- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Maisie Godden-hall incident (via BBC).jpgGirl who went under car after braking too hard and going over handlebars now campaigning to make helmets compulsory
The BBC reports on a 12-year-old girl who is campaigning for there to be a mandatory cycle helmet law after she was told by doctors that hers had saved her life. Maisie Godden-Hall was riding to school more quickly than usual after struggling to find her helmet when she went over her handlebars and under a car.
Speaking to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Air Ambulance website, Maisie recalled the events leading up to the incident on November 3, 2016.
“On the morning of my accident I got ready for school as usual, but I was running a bit late as I couldn’t remember where I’d put my cycle helmet. It was a strict rule that I wasn’t allowed to cycle without it, and by the time I did find it, it was later than usual.
“I was cycling my regular route, which involved using the crossings and cycling on the pavement. There is a junction on my route where I generally move into the bus lane, as there is a wall that blocks the view for drivers. I was travelling quite fast to make up some time, but I realised that a car at the junction was moving out and I needed to brake hard. I don’t remember much about the next few minutes, only what people have told me, as it all happened so fast.
“As I braked, my bike stopped, but I didn’t. I flew over the handlebars of my bike and landed in front of the car. The driver didn’t see me and, spotting a gap in the traffic, moved forward over me. Her son was sitting in the passenger seat and saw me fall so it didn’t take long for her to realise that something had happened.”
Maisie sustained three breaks in her pelvis, a broken collarbone, major facial injuries and the loss of seven teeth.
She stayed in hospital until November 28 and by the time she left was allowed to sit in a wheelchair for one hour, twice a day. By Christmas she was on crutches and she has now recovered sufficiently that she is back doing gymnastics.
Having been told that without her helmet she would probably have died, Maisie said: “I know I am only 11 years old, but I really want to use what happened to me to promote the cause for wearing cycle helmets; I think it should be law.”
Campaigners including Cycling UK say that it should be up to individuals to decide whether or not to wear a cycle helmet, often citing Australia as an example of a country that made them mandatory only to see levels of cycling plummet.
Opponents say that legislation deters people from riding a bike and therefore has an overall negative effect on public health.
British Cycling policy advisor Chris Boardman has previously been critical of the perennial debate, saying: “It’s not even in the top 10 of things you need to do to keep cycling safe or more widely, save the most lives.”
Responding to a link to the BBC article by Hampshire Roads Policing which stressed the importance of wearing a helmet, he tweeted:
The girl was ran over by a car and had her pelvis crushed....and this what you take from it? Wow https://t.co/XameeHMdm0
— Chris Boardman (@Chris_Boardman) December 15, 2017
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- SaveTheWail 4 sec ago
It's a shame there's no picture of this: https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/truck-carrying-ice-rink-citys-30439083
- slc 26 min 28 sec ago
Marsh lane was unchanged on Friday - I don't think the contractors have been back since the protest.
- hawkinspeter 52 min 16 sec ago
Quite a few years ago, a friend of mine got into serious trouble running a half-marathon due to dehydration. I don't know how fast he was, but he...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 1 min ago
She did say (in comment) they'd suggested to the council to make this access and emergency vehicles only and the council said no....
- S.E. 18 hours 2 min ago
My guess is that they sell mainly on the German market - feel free to correct me. That might explain why they are not "pushing" their products,...
- ktache 18 hours 27 min ago
Now Emily Chappell really liked the Lezyne , I have the HV version, good, but I find the handle uncomfortable in use. I've often wondered about the...
- biking59boomer 17 hours 34 min ago
What about this one!? Taken in Cardiff Civic Centre 1939
- Muddy Ford 18 hours 37 min ago
Charlie Alliston got 18mths and is the reference case (because there are so few cases) for all campaigns by anti-cyclists that 'cyclists are not...
- belugabob 19 hours 39 min ago
My local football practice pitches (all weather, in a fenced off area, are regularly the scene of inconsiderate parking, with vehicles blocking the...
- Spangly Shiny 20 hours 3 min ago
Assos ASOS anyone?
Add new comment
116 comments
We all know you post lies continually.
Just leave me out of them.
I've never called for compulsory helmet laws, in fact I've argued against them on this page several times.
Here's the text of my complaint to the BBC in case it helps anyone else write one too:
The problem is that as far as I know there are no proper tests of helmets so its impossible to argue convincingly for, or against.
Can someone not do proper euro NCAP style simulations of accidents with dummies, cars, pavements etc, rather than just dropping a bit of metal on the helmet?
What worries me is that people are being strongly encouraged by the media/govt/highway code to wear helmets, when no one can make an informed view of how safe a particular model is. At least with a car you can take a view based on Euro NCAP etc.
Its such a big issue, surely its time it was properly looked at with independent testing, if such a thing is possible.
Either you're new to this or a troll, and I'm going to assume the first.
There are proper tests, real life, whole population tests over a long period, as done by those kind Aussies and Kiwis. This kind of data is much, much more reliable than laboratory testing or any of the other research used by helmet promoters which are inevitably small scale, short term studies.
The results from the reliable research are clear: no reduction in risk despite near universal cycle helmet wearing. Not only no reduction in risk to cyclists, but massive negative unintended consequences in health, pollution and congestion terms.
A wise man once said "If you don't understand what's happening, follow the money." In this case, helmets are a licence to print money for a product that doesn't work and can't be taken back when it fails, and probably more profitable than drugs.
cyclehelmets.org
They do work sometimes though don't they?
The only way to tell is with some graphs...
Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
What I'm trying to get at is; assuming I have made the decision to buy a helmet, how do I know which will provide the best protection within the sort of circumstances in which such a device could reasonably be expected to help?
I'd pop along for a quick read here http://road.cc/content/news/233382-dad-stops-kid-crashing-bike-parked-ca... I believe that all your helmet related questions will be answered conclusively...
You are mean...
All have to conform to EN1078 so a £30 model is expected to function as well as one costing £150. Some (IIRC Bell and Specialized) conform to the apparently higher CPSC standard set in the USA.
This is from an old usenet post: "To pass the EC EN1078 test a helmet has to withstand a drop height onto a hard surface of 1.5 metres at a speed of 5.4 m/s (19.4kph, 12 mph), with a maximum peak translational acceleration to the head of 250g. While this is very much better than hitting a hard surface with your bare head, the drop height is slightly less than the typical cyclists head height in the riding position, and a fit cyclist should be able to ride at more than 12 mph. You may also collide with a vehicle going much faster than this.
The American CPSC standards have an increased drop height of 2.0m, with a maximum translational peak acceleration to the head of 300g."
You should bear in mind that a lightweight polystyrene hat - which in some cases appears to have more hole than hat - can only do so much to protect your skull when it comes into contact with a hard surface. The benefits of MIPS technology are unproven so take any claims about that with a large pinch of salt. Selecting a helmet that fits you properly and is correctly adjusted is the most important thing to consider.
Thanks for a helpful reply. It doesn't look a particularly rigorous test!
Clearly a helmet will be of little use should I get run over by a truck, or hit a tree at 40mph. However, there may be some value in a low speed impact, say an unclip fail onto a kerbside, or black ice. It also might just reduce an injury below a critical level, who knows. The only certainty to me is that if I don't have one I wont have any protection at all, which makes it worth it even for a small chance. But that's my choice, each to their own.
We already know that a helmet cannot by its design reduce the forces enough to prevent a serious TBI. The info is out there, the reduction level isn't sufficient in a lab with just a head weight never mind the additional mass and kinetic energy of a human body.
And if you are minded to wear a helmet for protection at low speed incidents then by definition you should also wear one for when you are walking and driving, you know for when in inclement weather, or you miss the kerb/trip on a raised bit of pavement, someone bumps into you and catches you off balance, that person pulls out in front of you whilst you are driving etc etc.
This is why the whole idea of wearing a helmet for low level incidents only whilst riding bikes is such a nonsense, you yet again increase the chance of hitting your head when at these lower speeds even small children are able to keep their heads away from hitting the ground when they fall off a bike. The vast majority of serious child incidents involve a motorvehicle, something the helmet is not designed to help with and again is not enough protection to mitigate a serious TBI.
We know this because the rates of child head injuries whilst cycling at any grade have never ever being higher than many other activities including being on foot, in cars, sport and in the home, even long before helmet wearing was ever a thing. Again not just here but in Aus and NZ which proves this. Recorded deaths of all children riding a bike from all injury types in the UK is half that of child deaths in motorvehicles by head injury alone in just England and Wales for the same period (2016)
The thought that wearing helmets just in case or for lower speed incidents really doesn't add up and there is no evidence to prove otherwise (unless you are rich_cb of course), it's incredible that people have irrational thinking when it comes to riding a bike yet ignore that same line of thinking when it comes to other asepects in our lives and the wearing and promotion of helmets actually makes that environ for everyone including the individual less safe than not wearing, all the whilst destroying freedoms and focusing yet again on the wrong thing and victim blaming left, right and centre.
There's not a huge amount of difference between different road-style helmets. Some are tested to slightly higher standards so you can assume that they provide marginally more protection. If you really want proper head protection, you'll be wanting to use either full-face off-road or motorbike helmets. However, they're significantly more hassle to wear and will cause much sweating in summer.
The usual rule of thumb is that a typical road helmet will provide protection up to about 12mph providing you only hit your head against a flat surface (e.g. not a kerb corner or another vehicle).
The most useful way of protecting your head is to keep a very high level of awareness of other vehicles and try to anticipate where they are going and react accordingly. This should allow you to avoid most crashes, but it takes experience to know where the dangerous places are (e.g. schools, take-away shops etc) and how to negotiate them safely.
If you have made the decision to buy a helmet, you are ignoring all the reliable evidence. What data and evidence did you consider before making this decision?
Just bunged in a complaint http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/:
"This article and video present the unsubstantiated claim that a cycle helmet saved a child's life with no evidence, when all the scientific, reliable evidence shows that to be extremely unlikely. The video is extremely emotional and lacking completely in balance or any factual information, quite blatantly using the mother and child's emotions to manipulate the viewer. The statement by the road safety officer was not challenged and was accepted as fact while it is merely assumption. Basically, this "report" if I could dignify with that name, is nothing but helmet propaganda, with not even the most cursory attempt at balance or due impartiality, and gives undue prominence to the views and opinions of those people who believe the helmet was effective. There was no attempt to counter these with facts, data or scientific analysis.
The BBC has been promoting cycle helmets for thirty years, but this is the most blatant, obvious, clear example of helmet propaganda there could possibly be. I look forward to you rejecting my complaint with the usual tedious, irrelevant excuses."
If you make a complaint on line, make sure that you copy and paste it into a text document before sending it so that you have a record.
Nice one, I omitted the last bit and changed/added some bits but have done a complaint too.
We all want to keep people safe, so what's the best way to save the most lives from TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury)?
Well, the number one cause (14%) of TBI is to vehicle occupants in motor vehicle accidents, so clearly we should start by making everyone inside a motor vehicle wear a helmet. We want the most lives saved after all.
Then we can talk about cyclists.
driver pulled out, cyclist not experienced enough to deal with it and this means all cyclists must wear helmets to mitigate the impact of bad driving?
I often quote a study of experienced cycle commuters in Canberra that reported no collisions because in almost all cases the cyclist took avoiding action when drivers made errors - add in that a high majority of cyclist/vehicle collisions at intersections are driver at fault - explain the problem that needs fixing - helmets in some situations may mitigate injury but don't stop the problem
and the problem is "........The driver didn’t see me and, spotting a gap in the traffic, moved forward over me " this is after the girl has braked to avoid the car pulling out
I've filled in a bias complaint for the BBC now. It's a shame that the repugnant adults that put the poor girl up to this will never be held accountable, but then that's why they hide behind a 12 year old girl.
I always wear a helmet on my bike now (it prevents arguments with the wife) but have never hit my head either with or without one. To my mind, gloves are the essential PPE - every time I've fallen off, I've had some kind of injury to my hands/gloves, but I certainly don't believe that gloves have stopped my hands from being permanently disabled.
Back in the day, I used to commute on a unicycle and never wore a helmet, but then you do get a reasonable amount of practise in falling off. I even rode it a couple of times in ice and snow without major injury, though I certainly did lose control several times. Again - no helmet worn or required.
I wear a helmet, and on my commute I’m in bright colours unless those tops are all a bit stinky. The colour choice is purely to shut the ‘didn’t see you’ brigade up. Much like cricket (which I used to play sans helmet as a child/young adult) I’ve become used to wearing one, and actually look alright in it.
I highly doubt helmets or hi-viz will become compulsory in the UK, but if they do I’m wearing just a cap on me noggin and commuting in black. Fuck ‘em.
If Mr Cav is reading I tend to wear a helmet on a Sunday ride, less so for a quick bio to the shops. If it's Icy I use a bike with big nobbly tyres and go slowly, or use Zwift (which shouldn't be made compulsory either). Also when I'm duking it out in the TDF I tend to avoid going for non existent gaps in bunch sprints*
* One of these things isn't true
Name and specialty of the doctor saying this, on the record please.
Then could we have them opine on the housing crisis, the evidence for anthorpogenic climate change and Brexit? Thank you.
Also, shame on whoever put this child up to it.
This; very much this.
Anyone want to tell the pricks that made this video that if a helmet is so important why the girl isn't wearing it properly. Twats!
This reminds me of that line in Black Adder goes forth just before they go over the top.
Blackadder: Don't forget your stick Luitenant.
Luitenant: Rather! I woldn't want to face a machine gun without this!
How many people posting here who object to wearing helmets drive a car?
I take it that you don't wear your seat belt either as it should be your choice?
You could argue that with modern airbags you don't need seat belts.
You can always produce statistics to back up your argument.
There is a kid who passes me regularly on his way home, no helmet, no handson the handlebars, head down on his mobile phone!!! When I last spoke to him his reply was 'what's your problem' With a reg plate I could at least tell the school and then maybe his parents might explain to him why you shouldn't cycle along the road looking at your mobile phone. Heaven help us in a couple of years when he starts learning to drive.
There are many traffic laws we don't like but we abide by them and they don't deter people from driving cars. I suspect any cycle laws wouldn't affect the core of people who cycle and who knows, it might make our roads safer from the idiots with no lights etc etc
There's already a law for this.
What's your (misguided) point?
Say what you really mean!
I would, but there are too many that get offended easily.
You really need to investigate the safety standards for cycle helmets. If you did you would wear a motorbike helmet when cycling especially when going down hill.
Pages