Helmet use post Richardson death

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
mlteenie
Posts: 327
Joined: 31 Jan 2007, 11:19pm
Location: London

Helmet use post Richardson death

Postby mlteenie » 19 Mar 2009, 7:40am

What does everyone think are the implications for helmet use post Natasha Richardson's unfortunate death following her accident while skiing, by all reports a very minor impact?
I myself don't wear a helmet any more despite landing on my head last year.

thirdcrank
Posts: 21422
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Location: Gildersome, Sth Leeds

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Postby thirdcrank » 19 Mar 2009, 8:39am

I've just listened to the 0800 news on radio 4 -they managed to get a plug in for cycling helmets, but no mention of any other activity that might endanger the unprotected bonce.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 13697
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Postby Si » 19 Mar 2009, 9:00am

My prediction is lots of prolonged discussion on internet fora, some quite heated, various amounts of hand bags at dawn, lots of repitition and virtually no one's views changed (apart from new enemies made) despite all the ho-har.

pioneer
Posts: 1670
Joined: 13 Feb 2007, 10:39am

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Postby pioneer » 19 Mar 2009, 9:40am

Sadly, Ms. Richardsons death was probably the result of a very tragic accident. No more,no less.

And yes, Radio 4 (again), and others will use it as an excuse to wrap us all in cotton-wool. There was a case in Essex this week where a Judge suggested that a cyclist who had been knocked off by a motorcyclist (entirely the fault of the motorcyclist BTW,no dispute), could be deemed to be at fault himself,"contributory negligence", because he wasn't wearing a cycling helmet. Thanks Judge. We can see where you stand.

Accidents happen. Sad but true.

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8209
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Postby hubgearfreak » 19 Mar 2009, 9:54am

Si wrote:My prediction is lots of prolonged discussion on internet fora, some quite heated, various amounts of hand bags at dawn, lots of repitition and virtually no one's views changed (apart from new enemies made) despite all the ho-har.


very good. :lol:

User avatar
noonoosdad
Posts: 223
Joined: 13 Jun 2007, 2:14pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Postby noonoosdad » 19 Mar 2009, 10:10am

:? Wearing a Cycling Helmet is not 'Wrapping people in Cotton Wool' but just plain and simple 'Good Common Sense'.
The chances of coming of a two wheeled machine either by falling or being forced off in a collision must be fairly high
and I certainly wouldn't take a chance and always wear a Helmet. Let's face it, when I used to Horse ride when I was in my teens, I would wear a helmet and when I used to ride a motorcycle, I wouldn't dream of getting on it without.
I just don't fancy spending the rest of my life eating through a straw as a worse case scenario.
In the words of Jacques Cousteau," Il est tout mon cul et Betty Grable !"

leftpoole
Posts: 718
Joined: 12 Feb 2007, 9:31am
Location: Dorset.
Contact:

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Postby leftpoole » 19 Mar 2009, 10:27am

noonoosdad wrote::? Wearing a Cycling Helmet is not 'Wrapping people in Cotton Wool' but just plain and simple 'Good Common Sense'.
The chances of coming of a two wheeled machine either by falling or being forced off in a collision must be fairly high
and I certainly wouldn't take a chance and always wear a Helmet. Let's face it, when I used to Horse ride when I was in my teens, I would wear a helmet and when I used to ride a motorcycle, I wouldn't dream of getting on it without.
I just don't fancy spending the rest of my life eating through a straw as a worse case scenario.


Hello,
My agreement in full for the above.
However I should like to point out, that you are wasting your time with your views on here as all you will get is a response from no hopers who will blast you for your view.
They all think that they are immortal and outside of the need for some safety attempt. I would also like to say that in my experience that its a waste of time trying to convert the ungodly!
John.............. :cry:
Last edited by leftpoole on 19 Mar 2009, 10:34am, edited 2 times in total.

gilesjuk
Posts: 3270
Joined: 17 Mar 2008, 10:10pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Postby gilesjuk » 19 Mar 2009, 10:32am

If you have private medical insurance then by all means, take all the risks you like.

If you don't then I don't see why the someone else should go without a life saving drug or operation just because the NHS has had to scoop you up and fix you up.

It's entirely reasonable for people to expect you to do the best you can to reduce the chances of injury.

thirdcrank
Posts: 21422
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Location: Gildersome, Sth Leeds

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Postby thirdcrank » 19 Mar 2009, 10:49am

gilesuk

In that case, I think it would be reasonable to ask you (restricting your answer if poss to one page of A4) what physical precautions you take to protect yourself when cycling, in addition to perching a bit of polystyrene on top of your bonce?

(I speak as somebody who has always warn one of these things since they were introduced. I do so, simply to protect myself and my dependents from people who believe they offer more than minimal protection.)

pioneer
Posts: 1670
Joined: 13 Feb 2007, 10:39am

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Postby pioneer » 19 Mar 2009, 10:59am

TC,

well said.

I just can't be doing with H and S' preachers in any shape or form.

And don't give me any old clap-trap about non-helmet wearers being treated post accident by the NHS.

If we really want to make best use of the NHS,lets do something really sensible like banning smoking FULL STOP and making a proper effort to get the nation fit by eating and drinking less and excercising more.

It's drunks,smokers and the overweight that clog up the NHS,not the odd cyclist that comes off thier bike. :evil:

Freddie
Posts: 1737
Joined: 12 Jan 2008, 12:01pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Postby Freddie » 19 Mar 2009, 11:39am

Good grief, helmets, such an emotive topic.

If we remove the emotion and look purely at the statistics, it's more likely you'll damage your head/break your neck falling down some stairs, but I've yet to see a helmet waiting to be donned at the top of stairs, surely this is "Good Common Sense".

Should we not protect ourselves from these "higher likelyhood of risk" activities, prior to jumping onto our own sport/hobby/mode of transport, there are plenty waiting in the wings to do that for us and diminish our rights as road users in the process.

No wonder everyone thinks "cycling is dangerous", when cyclists themselves willingly perpetuate such thinking.

There was a case in Essex this week where a Judge suggested that a cyclist who had been knocked off by a motorcyclist (entirely the fault of the motorcyclist BTW,no dispute), could be deemed to be at fault himself,"contributory negligence", because he wasn't wearing a cycling helmet. Thanks Judge. We can see where you stand.


So somehow by not wearing a helmet you're enticing motorists to run you down and probably deserve it, could this kind of dangerous thinking not be extended to many sectors(rich deserve to be robbed etc).

Let's face it, when I used to Horse ride when I was in my teens, I would wear a helmet and when I used to ride a motorcycle, I wouldn't dream of getting on it without.


No-one will ever have total control of a horse and the nature of the fall and greater height makes you more likely to land of your head. Personally, I'd find a motorcycle was pretty dangerous regardless of helmet (anyroad, doesn't it snap a fair amount of necks given the great mass and speed of the typical fall).

If you want to use a helmet, fair-do's, but please don't preach to everyone else how unsafe/stupid etc they are, unless you have successfully reduced/eliminated all "higher likelyhood" risks pertaining to your environment, though you may end up not leaving your home, which of course should be a bungalow, homes being exceedingly dangerous, stairs 'n all.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 14368
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Postby meic » 19 Mar 2009, 12:03pm

I heard the story on Radio 4s evening programme yesterday.
The BBC presenter asked a leading skiing proffesional.
The presenter asked the loaded question. "As it is agreed that all responsible cyclists wear a helmet do you not think this should be extended to people skiing.
He replied by pointing out the flaws in the pro-cycle helmet theories and practices. Then said people should choose themselves.
If he is doing a serious downhill and taking risks he will wear a lid, for pootling around on skis for recreation on a nice sunny day it would be an unnecesary incumberance.
That is Good Common Sense.
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Postby EdinburghFixed » 19 Mar 2009, 12:30pm

meic wrote:The presenter asked the loaded question. "As it is agreed that all responsible cyclists wear a helmet do you not think this should be extended to people skiing.


What I'd like to know is, when did this happen and why is it not being challenged? Really, the helmet manufacturers must be rubbing their hands in glee.

Could we not get the CTC to publish a statement to the effect that it is considered quite reasonable and responsible to ride without a helmet, given the lack of evidence of a benefit in population level studies and the emerging evidence of some disbenefits?

Nobody really cares if people do choose to wear a helmet but we are looking at a slippery slope where negligence might be assigned to a cyclist if his helmet was more than two years old, of a certain design, couldn't prove it was correctly fitted and fastened, etc. etc.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 13697
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Postby Si » 19 Mar 2009, 12:32pm

EdinburghFixed wrote:
meic wrote:The presenter asked the loaded question. "As it is agreed that all responsible cyclists wear a helmet do you not think this should be extended to people skiing.


What I'd like to know is, when did this happen and why is it not being challenged? Really, the helmet manufacturers must be rubbing their hands in glee.

Could we not get the CTC to publish a statement to the effect that it is considered quite reasonable and responsible to ride without a helmet, given the lack of evidence of a benefit in population level studies and the emerging evidence of some disbenefits?

Nobody really cares if people do choose to wear a helmet but we are looking at a slippery slope where negligence might be assigned to a cyclist if his helmet was more than two years old, of a certain design, couldn't prove it was correctly fitted and fastened, etc. etc.


http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4688

gilesjuk
Posts: 3270
Joined: 17 Mar 2008, 10:10pm

Re: Helmet use post Richardson death

Postby gilesjuk » 19 Mar 2009, 12:33pm

I wasn't talking about cycling and helmets specifically. Just about safety in general.

There seems to be a specific group of reckless people who think Health and Safety is nonsense, think they're entitled to mangle themselves if they choose. As far as I'm concerned they can do so if they pay for their own medical treatment privately.

Treatment on the NHS is free to yourself, but your treatment comes out of a finite resource pool (both staff time and money), you may be condemning a pensioner to blindness or condemning a cancer patient to an early demise!

As far as precautions when cycling, I do as much as I can. I ensure I am easily visible day or night. I try to choose the safest route I can. But ultimately if someone is not looking at the road then there's nothing you can do!

At least I feel I have done all I can do, if someone else is negligent and knocks me off then it's not my fault.


Return to “Does anyone know … ?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests