Yet another let off because it was a cyclist

Guanajuato

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... r-sun.html

If visibility was so bad, WHY THE HELL NOT SLOW DOWN A BIT? Notice the line about not wearing a helmet. Because that would have made such a difference :evil:

Buckie2k5

Guanajuato wrote:

Notice the line about not wearing a helmet. Because that would have made such a difference :evil:

He was airlifted to Birmingham’s Queen Elizabeth hospital but died of a severe head injury the same day.

it may have saved his life.

topdude

Sad about the cyclist but to be fair that looks like a bugger of a road if the sun is low and the road is wet !!

I experienced that a few years ago, dazzled by the low sun and literally blinded by reflection off the road, couldn't see a damn thing. Luckily for me there was no cyclist to hit !!

Sadly a case of sheer bad luck / wrong time wrong place

benpeers

This bit got me!

"she had held up her hands to shield herself from the glare - which may have blocked her view of the pensioner."

So she took both hands of the wheel? surley that is more dangerous!

southdownswolf

These posts always get me. We don't know the facts of the case.
"she held up her hands to shield herself from the glare..." it doesn't say both at the same time or for how long. A second? two? 10?
Where does it say that she did not slow down? Perhaps she was in the process of slowing down at the time? Should she have been going slower already?
It is tragic that this person has lost his life. However, none of us knows the facts or can assume to know whether the driver or cyclist should have done anything different.

NITR8s

About wearing helmets, it is a well-known fact that one can be held contributory negligent (CN) for increasing the damage suffered by not wearing a helmet. Even if you didn’t contribute to the accident yourself, your failure to take safety precautions increased the damage you received. The same can be said for not having lights on your bike in dark conditions.

Therefore if you dont wear a helmet and get knocked off your bike and suffer brain damage for example. If it can be shown that wearing a helmet would have reduced or prevented the brain damage, any compensation would be reduced by whatever percentage the courts finds you CN.

To sum this up, only an idiot! would not wear a helmet or have lights on their bike at night.

bompington

Experienced the nastiest blinding sun in a long time while driving to work this morning. Heading up the slip road having already seen that the lights were red and there was quite a queue, I was more or less totally blinded - so I slowed right down.
Fully aware that that the van behind me might not think of doing the same... :?

rickeverett

southdownswolf wrote:

These posts always get me. We don't know the facts of the case.
"she held up her hands to shield herself from the glare..." it doesn't say both at the same time or for how long. A second? two? 10?
Where does it say that she did not slow down? Perhaps she was in the process of slowing down at the time? Should she have been going slower already?
It is tragic that this person has lost his life. However, none of us knows the facts or can assume to know whether the driver or cyclist should have done anything different.

I agree - she could have been going at 10-20mph and hit him.

The lack of helmets could mean your killed falling off stationary. All it takes is a fall and you have a fractured skull or internal bleeding on the brain.

Helmets save lives.

mudsucker

Can you show me some evidence where a helmet has saved a life? Can't say for sure?

I don't have a problem with wearing a lid and think people should but but it won't make you invincible. What isn't advertised is that that helmets are only tested to 12mph (I've had 42mph on my computer) and that you are far more likely to suffer a rotational injury

So please spare me the sensationalised rubbish.

drlodge

mudsucker wrote:

Can you show me some evidence where a helmet has saved a life? Can't say for sure?

You're kidding, right? What kind of evidence are you expecting here, a double blind test?

Its common sense that a helmet can save a life and prevent serious injury. Risk of not wearing a helmet vs. risk of wearing a helmet? Its a no brainer (excuse the pun). Only those without a brain would not wear a helmet.

Or may be I should ask the question...can you show me some evidence where not wearing a helmet has reduced the amount of injury or caused a death?

mudsucker

I not trying to get anyone's back up I just want to see some concrete evidence. Oh and nice way to turn the question around on to me. Again it boils down to the point that there is no scientific evidence to prove either way. I do wear a lid by the way but it's a bit of polystyrene strapped to your head, it can only do so much.

sungod

if a cyclist not wearing a helmet is contributory negligence, why isn't the same true for a driver who gets a head injury when not wearing one?

same for whiplash, drivers should wear a neck brace, otherwise they shouldn't whine about a sore neck and any award for damages should reflect their negligence

but for some reason, it seems only cyclists get this cn nonsense inflicted on them

there's no legal requirement to wear a helmet, judges should shut the fnuck up about it and concentrate on who, if anyone, is at fault, not selectively make up reasons to blame victims

(yes i wear a helmet)

Wirral_paul

mudsucker wrote:

I not trying to get anyone's back up I just want to see some concrete evidence.

You'll never get concrete evidence on a subject like this - there are too many variables to take into account on every single accident.

To me a helmet on a bike is just like wearing a seatbelt in a car. In certain circumstances it may save your life or serious injury - but if a 40 tonne truck hits you head on it will make fcuk all difference. Makes the arguments from some that cyclists will still get killed when wearing a helmet so why bother seem a bit silly really - its all about playing the odds. I wear a helmet because on balance i recon i'm better off with it than without. If someone doesnt want to then thats their choice and their risk to take. If their family then gets a smaller payout from the driver's insurance then so be it - although i still dont agree with putting liability on someone without a legal requirement to wear a helmet. Maybe we should all dress up like downhill mountain bikers in the court's eyes??

Mikey23

The coroner heard the evidence and decided it was an accidental death... Very sad but end of story. I would assume that there would be a similar verdict if the guy was another motorist, a motor cyclist, a pedestrian, an alien from the planet zog...

Please don't use it as an excuse to start yet another utterly pointless helmet thread. I wear one, if you don't that's your problem. I'm sick of hearing it over and over and over again. Rant over...

NITR8s

sungod wrote:

if a cyclist not wearing a helmet is contributory negligence, why isn't the same true for a driver who gets a head injury when not wearing one?

same for whiplash, drivers should wear a neck brace, otherwise they shouldn't whine about a sore neck and any award for damages should reflect their negligence

but for some reason, it seems only cyclists get this cn nonsense inflicted on them

there's no legal requirement to wear a helmet, judges should shut the fnuck up about it and concentrate on who, if anyone, is at fault, not selectively make up reasons to blame victims

(yes i wear a helmet)

It is all down to what is considered reasonable (social attitude). It is not considered a reasonable expectation for a driver to wear a helmet or neckbrace and it is certainly not a social norm. Where as wearing a helmet on bike would be considered reasonable and is a social norm.

For example if you suffer a knee injury from being hit by a car on your bike, the driver would not likely be able to claim CN as you should have been wearing knee pads as it is not a reasonable expectation.

Yes it isnt illegal to not wear a helmet while cycling, but it is considered commonsense. (I believe the original motorcyclist not wearing a helmet case held CN and the cardriver not wearing a seat belt CN both date back before it was illegal to not wear either).

MattC59

Where does it say that the driver was let off because it was a cyclist that was killed ?
That's right, it doesn't :roll:

MattC59

madasahattersley wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Where does it say that the driver was let off because it was a cyclist that was killed ?
That's right, it doesn't :roll:

Because if you kill someone in any other circumstance, accidental or not, then you at least get a short jail sentence, rather than just a slap on the wrist. Punishment for cyclist killers is minimal

Unbelievable :roll:

sungod

NITR8s wrote:

sungod wrote:

if a cyclist not wearing a helmet is contributory negligence, why isn't the same true for a driver who gets a head injury when not wearing one?

same for whiplash, drivers should wear a neck brace, otherwise they shouldn't whine about a sore neck and any award for damages should reflect their negligence

but for some reason, it seems only cyclists get this cn nonsense inflicted on them

there's no legal requirement to wear a helmet, judges should shut the fnuck up about it and concentrate on who, if anyone, is at fault, not selectively make up reasons to blame victims

(yes i wear a helmet)

It is all down to what is considered reasonable (social attitude). It is not considered a reasonable expectation for a driver to wear a helmet or neckbrace and it is certainly not a social norm. Where as wearing a helmet on bike would be considered reasonable and is a social norm.

For example if you suffer a knee injury from being hit by a car on your bike, the driver would not likely be able to claim CN as you should have been wearing knee pads as it is not a reasonable expectation.

Yes it isnt illegal to not wear a helmet while cycling, but it is considered commonsense. (I believe the original motorcyclist not wearing a helmet case held CN and the cardriver not wearing a seat belt CN both date back before it was illegal to not wear either).

sorry, by that argument, speeding or driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs would also be 'reasonable', a lot of people do both, in some locales/social groups much worse is accepted

the law is the law, as written, it is not for courts to extend it or invent get outs that favour one social group over another

victimising victims is not reasonable, it is simply prejudice

spankwilder

A helmet would be overkill for a motorist, they're restrained by reinforced belts and surrounded by bags of air and a metal cage, anything else would really be OTT.

I don't see why for those cycling on the road a helmet and successful pass on a basic road safety course are not compulsory in the UK.

Wirral_paul

madasahattersley wrote:

There is a simple home experiment you can do to conclusively prove whether helmets save lives:

1) Put a helmet on, go outside and get a friend to drive at you at 60mph, and note your observations.

2) After you've recovered from your multiple broken bones, repeat the experiment without wearing a helmet, and pay particular attention to whether or not you're more dead than when you did it the first time round.

And the award for the dumbest post of the week award goes to................

Seriously, if thats your best argument for saying "conclusively" that helmets dont work then you really should engage your brain before posting!! So by your logic, I guess we can deduce that we can test the effectiveness of car seatbelts and airbags by parking on a level crossing and waiting for a train to smash into the car at 100mph?????

Maybe you banged your head at some stage when you last fell off your bike!

jds_1981

spankwilder wrote:

A helmet would be overkill for a motorist, they're restrained by reinforced belts and [surrounded by bags of air and a metal cage, anything else would really be OTT.

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/developments/headband/

The Centre has been evaluating the concept of a protective headband for car occupants. In about 44 percent of cases of occupant head injury, a protective headband, such as the one illustrated, would have provided some benefit

Still think it's overkill?

slowbike

madasahattersley wrote:

Quite honestly, if you don't believe helmets save lives by stopping fatal head injuries then you're either living on another planet or just a plain f-ing moron.

Can we put the word - "MAY" in there please.

as Mudsucker said:

mudsucker wrote:

I don't have a problem with wearing a lid and think people should but but it won't make you invincible.

(my bold)

The point is - wearing a lid is a sensible precaution for many of us - we HOPE that in the case of an accident the balance of probability says that wearing a helmet MAY reduce or even prevent trauma to the head - but there are NO GUARANTEES - the additional weight MIGHT have a detrimental effect to the way we fall and there is the possibility that it might cause other injuries (probably to the neck).

In the end, wearing a helmet or not is personal choice - and one that we all take - often depending on our own personal circumstances - wearing a helmet blindly is unlikely to harm you - so long as you don't think you're safe because you have one on.

bernithebiker

sungod wrote:

NITR8s wrote:

sungod wrote:

if a cyclist not wearing a helmet is contributory negligence, why isn't the same true for a driver who gets a head injury when not wearing one?

same for whiplash, drivers should wear a neck brace, otherwise they shouldn't whine about a sore neck and any award for damages should reflect their negligence

but for some reason, it seems only cyclists get this cn nonsense inflicted on them

there's no legal requirement to wear a helmet, judges should shut the fnuck up about it and concentrate on who, if anyone, is at fault, not selectively make up reasons to blame victims

(yes i wear a helmet)

It is all down to what is considered reasonable (social attitude). It is not considered a reasonable expectation for a driver to wear a helmet or neckbrace and it is certainly not a social norm. Where as wearing a helmet on bike would be considered reasonable and is a social norm.

For example if you suffer a knee injury from being hit by a car on your bike, the driver would not likely be able to claim CN as you should have been wearing knee pads as it is not a reasonable expectation.

Yes it isnt illegal to not wear a helmet while cycling, but it is considered commonsense. (I believe the original motorcyclist not wearing a helmet case held CN and the cardriver not wearing a seat belt CN both date back before it was illegal to not wear either).

sorry, by that argument, speeding or driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs would also be 'reasonable', a lot of people do both, in some locales/social groups much worse is accepted

the law is the law, as written, it is not for courts to extend it or invent get outs that favour one social group over another

victimising victims is not reasonable, it is simply prejudice

Totally agree with sungod here. Who cares if the cyclist was wearing a helmet or not? The car hit him, and the driver is negligent, end of.

bernithebiker

madasahattersley wrote:

That's always the argument in favour of not wearing one - "personal choice." I've only ever had 2 bad crashes, neither of which was avoidable (I've only been riding 4 years). If I hadn't been wearing a helmet in either, then I'd more than likely be tube fed right now, if not dead. I don't think my family would have understood if I'd made the decision not to wear it based on no good reason other than "but it's personal preference."

So if you like the feel of wind rushing through your hair enough that you're willing to get your head mashed and ruin the lives of everyone that loves you then by all means don't wear a helmet, but IMO it's a moronic decision.

Fine, but totally beside the point here. The cyclist was knocked off his bike by a dozy car driver, why should helmets come into it?

slowbike

madasahattersley wrote:

So if you like the feel of wind rushing through your hair enough that you're willing to get your head mashed and ruin the lives of everyone that loves you then by all means don't wear a helmet, but IMO it's a moronic decision.

That is an emotive argument and has no place in rational decision making.

NITR8s

Driving under drugs/drink is socially unacceptable + illegal (Ex turpi causa non oritur actio). One cannot profit(make a claim) when conducting illegal activity. (However speeding is kinda overlooked in this regard, beleive it or not you can claim agasint some one who crashes into you negligenty even if you yourself are speeding.)

We dont know the facts of the matter, however I never stated that the driver should get away without being held as negligent and the information given doesnt say this either.(She may well be sued by his estate or loved ones for negligence). Contributory negligence isnt a complete defence, it only reduces the compensation award by what ever percentage the court believes the claimant is resposible for.)

Also negligence doesnt automatically make it illegal. For the police to take action there must have been some sort of "driving without due care" or "dangorous driving" etc.

Roberto di Velo

bernithebiker wrote:

Fine, but totally beside the point here. The cyclist was knocked off his bike by a dozy car driver, why should helmets come into it?

I think that's the key question.

For me, wearing a helmet is a good idea, but I'm under no illusion as to the limited level of protection it offers. The impression I get from the debates about recent cyclists death, is a perception amongst the public that helmets offer total protection for cyclists. Helmets always comes into any debate, even when cyclists are run over by a 20 tonne truck, people will always ask if they were wearing a helmet. Not only is this wrong, but it diverts attention away from the issues that have been proved to make cycling safer, such as better infrastructure and motorists being more careful around cyclists.

For what it's worth, I don't think there is a massive amount of research into the benefits of wearing a helmet, which would need to be technically and socially considered. Social considerations are often overlooked. We all know about the research which showed that drivers were less careful around cyclists with helmets on don't we?

Mikey23

Good job you ain't the coroner then... Who at least took the trouble to consider the evidence and reach an appropriate verdict

thescouselander

This was not an accident. Drivers are required to be able to stop within the distance they can see to be clear. In this case that distance was zero so the driver should have stopped and made provision to mitigate the conditions; perhaps by donning sunglasses or something. Seems like the driver was neglegant to me.

As for helmets - I wear one these days but I had loads of crashes when I was younger and suffered no perminant effects despite having no helmet. If you think a couple of CMs of foam is going to save you from a big knock then you're bonkers. There is very little compression in the foam so you might save yourself from a few cuts but it will do nothing for concussive injuries which are a killer.

frisbee

thescouselander wrote:

This was not an accident. Drivers are required to be able to stop within the distance they can see to be clear. In this case that distance was zero so the driver should have stopped and made provision to mitigate the conditions; perhaps by donning sunglasses or something. Seems like the driver was neglegant to me.

As for helmets - I wear one these days but I had loads of crashes when I was younger and suffered no perminant effects despite having no helmet. If you think a couple of CMs of foam is going to save you from a big knock then you're bonkers. There is very little compression in the foam so you might save yourself from a few cuts but it will do nothing for concussive injuries which are a killer.

Their whole purpose is to protect the brain form sudden decelerations, they compress when subjected to an impact of a magnitude that will cause a concussion. If you could squeeze it with your fingers, it would be completely useless.

southdownswolf

And perhaps the driver had just gone around a corner to be confronted by the sun directly into their eyes, at which point I presume they should be able to stop at a distance of 1mm, just like you could on a bicycle?

As previously stated, none of us know the whole facts so could not comment precisely on the case. It is a tragic ACCIDENT and the coroner reached their verdict with all known facts presented to him.