Girl who went under car after braking too hard and going over handlebars now campaigning to make helmets compulsory

Bluebug wrote:

 

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.[/quote]

I'd be interested to know. I think it's a trade off. I don't wear a MTB full face, body armour, brace etc when on the road. But nor do I think they are ineffective. What studies would you point to for riding 10-30mph on a bike? For example, a quick Google pulls up articles like this:

A major study of bike helmet use around the world from more than 64,000 cyclists has found helmets reduce the risks of a serious head injury by nearly 70%.

The study also found neck injuries are not associated with helmet use and cyclists who wear helmets reduce their chance of a fatal head injury by 65%

wknight wrote:

How many people posting here who object to wearing helmets drive a car? 

I'd say most.

The objection isn't 'helmets'.

The objection is along the lines of the efficacy of these types of helmets;
any mandating of them;
them being treated as a panacea;
the effects and unintended consequences of their use;
the avoidance of proper root cause analysis of cyclist deaths while focusing on them;
the flaws in encouraging PPE in environments that haven't been properly designed;
the victim-blaming aspects of cyclist PPE.

So you can tut and think I'm an anti-helmet nut. I actually wear one fairly regularly - for various reasons, not just because I blindly believe it will save my life. There's plenty of ideology on both sides, but what you tend to find on here is the considered arguments are those challenging the mindless acceptance of helmet use. So I'd challenge you to research the arguments and not just dismiss them as bullshit because they don't fit your ideology.

wknight wrote:

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 were plenty of people arguing against compulsory seatbelts on freedom of choice grounds at the time the law was introduced in Britain.

Those arguments are still valid, but the government decided that the health benefits outweighed that argument, and outweighed the health benefits (there are some) of not buckling up. Since most people abide by the law we now buckle up as a habit.

Wearing a helmet is not compulsory, so your argument falls at the first hurdle.

While we still have a majority of people, fortunately including MPs, who think that evidence matters, you won't see cycling helmets made compulsory in the UK. That's because the population-scale health costs that would follow compulsion massively outweigh those of not wearing them.

Of course our masters are very inconsistent in their approach to this sort of thing. For example, even though the large-scale health costs of our collective driving addiction are enormous, and the health benefits of cycling, with or without a helmet, are enormous, they have not banned the use of cars and made cycling compulsory, which the logic of the health versus choice argument would dictate.

ConcordeCX wrote:

While we still have a majority of people, fortunately including MPs, who think that evidence matters, you won't see cycling helmets made compulsory in the UK. That's because the population-scale health costs that would follow compulsion massively outweigh those of not wearing them.

Of course our masters are very inconsistent in their approach to this sort of thing. For example, even though the large-scale health costs of our collective driving addiction are enormous, and the health benefits of cycling, with or without a helmet, are enormous, they have not banned the use of cars and made cycling compulsory, which the logic of the health versus choice argument would dictate.

I agree totally,but you have alot more faith in our lawmakers than I do, to make the right decisions on stuff like this as opposed to them taking decisions that makes them look better in the papers and among a tiny noisy section of their electorate, there will always be millions of more voters who drive who would be in favour for whatever random reason they like vs cyclists who arent.

its not even a debate that splits in to two defined camps really because there are a bunch of cyclists, even pro cyclists,who will still say whilst they remain pro choice,a helmet totally saved their life when they crashed and so always wear one, and then really any such helmet compulsion law wouldnt impact them.

did no-one else see Cavs tweet this week about how he looks at icy roads and for whatever his personal choice reasons, now wouldnt dream of riding without a helmet

Awavey]</p>

<p abp="1056">[quote=ConcordeCX

wrote:

....did no-one else see Cavs tweet this week about how he looks at icy roads and for whatever his personal choice reasons, now wouldnt dream of riding without a helmet

As with many other activities, cycling requires the cyclist to be able to do a risk assessment for their rides and the circumstances of those rides. This is not a trivial ability, though, especially as most humans are very, very poor at judging both the liklihood of a risk realising and the "cost" of the associated consequences.

Still, better to make the attempt (practice makes perfect ... or at least a better-informed behaviour).

For example, I will ride an icy road but only with a helmet and spiked ice tyres; and extremely carefully. There are other circumstances where a fall & head bang from a bike become more likely than the norm - on a slippery bumpy path; in the woods; riding with sprogs in a race. Helmet on! Extra vigilance! Perhaps an avoidance of riding that way. (I no longer race with sprogs).

But unless one is a cack-footed klutz with poor proprioception and/or a touch of death-wish, a cycling helmet is not generally required. For example, being a careful fellow allergic to pain, I have not banged my head via falling from a bike in 57 years and hundreds of thousands of miles of cycling. But I know several cyclists who seem almost keen to hurt every part of themselves and have done so.

We are not all the same, with the same risk profile. Consequently, there is no hard & fast right safety procedure for everyone without exception, in all circumstances. Is this a surprise to anyone except those inclined to the totalitarian?

Cugel

Awavey wrote:

did no-one else see Cavs tweet this week about how he looks at icy roads and for whatever his personal choice reasons, now wouldnt dream of riding without a helmet

And that decision making defies all logic.

Before helmets were a thing people on bikes that were cycling in wintry conditions weren't having ridiculous numbers of head injuries, nor indeed deaths due to such. In fact the numbers of pedestrians who had serious head injuries and those of motorists losing control in icy conditions were very much higher than those on a bike, massively so.

I watched one of the crashes he was involved in/he caused, 6 riders hit the deck not long before the line, in every instance where a riders helmet hit the ground without it the head wouldn't even touch the tarmac, yet you risk greater rotational injuries, concussion or worse, you increase the risk of striking your helmet/head through that increased circumference, you take more risks when wearing a helmet (the stats for injuries in the pros is a prime example of this post helmet compulsion) so going out on ice with a helmet but not without is a prime example of risk compensation even when you take into account that the stats simply don't back up that banging your head in the first place sans helmet is a massive problem and no greater than other aspects in life in similar conditions.

I've ridden in snow, ice, 40+mph winds, have been offed several times, hit n run from the rear, high speed crash due to a crevasse in the road, couple of self induced spills and in 30+ years I've yet to hit my head. The high speed crash I would at least have suffered serious head and neck injuries if I had been wearing a helmet, I tucked and rolled, the impact being on the back side of my shoulder pulling it out of its socket and tearing tendons and muscle. I live with the after effects still but with a helmet at that speed and with my body weight I reckon my brain would have been pulverised to fuck as the helmet hit the deck and my neck snapped backwards.

I'll never wear a helmet, not even if it becomes law, as I've said before, I'd rather go to prison than pay a fine or be forced to wear something I know is never likely to protect me above any other activity I do in life and also makes my environment worse and for that of everyone else.

You probably won't find a more anti helmet person, I really know they do so much harm and offer extremely little direct help to wearers even in a low speed incidents. The facts speak for themselves but if intelligent people like MC can't understand or isn't interested in acknowledging the facts then we have little hope in swaying the tide even if you presented him woith the facts regarding how pros are dying, crashing and getting injured more often post helmet rules (despite better on course medi care, better maarshalling, better tyre grip, better brakes, bikes with better handling etc etc)

Kadenz wrote:

I think you should all calm down. You’re not going to be forced to wear a helmet against your will.

You may not agree with her viewpoint, but she’s entitled to have it; we do live in a democracy, after all. And she doesn’t deserve all the condescension and knee jerk criticism levelled at her.

She’s only 12 and, however misguided, she doesn’t want other people to potentially lose their lives and is trying to do something about it, instead of feeling sorry for herself. 

That strikes me as laudable from someone so young and is to be admired, even if many people disagree with her viewpoint.

Condescending, you say, while applauding her for being misguided and 12.

Kadenz wrote:

I think you should all calm down. You’re not going to be forced to wear a helmet against your will.

The reason we are not going to be forced to wear a helmet against our will is precisely because we fight against as much biased, car-centric and ‘it stands to reason’ fuckwittery as we can.  We look at all the evidence and highlight the fact that helmet wearing should be a free choice.  If people were not doing this then fairly quickly an ineffective compulsory helmet law would be in place.  

Rather than than talking about helmets, we (as a country) should spend time and energy discussing topics that truly matter.

Kadenz wrote:

I think you should all calm down. You’re not going to be forced to wear a helmet against your will.

You may not agree with her viewpoint, but she’s entitled to have it; we do live in a democracy, after all. And she doesn’t deserve all the condescension and knee jerk criticism levelled at her.

She’s only 12 and, however misguided, she doesn’t want other people to potentially lose their lives and is trying to do something about it, instead of feeling sorry for herself. 

That strikes me as laudable from someone so young and is to be admired, even if many people disagree with her viewpoint.

Opinions are worthless without some form of cogent evidence to support them. Worse, uninformed opinions made in ignorance, whilst also recommending some draconian action to be forced on others, can be highly detrimental.

Would you, for example, treat racist opinions with associated policy recommendations as merely democratically-held opinions that the racist is entitled to hold and of equal value to less prejudiced opinions based in the overwhelming evidence that the notion of race is a long-debunked Victorian notion of use only in promoting & justifying colonialism? Perhaps so, as alt-facts are all the rage just now. Why not, then, consider the opinions of the phrenologists and flat-earthers too, eh?

Nor do you know what her motives are in being a vessel for this uninformed draconian opinion - if it is her opinion and not one inserted by an axe-grinding adult into a vulnerable 12 year-old.

In short, don't be so simplistic and naive.

Cugel

Cugel 

ashliejay wrote:

i've got 3, inch and a half long scars on my right eyebrow, from a crash last month, and still i'll fight for it to be the riders choice to wear a lid.

Your choice to use a mere lid; just wait until you see damage further down, including teeth!

No Sweat wrote:

If you don't like the biased reporting on the BBC, then make a complaint like I did. 

Nothing may change, but then if no-one complains, nothing will change.....

Here's the link;

https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/?lang=en&reset=&uid=362530853

As per usual they come out with the susual BS, I press and press all the time but they can do what the fuck they like.

lllnorrislll wrote:

Watch the BBC video and it clearly shows the white car, hit her after it crossed the hashed give way markings, there is even a bike painted on the road indicating a cycle way. The girl tried to brake and lost control, which may be down to inexperience, but it's clear that she took invasive action due a car being driven without due care and attention. Take the helmet debate out and this child was hit by a driver who was not paying attention, just like the many videos road.cc insists on showing. This is where the focus should be and maybe a campaign for cycling perficiancy to be included in the school curriculum.

And what you've said highlights the part of the many problems that helmets create, instead of focusing on the criminal/dangerous behaviour of the person behind the wheel of a killing machine pretty much everyone concerned are paying homage to a bit of polystyrene foam and trying to force their will on everyone else all the whilst being utterly devoid of understanding of the problem and the very real likelihood the helmet did shit and certainly did not prevent her other severe injuries.

As others have said, if it weren't for the fucking stupid helmet rules and the needing to wear the helmet in the first place and a motorist that is trained properly, is observant and willing to slow down, look and see (i.e. obey the law) and give a shit about safety this incident does not happen.

This BS is replicated so many times and yet when head injuries occur elsewhere in society many hundreds if not thousands of times over (remember the 300,000+ serious head injuries annually admitted into hospitals alone) they are ignored with no calls to implement a law that makes matters worse not better.

The BBC are a fucking disgrace as always and doctors should be banned from making false statements that have not a jot of evidence to back up their claims.

I hope whatever this girl is doing falls flat on its arse and someone actually tells her and her family that they are making a massive mistake in judgement and should focus on getting criminal behaviour by motorists to be reduced and helmet rules removed so that children aren't rushing and taking risks when they wear one. 

lllnorrislll wrote:

but it's clear that she took invasive action due a car being driven without due care and attention.

I’d like to take invasive action against many brummie drivers.

lllnorrislll wrote:

Watch the BBC video and it clearly shows the white car, hit her after it crossed the hashed give way markings, there is even a bike painted on the road indicating a cycle way. The girl tried to brake and lost control, which may be down to inexperience, but it's clear that she took invasive action due a car being driven without due care and attention. Take the helmet debate out and this child was hit by a driver who was not paying attention, just like the many videos road.cc insists on showing. This is where the focus should be and maybe a campaign for cycling perficiancy to be included in the school curriculum.

It sounds like the driver was at fault for creating a risky situation which cause her to panic and emergency brake, which can cause front wheel lock and an over-handlebar crash, then run-over.  I've had over-handle-bar crashes while getting used to stronger V-brakes, then sussed to tuned front brake lever for slightly less relative leverage than back, on adjustable (premium) brake levers; unfortunately most V-brake levers don't provide leverage adjustment!

The helmet is probably a distraction, but a lid is pretty flimsy protection and trivial against tonnes of metal with several horsepower moving it, and it couldn't protect the rest of her body from injury, which can be easily be fatal!  I somehow doubt that even motorcyclists would want to wear substantial body armour!

Enclosed vehicle drivers need to be aware of just how vulnerable to injury and death people not in enclosed vehicles are, including pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclist.  I'm aware of the several years of struggle and surgery, with permanent tendon/wrist damage, for a fully kitted motorcyclist friend, who nearly died after colliding with a motorist who pulling out of a junction without looking properly!

urbane wrote:

lllnorrislll wrote:

Watch the BBC video and it clearly shows the white car, hit her after it crossed the hashed give way markings, there is even a bike painted on the road indicating a cycle way. The girl tried to brake and lost control, which may be down to inexperience, but it's clear that she took invasive action due a car being driven without due care and attention. Take the helmet debate out and this child was hit by a driver who was not paying attention, just like the many videos road.cc insists on showing. This is where the focus should be and maybe a campaign for cycling perficiancy to be included in the school curriculum.

It sounds like the driver was at fault for creating a risky situation which cause her to panic and emergency brake, which can cause front wheel lock and an over-handlebar crash, then run-over.  I've had over-handle-bar crashes while getting used to stronger V-brakes, then sussed to tuned front brake lever for slightly less relative leverage than back, on adjustable (premium) brake levers; unfortunately most V-brake levers don't provide leverage adjustment!

If you cycle on the pavement and then suddenly join the road,  which this girl admitted doing and I've personally have seen a lot of teenagers do, you cannot expect those using the road to see you and stop in time regardless of road markings and the vehicle they are using.   There are lots of Youtube videos of cyclists doing this to other cyclists.  Most are near misses but not all of them are.

Dan_h_b wrote:

Regardless of whether or not the helmet helped reduce her injuries and the fact that both the cyclist and the driver made errors that contributed to the accident, I am surprised that nobody has picked up (unless I have missed the comment) on the fact that she was cycling on the pavement for part of her regular route to school. So she is under strict rules to wear a helmet (not a legal requirement) but not under strict rules to not cycle on the pavement, which i am making the assumption wasn't a shared use pavement. Sounds like the rule-maker, whoever that might be, isn't very consistent!

Because the presence of a helmet at the end of her ride is observable by whatever clown made the rules. Pavement cycling, bad cycling, bad driving, crap junction design are all out of his or her view. 

rix wrote:

It is up to you not to wear a helmet... but nobody abolished natural selection. It works!

P.S. Darwin was right...

Most people on here actually wear helmets.

It is those who don't know the limitations of helmets that are the problem.   If you are cycling at around 30 mph and crash into the open door of a van then don't expect to live.

rix wrote:

It is up to you not to wear a helmet... but nobody abolished natural selection. It works!

P.S. Darwin was right...

The issue is not whether I want to wear a helmet. The issue is what more important measures are being ignored while everyone focuses on helmets.