Dan Walker says helmet saved his life

[Steady rider]

Bonefishblues » 25 Feb 2023, 4:43pm wrote

Steady rider wrote: ↑25 Feb 2023, 4:34pm
Why wear a black helmet?

Maybe that's the one that fitted best, the better to protect him in the unfortunate circumstance that a driver drove into him.

Looking on the web, black seems a fairly common colour, so I assume many riders probably prefer black. https://www.google.com/search?q=black+c ... e&ie=UTF-8

It is not clear why they prefer black, perhaps to look more serious, perhaps not?

[Bonefishblues]

Bonefishblues » 25 Feb 2023, 4:43pm wrote

Steady rider wrote: ↑25 Feb 2023, 4:34pm
Why wear a black helmet?

Maybe that's the one that fitted best, the better to protect him in the unfortunate circumstance that a driver drove into him.

Looking on the web, black seems a fairly common colour, so I assume many riders probably prefer black. https://www.google.com/search?q=black+c ... e&ie=UTF-8

It is not clear why they prefer black, perhaps to look more serious, perhaps not?

Or maybe it's everyone's conservative second choice, so manufacturers know they can turn out lots of them and not be left with excess stock.

Or maybe if one searches for 'black cycle helmets' it'll bring back a great many black cycle helmets?

Or something else.

Still, always great to speculate

[Audax67]

It is not clear why they prefer black, perhaps to look more serious, perhaps not?

FOr the sartorially-minded, black is cooool. Think Goths, death, Darth Vader, Jolly Roger, bowler hats, brollies, Kingsman... Our club secretary & her hubby always wear all-black kit, and a few years ago when she designed our new club kit she wanted it all in black. After long argument - "don't want to wear our own mourning in advance of being murdered in traffic" - we ended up with jerseys that are lime green and black, split vertically along a wavy line. As camouflage for blending into the countryside there's nowt better, especially in spring. I refused to buy one so all my club kit is >10 years old and needs new zips.

Black goes better with sequins, too.

[pjclinch]

Bonefishblues » 25 Feb 2023, 4:43pm wrote

Steady rider wrote: ↑25 Feb 2023, 4:34pm
Why wear a black helmet?

Maybe that's the one that fitted best, the better to protect him in the unfortunate circumstance that a driver drove into him.

Looking on the web, black seems a fairly common colour, so I assume many riders probably prefer black. https://www.google.com/search?q=black+c ... e&ie=UTF-8

It is not clear why they prefer black, perhaps to look more serious, perhaps not?

My helmet is black. It's a hand-me-down from my wife who got it when looking at taking up cyclocross racing, and thus needing one for the first time, and Lidl had them in their offers section and the colour choice was Henry Ford, so that's what she got. Why would that be the only colour? I guess because it goes with anything.
Having got fairly in to 'cross she wanted something that fitted her better and got a Kask (orange, she's not fussed about hi-viz colours as it's only used racing or training off-road, and she is Dutch and thus has a genetic predisposition to orange), and as my old (white) Aldi helmet was a bit past it's use-by date I ditched it and took over her black Lidl one.

I really don't care what colour it is, I only wear it for mountain biking, mostly coaching Go-Ride where it's an insurance requirement.

Pete.

[Cowsham]

It is not clear why they prefer black, perhaps to look more serious, perhaps not?

FOr the sartorially-minded, black is cooool. Think Goths, death, Darth Vader, Jolly Roger, bowler hats, brollies, Kingsman...

[maximus meridius]

Just for clarity. If a criminal case, then nobody would be saying that even if it was a discussion in the Jury Room, for fear of a charge of being in contempt of court.

You are incorrect.

Be useful for you to explain that statement please.

I do not believe that any juror has been found guilty of contempt of court because they said, in the Jury Room, that somebody was "asking for it". The privacy of the Jury Room discussions is one of the basic principles of the English justice system. But I may be wrong. In which case I look forward to you providing an example of a juror being charged with contempt of court because they said, in the jury room, that a victim was "asking for it".

It may well be that if a juror suspected a fellow juror of being bribed or threatened they might report their concerns to the judge. But that is a different issue.

I have sat on several juries. And I have, once, heard exactly the phrase you quote - "he was asking for it" - uttered by a juror. There was no question whatsoever that anybody thought this was in some way a "contempt of court". The comment was met with replies such as "oh, come on", and "that's not the point" and suchlike. It was an expression of opinion and experience, and was countered by other jurors. Exactly the sort of discussion that the judge ordered us to engage in.

[Lance Dopestrong]

Dan Walker basing his opinion upon a faceplant impact, and the word of coppers and medicos with no expertise in helmet engineering seems a bit suspicious to me.

He could be right, but based upon the available evidence his lucky underpants could equally be to thank for saving his life.

[Cowsham]

Dan Walker basing his opinion upon a faceplant impact, and the word of coppers and medicos with no expertise in helmet engineering seems a bit suspicious to me.

He could be right, but based upon the available evidence his lucky underpants could equally be to thank for saving his life.

A workmate had a faceplant off his mountain bike onto a flat tarmac or concrete surface he didn't get knocked out and attributed that clearly to the sun scoop visor thing on the top of his helmet cos it acted like a crumple zone. It was designed not to shatter so protected his eyes and face from shards of sharp plastic. He showed me the helmet at work.

He had a bloody nose and a black eye like Dans

[Bonefishblues]

You are incorrect.

Be useful for you to explain that statement please.

I do not believe that any juror has been found guilty of contempt of court because they said, in the Jury Room, that somebody was "asking for it". The privacy of the Jury Room discussions is one of the basic principles of the English justice system. But I may be wrong. In which case I look forward to you providing an example of a juror being charged with contempt of court because they said, in the jury room, that a victim was "asking for it".

It may well be that if a juror suspected a fellow juror of being bribed or threatened they might report their concerns to the judge. But that is a different issue.

I have sat on several juries. And I have, once, heard exactly the phrase you quote - "he was asking for it" - uttered by a juror. There was no question whatsoever that anybody thought this was in some way a "contempt of court". The comment was met with replies such as "oh, come on", and "that's not the point" and suchlike. It was an expression of opinion and experience, and was countered by other jurors. Exactly the sort of discussion that the judge ordered us to engage in.

I think you might have missed the point I was making.

I was saying that Jurors would not disclose outside what had happened in the Jury Room for fear of being held to be in Contempt of Court.

That is a matter for the Jury and their deliberations, which Jury operates under S20D of the Juries Act '74.

There are a limited number of circumstances where a Juror may disclose, but a. This would be highly unlikely to be a matter that would be covered by the S20F exemptions and b. This is not routinely briefed by Judges in their Instructions to Jury - they major on the need for confidentiality of their deliberations, not the very limited circumstances where they might legally disclose.

[maximus meridius]

Be useful for you to explain that statement please.

I do not believe that any juror has been found guilty of contempt of court because they said, in the Jury Room, that somebody was "asking for it". The privacy of the Jury Room discussions is one of the basic principles of the English justice system. But I may be wrong. In which case I look forward to you providing an example of a juror being charged with contempt of court because they said, in the jury room, that a victim was "asking for it".

It may well be that if a juror suspected a fellow juror of being bribed or threatened they might report their concerns to the judge. But that is a different issue.

I have sat on several juries. And I have, once, heard exactly the phrase you quote - "he was asking for it" - uttered by a juror. There was no question whatsoever that anybody thought this was in some way a "contempt of court". The comment was met with replies such as "oh, come on", and "that's not the point" and suchlike. It was an expression of opinion and experience, and was countered by other jurors. Exactly the sort of discussion that the judge ordered us to engage in.

I think you might have missed the point I was making.

I was saying that Jurors would not disclose outside what had happened in the Jury Room for fear of being held to be in Contempt of Court.

That is a matter for the Jury and their deliberations, which Jury operates under S20D of the Juries Act '74.

There are a limited number of circumstances where a Juror may disclose, but a. This would be highly unlikely to be a matter that would be covered by the S20F exemptions and b. This is not routinely briefed by Judges in their Instructions to Jury - they major on the need for confidentiality of their deliberations, not the very limited circumstances where they might legally disclose.

What you said was:

A Court has no view.

I was meaning the whole process, should it ever happen, including any sentencing and attribution of blame. We cannot be told we have a right to be somewhere, and then be told we were negligent and "asking for it" by being there. Which would be the net result if DW were in any way judged to be a contributor to his own demise by just being in that place on a bicycle. But it sounds like nobody will be keen to go to court with this. And if it were me with the cuts and bruises, I'd probably settle for an apology if it sounded genuine.

Just for clarity. If a criminal case, then nobody would be saying that even if it was a discussion in the Jury Room, for fear of a charge of being in contempt of court. I can't imagine the Judge would factor that into any sentencing either, although I haven't looked at the sentencing guidelines, I confess - it'd be akin to the 'she was asking for it' line of thinking that's so rightly been condemned in the legal system.

If a civil case, and liability were established, then there might be a submission on behalf of the defendant that there was an element of contributory negligence on the part of DW due to his not dressing like a Christmas Tree, and having the temerity to ride where he did (for example). The Judge would take a view as to whether to reduce any damages awarded in the light of the efficacy of the argument put forward.

My emphasis.

The clear meaning of what you actually wrote was that nobody would be willing to say "he was asking for it" "if it was a discussion in the Jury Room".

If what you meant to say that nobody would report that that had been said in the jury room, for fear of being held in contempt, then that is what you should have said. But you didn't.