Bishop fractures skull after being doored while cycling - but says he should have worn his helmet

Sriracha wrote:

Of course it would be easier just to protect the canary a bit better (aka put a helmet on it) and carry on as normal. After all, no miner had actually died, only a canary.

But why would you put a helmet on a dead canary? Is this a lost Monty Python sketch?

mdavidford wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

Of course it would be easier just to protect the canary a bit better (aka put a helmet on it) and carry on as normal. After all, no miner had actually died, only a canary.

But why would you put a helmet on a dead canary? Is this a lost Monty Python sketch?

It was pining for the beaches.

Roubaixcobbles wrote:

Good heavens, a voice of reason! I entirely agree, wearing a helmet isn't mandatory and shouldn't be made so, and no cyclist should be blamed for an accident that wasn't their fault if they weren't wearing a helmet. But the rabid anti-helmeteers here and elsewhere would have people believe that wearing a helmet is no protection or even (for the real extremists) more dangerous, and they are absurd.

https://road.cc/content/news/268605-wearing-cycle-helmet-may-increase-risk-injury-says-new-research

I'm more interested in research into effectiveness (which seems to be largely non-conclusive when taken as a whole) rather than whether someone just declares it to be absurd which is a classic gaslighting technique.

So wear a helmet not because it will protect you from injury but from receiving blame? All righty then...

brooksby wrote:

So wear a helmet not because it will protect you from injury but from receiving blame? All righty then...

Where did I say anything of the sort? I specifically said "no cyclist should be blamed for an accident that wasn't their fault if they weren't wearing a helmet". Are you delibreately being obtuse or just have comprehension difficulties?

Roubaixcobbles wrote:

But the rabid anti-helmeteers here and elsewhere would have people believe that wearing a helmet is no protection or even (for the real extremists) more dangerous, and they are absurd.

Where are these "rabid anti-helmeteers"?  I think you'll find the people you're referring to are against helmet propaganda, which paints them as "the answer" to cycling safety, when, to quote St Chris, they aren't even in the top ten.

As to your second point, the long term, large scale, reliable data from more than twenty  years of helmet laws shows clearly that mass helmet wearing does not affect the death rate, or if it does, it's negative.  It's quite easy to demonstrate that helmets can cause injury, as they increase the radius of the head and therefore increase the risk of rotational injury, which is much more dangerous than a direct blow.

The real extremists are those who keep pushing helmets when they have been demonstrated not to be effective, and are merely a distraction from the measures that work.

To be fair, BTBS had his rabid moments.

eburtthebike wrote:

the long term, large scale, reliable data from more than twenty  years of helmet laws shows clearly that mass helmet wearing does not affect the death rate, or if it does, it's negative

This is a lie posted by Burt the liar.

He knows it's not true, he's been shown the evidence that it's not true.

(In case anyone is interested who hasn't encountered this discussion before the statement from Burt is directly contradicted by the data from the UK.

All easily available with a few simple Google searches and linked to in multiple helmet threads on this website.)

We don't have helmet laws in the UK?

Roubaixcobbles wrote:

Good heavens, a voice of reason! I entirely agree, wearing a helmet isn't mandatory and shouldn't be made so, and no cyclist should be blamed for an accident that wasn't their fault if they weren't wearing a helmet. But the rabid anti-helmeteers here and elsewhere would have people believe that wearing a helmet is no protection or even (for the real extremists) more dangerous, and they are absurd.

You're doing it again, labelling people with an opposing point of view as "rabid". <sigh>

No cyclist - or any person, period - should be blamed for anything that wasn't their fault, helmeted or otherwise. If I'm hit by an SUV at 50mph a little hat full of holes won't make one iota of difference. The kinetic force of the 3 tonne vehicle may be too much for another, smaller car, never mind a bit of moulded polystyrene.

Evidence-based research shows that the effectiveness of a cycle helmet is very limited, even at low speed. And while you scoff, you obviously hadn't realised that adding weight to the head means it may hit the ground or another surface with more force than a bare head, cancelling out the supposed protection it may offer.

Helmets only cover certain parts of the head. And if you look at people wearing cycle helmets it's obvious that many are not worn optimally. Also, the recent development of MIPS and other technologies is acknowledgement of some of the weaknesses of design particularly with regard to concussion and brain trauma, which most designs (and testing standards) do not address. Interesting discussion in a recent Cycling Tips podcast:

https://cyclingtips.com/2020/04/nerd-alert-podcast-the-golden-age-of-hel...

Unlike people with a similar point of view to yours, that wearing a helmet is "common sense", many people are not simply arguing with whether you should wear one at all, but whether you should read and think about it. Because people who do make the effort to read often learn about their deficiencies.

And one article I keep returning to is this by Chris Boardman:

https://chrisboardman.com/blog/index_files/e67d4b8aac0c709c5801ce466bdcd...

Instead of just firing bullets, why don't you ask questions? Again, while we might argue forcefully, we're not all rabid helmet deniers, we simply want facts instead of faith-based decisions and conjecture. And, more importantly, we want people to see cycling as the safe, healthy and fun means of transport and recreation that we all love. And perhaps the 90% you see wearing helmets is a symptom of the hostile environment we face on our roads. Go to Holland or Copenhagen and 90% will be bare-headed yet they are far safer places to cycle than the UK.

Roubaixcobbles wrote:

Thus we may conclude that 90% of cyclists and 99% of serious cyclists do what their club or their Significant Other tells them to do (to avoid arguments)

FTFY

brooksby wrote:

Roubaixcobbles wrote:

Thus we may conclude that 90% of cyclists and 99% of serious cyclists do what their club or their Significant Other tells them to do (to avoid arguments)

FTFY

Don't know what FTFY means (F*** that F*** you, maybe?) but I didn't write that, that's from what someone else wrote in response to me.

Err you wrote

"It's funny, when I commute on the roads in London I see approximately 90% of people cycling are wearing helmets, and when I go training on popular routes (e.g. Dulwich Paragon)  99% of "serious" cyclists are wearing helmets. And yet whenever helmets are raised on cycling websites, 90% of the comments are anti-helmet. Thus we may conclude that either 90% of cyclists and 99% of serious cyclists are complete muppets doing something that has no value whatsoever, or there is a minuscule minority of strangely embittered commentators who rove the Internet desperate to find helmet discussions to leap on and prove their superiority by showing that they are part of the 1%. There is at least one passionate anti-helmeter on here who shows up on at least five other cycling websites that I know of, never commenting on anything but helmet use. It's pretty sad really."

Why claim

"but I didn't write that, that's from what someone else wrote in response to me." ?

FTFY

Fixed That For You

roubaixcobbles wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Roubaixcobbles wrote:

Thus we may conclude that 90% of cyclists and 99% of serious cyclists do what their club or their Significant Other tells them to do (to avoid arguments)

FTFY

Don't know what FTFY means (F*** that F*** you, maybe?) but I didn't write that, that's from what someone else wrote in response to me.

Nothing so offensive. Fixed That For You / FTFY is a satirical amendment to someone's actual post.  I amended your quote to something which in my opinion made more sense. Are we good now? 

I expect any comments I make to fall into the anti helmet category.

I make antihelmet comments because helmets are put forward as the first line of risk control whereas PPE is the last resort.

The stories make reference to helmets as though they would have some miraculous affect if the user had been wearing one.

Nearly always the comments are made by people who have zero expertise in the area of safety and physics.

rayjay wrote:

Being a ex cycle courier  and was riding a bike like a lunatic to earn money i never got doored once , used to speed full gas between cars stuck in traffic . Just thinking about it now terrifies me  but what a rush.

 It's just  one of those unfortunate things that can happen ,wrong place etc . Good to see he's going to be fine and it's a warning to all of us cyclists to stay alert. Even god can't stop you get doored.

Lucky you.

I courier too. Only ever been doored once in over 20 years and that was by a passenger getting out of the rear seats at traffic lights as I bombed down the inside of a line of cars. Luckily I didn't hit my head, just broke my leg instead. Not nice being left crumpled in the middle of the road with Friday nights rush hour traffic blindly driving around you.

Unbelievable isn't it? I like this bit "As I cycled past vehicles parked outside the shops one driver opened the door and sent me flying. I’ve no idea who that was but I do hope the person finds out I am ok."

he worries that the person who knocked him off and did nothing may not know he is OK. I don't think the driver / passenger gives a shit mate. 

He seems to be an incredibly nice man and worries about the perpetrator of incident.

david rides wrote:

if he had gone under the wheels of a following hgv that would be manslaughter.

Well - no, unfortunately.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20725496

There will always be twats. But if you want to sit in hospital with a fractured skull saying, "Ha! Wasn't my fault! Twats couldn't make me protect myself!" then go for it.

Roubaixcobbles wrote:

There will always be twats. But if you want to sit in hospital with a fractured skull saying, "Ha! Wasn't my fault! Twats couldn't make me protect myself!" then go for it.

It's funny, but the countries without helmet laws but lots of cyclists and infrastructure are much safer than places with helmet laws, few cyclists and no infrastructure.  Whatever makes cycling safe, it isn't helmets.

Who said helmets make cycling safer? Who said they were a substitute for infrastructure? What they are is a protection if things go wrong, however many millions of comments you make about them.

Roubaixcobbles wrote:

Who said helmets make cycling safer? Who said they were a substitute for infrastructure? What they are is a protection if things go wrong, however many millions of comments you make about them.

But since all the reliable, long term, large scale, scientifically valid research shows that they don't reduce risk, your assertion that they protect you when things go wrong, is clearly wrong.

2,000,001.

So, I'm assuming that you wear a helmet whilst driving? Since most of hospital admissions for head injuries are a result of car accidents. And, if you don't, will you blame yourself for your head injuries should such an event happen to you, especially if the accident wasn't your fault?

if I end up in the hospital, it wont be with a fractured skull I can assure you of that. I have hyper awareness to my surroundings, bailout reflexes and a tendency to endanger my limbs in the effort to protect my head.

I would be another helmetless cyclist in the hospital with broken arms/legs contributing to some bike study as "no head injury despite not wearing a helmet".

so whats the solution? I commute wearing knee and elbow guards? I don't even cycle in door zones of cars, but if I get doored it's still my fault for not being anal about protection?

fix the cause, not the symptom. helmets inhibit my freedom of motion and range of vision, which is why I won't wear them when I know there is no traffic. I only wear it when I know traffic is particularly bad, which is the middle of the day and I don't often ride at this time. I dont even wear it for safety, the helmet has indicators so I can avoid having to take my hands off the handlebars when turning at a junction.