CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
Caution: this thread may become derailed and has been processed in a factory containing nuts...
http://ukcyclerules.com/2011/09/08/cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence-an-update/
You may be "at fault" to ride without a helmet...
Robert
(Retiring to a safe distance)
I presume this is the same story as in the guardian bike blog?
I like the following comment "I wear a bike helmet, hi-viz jacket and my bike has a bell. I’m unconvinced about the usefulness of all 3 as safety equipment but when white van man decides its my time, I don’t want him, the court or the insurer to have anything to use against me."
The intersection of jurisprudence and science is a swampy place, wisely avoided by most thinking people.
Judges and attorneys in this country complain about the effect of popular forensic science police shows (The big one here is called "CSI"), in which murderers are convicted on the basis of 18-year-old DNA found on a cat whisker lodged in the fork of a tree 30 miles from the crime scene. Judges are finding that, as a result of these shows, juries will believe any crap science that the prosecutor flings at them, so long as it is couched in appropriately scientificy terms.
I can see the same thing happening here. This precedent, combined with that tottering old "85% reduction in head injuries" study (you know, the one with more holes in it than Butch Cassidy after the San Vicente shootout) gets trotted out as "proof" that a bareheaded cyclist only got what he deserved.
Glad that case didn't happen here. We have enough trouble as it is.
Yes we get CSI here too unfortunately.
"I like the following comment "I wear a bike helmet, hi-viz jacket and my bike has a bell. I’m unconvinced about the usefulness of all 3 as safety equipment but when white van man decides its my time, I don’t want him, the court or the insurer to have anything to use against me.""
I think that this is completely understandable but just so wrong that people are put in this position. Pedestrian victims are not told they should have been wearing safety gear and so they are at fault when they are mown down by white van man (or anybody else). Stab victims are not told they should have been wearing stab proof vests. Etc etc.
I quote: "Reynolds was injured in a cycle race organised by his employers ..."
... " the impact speed of the accident was low enough to be within the range at which cycle helmets are tested".
... "above impact speeds of 12mph ... the evidence doesn’t show helmets to be effective"
What kind of race was it where the impact speed was less than 12mph?
A really rubbish one? ;-)
One of the worrying things about this is that one of the reasons for the man being found at fault was that he was at fault. Why is this not the only reason?
"The deduction was made for two different forms of contributory negligence: because Reynolds rode dangerously, bringing about the collision, and because he wasn’t wearing a helmet."
The inference is that riding dangerously while wearing a helmet is acceptable, or at least more acceptable..
"Pedestrian victims are not told they should have been wearing safety gear and so they are at fault when they are mown down by white van man (or anybody else). Stab victims are not told they should have been wearing stab proof vests. Etc etc."
Yes well quite but you are in no way comparing like for like in these different situations.
Also for those who say accidents over 12mph helmets do not have work have obviously not spoken to the colleagues of mine who have all had 20mph+ accidents and swear blind their helmets saved their lives.
Besides I don't give a monkeys what I look like on my bike, what matters is do I get there, do I enjoy it, do I get exercise? In that order of importance.
The inference is that riding dangerously while wearing a helmet is acceptable, or at least more acceptable..
Actually, I have to disagree here. I thought that this very clearly distinguished between the two forms of negligence, making it clear that they were not related/conflated.
Why am I not comparing like with like?
Actually those at most risk of being stabbed (police officers) are told to wear anti-stab vests, after an HMICS report on the issue identified several serious injuries that would have been avoided if the officer had been wearing a vest at the time. All beat officers now have to wear them at all times on the street.
Is it legislated for or in law that police officers have
to wear stab vests? If one gets stabbed while not wearing a
vest is it partially their fault that they got attacked? If so this seems wrong to
me too.
Lets face it, cyclists are not told to wear helmets to protect
themselves if they fall off their bike. They are told to wear
them so that motorists can run them over, safe in the knowledge
that they will not have to face an irritating minor motoring
charge for causing their death as the helmet will save their
life - deliberate exaggeration here but this is what it boils
down to.
I am not making any arguments for whether helmets save lives
or not, and I am certainly not making an argument that people
shouldn't wear them. I am making an argument that no-one
should be told that they should be held responsible
for someone else
deciding to risk their life,
In short, if people want to wear gear to protect themself
against idiot drivers that is perfectly understandable and
acceptable. Of course it is. What is NOT acceptable is
telling people they have to because it is their fault
if someone else wipes them out.
It just seems wrong.
I'll second that.
And the point about pedestrians (and car drivers and their passengers) is that a great many of their deaths are caused by head injuries that would, at least in some cases, be protected against by helmets. And yet no one suggests that they should wear them or are in any way responsible for the extent of injuries they experience when they are in collisions. I think that's the point Min is making.
Yes it is, thank you!
Worth bearing in mind that the case (apparently*) involved a "race" organised as part of an "awayday" and that the person concerned chose not to wear one of the helmets provided - so the resemblance to real life cycling would seem to be limited.
Anyhow: proof (if proof were needed) that"awaydays" are bad for you.
* - I can't find a transcript
"Pedestrians, stab victims" - not generally on the road with moving vehicles. That is why I said not comparing like for like
"And the point about pedestrians (and car drivers and their passengers)" - yeah if the bit with brackets was in the original post I commented on...
Participants, race, not on a highway, no moving vehicles at all yet the author of the blog post felt it had some relevance to everyday cycling. The law seems to be applicable across a broad range of situations where the circumstances bear some similarity even though they are not the same. More a comparison of similars than like with like.
The reason for highlighting similarities is that it shows that even though there are other circumstances when people place themselves in situations where a particular outcome is known and can reasonably be anticipated, even if it not expected, failure to take readily available precautions to mitigate those outcomes is not seen to be contributory negligence. Yet for non-helmeted cyclists is seems to be becoming a standard response.
"Also for those who say accidents over 12mph helmets do not have work have obviously not spoken to the colleagues of mine who have all had 20mph+ accidents and swear blind their helmets saved their lives."
It's a funny thing, but loads of people are convinced that helmets have saved their lives - far more than the proportion of people who actually did die (or were seriously hurt) before helmets became popular.
Or in numerical form:
Before anyone wore helmets, for every 100000 riders there was 1 death. Now with helmets, for every 100000 riders there is 1 death, and 50 people who swear blind they are only alive because their helmet saved them.
It's understandable, but a bit embarrassing that people buy into this.
Dave, I have a friend who lost it on a corner and hit a barrier on a hairpin in the alps - head first.
Airlifted to hospital, coma, thankfully came through in the end.
The doctors (not her) are positive she would be dead if it was her head that hit first - the injuries were bad enough with a helmet - much of which is still embedded in the armco.
p.s. to be clear, I have no problem with other adults not wearing one, free choice and all that.
Hmm. I have a friend who is an A&E consultant who knows nothing about helmets (or at least, knew nothing about them until we started arguing about it). Before then, I'm quite sure they would have guaranteed to everyone they saw that their helmet had saved their life, or that it was a miracle that they were alive, if bareheaded.
I'd be cautious about placing too much trust in the notion that doing a medical degree qualifies someone to analyse the contribution of a helmet (which can only be done by real materials scientists in an expensive lab).
It's not that I think helmets can't work, sometimes. Obviously they can. But the wild exaggeration is most unhelpful when people are trying to come to a sensible conclusion.
For instance - you have a friend who has been saved by their helmet. spytefear has many friends who would otherwise be dead. So between just two people we already have (many+1) lives saved. Yet in a country of 6 million, there are only 4-5 cyclist deaths annually, and this hasn't changed significantly with the rise in helmet use. Without commenting on individual cases, it's mathematically not possible that everyone "saved by a helmet" really was.
In any case (ahem), this is not really much to the point, which is about penalising victims rather than whether the helmet would have worked or not.
You could draw an analogy with smoke alarms. It's impossible to argue that a prudent person wouldn't have a working smoke alarm fitted to their house. But if someone set fire to your house, it would be outrageous if they were not held responsible for all the damage because your fire alarm wasn't working.
In the case of cycle helmets the overall balance to society is what is most important - the maximum number of deaths that can be prevented is 4-5 a year. In fact half of all dead cyclists have fatal non-head injuries, even if the primary cause of death was a head injury, so we're talking about 2-2.5 lives a year. On the flipside you have 60%+ clinical obesity and people won't cycle because it is so dangerous that you have to wear armour.
It would make more sense to argue that encouraging cycling is so important for the nation's health that we should indemnify cyclists against fault when they are the victim of a road accident, rather than try to find ways of penalising victims.
I see increasing numbers of people in town with elbow or shin pads, presumably because they already own them for off-roading. At what point will drivers be able to get away with shattering your leg or elbow because "it's possible to buy and wear a protective device"?
The case originally referred to involved brain damage, not death.
taking it to extremes, since the research shows that drivers pass closer to those wearing helmets, and we all know that, it's surely not long before some lawyer argues that a cyclist has contributed to his accident by wearing a helmet
In the original case, the cyclist had caused their own accident by dangerous riding. I think it's outrageous that they got anything at all - in fact it was only because their company was held to be liable in principle for any accidents that occurred while hosting a company bike race that the question of a deduction even came about.
The worrying thing is not so much what the courts decide as how insurers choose to use it to pressure victims. Apparently it's already routine to offer cyclists 25% less for contributory negligence.
They can offer you whatever they like because it's an out of court settlement, but if it sounds official enough and has (vaguely similar sounding) judgements to be quoted, who's to say that victims won't now be offered a 75% deduction by a high pressure insurance operative, and feel they have to take it - even if a court would laugh it off.
In the most recent CTC magazine they had an article about what to do if you have an accident. Their legal helpline* were adamant that you should not get involved in negotiations with insurance companies without getting legal advice first. As Dave says, you can be the victim of high-pressure tactics to accept a low offer, a condition of which is that you can't sue them later.
*other bicycle legal services are available. (They may want to comment!)
Dave, agree your last point about this - re: the culture of blaming whoever/whatever organised an event - thats why people struggle to get insurance for events these days - and one reason event costs have risen steeply.
If you look at snowsports - where helmets are more prevalent these days - most hire shops (in the french alps) now offer a free helmet with all skis/boards - why ? Because if someone is involved in an accident with a head injury, they will be sued if they dont offer one, not because head injuries are actually that prevalent.
I am an experienced skier, and I have never worn a helmet on piste - I wouldnt want to compromise my all round vision or hearing.
Similar to the cycle helmet debate, its all personal choice.
Dave said:
"I'd be cautious about placing too much trust in the notion that doing a medical degree qualifies someone to analyse the contribution of a helmet (which can only be done by real materials scientists in an expensive lab)."
I couldn't agree more. I am a doctor in a private primary care practice who treats people with acute injuries, often involving head and neck trauma.
I can safely say that the majority of emergency room docs and neurologists actually know nothing to little of what impact protection may or may not be afforded by helmets. That is a different discipline entirely.
Dave I know what you are saying here
Before anyone wore helmets, for every 100000 riders there was 1 death. Now with helmets, for every 100000 riders there is 1 death, and 50 people who swear blind they are only alive because their helmet saved them.
However to make this a better argument you would also have to look at the number of people being knocked off their bikes. For instance in the good old days when no one wore helmets there were fewer vehicles on the road so maybees less people being knocked off. But now I would imagine it is not improbable that with more vehicles on the road there are more people being knocked off and therefore a larger group of people swearing blind that the helmet saved them -{maybees it did, maybees it didn't. Maybe they wouldn't be dead either if they weren't wearing a helmet}
I am sooooo not interested in discussing anything about helmets as it goes nowhere, just making a possible suggestion for where the 50 people who are swearing blind have come from.
The main point we all agree on it that it is not the fault of the helmet on the head or indeed the helmet free head. It is the fault of the head in the car who knocks the person off
This is the debate section, so we dont all have to agree.
Frankly we wont agree on this - I saw the damage caused by that accident, and while I know that doctors are not always correct - they are in that instance.
,
Those who feel strongly about it, carry on helmetless - I really dont mind.
Nelly my position on helmets is nearer yours than Dave's having been in group where one rider was paralysed, partial recovery, over handlebars - split helmet etc
My position on debates being that people should try to dismantle their own arguments (in a Popperian sense) rather than using their interpretation of various scraps of evidence to push their own line [sometimes dressed up as rational argument rather than opinion. Rational argument allows for changes in stance following debate, opinion stays constant]
I don't think helmets should be compulsory as I don't think there is enough evidence for this. I don't think it is embarassing for people directly involved in accidents to over attribute the protective power of helmet - you cannot replicate the accident without a helmet to see if you die or are more badly injured.
I do not think helmets reduce the number of people cycling in UK. I know there is data from Australia and Canada and have looked at this with interest. I think helmets do not help but I think neither do they hinder [in UK where use is not compulsory]. Volume of traffic is what anyone will tell you is their reason for not cycling. Working on this [e.g. encouraging new cyclists to try the large cycle path network to get confidence up] and behaviour of car drivers is what we should focus on rather than the moribund helmet debate.
My experience being that this debate has changed my view [I used to take the view of the general public outwith this forum, where the commonsense view would be helmets are good things]. I now say it is about 50/50 and I wear one but have no interest in whether you wear one or not. I am not sure if I am on my own here or if anyone else has shifted their stance at all.
I am also always on the lookout for bad cycling by people wearing helmets
Gembo,
yes I agree - and while it is a debate forum, I think I may have got a bit stroppy last night, simply due to the circumstances of the case I referred to, and my knowledge of it.
Apologies.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts