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

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
Bez
Posts: 1217
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby Bez » 18 May 2016, 10:31am

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
Posts: 7934
Joined: 31 Jan 2007, 6:46pm
Location: Horwich Which is Lancs :-)

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby eileithyia » 18 May 2016, 10:47am

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.......
I stand and rejoice everytime I see a woman ride by on a wheel the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood. HG Wells

climo
Posts: 518
Joined: 29 Apr 2009, 8:08am
Location: Warminster

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby climo » 18 May 2016, 10:51am

Bez wrote: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.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby meic » 18 May 2016, 10:55am

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.
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 10156
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby horizon » 18 May 2016, 11:08am

eileithyia wrote: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?
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher

Bez
Posts: 1217
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby Bez » 18 May 2016, 11:11am

climo wrote: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?

climo wrote: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.

climo wrote: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.)

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 10156
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby horizon » 18 May 2016, 11:12am

Bez wrote: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.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher

Bez
Posts: 1217
Joined: 10 Feb 2015, 10:41am
Contact:

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby Bez » 18 May 2016, 11:17am

horizon wrote: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.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby meic » 18 May 2016, 11:23am

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?
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 10156
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby horizon » 18 May 2016, 11:45am

Bez wrote:
horizon wrote: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.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher

climo
Posts: 518
Joined: 29 Apr 2009, 8:08am
Location: Warminster

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby climo » 18 May 2016, 11:57am

Bez wrote:
climo wrote: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
Posts: 87
Joined: 9 Nov 2015, 1:25pm

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby sapperadam » 18 May 2016, 12:08pm

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.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby meic » 18 May 2016, 12:16pm

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.
Yma o Hyd

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 2949
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby roubaixtuesday » 18 May 2016, 12:29pm

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.

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 10156
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby horizon » 18 May 2016, 12:50pm

sapperadam wrote: 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.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher