Fatal collision prompts calls to make helmets compulsory

[flecc]

By saying that absorbant materials aren't compatible with cycling sounds like you are saying they are useless or even detrimental to health. I have looked for facts on helmet testing, they make it clear that a helmet cannot be compatible with all the needs of cycling (motorcycling, skiing etc.) but I have never seen one that dismissed a helmets usefulness offhand like that. I would be interested to read one if you have it.

That's a misreading if ever I saw one, my meaning was exactly the same as yours and in no way implied that the materials were useless or detrimental, nor did what I said dismiss helmets as useless, offhand or in any other way.

You've said this:

"they make it clear that a helmet cannot be compatible with all the needs of cycling"

and that's all I'm saying, using the same word "compatible", meaning that cycle helmets are inadequate for meeting all the needs.
.

 

[Beanie101]

As far as ski-ing helmets go, my opinion is that it's fine for particular ski areas to mandate the use of helmets on their pisted runs. These areas are crowded and the chances of collision high, with potential liablity issues. What would be wrong would some sort of legal compulsion for all skiers to wear a helmet wherever they are skiing i.e. off piste etc.

The only time that I have had a serious skiing collision was when a German in a large helmet failed to both see and hear me going down the extreme edge of a piste and knocked me clean off the slope. He was zig-zagging across the whole slope while I was just using a small part of it. To add insult to injury, he blamed me and skied off without making sure that I was OK. Other relevant information is that we were the only two on the entire mountain and I was on blood thinners at the time and had been banned from skiing by my doctor.

 

[rooel]

Deleted and transferred to correct thread.

 

[Danny-K]

The only time that I have had a serious skiing collision was when a German in a large helmet failed to both see and hear me going down the extreme edge of a piste and knocked me clean off the slope. He was zig-zagging across the whole slope while I was just using a small part of it. To add insult to injury, he blamed me and skied off without making sure that I was OK. Other relevant information is that we were the only two on the entire mountain and I was on blood thinners at the time and had been banned from skiing by my doctor.

Beanie, my commiserations, that sounds absolutely awful. Just appalling behaviour.

With his display of such an uncaring attitude, I have to ask - when you say 'large helmet'; was he was wearing a helmet like this:


.


.


.

or like this?

 

[Barnowl]

Tsk! Tsk!

 

[Brian-Lopes]

I think that a law making helmets compulsory would be a good idea, but how would anyone police that? Our police forces are stretched to the limit already.

 

[Grumpy1]

No doubt with all the cameras around the next step will be number plates for bikes, and the fine will come through your letterbox!

 

[rooel]

The police would police compulsory helmet wearing in the same way as they police all road traffic crime - on an intemittent and random basis. Here in Lothian and Borders the Chief Constable regularly announces a three week "blitz" (interesting choice of teutonic term) on say, speeders, mobile phone drivers, drunk drivers, cyclists without lights etc etc.

Therefore failure to wear a helmet would from time to time incur a penalty of £80.

And given the now more widely recognised tendency of drivers to consider cyclists wearing helmets as being well protected and therefor not requiring any special care as vulnerable road users, the choice we would have would be between a randon fine for not wearing a helmet or a random injury or fatality or for wearing one.

Not many motorists, and not all that many cyclists, know that cycle helmets provide some protection only at impact speeds up to 12 mph. And government, safety organisations, bike shops, and bicycle helmet manufacturers are not keen to publicise this either.

 

[Brian-Lopes]

Well I hope that it does happen, and that it is treated as a serious matter, but I can't see the police bothering. I don't really get what you are saying reool, are you implying that people who wear a helmet are more likely to get injured?

 

[rooel]

Precisely. There is increasing evidence that motorists having heard the government and other propaganda about wearing what they call "safety" helmets subconsciously regard helmet-wearing cyclists as being as well protected as they, the motorists, are in their motorised tin boxes.

Try it for yourself: ride for a week or two with and without a helmet see how you get on!

 

[flecc]

Well I hope that it does happen,

It won't happen.

The government blocked an attempt to pass a law making cycle helmet wearing for children compulsory, so there's absolutely no chance of it becoming law for all cyclists.

There's two reasons why governments of both main parties have refused the frequent attempts to make this law. First is that they want to encourage cycling and nothing would put people off more, and second, there's no evidence from places that have made it compulsory that cycle helmets reduce deaths and serious injuries. Quite the opposite in fact.
.

 

[Brian-Lopes]

I agree on that note. In places where it has been trialled it has made a significant impact on the number of cyclists on the road.

That is an interesting theory you have there, I think I will give it a go. I will do a week without a helmet on Monday, and see if there are any differences. Do you think I should still wear my other safety clothing? ie. high visibility jacket, reflective clips etc?

 

[rooel]

Yes Brian-Lopes, definitely continue to wear your high visibility gear: unlike helmets it helps prevent collisions, while helmets, on increasingly available evidence, tend to attract them.

I would suggest too however that you fit a rear view mirror to your handlebars as well. That lets you know who you are about to share your road space with, warns you of a driver about to overtake too close, or who on overtaking may swerve left across your bows, with the strong possibility of putting you and your bike under his or her nearside rear wheel.

Before, during, and after your experiment you may also find it useful to look at this: http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf

 

[torrent99]

you may also find it useful to look at this: http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf

You may also find it interesting to read:

Bicycle Safety: How to Not Get Hit by Cars

Apparently the strike from behind type accident we most fear (and the subject of the overtaking paper above) only accounts for 3.8% of accidents.

 

[rooel]

Quite correct torrent99, but overtaking from behind and doing an immediate left hand turn putting the overtaken cyclist under the rear nearside wheel is something to fear.

The rear view mirror however has many uses, and it lets the cyclist see with the briefest of glances what is going on or coming up behind while keeping his or her head pointing in the direction of travel. Swiveling the head backwards and forwards takes much longer, during which time something threatening may be happening in front, eg an oncoming vehicle turning right in front of the cyclist.

 

[flecc]

Apparently the strike from behind type accident we most fear (and the subject of the overtaking paper above) only accounts for 3.8% of accidents.

That was a US figure from one study of course, and only of accidents.

I suspect a higher percentage of deaths result from rear collisions, and I include the left turning vehicles that Rooel mentions which were apparently a major element in the 15 cyclist deaths in London in the last recorded year.

Interestingly a mirror is the best defence against quite a high proportion of the types of accident mentioned in that link, and I still think it the single best safaty device a cyclist can have. As virtually the most overtaken vehicle on the road, not having one is asking for trouble.
.

 

[torrent99]

That was a US figure from one study of course, and only of accidents.

I suspect a higher percentage of deaths result from rear collisions, and I include the left turning vehicles that Rooel mentions which were apparently a major element in the 15 cyclist deaths in London in the last recorded year.

Interestingly a mirror is the best defence against quite a high proportion of the types of accident mentioned in that link, and I still think it the single best safaty device a cyclist can have. As virtually the most overtaken vehicle on the road, not having one is asking for trouble.
.

Absolutely a mirror is an essential! Prevention is far better than cure...