James Cracknell severely injured

[bensonboo]

Don't know if this has been posted but here it is.

The Olympic rowing champion suffered a fractured skull, a gash to the back of his head and bruising to his brain after being thrown off his bicycle by the truck, which hit him from behind.

As reported in the link below.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... crash.html

[[XAP]Bob]

Bet he collided with it though...

No - the report was the he was hit - Hooray...

His life was saved by his crash helmet, which took the full force of the impact.

I doubt it too the full force - the back wheel may well have done...

[kwackers]

Bet he collided with it though...

No - the report was the he was hit - Hooray...

Had he been riding a fixie then it would have said "collided with" - since it would then have been obvious that he must have been riding backwards.
They probably spent a fair bit of time trying to cycle backwards on a normal bike before grudgingly admitted it wasn't possible.

[[XAP]Bob]

Bet he collided with it though...

No - the report was the he was hit - Hooray...

Had he been riding a fixie then it would have said "collided with" - since it would then have been obvious that he must have been riding backwards.
They probably spent a fair bit of time trying to cycle backwards on a normal bike before grudgingly admitted it wasn't possible.

Or the "front" wheel (the one with the fork and steering) would have taken the brunt of the impact...

[EdinburghFixed]

Presumably because he is a celeb, the journos know they wouldn't get away with blaming him for crashing into the truck, where the same protection doesn't apply to joe public (especially if they have been killed).

[stoobs]

Perhaps it's because the story originated in the USA? Different standards.

[stoobs]

Good lord, he's being reported as "run down" in the Torygraph!

That's on the front page.

The Times:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/a ... 654985.ece

Edited for duplication!

[eileithyia]

mentioned during the tour commentary, it is understood that he is not unconscious and was talking to dr's.
still not good, speedy recovery and best wishes to james.

[thirdcrank]

... speedy recovery and best wishes to james.

+1

[johncharles]

it's nice to see the pedantics coming out again on the wording of the incident, but it took a few posts before anyone wished him well.

I'm surprised there has only been one comment about the helmet.

I don't see the similarity between this and Redgaves incident though, so is that an example of the different standards of reporting in the USA.

[7_lives_left]

it's nice to see the pedantics coming out again...

I believe that should be "It's nice to see the pedants coming out again...".


Sorry, I couldn't resist

[kwackers]

it's nice to see the pedantics coming out again...

I believe that should be "It's nice to see the pedants coming out again...".


Sorry, I couldn't resist

Is that something you wear round your neck?

[irc]

I'm surprised there has only been one comment about the helmet.

What? The one that saved his life. Or alternatively failed to prevent brain injury. Given that the only serious injuries were to the part of the body that was protected by the helmet I'm not sure the lifesaver claim is justified. But then it's common sense isn't it?

[johncharles]

I don't get that wrapped up in the exact wording of things, I just like seeing what the pendants can read into these things.

I was wondering what take someone would have on the helmet comment.

Why isn't the lifesaver claim justified. Do you know something about the injuries that others don't?

What is the common sense bit about ?

[irc]

The lifesaver comment isn't justified because the Telegraph does not know the full circumstances of the accident. Newspapers use phrases like "was in collision" with to avoid attributing blame when they report an accident but don't know the full facts to attribute blame but are happy to make a blanket statement like "his helmet saved his life". As mentioned elsewhere a recent DftT review of over 100 fatal accidents in the range where a helmet can work concluded that they might have saved life in 10-16% of cases. Maybe this was one. As helmets are designed to work in cycle only falls up to 12mph then most likely it wasn't.

Common sense is the basis on which some people think helmet wearing, and especially helmet laws are a good idea when the evidence shows that on a population basis helmet laws do more harm than good.

In the case of cyclists hit by an overtaking vehicle for example a helmet may or may not save a life. Use of a mirror may or may not prevent the collision altogether. Helmets are widely promoted by organisations like Headway and the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust . Mirrors are not. Why?