Geraint Thomas says cycle helmets should be compulsory

srchar wrote:

I'm happy with compulsion for cycling helmets, as long as the law is enforced with the same rigour as the ban on using a mobile phone while driving.

...and if they bring in a compulsory pedestrian helmet law and a compulsory motorist helmet law as well.

hawkinspeter wrote:

srchar wrote:

I'm happy with compulsion for cycling helmets, as long as the law is enforced with the same rigour as the ban on using a mobile phone while driving.

...and if they bring in a compulsory pedestrian helmet law and a compulsory motorist helmet law as well.

and for people using ladders, or taking a shower.

burtthebike wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

srchar wrote:

I'm happy with compulsion for cycling helmets, as long as the law is enforced with the same rigour as the ban on using a mobile phone while driving.

...and if they bring in a compulsory pedestrian helmet law and a compulsory motorist helmet law as well.

and for people using ladders, or taking a shower.

Exactly. We might as well all benefit from the proven protective effects of helmets - they're not just for cyclists, you know.

srchar wrote:

I'm happy with compulsion for cycling helmets, as long as the law is enforced with the same rigour as the ban on using a mobile phone while driving.

Unfortunately nicking cyclists not wearing helmets is so easy and super simple to see non compliance.  The phone thing takes a lot more effort.

But if the "safety review" does call for mandatory helmet and Hi Viz then I shall be investing in a helmet cam, a better laptop and broadband and submitting a lot of videos of phone use, red light jumping by motorists and all of the close passes that I am subjected to.  Don't expect a lot of even letters for the close passes, but a lot of drivers will be losing half their licences for the smartphone thing.

ktache wrote:

Unfortunately nicking cyclists not wearing helmets is so easy and super simple to see non compliance.  The phone thing takes a lot more effort.

Indeed. It's also much easier to stop a bike than a car. This laziness is why we get periodic crackdowns on cyclists, rather than periodic crackdowns on drivers.

ktache wrote:

Don Simon, good change of picture.

I made a mistake in not doing enough research and assuming that Geraint had not earned enough yet to decide to stop contributing to the society in which he was raised and became who he is.  I was wrong.  So now all he seems to be adding to our nation is ill judged comments on the compulsion on wearing helmets in a country he has decided to leave, or at least avoid for long enough so that he doesn't have to pay tax.

Cheap and nasty sangria, but I'll still accept the respect when people call me Don.

vonhelmet wrote:

And yet it’s always reported whether the deceased was wearing a helmet or hi vis boxer shorts, so unless you’re suggesting the jury aren’t told that and it only gets published afterwards, I’d say my point stands.

You seem to be confusing media reports with court cases; they are very, very, very different.

burtthebike wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

And yet it’s always reported whether the deceased was wearing a helmet or hi vis boxer shorts, so unless you’re suggesting the jury aren’t told that and it only gets published afterwards, I’d say my point stands.

You seem to be confusing media reports with court cases; they are very, very, very different.

I’m pretty certain I’ve read media reports referring to “the court heard” and so on...

burtthebike wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

And yet it’s always reported whether the deceased was wearing a helmet or hi vis boxer shorts, so unless you’re suggesting the jury aren’t told that and it only gets published afterwards, I’d say my point stands.

You seem to be confusing media reports with court cases; they are very, very, very different.

Ok, example... https://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/killed-cyclists-helmet-smash...

Are you saying the line “The court heard how Irving, who was wearing an orange high-visibility jacket, an LED trouser clip and a helmet, was on a three-lane road when he was hit by a Ford Transit minibus” means that the court heard he was hit by the bus, but not the details of what he was wearing at the time? I find that unlikely. Perhaps one of us can look up the court transcript to prove the point one way or the other.

Ah, here we go... https://road.cc/content/news/109784-minibus-driver-cleared-over-southamp...

The same story, reported by this very website, which says even more specifically “During the trial, Rufus Taylor, prosecuting, said Mr Irving was wearing an orange high-visibility jacket, an anklet with LED lights and lights on his bicycle at the time of the crash.”

So guess what, they do tell jurors those things during a trial.

vonhelmet wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

And yet it’s always reported whether the deceased was wearing a helmet or hi vis boxer shorts, so unless you’re suggesting the jury aren’t told that and it only gets published afterwards, I’d say my point stands.

You seem to be confusing media reports with court cases; they are very, very, very different.

Ok, example... https://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/killed-cyclists-helmet-smash...

Are you saying the line “The court heard how Irving, who was wearing an orange high-visibility jacket, an LED trouser clip and a helmet, was on a three-lane road when he was hit by a Ford Transit minibus” means that the court heard he was hit by the bus, but not the details of what he was wearing at the time? I find that unlikely. Perhaps one of us can look up the court transcript to prove the point one way or the other.

Ah, here we go... https://road.cc/content/news/109784-minibus-driver-cleared-over-southamp...

The same story, reported by this very website, which says even more specifically “During the trial, Rufus Taylor, prosecuting, said Mr Irving was wearing an orange high-visibility jacket, an anklet with LED lights and lights on his bicycle at the time of the crash.”

So guess what, they do tell jurors those things during a trial.

Great.  When you find a case where damages have been reduced by failure to wear a cycle helmet, please feel free to post again.

burtthebike wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

And yet it’s always reported whether the deceased was wearing a helmet or hi vis boxer shorts, so unless you’re suggesting the jury aren’t told that and it only gets published afterwards, I’d say my point stands.

You seem to be confusing media reports with court cases; they are very, very, very different.

Ok, example... https://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/killed-cyclists-helmet-smash...

Are you saying the line “The court heard how Irving, who was wearing an orange high-visibility jacket, an LED trouser clip and a helmet, was on a three-lane road when he was hit by a Ford Transit minibus” means that the court heard he was hit by the bus, but not the details of what he was wearing at the time? I find that unlikely. Perhaps one of us can look up the court transcript to prove the point one way or the other.

Ah, here we go... https://road.cc/content/news/109784-minibus-driver-cleared-over-southamp...

The same story, reported by this very website, which says even more specifically “During the trial, Rufus Taylor, prosecuting, said Mr Irving was wearing an orange high-visibility jacket, an anklet with LED lights and lights on his bicycle at the time of the crash.”

So guess what, they do tell jurors those things during a trial.

Great.  When you find a case where damages have been reduced by failure to wear a cycle helmet, please feel free to post again.

Not a cycle helmet but hi-viz. See:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-21351438
Not settled yet. But definitely a reason to avoid Churchill.

atgni wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Not a cycle helmet but hi-viz. See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-21351438 Not settled yet. But definitely a reason to avoid Churchill.

Oh yes, the insurance companies will try anything to avoid paying out, but as far as I know, lack of hi-viz has never been found to be contributory negligence, and it is difficult to see how it could be, unless the government is going to pass a law that everyone outside of a car has to wear it so the blind, stupid drivers can see them.  Which is, in this car-driven country, entirely possible.

Anyone who is insured with Churchill might like to consider the morals of paying someone who has none themselves, then swapping their insurance to another company, and telling Churchill why.

burtthebike wrote:

Great.  When you find a case where damages have been reduced by failure to wear a cycle helmet, please feel free to post again.

from this page https://www.simpsonmillar.co.uk/news/who-is-at-fault-when-a-cyclist-is-i... a discussion of two cases where not wearing a helmet was deemed, and not deemed, contributory negligence.

Reynolds v Strutt & Parker LLP [2011]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/2263.html

And here an essay from the cyclists defence fund describing how insurers routinely go for 20% reductions in payouts if the cyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet.

https://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-helmets-and-contributory-ne...

I'm not making any statement one way or the other, merely presenting ‘just the facts’.

burtthebike wrote:

 

Great.  When you find a case where damages have been reduced by failure to wear a cycle helmet, please feel free to post again.

Why? I never actually made that claim. I said that having worn a helmet would be useful in a court case as otherwise the jurors would judge the cyclist to be irresponsible.

Then you told me that jurors weren’t privy to information about whether cyclists were even wearing helmets, and I showed you an example where they were.

Are we having the same conversation?

vonhelmet wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

 

Great.  When you find a case where damages have been reduced by failure to wear a cycle helmet, please feel free to post again.

Why? I never actually made that claim. I said that having worn a helmet would be useful in a court case as otherwise the jurors would judge the cyclist to be irresponsible.

Then you told me that jurors weren’t privy to information about whether cyclists were even wearing helmets, and I showed you an example where they were.

Are we having the same conversation?

Obviously not.  Jurors can hear any evidence, but unless that evidence shows contributory negligence, it is irrelevant.

burtthebike wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

 

Great.  When you find a case where damages have been reduced by failure to wear a cycle helmet, please feel free to post again.

Why? I never actually made that claim. I said that having worn a helmet would be useful in a court case as otherwise the jurors would judge the cyclist to be irresponsible.

Then you told me that jurors weren’t privy to information about whether cyclists were even wearing helmets, and I showed you an example where they were.

Are we having the same conversation?

Obviously not.  Jurors can hear any evidence, but unless that evidence shows contributory negligence, it is irrelevant.

Right, and I’m sure jurors always only judge based on what is and isn’t relevant.

Judge dreadful wrote:

 

Oh deep joy another helmet debate.

I don’t think Thomas was asking for compulsion, just saying he reckons people should wear a lid when riding a bike. I agree, compulsion is a bad idea, riding with a lid is a great idea.

First two lines of the article, which bit are you having difficulty understanding?

The Tour de France champion, Geraint Thomas, has called for cyclists to be forced to wear helmets.

“I would certainly make helmets compulsory,” Thomas said. “I always wear a helmet."

OrangeRidley wrote:

Everybody seems to focus on helmets and head injuries. Has no one thought about the cosmetic damage they can prevent? I can recall an acquaintance who is a plastic surgeon who specialises in rebuilding people's faces after accidents saying that despite more people wearing helmets than not the worst facial injuries are generally from cyclists who don't wear one. I myself had an accident earlier in the year when riding fixed and a tractor pulled out without looking from a gateway which was surprisingly well hidden. It was a completely empty, wide, smooth piece of road and thus I was riding on the tops, therefore didn't reach the brakes in time and hit the deck. Had I not had my helmet on, ignoring the fact I'd have almost certainly been concussed, I'd have probably broken my nose and skinned quite a large area of my face. And for me, that is plenty reason to wear a helmet all the time.

You're making an argument for cyclists to wear BMX/MTB style full face lids there. I've seen plenty of crashes at BMX tracks and skateparks of people naive enough to believe a shell type lid will protect them. Catching a face full of track/skatepark without a full face lid makes a mess. Sorry, but shell type lids do not offer protection to the face.

OrangeRidley wrote:

Everybody seems to focus on helmets and head injuries. Has no one thought about the cosmetic damage they can prevent? I can recall an acquaintance who is a plastic surgeon who specialises in rebuilding people's faces after accidents saying that despite more people wearing helmets than not the worst facial injuries are generally from cyclists who don't wear one. I myself had an accident earlier in the year when riding fixed and a tractor pulled out without looking from a gateway which was surprisingly well hidden. It was a completely empty, wide, smooth piece of road and thus I was riding on the tops, therefore didn't reach the brakes in time and hit the deck. Had I not had my helmet on, ignoring the fact I'd have almost certainly been concussed, I'd have probably broken my nose and skinned quite a large area of my face. And for me, that is plenty reason to wear a helmet all the time.

How many facial injuries would a helmet save motorists and pedestrians frpm, what about children in playgrounds, why not facial injury saving helmets there?

Again, if you say it does X for one group and yet there are more injuries harm presented in other parts of society why are you not making the same statement and making waves to have that 'protection' worn? As it is we know the ' protection' makes people take more risk in the first instance, or are you going to ignore stufy after study including that of children who are awful at risk assessment and found to be hugely influenced when they think they are safer through wearing a protective device?

Even that state sponsored bullshitter Jale Olivier included a split lip as a preventable (serious) head injury in his study. If you're not having the incident in the first instance preventable facial injuries (which are still a massively low number compared to injuries in the wider population) then again wearing a helmet is simply not adding up to improve matters. Again hence why helmets never show up as working to improve safety.

Sorry but the whole helmet debate uses anecdotal evidence and spurious claims for on the pro side and fact based evidence on the pther to refute their effectiveness. Emotive bullshit seems to work wonders though for the pro lobby group all the while they fail to understand the damage they have done and continue to do including more lives lost, more people in vegetative states, more life changing injuries, more people put off cycling all so they could 'save' a notional number of lives whilst ignoring lives lost elsewhere from non helmet wearing.

Fucking ridiculous and dangerous.

OrangeRidley wrote:

Everybody seems to focus on helmets and head injuries. Has no one thought about the cosmetic damage they can prevent? I can recall an acquaintance who is a plastic surgeon who specialises in rebuilding people's faces after accidents saying that despite more people wearing helmets than not the worst facial injuries are generally from cyclists who don't wear one. I myself had an accident earlier in the year when riding fixed and a tractor pulled out without looking from a gateway which was surprisingly well hidden. It was a completely empty, wide, smooth piece of road and thus I was riding on the tops, therefore didn't reach the brakes in time and hit the deck. Had I not had my helmet on, ignoring the fact I'd have almost certainly been concussed, I'd have probably broken my nose and skinned quite a large area of my face. And for me, that is plenty reason to wear a helmet all the time.

Oh great, so now it's not only the "helmet saved my life" stories we've got to suffer, it's the "helmet saved my face" stories too.  Why not stay home in bed and avoid all the risk?

OrangeRidley wrote:

I can recall an acquaintance who is a plastic surgeon who specialises in rebuilding people's faces after accidents saying that...

Anecdote is not evidence. The jury should ignore this bollocks.

OrangeRidley wrote:

I myself had an accident earlier in the year when riding fixed and a tractor pulled out without looking from a gateway which was surprisingly well hidden. It was a completely empty, wide, smooth piece of road and thus I was riding on the tops, therefore didn't reach the brakes in time and hit the deck.

So perhaps you've learnt that it would be wise to cover the brakes in future when a large, noisy vehicle is emerging from a gateway.

See 59 wrote:

On the very rare occasion you see someone (and they'll be male 100% of the time) in full lycra on a road bike with no helmet on it just looks odd. You don;t think 'oh look, he's expressing his rights', no, you think 'tool'.

It's not odd. What happens if that same cyclist wears jeans/baggies and a t-shirt for the same journey on a different day? Call me all names you like, I care even less than zero about what you think. In fact your judgemental stance suggests that it is in fact it's you that is the 'tool'.