CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years 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.
Why, why, why do reporters feel this is an important fact whenever someone is knocked off of their bike ?
"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."
HE WAS HIT BY A 4x4 !!!
Letter to the editor in progress.
It's like reporting a stabbing / shooting and commenting "according to reports, the victim was not wearing body armour"
Raging! Might write something myself.
Y'know there isn't much detail of how he was hit other than from behind, no mention of speed.
He died from head injuries.
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 might not have helped
Please note I am saying MIGHT not have helped
*braces self for peding backlash regarless of caveat*
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..."
Just to pre-empt the circular argument.
Absolutely right to say, "you can't say ... that one might not have helped"
Equally righ to say, "you can't say ... that one might have helped"
Personally, given the story does state that he died from head injuries, it's maybe okay to mention the helemt situation. What I know (and come on, we all know) is that if he HAD been wearing a helmet then that would not have been mentioned at all.
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, "... and he would have survived if he'd been wearing a helmet."
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.
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. That is the important thing.
RIP.
A far more comprehensive report is available in the "Eugene Register Guard", local paper for the area:
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.
Actually, I vote the thread is closed...
I reckon that this has more to do with how journalists operate than whatever effect wearing a helmet has on a cyclist.
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?]
yes just close the thread, but if you do so delete it entirely, forget it ever happened
Yes, I second PS. Jurno's are famous for reporting a story and forgetting any facts, which do not sell the peice.
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'!!
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.
I hope he wasn't in pain and is resting peacefully.
Other details usually include car make and model involved.
These appear no matter how many people are killed or injured.
Can't remember why...
waitaminute. This is my first opportunity ever to participate in a transatlantic helmet thread.
.
.
.
.
Ok. Close the thread. Thanks!
OK so now I feel bad for kicking off a helmet war, not my intention!
Thinking about it I suppose the reporting is equivalent to someone involved in a car accident who was not wearing a seatbelt.
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...
Thread Closed!
No it isn't
It doesn't want to go on the cart either.
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.
@holisticglint "Thinking about it I suppose the reporting is equivalent to someone involved in a car accident who was not wearing a seatbelt."
No no no. it is equivalent to reporting someone involved in a car accident who was not wearing fireproof overalls.
Seatbelt - legally required
Cycle helmet - no legal compulsion, possibly useful in some situations
Fireproof overalls - no legal compulsion, possibly useful on some situations
@uberuce, Lol, nice.
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.Road Safety Scotland.
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.
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.
Of course "statistics can prove whatever you like up so a point (and if you are willing to be selective/devious/lazy).
Surely though enhancing primary safety has to be better than attempting to limit the damage of avoidable collisions? :-(
Or...
"No no no. it is equivalent to reporting someone involved in a car accident who was not wearing fireproof overalls a helmet.
Seatbelt - legally required
Cycle helmet - no legal compulsion, possibly useful in some situations
Fireproof overalls Car helmet - no legal compulsion, possibly useful on some situations"
This, "Surely though enhancing primary safety has to be better than attempting to limit the damage of avoidable collisions?"
@Anth I don't follow, is there more to your quote?
"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 “vulnerable road user”.
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.
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.
If they're "just" a fig leaf, the wearers must be gullible dupes.
Well, if the comedy plastic hat fits.
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?
Don't know. Don't wear one.
Are there any data available on whether or not helmets are worn due to gullibility?
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.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts