http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: ...was not wearing a cycle helmet.... en Sun, 31 May 2026 17:37:12 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-48084 Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:19:40 +0000 Uberuce 48084@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It's a nasty wee logical trap. The group of people who need to understand that cycle helmets don't make any difference to the safety of their driving are the same group who are already afraid of cycling, and are even less likely to do it, and crucially allow their children to do it, when they understand the almighty helmet is just a raincoat. So to speak. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-48081 Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:33:17 +0000 wingpig 48081@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Are there any data available on whether or not helmets are worn due to gullibility? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-48080 Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:06:00 +0000 Instography 48080@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Don't know. Don't wear one. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-48079 Sat, 26 Nov 2011 08:02:28 +0000 wee folding bike 48079@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em> If they're "just" a fig leaf, the wearers must be gullible dupes.</em></p> <p>Well, if the comedy plastic hat fits.</p> <p>What makes you think it's not a fig leaf? As far as I'm aware there is no downside to wearing a fig leaf on your noggin. Is that the case with the plastic hat? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-48072 Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:58:44 +0000 Instography 48072@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>They're not "just" a fig leaf. I imagine many of the people who wear them, with no compulsion, do so because, even if they agree that they are not a solution to the real problem, they are a sensible precaution while campaigning for the real problem to be solved. If they're "just" a fig leaf, the wearers must be gullible dupes. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-48070 Fri, 25 Nov 2011 23:49:01 +0000 Kim 48070@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Seatbelts do indeed save lives", but who life? Yes there was a reduction of deaths of car occupants when seatbelts were first introduced, but less reported it that at the same time there was an increase in the death rates of other road users. Trying to make cars safer for drivers made the roads more dangerous for “<a href="http://rdrf.org.uk/2009/11/lets-get-rid-of-the-vulnerable-road-user/">vulnerable road user</a>”.</p> <p>Cycle helmets are just a fig leaf trying to hid the real source of the problem by put the blame on the victims. If you want to make the roads safe for everyone, then we have to deal with the real problem, dangerous driving. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-48042 Fri, 25 Nov 2011 18:46:48 +0000 Smudge 48042@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Anth I don't follow, is there more to your quote? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-48041 Fri, 25 Nov 2011 18:07:13 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 48041@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>This, "<em>Surely though enhancing primary safety has to be better than attempting to limit the damage of avoidable collisions?</em>" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-48040 Fri, 25 Nov 2011 18:06:10 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 48040@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Or...</p> <p>"<em>No no no. it is equivalent to reporting someone involved in a car accident who was not wearing <strike>fireproof overalls</strike> <strong>a helmet</strong>.<br /> Seatbelt - legally required</p> <p>Cycle helmet - no legal compulsion, possibly useful in some situations<br /> <strike>Fireproof overalls</strike> <strong>Car helmet</strong> - no legal compulsion, possibly useful on some situations</em>" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-48031 Fri, 25 Nov 2011 16:31:19 +0000 Smudge 48031@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Seatbelts do indeed save lives, four point harnesses and "proper" seats would save more, but probably would be hard to sell to the general public.</p> <p>I have in the past seen figures (sorry, no links to hand :-( ) to suggest that crash for crash you are more likely to suffer a head injury in a car than on a motorcycle/bicycle, but too many voters would not accept crash helmets in cars for them ever to be mooted.</p> <p>Of course "statistics can prove whatever you like up so a point (and if you are willing to be selective/devious/lazy).</p> <p>Surely though enhancing primary safety has to be better than attempting to limit the damage of avoidable collisions? :-( </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-48028 Fri, 25 Nov 2011 16:21:09 +0000 slowcoach 48028@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><blockquote>It is estimated that 1 in 3 people who are killed in vehicles are not wearing seatbelts, and half of them could have been saved had they worn them.</blockquote>Road Safety Scotland. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-48014 Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:29:47 +0000 Smudge 48014@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@holisticglint "Thinking about it I suppose the reporting is equivalent to someone involved in a car accident who was not wearing a seatbelt."</p> <p>No no no. it is equivalent to reporting someone involved in a car accident who was not wearing fireproof overalls.<br /> Seatbelt - legally required</p> <p>Cycle helmet - no legal compulsion, possibly useful in some situations<br /> Fireproof overalls - no legal compulsion, possibly useful on some situations</p> <p>@uberuce, Lol, nice. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-47998 Fri, 25 Nov 2011 13:00:34 +0000 spitters 47998@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4513">They don't always mention the helmet</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-47908 Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:38:38 +0000 Uberuce 47908@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I think a better analogy, no offence to Kap, would be if every report of someone falling in the canal(or being pushed in by neds like that pensioner) detailed whether they were wearing a raincoat. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-47858 Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:23:20 +0000 spitters 47858@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>No it isn't<br /> It doesn't want to go on the cart either. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-47844 Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:13:51 +0000 holisticglint 47844@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>OK so now I feel bad for kicking off a helmet war, not my intention! </p> <p>Thinking about it I suppose the reporting is equivalent to someone involved in a car accident who was not wearing a seatbelt. </p> <p>Either way it definitely implies a portion of blame onto the victim for failing to protect themselves which, once you start looking for it, is common in most of the reports of crimes which is a bit rubbish really...</p> <p>Thread Closed! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-47750 Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:30:45 +0000 TwoWheels 47750@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>waitaminute. This is my first opportunity ever to participate in a transatlantic helmet thread.<br /> .<br /> .<br /> .<br /> .<br /> Ok. Close the thread. Thanks! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-47703 Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:38:09 +0000 LaidBack 47703@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Other details usually include car make and model involved.</p> <p>These appear no matter how many people are killed or injured. </p> <p>Can't remember why... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-47700 Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:34:01 +0000 DaveC 47700@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Yes, I second PS. Jurno's are famous for reporting a story and forgetting any facts, which do not sell the peice.</p> <p>I also scuba Dive and have seen and read reports on the BBC saying a drowned diver was breathing from 'oxygen' tanks (O2 becomes poisonous below 6m) and was caught in a rip tide, 'in a quarry'!!</p> <p>We should keep the guys family in mind though. People who do go searching the web for info. Stumbling across wild speculation on the web can't be great for any relatives and friends reading.</p> <p>I hope he wasn't in pain and is resting peacefully. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-47699 Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:32:56 +0000 spitters 47699@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>yes just close the thread, but if you do so delete it entirely, forget it ever happened </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-47698 Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:23:48 +0000 PS 47698@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I reckon that this has more to do with how journalists operate than whatever effect wearing a helmet has on a cyclist.</p> <p>Post-incident, the police will make a statement. Part of the formula of the statement is to state whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet (either caused by the police's view on helmet-safety or the view that journalists like that sort of info). The journalist then takes that statement and forms their story around it (likely as not in as quick and easy way as possible). Therefore, helmet chat is included without any thought as to whether relevant or not. Copy is posted. Journalist moves on to a) next story or b) pub. [Will this do?] </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-47697 Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:17:09 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 47697@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Actually, I vote the thread is closed... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-47696 Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:14:51 +0000 Morningsider 47696@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>A far more comprehensive report is available in the "Eugene Register Guard", local paper for the area:</p> <p><a href="http://www.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/27212583-41/macfie-crash-compton-craig-driver.html.csp" rel="nofollow">http://www.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/27212583-41/macfie-crash-compton-craig-driver.html.csp</a></p> <p>I hope this doesn't descend into some silly "debate" about helmets - someone has died here, the wording of local newspaper articles hardly seems relevant. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-47688 Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:45:19 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 47688@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Just to pre-empt the circular argument.</p> <p>Absolutely right to say, "<em>you can't say ... that one <strong>might</strong> not have helped</em>"</p> <p>Equally righ to say, "<em>you can't say ... that one <strong>might</strong> have helped</em>"</p> <p>Personally, given the story <em>does</em> state that he died from head injuries, it's maybe okay to mention the helemt situation. What I know (and come on, we <em>all</em> know) is that if he HAD been wearing a helmet then that would not have been mentioned at all.</p> <p>The Joe Bloggs psyche is that helmet = absolute protection of the head. The statement above, read by a normal member of the public who may or may not be thinking about getting back on a bike, is interpreted as, "... <em>and he would have survived if he'd been wearing a helmet.</em>"</p> <p>And actually, thinking on it, you DO get stories of, "Cyclist was hit but was wearing a helmet so was okay," because that's what every single anecdotal "... and if I hadn't been wearing a helmet I wouldn't be here today," effectively is.</p> <p>Wear one. Don't wear one. I couldn't give a toss. A boy is dead because someone got tanked up, thought that driving in such a state was perfectly okay and drove over him where he was legally entitled to be. <em>That</em> is the important thing.</p> <p>RIP. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-47682 Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:24:50 +0000 spitters 47682@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Y'know there isn't much detail of how he was hit other than from behind, no mention of speed.<br /> He died from head injuries.<br /> Helmets are designed to protect the head (and please do not tell me that they only work up to 12mph) you can't say (unless you can replicate the accident with another person like for like with the addition of a helmet crash as test dummies do not have brains to damage) that one <em><strong>might</strong> not have helped</em><br /> Please note I am saying MIGHT not have helped<br /> *braces self for peding backlash regarless of caveat*<br /> I wonder how many stories would be out there if every accident a cyclist was in and didnt die would contain the words "The cyclist was wearing a helmet and survived so this story is not really worth printing..." </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-47678 Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:17:12 +0000 kaputnik 47678@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It's like reporting a stabbing / shooting and commenting "according to reports, the victim was not wearing body armour"</p> <p>Raging! Might write something myself. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=4497#post-47673 Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:33:16 +0000 holisticglint 47673@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Why, why, why do reporters feel this is an important fact whenever someone is knocked off of their bike ?</p> <p><a href="http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/edinburgh/around-the-capital/edinburgh_ski_champ_killed_by_drunk_driver_in_america_1_1978737" rel="nofollow">http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/edinburgh/around-the-capital/edinburgh_ski_champ_killed_by_drunk_driver_in_america_1_1978737</a></p> <p>"Craig was cycling in a bike lane when Compton allegedly hit him from behind in his 4x4 vehicle. According to reports, Craig was not wearing a cycle helmet at the time of the accident."</p> <p>HE WAS HIT BY A 4x4 !!!</p> <p>Letter to the editor in progress. </p>