"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.
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, 1:55pm

sapperadam wrote: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.


At last a voice of reason esp the last para. You only hear of the bad accidents and not of the 'good' ones where helmets were worn. People just pick themselves up and carry on.

I cannot see why anti cycle helmet people state that helmets on motorbikes are necessary because motorcycle accidents are more dangerous. Assuming that you don't get hit by your own bike why are they any different at say, 30mph to a cycle accident? You're still likely to come off slightly to the side and scrape your head on the ground.
My physio was stopped at lights on his motorbike when he was T boned by a Volvo coming out of a side street at 20mph. Knocked sideways and scraped across the road, hitting his head on the kerb. He walked away (but with life threatening internal injuries) and credits his helmet with saving his life. That's his professional opinion.
My wife was, until recently, a world class competitive snowboarder. She's witnessed accidents where fellow helmeted snowboarders hit their head and only suffered concussion preventing, in multiple witnesses opinion, much worse damage.
I was in rehab with a doctor who had a head injury from skiing. He had no helmet and hit a tree. After 5 years private top class neuro rehab he could stand and, held by 2 physios, take 3-5 steps. Humbling to watch believe me.
Anecdotal I know but proof for most people.

It's your choice whether to wear one but please don't dismiss their value in many accidents.

Mike Sales
Posts: 4870
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby Mike Sales » 18 May 2016, 2:00pm

The box reads:
"You have made a sound decision to purchase your Davies, Craig Motoring Helmet. Wear it and don’t feel self-conscious. Driving even for the most proficient is dangerous.

Ultimately, motoring helmets will be commonplace, but in the meantime, you will be a leader whilst those who may consider your good sense misplaced, will follow."


http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/05/motoring-helmets-for-real-high-risk.html

Can't see it on the Davies,Craig website now. Seems it didn't catch 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, 2:07pm

At last a voice of reason esp the last para. You only hear of the bad accidents and not of the 'good' ones where helmets were worn. People just pick themselves up and carry on.


It isnt reason.
You dont hear of the crashes where people didnt have a helmet on and just pick themselves up and carry on. Holland shows us that the helmets saving lives like this just isnt happening in real life.
The same reasoning can apply to a crucifix equally as well as to a cycle helmet. The difference is that more people believe in helmets than in crucifixes.
I cannot see why anti cycle helmet people state that helmets on motorbikes are necessary because motorcycle accidents are more dangerous. Assuming that you don't get hit by your own bike why are they any different at say, 30mph to a cycle accident?

There are no anti-cycle helmet people on this thread yet.
A motorcycle that can only do 30mph is a moped. Most motorcycles are doing quite a bit more than 30mph the motorcycle helmets and helmet laws certainly had speeds greater than 30mph in mind.
Not many cyclists get up to 30mph and very few sustain that speed.
Yma o Hyd

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 2934
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby roubaixtuesday » 18 May 2016, 2:25pm

Anecdotal I know but proof for most people.


And that's the rub.

We *know* that anecdotal evidence is not, in general, borne out by controlled studies. That's why it's illegal to market a medicine without not just performing a controlled study, but having it approved by an independent regulator.

Anecdotes provide data to form a hypothesis; a properly controlled study tests the hypothesis.

Your hypothesis seems to be that cycle helmets offer significant protection to cyclists. Unfortunately, it's not a hypothesis supported by evidence, where there is much contradictory data from studies on cycle helmets. That in itself suggests any protection offered is small: if the effect were large, it should be obvious from studies.

Dismissing the value of a helmet in any individual accident would be foolish. Asserting that anecdotal data should be relied upon in coming to a judgement on the overall effectiveness of helmets would be equally foolish.

It's a mystery to me why cycle helmets are picked out as being suitable to subject to decision by anecdote, whereas no other similar innovations are. Perhaps you could let us know why you believe this to be appropriate?

geocycle
Posts: 1797
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 9:46am

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby geocycle » 18 May 2016, 2:33pm

Is this really the place for a helmet debate? We normally respect fatalities by not speculating on causes in case friends and relatives see the thread. :(

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

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby Bez » 18 May 2016, 2:33pm

sapperadam wrote:I will take my industry wording for this. Is it "reasonably practicable" for a cyclist to wear a helmet? … 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).


Having additional protection doesn't lessen the fact that it is "resonably practicable". Around half of *all* survived traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) occur inside motor vehicles, so even though the head injury rate per mile or (less dramatically) per hour is lower than that for cycling, if helmets were effective then the absolute benefit would be many times greater. As it happens I have a driving helmet sitting here on my desk; there's no practical reason I couldn't wear it in my car (nor my cycling helmet).

Similar logic applies for pedestrians: figures for TBIs are hard to come by but per-mile fatality rates in road collisions are nearly 20% higher than for cycling and are around 3.5 times greater in absolute terms. The incident rate of head injuries as a subset of all serious injury casualties in road collisions for all three modes of transport are almost identical, so one can infer with reasonable confidence that, again, the overall benefit of walking helmets would be several times that for cycling. Again, it's hardly less practicable: you even see people walking around wearing them after they've got off their bike.

And I'm not sure how you can use "rules of the road" to argue as a reason to eschew helmets when walking or travelling by car but not for cycling.

sapperadam wrote: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.

climo wrote:You only hear of the bad accidents and not of the 'good' ones where helmets were worn. People just pick themselves up and carry on.


I'm afraid that's simply not true. The media is rife with stories of people who've been Definitely Saved by helmets. (Not to mention other things.)

climo wrote:I was in rehab with a doctor who had a head injury from skiing. He had no helmet and hit a tree. After 5 years private top class neuro rehab he could stand and, held by 2 physios, take 3-5 steps. Humbling to watch believe me. Anecdotal I know but proof for most people.


And have you heard of Michael Shumacher? Another anecdote, but one which—since they constitute proof for you—is "proof" that it's no more than a lottery.

Closer to home, you could look at the case of Daniel Squire and that of Kevin and Caroline MacDivitt. All struck squarely from behind at very similar points of very similar vans being driven at very similar speeds. If we take these two cases, helmets correlate with death and bare heads correlate with survival.

What do these anecdotes prove? Nothing. They're anecdotes.
Last edited by Bez on 18 May 2016, 2:51pm, edited 1 time in total.

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, 2:39pm

geocycle wrote:Is this really the place for a helmet debate? We normally respect fatalities by not speculating on causes in case friends and relatives see the thread. :(


You're right. However this case jumps out as one where the helmet is significant - there is no car involved, head injuries were reported and no helmet was worn. I take it that we keep it theoretical but it's very human to be curious in this case - I don't think anyone isn't moved by what has happened. I'm sure no blame is being apportioned (or at least not meant).
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

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 2934
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby roubaixtuesday » 18 May 2016, 2:40pm

Is this really the place for a helmet debate? We normally respect fatalities by not speculating on causes in case friends and relatives see the thread


Thanks geocycle, you're right. I won't post any more here and I suggest a mod moves the posts from the first question on helmets to the end to the helmets sub forum.

Mike Sales
Posts: 4870
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby Mike Sales » 18 May 2016, 2:59pm

Here is a graph of the effects of a helmet compulsion law in New Zealand.
Numbers cycling declined from about 250,000 to less than 150,000. At the same time the number of injuries per 100,000 cyclists increased from about 500 to about 900.

https://roaddangerreductionforum.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/newzealandhelmetsv6.jpg

It is discussed on this website.

https://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/17/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law/


User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15382
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby mjr » 18 May 2016, 6:39pm

meic wrote:There are no anti-cycle helmet people on this thread yet.

You called? :-)

sapperadam wrote: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.

Don't be daft: not only does the wearer in such situations often post "last night a helmet saved my life", but sometimes even the emergency medic will post a pic of some smashed helmet blood and gore - we've seen that a couple of times - and then loads of their friends will post about it, terrifying more people into wearing helmets or stopping cycling entirely. But if you highlight their foolishness then that makes you the bad person.

BrianFox wrote:[full disclosure: I normally but not always wear a helmet. If nothing else it makes an excellent high level mounting point for extra lights]

Extra lights - or skull impalers?

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

Motoring helmets have been around a long time. See attached pic. Why hasn't sapperadam got one?
Image Attachments
helmet_motoring.jpg
Motoring helmet, pic from copenhagenize
helmet_motoring.jpg (33.04 KiB) Viewed 410 times
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

irc
Posts: 4707
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby irc » 18 May 2016, 7:05pm

climo wrote:I cannot see why anti cycle helmet people state that helmets on motorbikes are necessary because motorcycle accidents are more dangerous. Assuming that you don't get hit by your own bike why are they any different at say, 30mph to a cycle accident? You're still likely to come off slightly to the side and scrape your head on the ground.


Few cyclists travel at above 20mph for any length of time. Motorcyclist often go at 60mph or faster for long periods. The energy in a crash increases as the square of speed. So a motorcyclist typically going at 60mph will have 9 times the energy to deal with in a crash compared to a cyclist at 20mph or 16 times the energy of a cyclist at 15mph. As demonstrated by the fact the motorbike fatalities are often broken necks where the helmet has done it's job but the other forces elsewhere on the body are not survivable.

Steady rider
Posts: 2195
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: "Chopper" Cyclist killed in 3-rider collision (Plastic h

Postby Steady rider » 18 May 2016, 8:14pm

Our sympathy to the family and friends of the man. Typically the media will report the outline detail without a great deal of detail. The lane has some stone walls and if contact with these occurred may come out at the inquest.
Sometimes between about 8% (GB) to 20% of fatality cases may result from falls.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.86471 ... 6656?hl=en

http://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/loca ... -1-7913211
Last edited by Steady rider on 18 May 2016, 8:36pm, edited 1 time in total.

Stevek76
Posts: 510
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Cyclist killed in three-rider collision in Lancashire

Postby Stevek76 » 18 May 2016, 8:36pm

climo wrote:I cannot see why anti cycle helmet people state that helmets on motorbikes are necessary because motorcycle accidents are more dangerous. Assuming that you don't get hit by your own bike why are they any different at say, 30mph to a cycle accident? You're still likely to come off slightly to the side and scrape your head on the ground.


I think you're generalising there. You could probably consider me 'anti helmet' but my own view is that motorcycle helmets shouldn't be compulsory either. My general viewpoint on these matters is that ultimately the rider is only affecting their own risk and it's therefore none of the government's business.

Same for seatbelts (for adults), especially the given the case that while seatbelts have reduced driver fatality they may have increased risk to vulnerable road users.

That said, it should be noted that motorbike helmets are designed pretty well to actually protect the head. Cycle helmets are generally designed to satisfy the minimum nominal protection for certification while being as light and non sweaty as possible. It's hard to take proponents of cycle helmets seriously when if they really wanted to protect their head they'd be in a full face MTB helmet.

Again, it's hardly less practicable: you even see people walking around wearing them after they've got off their bike.


I see someone do an entire shop in the supermarket without taking theirs off.

Edit: removed a 'may' for clarity
Last edited by Stevek76 on 19 May 2016, 12:12pm, edited 1 time in total.

Flinders
Posts: 3020
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: "Chopper" Cyclist killed in 3-rider collision (Plastic h

Postby Flinders » 19 May 2016, 10:50am

Wearing a helmet is no hardship, and it may well help in an accident.
Of course it might make an accident worse, just as a seatbelt can, but from what I see of the stats that is less likely that it being helpful at the speeds and in the conditions I ride. And better research and development would improve matters.
So I wear one - the best I can find. Why not?

When it comes to horse riding I do the same. There was a lot of pressure many years ago against decent (but necessarily ugly, because much thicker) lids, but these days you'd be thought to be a moron if you didn't wear one (legally, on roads children must wear one, and in most competitions one of a set (and high) standard is compulsory) and they have without any doubt saved many lives.

I think we need more research on cycling helmets, and more pressure for higher standards at point of sale, and I'm annoyed that some of those who are anti-helmet seem to oppose the raising of standards for helmets for the rest of us who want to wear one. Bad helmets do nobody any good- like the old 'prettier' riding hats, where some people still die or are badly injured in accidents using them when a modern one would have saved them. Thankfully the riding community have more sense than some of the cycling community, and pretty much universally supports continual improvements in design.