Hit and run by a moron.

NWLondoner

Firstly i hope you have some luck in finding the moron and getting some justice.



On the helmet sage i have a simple idea!!!

leave wearing a helmet as a voluntary choice, BUT all insurance companies refuse to pay out if you have a head injury and was NOT wearing one!!

If you are all so sure that helmets make NO difference, are you willing to risk leaving your family with a HUGE bill if you do have a life changing head injury??

To be honest the amount of cyclists i saw yesterday without helmets in Central London was shocking. Mind you they obviously don't need one as they will be dead before their head hits the ground. Undertaking BUSES and Lorries once is bad enough, but almost getting crushed then doing it AGAIN with the bus/lorry in front is SUICIDE!!!!

1 guy rode thru a red light, dodging crossing peds and into the path of the bus that i was on. The bus sounded his horn and it was the cyclist that started swearing at the bus driver FFS!!!

cougie

Check out Holland. Shed loads of people with No helmets and theyve a better safety record than the UK.

Making helmets compulsory sends a message out that its a dangerous sport. It isnt. Sitting on the sofa eating crap all week is far worse.

It also lets drivers think that cyclists are protected with helmets on. They arent. Low speed spills - yes helmets help. High speed crashes - they wont help you.

If helmets are so good - shouldnt pedestrians and runners wear them mr NWLondoner ? That way they will be far safer when cars hit them ?

CiB

NWLondoner wrote:

On the helmet sage i have a simple idea!!!

leave wearing a helmet as a voluntary choice, BUT all insurance companies refuse to pay out if you have a head injury and was NOT wearing one!!

You do seem desperate to be right, and to create a subset of cyclists who don't merit equal treatment. If it's important to you to ensure that not complying with a law that doesn't exist should result in insurance cover being voided, you're entitled to that opinion as long as the principle is equally applied. Remove insurance cover from anyone who participates in any activity that others view as 'dangerous' if personal safety equipment isn't worn. Dangerous shouldn't be a subjective opinion (as in 'oooh that looks dangerous') but should be based on statistical analysis of injuries etc of various activities, such as golf, mountaineering, rugby, DIY, walking down the road, having a bath etc.

tim_wand

Think the most sensible response to this I ve seen since Wiggins comment came from Chris Boardman on Newsnight with Emily Mathis.

She was asking him what kind of legacy would come from all the recent cycling success and how he felt about Wiggos comment.

The basic gist of his response was that now that Political ner do wells where recognising the power of cycling and the myriad of benefits it could bring with regards to health, pollution and congestion that we should move to a model where town planners looked not to move cyclists away from traffic into safe zones but the traffic environment should give priority to cyclists needs.

He conceeded that the financial power that motorist had would always dictate that they would control the agenda and the landscape and now was our best opportunity to seize the initiative.

He was pro choice on Helmets saying that the data didnt support that they lead to a reduction in deaths.

Personally I m still going to wear mine

pinno

As was said previously - some insurers won't pay out and there was a case not so long ago where a cyclist was hit and although the driver was proved to be in the wrong, the cyclist got minimal compensation because as he was not wearing a helmet. the judge said "... because you were not taking adequate protection by not wearing a helmet...!". This despite being no statuatory law on the matter.
In Switzerland it is compulsory to have a license plate on your bike! This way cyclists have legal protection and insurance from the state. I think that it is nigh on impossible to change general attitudes towards the shaved legs and lycra brigade except if we could sue the 4rse of these fokkers. Maybe a national scheme where we all pay a nominal fee to cycle on the roads with a 'license'. The wearing of helmets should then become mandatory and the money would go into a national pool so that it covers injury/bike insurance (in the vent of an accident), pays for cycle paths and provides legal costs. Once we push up insurance costs to car drivers as a direct result of compensation claims, we can start to change attitudes - although coercively. Maybe, if cyclists contributed directly, the bullshit attitude of 'non-paying road users' would also change.
(I partly drive for a living and I own a car)

whyamihere

pinarello001 wrote:

As was said previously - some insurers won't pay out and there was a case not so long ago where a cyclist was hit and although the driver was proved to be in the wrong, the cyclist got minimal compensation because as he was not wearing a helmet. the judge said "... because you were not taking adequate protection by not wearing a helmet...!". This despite being no statuatory law on the matter.
In Switzerland it is compulsory to have a license plate on your bike! This way cyclists have legal protection and insurance from the state. I think that it is nigh on impossible to change general attitudes towards the shaved legs and lycra brigade except if we could sue the 4rse of these fokkers. Maybe a national scheme where we all pay a nominal fee to cycle on the roads with a 'license'. The wearing of helmets should then become mandatory and the money would go into a national pool so that it covers injury/bike insurance (in the vent of an accident), pays for cycle paths and provides legal costs. Once we push up insurance costs to car drivers as a direct result of compensation claims, we can start to change attitudes - although coercively. Maybe, if cyclists contributed directly, the bullshit attitude of 'non-paying road users' would also change.
(I partly drive for a living and I own a car)

No, no and HELL NO. We pay exactly what we're required to based on our emissions according to the levels set by the VED that road users pay - nothing. Many of us have insurance against third party costs or legal expenses, exactly the same as what is required of car drivers, through membership of something like BC. What is needed is education - inform drivers that we have just as much right to the roads as they do, if not more (we were on the roads first).

mattshrops

Cant see much hope for us as a group when we continue to blame each other.
If a car pulls out on you they are wromg. I dont care if youre wearing a f@cking easter bonnet. Fault is fault.

Whether you choose to wear a helmet or not is your own business. Will the "its for your own good" brigade kindly feck right off and stop trying to control our lives.

Obviously youre wondering and think you know- WRONG i always wear a helmet. But you need to aim your good intentions elsewhere. Education of other road users.

Kieran_Burns

pinarello001 wrote:

As was said previously - some insurers won't pay out and there was a case not so long ago where a cyclist was hit and although the driver was proved to be in the wrong, the cyclist got minimal compensation because as he was not wearing a helmet. the judge said "... because you were not taking adequate protection by not wearing a helmet...!". This despite being no statuatory law on the matter.
In Switzerland it is compulsory to have a license plate on your bike! This way cyclists have legal protection and insurance from the state. I think that it is nigh on impossible to change general attitudes towards the shaved legs and lycra brigade except if we could sue the 4rse of these fokkers. Maybe a national scheme where we all pay a nominal fee to cycle on the roads with a 'license'. The wearing of helmets should then become mandatory and the money would go into a national pool so that it covers injury/bike insurance (in the vent of an accident), pays for cycle paths and provides legal costs. Once we push up insurance costs to car drivers as a direct result of compensation claims, we can start to change attitudes - although coercively. Maybe, if cyclists contributed directly, the bullshit attitude of 'non-paying road users' would also change.
(I partly drive for a living and I own a car)

Dear God. I never thought I would ever see such nonsense posted on a cycling forum...

1. We pay for the roads already. I'm not paying any more just to use a bike. The VED on a car has as much to do with road maintenance as the VAT on the potatoes you bought. It's a vehicle tax, NOT a Road Tax.
2. Everyone has a RIGHT to use the roads. However, you need PERMISSION to use a car (or other motor vehicle) on them. I suggest you look up the meaning of the word licence. (hint: two main meanings:- permission, or a piece of paper showing permission)
3. I'm already paying for cycle paths, they're called roads.

Flexisurfer

Glad you're ok, I can't believe you hit the car and he still didn't stop. It's a shame but without the vehicle index there's not a lot the thin blue line can do.

CiB

I like the idea of a pool of insurance that the nation pays into. Perhaps it might catch on; we could call it the insurance of the nation. Bit clunky, how about insurance (national)? Still too clunky? National Insurance then. I'm surprised no-one's thought of that before.

If by being a bit stupid one is excluded from accessing this insurance pool, how does that work? Is it based on average stupidity, so what of someone who spends a lot of time being really quite clever but then momentarily slips below the line? Exclusion? How about someone with learning difficulties who constantly strives but just misses out? At what point do we become a nation that puts a value on life and announce that some poor soul has to be 'let go' (i.e. allowed to die) for not reaching some arbritraty judge's idea of being worthy enough to survive.

I don't fancy the country going down that path thanks.

pinno

Kieran_Burns wrote:

...Dear God. I never thought I would ever see such nonsense posted on a cycling forum...

...they're called roads.

1. A nominal fee - which is then accessible to all non drivers in the event of an accident?
2. I did not say that I endorsed the judge who said that not wearing a helmet reduced the amount of compensation. I was merely expressing a fact.
3. Yes, we all have a right to use the roads. But none of you are saying exactly how you are going to change the attitude of drivers.

"Education" - that is the language of the well to do. Its could cuckoo land too. How do you propose to 'educate' drivers FFS ? We are sometimes treated on the roads as sub-human or at best a 2nd class citizen. I have argued for a change in the judicial process making it obligatory for the law to have a preliminary hearing in the event of serious injury or death so that both sides and the police can present their case(s) and then for someone to decide whether or not it can be taken to the next level as a criminal case.
But no. So many 'oh, we can't do that' and 'we can't do this' and then I get the 'education' argument. No-one has explained to me how on earth you are going to change the mind set of idiots who pay very little heed to anyone but themselves.
My proposal about a national insurance scheme would be a back door method that would coercively drag the state and the judicial process into the 21st century by forcing them to recognise the abhorrently lax attitude towards the death or injury of a road user, especially a cyclist, simply because of the financial and legal costs associated with an exponential rise in the number of claims against drivers. Which would happen.
You did not need to pass an exam to get a dog license ?!?! So WTF? 200, 000 cyclists paying a tenner each per annum so that he/she is covered for legal costs? I don't see what is wrong with that, besides, insurance companies covering drivers will be the one's footing the bill, ultimately.

Without a major incentive to change driving habits, the idea that you can 'educate' drivers is piffle. Without tricky changes to the judicial process, we are never going to be properly represented. So how do all of you detractors suggest we make the roads safer? If you are going to reply with 'education', then explain how exactly?

ddraver

You can get third party coverage in Holland which costs me about 3Eu a month. It covers you for any damage you do to someone else essentially, so If I hit a cyclist, If I ride into someones car, If I smash a window when I'm plastered etc. There is then a farily quick decision taken by a legal authority (I confess I'm not surew what level or who does it) and the insurance pays.

I like that idea...

...wouldnt help WAIH though

whyamihere

ddraver wrote:

You can get third party coverage in Holland which costs me about 3Eu a month. It covers you for any damage you do to someone else essentially, so If I hit a cyclist, If I ride into someones car, If I smash a window when I'm plastered etc. There is then a farily quick decision taken by a legal authority (I confess I'm not surew what level or who does it) and the insurance pays.

I like that idea...

...wouldnt help WAIH though

I have 3rd party insurance through my BC membership. Still doesn't help...

capt_slog

Back to the OP.

It would be worth hanging around that junction at around the same time for a few days, it could be that the driver is a regular on that route. In the same way you might also find the people who helped you and still might be able to be witnesses.






On the helmet issue. I wear one. I also wear one when I'm flying my power kites and being pulled around the field/beach in a buggy, like this one.

I have a few spills at this. One time I was pulled out of the buggy by a gust and "dashed" to the ground hitting the back of my head on the grass. Ever seen an old telly when the tube is faulty and the whole picture is made up of just shades of green? That's how my vision went for about 10 secs, even wearing a helmet, scared the crap out of me.

slowbike

Capt Slog wrote:

On the helmet issue. I wear one. I also wear one when I'm flying my power kites and being pulled around the field/beach in a buggy, like this one.

I have a few spills at this. One time I was pulled out of the buggy by a gust and "dashed" to the ground hitting the back of my head on the grass. Ever seen an old telly when the tube is faulty and the whole picture is made up of just shades of green? That's how my vision went for about 10 secs, even wearing a helmet, scared the crap out of me.

Ok - so remove the kite and put some pedals on the buggy - you now power yourself around an empty beach using your own pedal power ... do you still wear a helmet?

We could all give scenarios where we would wear a helmet - equally we can all give scenarios where you wouldn't consider wearing one ...

In my experience the vast majority of riders wear a helmet - therefore to wear one or not should remain a personal choice ..

prawny

Glad you're ok dude, hope they catch the fecker.

Not being drawn on the helmet debate.

capt_slog

Slowbike wrote:

Ok - so remove the kite and put some pedals on the buggy - you now power yourself around an empty beach using your own pedal power ... do you still wear a helmet?

We could all give scenarios where we would wear a helmet - equally we can all give scenarios where you wouldn't consider wearing one ...

In my experience the vast majority of riders wear a helmet - therefore to wear one or not should remain a personal choice ..

Yes

itboffin

Glad you're okay fella

lawrences

I sleep in my helmet in case I fall out of bed.

In all seriousness though wear a helmet. mate of mine fell off on a footpath at low speed and collapsed an eye socket. 3 days after I told him he should wear a helmet when he rides home.

airbag

PeteMadoc wrote:

Helmet threads all round at the moment!

I can think of some pretty good reason why you should wear a helmet

I can't think of ANY valid reasons why you wouldn't

Then you're thick and unimaginative. To use the oldest argument in the book, you don't when walking or driving. Why not? Because you'd feel foolish and don't feel like the safety advantage outweighs the inconvenience and self-conciousness that results. You do the same calculation for a cycle helmet, but since your perceptions are pretty much entirely subjective (even, in reality, safety, although an objective approach to safety is possible; who honestly took a completely scientific approach to that decision when they made it?), and thus vary wildly from person to person, it really doesn't take much imagination to conclude that someone else might arrive at a different result than you. I'm honestly surprised you can't manage it.

And we already have a system whereby a judge could reduce your payout in a non-fault crash where you were not wearing a helmet. It's called contributory negligence, it works, it has been around for a while and will continue to exist and work long after helmets/cars/recumbents/moon buggys/carbon fibre everything are banned/mandated/whatever.

Dog Breath

You will never convince the non-helmet brigade that it may at some point in the future save their life or prevent serious injury. If I ever fell off my bike (for whatever reason) and said fall resulted in my head hitting the ground, I would rather be wearing a helemt than not. I know it is not going to protect me from every eventuality, but my CPU is pretty important and I would rather protect it as much as possible.

I can't say it any simpler than that. And that is why I always wear one.

DB

slowbike

Dog Breath wrote:

You will never convince the non-helmet brigade that it may at some point in the future save their life or prevent serious injury. If I ever fell off my bike (for whatever reason) and said fall resulted in my head hitting the ground, I would rather be wearing a helemt than not. I know it is not going to protect me from every eventuality, but my CPU is pretty important and I would rather protect it as much as possible.

I can't say it any simpler than that. And that is why I always wear one.

DB

Lots of safety kit could save your life (or your head anyway) -
How many times have you hit your head on a cupboard in the kitchen - but we don't wear helmets whilst cooking ...
There is a strong possibility of face planting when coming off a bike - yet most of us just wear a standard bike helmet - not a full facial ... why not the full facial ..?

You see - your reasoning which leads to I would rather protect it as much as possible.<snip>And that is why I always wear one. is too simplistic.
To be fair to you - your riding may always result in a higher risk of accident - so it is prudent to wear one all the time.
For some of us, our riding can sometimes be in benign conditions where the chance of coming off is so minimal that wearing one is irrelevant.

For me, the majority of my riding is quick and on the road - I'm mixing with other road users and whilst I would consider the chances of an accident reasonably slight (I wouldn't ride otherwise) - I consider it sensible to wear head protection. However, there are times, like a short trip down a cyclepath to the shops when the chances of an accident are even less and I would consider not stopping to pick up my helmet.

I appreciate that some ppl would prefer to always wear a helmet - I don't have an issue with that - but I wouldn't want to be forced into wearing a bit of safety kit just because there is the outside chance of requiring it.

Peddle Up!

Since we're back into the helmet debate, I'd like to share an interesting example drawn from studies of statistics.

"In the First World War the number of head injuries was very high and soldiers took a long time to recover. To begin with, the soldiers only had cloth hats to wear, but after the introduction of tin hats the number of injuries to the head increased dramatically. No one could explain it, until it was revealed that the earlier records only accounted for the injuries, not fatalities. After the introduction, the number of fatalities dropped dramatically, but the number of injuries went up because the tin helmet was saving their lives, but the soldiers were still injured."

Source

pinno

Whether you think that wearing a helmet or not is worth it, I had made the point which was re-iterated by the 'contributory negligence' thread.
Here is a hypothetical, god forbid: You get knocked off you sustain a serious head injury and you

A) Wore a helmet so your compensation to say support a family is much greater or recover from the injury 'cos you can't work or...
Did not wear a helmet and the compensation is not sufficient because you were found to be contributing to your own negligence.

Its a done deal to me. I hated helmets and bought a Specialised which was on offer for less than £25 and I don't notice when its there. Its light, it doesn't have the wind noise of the old ones you were obligated to wear in TT's long time ago. I do not see any problem wearing a helmet if simply you end up in an accident and you will be deemed as taking 'all reasonable precaution' in the event of a court case.

dw300

lawrences wrote:

I sleep in my helmet in case I fall out of bed.

In all seriousness though wear a helmet. mate of mine fell off on a footpath at low speed and collapsed an eye socket. 3 days after I told him he should wear a helmet when he rides home.

It's a bird? It's a plane? No, its Captain Hindsight!

I presume you just got your full stop in the wrong place?

mybreakfastconsisted

pinarello001 wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

...Dear God. I never thought I would ever see such nonsense posted on a cycling forum...

...they're called roads.

2. I did not say that I endorsed the judge who said that not wearing a helmet reduced the amount of compensation. I was merely expressing a fact.

What was the judge's name, who said this please?

Do you mean this case:

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/c ... sts-20250/

Which is radically different from what you are claiming.

Cyclists who "expose themselves to a greater degree of injury" by not wearing a helmet can now be found to be negligent, even though it is not a legal requirement in the UK to wear head protection when cycling. However, for this to happen it would have to be proved – using medical and other evidence – that a helmet would have prevented all of their injuries or made them a good deal less severe.

25% of car occupant deaths could have been saved if they were wearing a helmet. You's save many more lives insisting upon helmets for car occupants. Anyone who gets in a vehicle should have a helmet. Make sense to you?

You're more likely to get a head injury in a pub than on a bike.

There is evidence that drivers overtake helmeted cyclists with less room and take more risks around helmeted cyclists.

Helmets can massively increase rotational injuries, there is also a risk of strangulation.


And people who hit-and-run ought to be assumed to be drunk/drugged and punished in the same way.

confused@BR

Out this p m pootling along a bridle path trying to avoid the mud, hit my head on a projecting bough! Ouch, it hurt and brought me to a halt. Checked the helmet and cap beneath, scuffed and marked You do not have to fall off to benefit from some head protection.

Having said that, I am quite agnostic about helmets, I wear one always (Mrs S G ) insists

dylanfernley

confused@BR wrote:

Out this p m pootling along a bridle path trying to avoid the mud, hit my head on a projecting bough! Ouch, it hurt and brought me to a halt. Checked the helmet and cap beneath, scuffed and marked You do not have to fall off to benefit from some head protectio

Did you not see the tree, or was your vision obscured by your helmet ?

There is also the risk adjustment, that when wearing protective equipement people feel safer and adjust theiir perceptions accordingly-- leading to more incidents.......................


I will only wear a helmet on a construction site.....

confused@BR

No, the tree crept up on me :roll:

whyamihere

confused@BR wrote:

No, the tree crept up on me :roll:

They do that, sneaky feckers.