
Driver changes lanes, doesn't look.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/21466140/moment-dan-walker-hit-by-car-bike-knocked-out/
Yeah. Saw that footage. I do a lot of urban cycling in Glasgow. I choose my battles though. A fast busy three lane roundabout? I'd take the underpass even if it cost me 30 seconds or a minute.
I can confidently predict my unhelmted ride through the underpass would be safer than his helmeted ride through the roundabout.
Just watched the video footage. Lucky the driver was at least awake enough to slam the anchors on after knocking him off. Used to commute to sheffield on the bike before COVID. Know the roundabout and I'd personally use the underpass.
Obviously he has every legal right to use the roundabout but being legally in the right doesn't help if you're dead 🙁
Shocking what other people are saying about compensation payouts being lower if people don't wear helmets or have lights on in the day, when neither are a legal requirement.
Just another example of cyclists being treated as second class road users 😡
This is of course in a city that’s delayed building adequate infra because the council leader thinks cycling is ‘too middle class’ https://road.cc/content/news/council-leader-thinks-cycling-too-middle-class-299443?amp
Probably worth thinking joining your local active travel group?
The time I didn't wear a helmet and didn't die
And that was the end of my career as a model
I'd still definitely advocate wearing a helmet, (even whilst riding back from the local curry house with a takeaway)
Regarding reduction of compensation. Complicated. There is a long piece by a lawyer, a KC, - who is also a cyclist and cycle campaigner here.
His blog is at
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/
When I had my big road crash- car pulled out at a junction, I hit it flat out, went over the car and most of the way through the back window of a parked car- I was told at least twice that my helmet saved my life when I was in the hospital. Wasn't wearing one...
You probably wouldn't have even been in hospital if you'd been wearing one :p
If you fall off a lot or have a good chance of falling off then wear a helmet if it makes you feel better. Do the same if you tend to trip over a lot, fall when running etc,.
If you think you are going to get hit by cars then maybe wear a motorbike helmet which will be much more effective.
Don't know why the helmet discussion keeps getting brought up as I ride my bike a lot and see a lot of other cyclists when I am riding/driving/walkingand would guess that well over 90% of cyclists have a helmet on and I am very much in the minority by not wearing one.
but what made you think these people were at all qualified to make such a definitive statement?
I was 14 FFS. What would I know? Perhaps the fact there was a head-shaped large dent in the vans rear door, along with an obliterated helmet, and my mate didn't die/serious head injury. I don't know. I'm not an expert. Are you? The debate can go on all it likes, but from my own perspective I'll wear a lid thanks. At the risk of repeating myself, YMMV I make no judgement.
Don’t know why the helmet discussion keeps getting brought up as I ride my bike a lot and see a lot of other cyclists when I am riding/driving/walkingand would guess that well over 90% of cyclists have a helmet on and I am very much in the minority by not wearing one.
No interest in the general debate, live and let live etc, but last time it came up on here I did a count on my cycle commute home on cs7 in London and the no helmet riders edged it, some thing like 30/25 iirc.
Trying to work out which roundabout that is- bottom of Ecclesall Road?
Dan Walker did nothing wrong in the vid imo. Driver was in Wrong lane then changed lane and hit Walker. Driver totally at fault imo.
You probably wouldn’t have even been in hospital if you’d been wearing one :p
For balance, he might have died due to wearing one! See how wild extrapolation can work both ways.
Just watched the vid footage from link on first page of thread, my god that is **** driving, they shouldn't have a license!
No tuck n roll there, he must have gone down like a sack of shitake mushrooms, OTB straight on his face.
As someone who's done precisely that - OTB and faceplant at about 20mph+ - I dread to think what would have happened to me had I not had a helmet on. Well... the surgeon who stitched and glued my face back together gave me a good idea. He said that given the impact injuries to my face (multi-directional lacerations - great fun!) that I would have been looking at 'life-changing' injuries, or worse. Though I suppose death comes under the category of 'life-changing'
I had a Giro Hex on which did its job
I wince when I see riders flying past our house, downhill, at speed with no helmets on. Its surprising how many don't bother wearing them. It doesn't take much for everything to go horribly wrong, very quickly
Its a personal choice though. Darwinism, innit?
No interest in the general debate, live and let live etc, but last time it came up on here I did a count on my cycle commute home on cs7 in London and the no helmet riders edged it, some thing like 30/25 iirc.
Surprised by the difference. When riding around the New Forest I would put helmet wearers at 99% as very rarely see a rider without one unless I look in the reflection of a window. In the towns close by it is still higher than non helmet wearing but that includes the kids who keep it on their rucksack until they get close to home and put it on to pretend they also have it on.
Its a personal choice though. Darwinism, innit?
Hardly. When assessing the risks and type of riding I do have no need wear one, you riding may differ and you may feel you need to wear one. That is pretty far from Darwinism.
I dread to think what would have happened to me had I not had a helmet on.
You will never know unless you repeat the same accident but your biases have you believe it would be worse. Helmet discussion are as pointless as religious discussion as it is all belief and no science.
That pdf on the previous page made interesting reading. Think the chap mentioned was unfortunate to take a hit on his compensation claim, hopefully his solicitor pursued the highest amount in expectation that there might be a deduction.
From the pdf it didn't seem to me to be a massive leap to dark clothing/lack of lights being used in mitigation either. Though not sure how that would stack up given every car on the road is black or grey.
From my own experience of compensation claims I don't remember much focus on this. But I was wearing a helmet anyhow. Certainly saved my bacon. Didn't help my spine sadly but given how long the concussion lasted things would have likely been far worse without the lid.
At the risk of repeating myself, YMMV I make no judgement.
Easy petal, I was just asking a question, and simply trying to highlight that the accepted wisdom around Lid use doesn't seem to be based upon much more than anecdotes. Like you I'll still wear mine, but I have to keep reminding myself that they're probably not as effective as various (also unqualified) people seem so keen to tell us they are. From some of what's been put on this thread they seem most effective at deflecting blame when insurance companies end up paying out.
I'll also note the level of press interest in this specific RTI is interesting. I doubt the other ~80 similar incidents that will happen this week will get the same level of coverage, primarily because the bicycle user in this instance was on the telly... Not that I have any idea who he is, but I think it's noteworthy...
Surprised by the difference
so was I a little but there were a lot of people just cycling rather than “serious” commuters and the like
Darwinism, innit?
exactly, I can do routine tasks without smashing my head open therefore my genes will thrive for generations to come 😉
(I have no kids so technically my genes won’t).
Giro are on record stating their helmets aren’t designed for impacts with cars.
Surely you (the cyclist) can have an impact with a car where the car doesn't hit your noggin directly but throws you to the ground/at some street furniture and your head then makes contact with the ground/street furniture. Surely in this situation it doesn't really matter what ejected you from your bike, it's just another fall as far as physics is concerned (obviously within limits - car throws you at 60mph at a tree then it's a bit different).....Whilst it feels a bit too much like victim blaming I can begrudgingly see some sort of logic in the no helmet, reduced compensation rationale IF the crash caused damage that could have been mitigated to some extent by a bit of polystyrene. Not if it would have made no difference. You get compensated for all injuries sustained in a crash not just the ones caused directly by lumps of car shaped metal so if the impact meant you fell to the floor and hit your head on a kerb I can see it sort of makes some twisted sense.
I forgot my helmet the other day when riding back home from dropping the car off - found it equal quantities of wind-in-the-hair liberating and like I had stepped out of the changing rooms at the swimming pool and forgotten to put on my swimmers (that's more of a repeated nightmare/dream level of knowing what it feels like rather than something I've done in a deliberate Glen Quagmire Giggity moment!)!
I've got little issue with someone (in this case) who has suffered major facial injuries, has a video of their head hitting the floor, and a damaged helmet drawing the conclusion that the helmet saved their life or at least prevented far worse damage.
I do object to people (seen on this forum in the past, facebook etc) taking a fairly minor tumble, resulting in little more than a minor headache and scratched/dented helmet, loudly and confidently proclaim that they most certainly would be dead were it not for their lid.
I don’t have a problem with folks not wearing a helmet, it’s entirely up to them. However what I don’t understand is why folks don’t want to wear one?
If you don’t have one then fair enough, but if you do then it’s not exactly a hassle to put it on. Even if you don’t believe it’ll save your life, if you do fall off it’s more than likely going to offer some protection, even if that’s only reducing the amount of cuts and bruises
However what I don’t understand is why folks don’t want to wear one?
I'll not wear one fatbiking on the beach, I might wear one tootling around on fire roads or winter walking trails/piste as well as cutting the speed back and I will wear one trail riding.
Why? Seems sensible to me. XC skiers don't wear helmets as a rule and they crack on at speed, for example.. Do I need to wear one by association with the equipment I'm using? Bike, ergo, helmet?
The pdf article made interesting comments re drivers and pedestrians using helmets based on numbers and stats but that is a long way from being normalised.
However what I don’t understand is why folks don’t want to wear one?
I don't need to wear one rather than don't want to wear one. Just as I don't need to wear one when running or walking. Why don't you want to wear one when walking?
The 15% discount the court gave the insurers.
It's termed as 'contributory negligence' - ie the injured person contributed (in the view of the courts / past case law) to the extent of injury or in some cases the accident itself.
The lesson is to not give the other side the excuse to claim you weren't doing anything right. Wear a helmet, wear gloves (can you work with no skin on your hands ?) have lights on even in the daytime, etc.
I can see why the Lawyers said 'take the money' - 'a bird in the hand' as it is said and all that. No different to any 'out of court' settlement- don't take the risk and the potential to either lose or not get as much.
I don’t have a problem with folks not wearing a helmet, it’s entirely up to them. However what I don’t understand is why folks don’t want to wear one?
If you don’t have one then fair enough, but if you do then it’s not exactly a hassle to put it on. Even if you don’t believe it’ll save your life, if you do fall off it’s more than likely going to offer some protection, even if that’s only reducing the amount of cuts and bruises
It's not that I don't want to wear one, it's that I don't want anyone to be compelled or pressured into wearing one whenever they consider using a bicycle we need more people travelling round towns/cities by bicycle than car so lets not drive them away...
The choice is there for the individual to take, I also don't like the idea that "safety" is seen as more reliant on bicycle users wearing an optional piece of PPE rather than drivers operating their cars in a safe manner. If it comes down to you needing a helmet to save you then an awful lot of other things have potentially failed (brakes, signage, mirrors, speed limits, driver training, lighting, etc). We shouldn't be defaulting to helmets as the "answer" to KSI'd bicycle users, we should work harder to prevent the actual incident, don't start/finish your efforts by trying to mitigate the consequences and sticking a plastic hat on anyone using a bicycle as if being run down is inevitable...
It seems the pressure is there already with people having driver's liability settlements reduced just for their lack of a lid, that's defacto victim blaming in my book.
There's a pretty much annual campaign for helmet/hi-viz compulsion from one corner or another of the press...
The constant message is that cycling is "Dangerous" and you need a helmet. Every unsubstantiated claim of "Helmet saved life" adds to the narrative that not being killed by a car is bicycle user's responsibility, that helmets somehow make you invulnerable and that car drivers can simply absolve themselves of their duty of care by pointing and shouting "he/she's not even wearing a helmet!".
Nah, the lid is entirely optional and really shouldn't be required because all drivers are dilligent, safe and alert...
I don’t have a problem with folks not wearing a helmet, it’s entirely up to them. However what I don’t understand is why folks don’t want to wear one?
If you don’t have one then fair enough, but if you do then it’s not exactly a hassle to put it on. Even if you don’t believe it’ll save your life, if you do fall off it’s more than likely going to offer some protection, even if that’s only reducing the amount of cuts and bruises
I guess the first question is, why don't you wear one?
I'm assuming you don't wear one all the time? Why not? You are far more likely to receive a brain injury doing something other than cycling so why not just never take it off?
On another note, research shows that when it comes to cycling safety, safety in numbers is definitely a thing, ie, the more people who are cycling, the safer you are.
By not wearing a helmet, I'm doing my part to promote cycling as a safe activity. The public perception that you have to wear a helmet to go cycling contributes to the idea that cycling is a dangerous activity.
The more people who wear helmets, the more you promote the idea that cycling is a particularly dangerous activity that requires PPE. Be an ambassador for riding bikes and ditch the helmet for everyday riding.
I don’t need to wear one rather than don’t want to wear one. Just as I don’t need to wear one when running or walking. Why don’t you want to wear one when walking?
why did I just know someone would come back with the old ‘you don’t wear one walking round the house’. I think that answer is fairly obvious tbh…
It’s not that I don’t want to wear one, it’s that I don’t want anyone to be compelled or pressured into wearing one whenever they consider using a bicycle we need more people travelling round towns/cities by bicycle than car so lets not drive them away…
thanks. Whilst I don’t particularly agree with your stance at least it’s insightful. And I 100% agree it’s your choice to make
why did I just know someone would come back with the old ‘you don’t wear one walking round the house’. I think that answer is fairly obvious tbh…
It's really not.
It’s really not
maybe not to you …
Good comments from Cookeaa and Bruce just now. They sum up my take very well.
Daily Mail's headline - His rear wheel hit the car - FFS
maybe not to you …
They do say if you can't explain something in simple enough terms that a 6 year old can understand you don't really understand it yourself.
So go ahead and try explaining it to me.
maybe not to you …
Nor to me. Please explain.
The 15% discount the court gave the insurers.
It’s termed as ‘contributory negligence’ – ie the injured person contributed (in the view of the courts / past case law) to the extent of injury or in some cases the accident itself.
Yes indeed. I think everyone realises that.
The lesson is to not give the other side the excuse to claim you weren’t doing anything right. Wear a helmet, wear gloves (can you work with no skin on your hands ?) have lights on even in the daytime, etc.
No. That's completely NOT the lesson. All you're doing there is following the car narrative that it's vulnerable users' responsibility to reduce accidents/ injuries/ deaths rather than the ****ing people driving the ****ing cars.
All you're doing is normalising and accepting the abhorrent behaviour.
It's like these schoolkids you see walking to school in groups with hi viz vests. It's utterly arse about face.
Sooner or later ( TBH its probably happened already) kids are going to end up with contributory negligence for not wearing high viz whilst out playing.
And in twenty years' we'll have " well m'lud the kid did cross the street without having the appropriate phalanx of flashing Amber light holders 2m in front, behind and to the side of him"
He said that given the impact injuries to my face (multi-directional lacerations – great fun!) that I would have been looking at ‘life-changing’ injuries, or worse.
I don't tend to take surgical advice from road safety professionals, maybe surgeons should stick to their speciality of patching people up? The surgeons can only speculate on outcomes as a full double blind comparison of outcomes is neither possible nor ethical.
Not getting into the debate about lids, but the only time I don't wear one is when pottering about with the family, and none of us wear one as we aren't going quickly, nor are we near traffic. The amount of comments we get from overweight wobblers is crazy - oh 'they aren't wearing a helmet', as we slowly tootle past on proper MTB's on a seaside shared path (I won't mention we would usually be on the way for a beer or two).
When training, commuting, or smashing it about off road, I wear one. Hit my head enough times when knocked off (by cars) to see the benefit of not getting gravel rash on the thin skin on my scalp, and after having headbutted a gravel trail when I didn't see that tree stump that jumped out, they stop nasty cuts - they don't save your life though as a truck car is just going to squash the rest of you. Also quite handy for not getting smacked in the head by low branches.
I think @donslow needs to change their username to donfast ... Healing vibes
The amount of comments we get
Be grateful you dont live in Germany. people are not shy of sharing their opinion!
why did I just know someone would come back with the old ‘you don’t wear one walking round the house’. I think that answer is fairly obvious tbh…
Guessing it it obvious to you as you have (incorrectly), and whether knowingly or not, assessed the risks. That is what I have done (correctly) for riding a bike.
Is that Hunters Bar roundabout? Blimey, no way you'd catch me middle-laning my way across that on a bike. A significant proportion of drivers either don't understand positioning on 3-lane roundabouts, don't care about it, or are sufficiently distracted by other people jockeying for position that they aren't looking where they're going.
Helmet discussion are as pointless as religious discussion as it is all belief and no science
Now, I don't always wear a helmet, and don't think they should be mandatory. However, your assertion above is "all belief and no science".
For example - a systematic review of bicycle helmet research throws up this science-based tidbit:
This review included five well conducted case‐control studies and found that helmets provide a 63–88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets were found to provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%). Furthermore, injuries to the upper and mid facial areas were found to be reduced by 65%
Now, if we legislate for helmets, we find that it is retrograde for a population's health - because people don't like them, and therefore don't ride their bikes. And we all be fatties (gosh! trigger word!) and need the exercise.
So, for me, use 'em if you can bear them. I can't stand 'em - so if I'm doing gentle stuff I don't bother. I take 'em off on climbs. But I wear them on the trail.
That link on cycling helmets and contributory negligence is very interesting. If I've understood it properly, the established case law is that if you don't wear a helmet AND wearing one would have affected the injury sustained, then a settlement could be reduced.
@tpbiker:
what I don’t understand is why folks don’t want to wear one?
Because I find it horrible to wear. Genuinely don't like them. Don't like the feel of them, don't get used to them, never get to a "I'm not aware it's there" state.
I've a friend who doesn't get it. Wears his all the time. Gives me lots of crap about it. But the fact is - he can't bring himself to understand that it's an unpleasant sensation for me.
Humans can be different in many ways, he doesn't experience what I experience. End of tbh.
So go ahead and try explaining it to me
So you can just argue the toss?
I will continue to believe it’s more appropriate to wear a helmet when cycling than when going about the rest of my daily life. You can believe whatever you want. 👍
I think mine saved my life or saved me from a life-changing brain injury last summer - I'm not 100% sure what happened because I don't remember the ride before or a couple of hours after I hit the deck very hard with the side of my head and knocked myself out. But I was doing about 25mph when it happened.
My Dad was very safety conscious (fitted seat belts to cars before they were standard) and I think I got my first bike helmet when I got my first MTB, although I learnt to ride and rode my BMX without one - but so did everyone else in the '80s! It feels really strange not having a helmet on.
I am however under no illusion that wearing a helmet has downsides - I swear the more you look like a normal pedestrian and the less you look like a cyclist, the better drivers treat you (which is why I'm glad I commute on a more upright and moto looking mountain bike, not a road bike). And clearly a bit of plastic and polystyrene isn't going to do much when you get hit by a tonne (or far more) of motor vehicle.
Vast majority of the daily mail readership is blaming Mr Walker for the accident. The dm despite having the footage are refusing to show it, and just a series of 2 stills that show nothing other than the impact.
In the vid we can clearly see the car changing lanes.
Now we can forgive the dm readershiop for being thick and hateful, but the paper itself is deliberately and maliciously manipulating the story to put the blame heavily towards the cyclist, as it plays into their stirring of hatred towards cyclists.
I'd an OTB fall a number of years ago and completely my own fault. Polished off a bottle of vodka with a friend and decided to cycle home.
Rode straight into a traffic island. No lid, ended up landing on my head(luckily the hardest part of me) and pitched over.
My only injury was whiplash- and a hell of a headache for 2 days and a bump that anyone could be proud of.
However at the hospital the doctor thought if i had been wearing a lid, the amount it sticks out possibly would have pushed my neck beyond what it could take and maybe broken the neck. He wasnt saying this was a definite, but the chances were it might have went that way. Again this is from my description of how I landed and the damage done. Im not going to say or imply this is a medical diagnosis.
The whiplash i got, and damage to the nerve there left me with the injury that lasted 5 years, and even today 12yrs on, if i carry a shoulder bag for too long my neck in that area becomes stiff and sore. Whiplash injuries usually last 6 months to a year, so mine was pretty bad in that respect