Wearing a helmet saved my life

So you can just argue the toss?

Yes, you tell me that being at home is much safer than being on the bike, I show statistics that show it's not actually that much safer, you take the huff, say things like, 'But obviously....'

So yeah, it was to get you to 'argue the toss' so that I could demonstrate why your thinking is wrong.

I can see why you wouldn't want to have that happen.

The 15% discount the court gave the insurers.

Wasn't clear it had gone to court from the description earlier. Sounded to me like the solicitors and insurers had agreed the amount of the loss at X, and the insurers said "you can have X less 15% now, or go to court and argue it wasn't a contributory factor to get X in full"

The solicitors seemed to have advised the claimant to take the quicker option - presumably on good expert advice as to their chances in court.

Wasn’t clear it had gone to court from the description earlier. Sounded to me like the solicitors and insurers had agreed the amount of the loss at X, and the insurers said “you can have X less 15% now, or go to court and argue it wasn’t a contributory factor to get X in full”

The solicitors seemed to have advised the claimant to take the quicker option – presumably on good expert advice as to their chances in court.

Sounds realistic.

However, why does the general public consensus consider an open face bike helmet "normal" PPE - and nothing else, at least in terms of physical protection.
Someone has already mentioned gloves, and the likely consequences to temporary loss of employment to an ungloved hand on tarmac crash.
Full face helmets, knee and elbow pads (hell even long sleeve and long trousers), back protectors?
Yes I think it would be absurd to wear these on a commute, but I, and many on this thread probably own those items.
What about clipless pedals? using rim brakes in the rain?
Do these all get a compensation reduction as measures someone could take, but chooses not to for comfort, financial or practical reasons?

Yes you can take this to absurdity, but why do a large number of people, cyclist or non cyclist, equate bike = helmet and absolutely nothing else?

After my crash last summer I looked into full-face helmets which are suitable for pedalling in but came to the conclusion that any safety gain would be outweighed by even poorer behaviour from drivers because I’d look less like a normal human.

I can see why you wouldn’t want to have that happen.

Ah I can see where the confusion has arisen…

You think I don’t want to give you a response because I don’t have an answer to all your hard facts and you’d be able to ‘prove’ me wrong.

In reality I’m not going to give you a response because your opinion on the matter is utterly irrelevant to me and I really don’t care to debate the matter with you. I’m just not that invested in the subject!

Point of note…Avoiding a fruitless debate with an internet know it all is not the same as going in a huff..besides, since you already know you can demonstrate why I’m wrong without hearing my justification, there seems very little point in giving it! as long as you know you are right, that should be the main thing.

Hope that clears things up👍

Ok, so just to be clear, when you asked,

However what I don’t understand is why folks don’t want to wear one?

did you not want anyone to answer or just me specifically?

Full face helmets, knee and elbow pads (hell even long sleeve and long trousers), back protectors?
Yes I think it would be absurd to wear these on a commute, but I, and many on this thread probably own those items.
What about clipless pedals? using rim brakes in the rain?
Do these all get a compensation reduction as measures someone could take, but chooses not to for comfort, financial or practical reasons?

The Lawyer pdf explains.. because none of that other stuff is mentioned in the highway code and helmets are, therefore there's a reasonable expectation that you'd wear them.

It doesn't explicitly state open-faced helmet, but I'd guess they'll just say "thats what a normal person would assume" or some such lawyer speak.

None of it seems to be based on quanitative evidence.

So it seems to me to be a bit like this:

Wear a helmet if you want to. Don't if you don't want to.
If you do wear one, it'll protect you at some level from lower energy impaccts with the deck/similar. It won't protect you from high-energy impacts (head-ons, or being run-over by a truck).
There are some of us on here who are convinced that we have avoided more serious injury through wearing a helmet. THere are those who think they are useless. That's fine, that's life's rich tapestry.

While encouraging cycling is a health benefit to population health overall, that doesn't help the individual who experiences a life changing accident while cycling
Until the UK invests in the cycling infrastructure to make cycling safer for the wider population, many cyclists are going to wear helmets because there are going to be incidents where cyclists and motorists mix in traffic.

this is a good summary of the evidence

https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/cycle-helmets-evidence

https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/cycle-helmets

One of the counterintuitive things is that because the protective effects of helmets are so low and the helth benefits of cycling are so high more folk die if you even promote helmets let alone make them compulsory

Until the UK invests in the cycling infrastructure to make cycling safer for the wider population, many cyclists are going to wear helmets because there are going to be incidents where cyclists and motorists mix in traffic.

To be fair, there is an underpass on that roundabout for bikes and Peds. I guess the question is whether he was aware of it and chose the roundabout anyway (absolute nutter if so) or whether it's demonstrating that the infra is poor because it's so stop start in sheff that no one has a clue where they're going on a bike.

The latter is certainly true generally in the city but probably the former in this case, at a guess

Edit - for anyone who wants to pass judgement and doesn't know the city it's the roundabout at the end of a625 Ecclesall road and looks like he was aiming to turn right onto st Mary's gate (sheff ring road) to head for the train station at a guess. I honestly think the underpass would be faster than waiting for a gap on the roundabout in that case. Hope it doesn't come across as victim blaming though, there is no doubt it's the drivers fault

no one has a clue where they’re going on a bike.

There is a pretty good cycleway down through Sussex to Brighton, seemingly well signposted, and yet you still see folks cycling down the A23.

Thanks for confirming it’s the a625 Eccy rd roundabout. I always use the underpass there. Still the driver’s fault though. Atrocious driving

I think I’m pretty confident on a bike when commuting but I avoid that roundabout at all costs. If I HAD to go near it I’d be in the underpass for sure, though that always feels a bit dodgy when dark.

But as @docrobster says, it doesn’t excuse the appalling driving, I’m constantly amazed at people barely being able to see beyond the end of their bonnet.

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.

When I was hit by a car, one of the first things the Police man asked me when I reported it was “were you wearing a helmet”. I said that wasn’t a legal requirement, he then said “the insurance company would claim that I wasn’t being responsible for my safety if I wasn’t. I was.
Many years ago I was dropping into the old quarry on the Chase and went straight OTB. Dropped about 3 meters onto my head, helmet was in pieces and pretty sure it saved me serious injuries or worse.
The helmet hung up in Richardsons Cycles in Wolves for years.

@brucewee

did you not want anyone to answer or just me specifically?

Well, I answered him but not a sound, so I think he didn't really want an answer to the question 🙂

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%

Just FYI - that link you posted is from 2007 and is a reivew of other reviews.

Those reviews are also reviews of other reviews.

In fact, you have to all the way back to 1989, 34 years ago, to find the origin for the "80% reduction in risk" statistic.

It's from a paper by Thompson. It's pretty terrible. There's a breakdown here
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html

It's been quoted over and over and over again for decades.

Yes from memory that Thompson paper was flawed. Something about helmet wearers in safe suburbs with inner city kids not wearing helmet. The difference being due largely to the environment not the helmets.

As per the above link

Well, I answered him but not a sound, so I think he didn’t really want an answer to the question

I also answered but they didn't like my answer as it questioned their question and they couldn't address my question.
I am going to go with no they don't really want to know why people don't wear a helmet but to sum up just in case they did want to know after all;
- Risk no higher than other activities wear helmets are never worn
- Comfort/hassle

As for the insurance angle, do claims get lowered for head injuries in cars if the driver has not chosen to wear a helmet? As helmets are not legally required on bicycle or in car is that not the same argument (IANAL)

do claims get lowered for head injuries in cars if the driver has not chosen to wear a helmet?

Not in the highway code unsurprisingly.

The Highway Code says pedestrians should

Help other road users to see you. Wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions. When it is dark, use reflective materials (eg armbands, sashes, waistcoats, jackets, footwear), w

Any Peds had their claims reduced?

As far as I am aware this "reduction" is a try on that has never actually gone to court - certainly not a high enough court to set precedent

it’s the roundabout at the end of a625 Ecclesall road

For balance, I use that roundabout most days. It’s intimidating in that it’s busy but it doesn’t feel particularly dangerous to me - I definitely have more fear re: someone pulling out of a side junction down the rest of Eccy Rd…

I don’t like the underpass - I always think I’m going to run someone over.

As far as I am aware this “reduction” is a try on that has never actually gone to court – certainly not a high enough court to set precedent

@tjagain

Read the lawyer links on page 1 - it's gone to court and is pretty standard for these things. Parallels in all sorts of compensation awards - e.g. the employee didn't wear the helmet provided, but the company hadn't trained or insisted on it being worn enough. The blame is therefore 'shared' in a proportion and any compensation is also awarded to this proportion.

I was just surprised that the legal precedent is there for a car Vs a polystyrene bunnet. But it is.

Matt - that appears to be decisions going both ways and none in a high enough court to set precedent?

The principle is there and insurers try it on but they would have to show in court that a helmet would have reduced injuries.  Hard to prove.

IANAL but I believe if a claimant rejected the 15% deduction and went to court they would be liable for costs if they lost.

So take 15% cut or risk huge costs oout of the 85%?

https://www.stephens-scown.co.uk/personal-disputes/resolving-disputes-the-cost-of-rejecting-offers/

So you may struggle to get anyone to go to court over 15%

Another one here in Aus…

Hit by a truck, helmet saved his life.

Dashcam footage is brutal:

Anyone else wondering how he was "crushed"? Yes, he was quite obviously knocked off but I see no crushage going on

Stanley Johnson just been interviewed about this on GMB.
He's not been knocked down in 50 years, so helmets are obviously not necessary.

The 'debate' was more about mandatory Hi-Viz where the poll gave 85% of people in favour of it for cyclists. That is why you should never have referendums.

Should have got Chris Boardman on for a proper discussion on why mandatory Hi-Viz is BS but guessing he would decline it as it is such a click baity sort of show.

Evidence based practice!

Helmets are not shown to provide much if any protection across populations - because the deterrent to cycling effect of them is there, the helth benefits of cycling are huge and the protective effects of helmets are marginal

Follow that Cycling UK link to understand these population level effects

He’s not been knocked down in 50 years, so helmets are obviously not necessary.

I've had numerous knocks on the head, only one of those happened on my bike. They ALL happened after I taken a varying number of alcoholic drinks, though.

I did think, 'Maybe I should start wearing a helmet when I riding home from the pub.'

Then I though, 'OR, I could stop riding my bike when I'm drunk!'

People should wear a helmet if they are drinking. Cycling, not so much.