"Chopper" Cyclist killed in 3-rider collision (Plastic hats)

[Bez]

Yes, the word has multiple meanings. In the context of the earlier post, though, it can't possibly have that meaning because that meaning pertains to the outcome rather than to an event in which a helmet may or may not have an effect that governs that outcome (that governance being the specific topic at hand). In this context it surely means "energy level", "speed", "nature" or somesuch.

[eileithyia]

All conjecture of course, if they had not been to the pub... perhaps they might not have crashed..... or had better control of their bikes.... etc etc etc... we could go on and on with the theme of what ifs.......

[climo]

I'm just amused by the statements to the effect that it's all wild conjecture—that "we will not know", and that "all the tools of forensic science cannot get us any further forward"—followed immediately by the conjecture that the entirely unreported "severity" of the crash was "enough to make a helmet useless".

But at least it makes a nice counter to the earlier post about not preaching followed immediately by preaching

I said 'Your choice of course'. That isn't preaching. I haven't even said what I now think. I posed a question followed by my personal experience that is provable that a helmet would have lessened the injury (someone did the math) and I can assure you that is the case. Please don't dismiss my experience as irrelevant as you weren't there.
I'm perfectly aware of the lack of evidence for cycle helmets.
I would be interesting to know if the percentage of head injuries is rising at the same rate as the amount of people cycling.

[meic]

I would be interesting to know if the percentage of head injuries is rising at the same rate as the amount of people cycling.

There are "confounding factors" here as the "safety in numbers" effect should be coming into play.
So bike on bike should increase and bike on car should decrease.

[horizon]

All conjecture of course, if they had not been to the pub... perhaps they might not have crashed..... or had better control of their bikes.... etc etc etc... we could go on and on with the theme of what ifs.......

On those issues (the what ifs) we may already be able to draw some reasonable, even if personal, conclusions. On the helmet issue, I live in some sort of dreamland where two men in white coats and tape measures and various other tools actually verify whether a helmet would have been useful. Is it case of we cannot know or simply will not know? Does the science in any practical form exist should the will be there to use it?

[Bez]

I said 'Your choice of course'. That isn't preaching.

Well, if I were to say "I ate at the Dog and Duck and got terrible food poisoning which I certainly wouldn't have got if I hadn't gone there. Your choice, of course…" I think it sounds just a bit preachy about the food at the Dog and Duck, doesn't it?

Please don't dismiss my experience as irrelevant as you weren't there.

I don't wish to dismiss it as irrelevant, it's not at all (certainly not to you or your views on the matter, though it may well be to this specific incident). I just wanted to point out that if you say "I had a horrendous head injury which would certainly have been mitigated or even eliminated had I been wearing a helmet. Your choice, of course…" then I think it sounds just a bit preachy.

I would be interesting to know if the percentage of head injuries is rising at the same rate as the amount of people cycling.

That doesn't make sense. Do you mean "if the number of head injuries is rising at the same rate as the number of people cycling"? (Which would make sense and would be a reasonable start, but would still be flawed due to not differentiating where and how people ride.)

[horizon]

I'm just amused by the statements to the effect that it's all wild conjecture—that "we will not know", and that "all the tools of forensic science cannot get us any further forward"—followed immediately by the conjecture that the entirely unreported "severity" of the crash was "enough to make a helmet useless".

Bez: where are you on this? I probably accept what you are saying.

[Bez]

Bez: where are you on this? I probably accept what you are saying.

I'm with the first bit—where you say that it's a matter of conjecture.

Not the second bit—where you express the view that a helmet would have been useless, based entirely on conjecture.

[meic]

A motorcycle helmet offers much greater protection than a cycle helmet does.

So if I was expecting a crash, or looking back in hindsight at a crash that happened, shouldnt I be calling for motorcycle helmets to have been worn at that instant?

[horizon]

Bez: where are you on this? I probably accept what you are saying.

I'm with the first bit—where you say that it's a matter of conjecture.

Not the second bit—where you express the view that a helmet would have been useless, based entirely on conjecture.

Yes, it was just to counter climo's conjecture but otherwise we agree and I stand corrected.

[climo]

I would be interesting to know if the percentage of head injuries is rising at the same rate as the amount of people cycling.

That doesn't make sense. Do you mean "if the number of head injuries is rising at the same rate as the number of people cycling"? (Which would make sense and would be a reasonable start, but would still be flawed due to not differentiating where and how people ride.)

yes

[sapperadam]

I don't wish to preach too much about helmets here but something occurred to me reading this just now.

I work in an industry which is considered extremely dangerous and in fact I work on a site which includes nuclear installations so safety is, as you can imagine, absolutely paramount.

In terms of wearing a helmet on a bike, nobody will know for certain whether a helmet would have helped this poor chap, but, this is where I will take my industry wording for this. Is it "reasonably practicable" for a cyclist to wear a helmet? And the answer is clearly yes as so many of us do. That's the wording the coroner would look at and why the coroner makes suggestions about wearing helmets. It is also why I don't understand why we always make comparisons to motorists and pedestrians wearing helmets. it is NOT "reasonably practical" for them to do so. Cars have other mechanisms to protect occupants in a crash as do pedestrians to an extent (rules of the road etc, but this does need both sides to follow them and that's a different point). Same with stabbing victims wearing stab vests!?! You compare apples and oranges and come up with bananas. If we as a community want to be taken seriously we need to stop doing this and compare apples with apples!

One point to note though, if he had been wearing a helmet and he survived the crash with little more than some cuts and brusies, would we have been discussing this and extolling the merits of helmets? I think not, there would have been nothing to report on.

[meic]

and pedestrians wearing helmets. it is NOT "reasonably practical" for them to do so

I dont see how it is any more difficult for a pedestrian to wear a helmet than it is for a cyclist to wear one.
Let alone putting the not in capitals. In fact many cyclists dont bother taking their helmets off when they are walking their bikes.

Also we could declare any thing (crucifixes as an example) to be a safety aid and insist that they be worn on the grounds that it is "reasonably practical" to wear one while cycling.

[roubaixtuesday]

it is NOT "reasonably practical" for them to do so

Not so at all.

A helmet for a pedestrian is every bit as practical as for a cyclist. What is impractical about it?

For a motorist, even more so - no issues with overheating.

Think harder. It's nothing to do with practicality.

[horizon]

That's the wording the coroner would look at and why the coroner makes suggestions about wearing helmets.

+1

The coroner will definitely make some ill-informed, completely baseless comments about the need to wear a helmet while cycling. This will be widely reported in the press and so the nonsense gets repeated and the circus carries on. Will the inquest be informed properly about the actual science of what happened in this case? I don't think so.