Powered pedal cycle in collision

Just seen a Teletext report of an accident in St Agnes, 61-year-old cyclist, riding a silver battery-powered pedal cycle in collision with an Initial City Link delivery van.

 

Teletext West Country News - Cyclist hurt in crash

 

Hope he's ok - However, it sounds serious.

.

Edited August 20, 200817 yr by Footie

Not the cyclist's fault according to this report:

 

"St Agnes cyclist critically injured

 

 

By Jessica Tooze »

 

A cyclist is in a critical condition in hospital after he swerved to avoid a delivery van in St Agnes.

 

The 61-year-old was cycling along Quay Road at around 1.20pm on Tuesday, August 19 when he was forced to avoid an ‘Initial City Link’ van.

 

The man sustained a head injury and was taken to the Royal Cornwall Hospital."

Edited August 20, 200817 yr by rooel

That is where member Jeanette Morgan lives but the article stipulates a he, which in one sense at least is a relief. Let us hope for a full recovery.

Was he wearing a helmet ???

Let's not turn this into a helmet crusade, please.

I too would be interested to know if this cyclist was wearing a helmet, but not with a view to crusading in favour of them: it would be useful if all news reports of collisions and injuries involving cyclists stated whether or not a helmet was being worn. This would demonstrate to the public that a)helmet wearing does not prevent accidents (an incredible assumption made by many who have asked me why I do not wear one), b) they provide no protection whatsoever to 95% of the cyclist's body (an obvious fact to which many seem oblivious), and c) they provide very little additional protection to the small part they do cover.

 

If such information was widely available it would help to counteract the propaganda in favour of wearing helmets which actually has a detrimental effect on cyclists' safety: most motorists on seeing a cyclist ahead, wearing a helmet, and recalling the propaganda, subconsciously assume that the cyclist is just as well protected as they are in their tin box and overtake recklessly, while others, a self-righteous minority, perhaps, decide to teach the cyclist a lesson for ignoring the propaganda and pass in a similarly reckless manner.

 

There is, fortunately, a third category, who on seeing a cyclist ahead, bare-headed, drive extra carefully in his or her vicinity, something I have proved if only anecdotally, by sometimes wearing a cap, and sometimes not. Even a woolly bonnet suggests to some motorists that a cyclist is "protected", whereas a bare head suggests vulnerability. Bareheaded female cyclists with long hair, (or males who don a long blond wig) will notice this effect most, as the male motorist, obeying a primeval instinct, will often regard the female (or apparently female) cyclist as weak and in need of care and protection.

Or an anti helmet crusade.

Can I turn it into a "don't care either way" crusade, the voice of apathy raised?

.

Agreed, Mussels and Frank9755. I certainly would not want to hi-jack this thread concerning another's misfortune for a crusade either in favour of or against helmet wearing, but I think you will gather from my post above that I think it is time to counter the propaganda in favour for the reasons stated, coupled preferably with a campaign for effective physical separation of cyclists from motor traffic.

 

Instead of politicians on bikes taking photo calls all piously wearing helmets for fear of what the tabloids will say if they don't, I would prefer to see them posing on the few segregated facilities we have, to send out a message to cyclists - and local and national highway authorities - that the only effective way to separate cyclists from motor vehicles lies not in the insertion of a few centimetres of glossy polystyrene between them, but by way of kerbs, bushes, fences, walls, etc, coupled with priority for cyclists at all junctions.

 

And, flecc, because of the dangers posed by the propaganda, I do not feel we can adopt a don't-care-either-way approach.

I am 6ft 5in tall and over 19 stone and cars seem to avoid me like the plague, with helmet or without, obviously don`t want their nice shiney tin boxes damaged too much.....

 

And, flecc, because of the dangers posed by the propaganda, I do not feel we can adopt a don't-care-either-way approach.

 

I was joking of course Rooel, trying to keep things "light".

 

I agree with your position on safety, the continentals already having shown the best way.

.

Can I turn it into a "don't care either way" crusade, the voice of apathy raised?

.

 

I second that. Make up your own mind and accept that others can do the same.

Instead of politicians on bikes taking photo calls all piously wearing helmets for fear of what the tabloids will say if they don't, I would prefer to see them posing on the few segregated facilities we have, to send out a message to cyclists - and local and national highway authorities - that the only effective way to separate cyclists from motor vehicles lies not in the insertion of a few centimetres of glossy polystyrene between them, but by way of kerbs, bushes, fences, walls, etc, coupled with priority for cyclists at all junctions.

 

Many of the roads in our towns are not wide enough to add a cycle lane so we have to share with other traffic. I'm not sure what can be done with these other than reducing speed limits to 20 mph which I suspect would be rather unpopular with the masses if used extensively.

 

Where cycle lanes can be added, priority at junctions would be a very good idea. Most of these lanes I tend not to use as I find I have to stop at every side junction, slowing me down too much.

Actually, john, if you look around most UK cities and towns there is more than enough space on most streets for a wide cycle lane at each side protected by a high kerb on the motor side: you may not notice this space immediately but it is there, underneath the motor vehicles which line our streets, and I do not mean those parked for a few minutes, but those which are "garaged" by the side of the road because their owners cannot or do not wish to pay for off-road parking space.

 

Of course, it would take a revolution to rid the populace of the notion that they may keep one of their largest possessions out on the street, and there would be further opposition from those local authorities who rent out parts of their streets for an annual fee ("residents parking permits"). Here in Edinburgh we even have these parking places delineated on top of cycle lanes!

 

These parked cars, with or without a permit, obstruct the highway, but if there is no yellow line, no enforcement body will dare do anything about. Yet if some-one, in fine weather set out his sofa or dining room table and chairs by the side of the road all sorts of officials, backed by the police, would be round to deal with them.

 

The payment of Vehicle Excise Duty permits only the driving of a motor vehicle on the public highway, it does not permit the acquisition of any part of it for "garaging".

Absolutely right Rooel, the way that government and other authorities have allowed on street parking to develop, even to the extent of encouraging it by charging for the space, is incredibly stupid.

 

Action should really have been taken back in the 1920s when car ownership first spread beyond the landowning wealthy, but there have been other opportunities to take action since. At the end of world war 2 when huge numbers of cars had been requisitioned for the war effort and the streets left largely clear, private ownership was minimal and a perfect opportunity to act was lost.

 

Nonetheless, we should be acting even at this late hour to incorporate off street charged for space in each building and/or redevelopment scheme. Supermarkets and out of town stores and shopping centres already manage it, even without charging.

.

Absolutely right Rooel, the way that government and other authorities have allowed on street parking to develop, even to the extent of encouraging it by charging for the space, is incredibly stupid.

 

Action should really have been taken back in the 1920s when car ownership first spread beyond the landowning wealthy, but there have been other opportunities to take action since. At the end of world war 2 when huge numbers of cars had been requisitioned for the war effort and the streets left largely clear, private ownership was minimal and a perfect opportunity to act was lost.

 

Nonetheless, we should be acting even at this late hour to incorporate off street charged for space in each building and/or redevelopment scheme. Supermarkets and out of town stores and shopping centres already manage it, even without charging.

.

 

Flecc,

 

While I share the bulk of sentiment and do indeed park my cars off road both at home and at work I would be hesitant at holding out of town supermarkets as a good model (I know that is not exactly what you did). I try my best to avoid the 'local' supermarket and shop at independents with local produce or grow my own when I can. In theory local shopping should be better for transport as people can easily walk and cycle to shops and maybe not need a car. Also, supermarkets kill local economies and ship food around the globe. They are the devil's work

 

The trouble is there are few options instead of cars and so much land is already being used for development. We should have started building three stories in our houses as a matter of course years ago with parking space underneath living space. I know some houses do this but not many. The other solution is to remove reliance on cars by bringing back local communities (yes, I would like local post offices back) and to greatly improve public transport that is woeful in the UK. Right, getting off soapbox now, rant over

 

BM.

I am just looking for a simple YES or NO answer!

If NO, then I may be able to rationalize that wearing will may save me in a similiar predicament. If YES, then I would like to know why and if the helmet did not save his head injuries.

 

This is not that difficult of a question.

I am just looking for a simple YES or NO answer!

If NO, then I may be able to rationalize that wearing will may save me in a similiar predicament. If YES, then I would like to know why and if the helmet did not save his head injuries.

 

This is not that difficult of a question.

 

Unfortunately it wasn't reported Intex, so we don't know the answer. The fact that it wasn't reported tends to indicate the possibility that he was wearing one, since most opportunities to lecture on helmet wearing are seized by the media.

 

This is a sensitive subject in this forum due to entrenched positions on helmet wearing and several contentious threads resulting. Hence the reaction to your request for information, but I'm sure there was no rudeness intended.

.

Thank you for the response, I guess I was looking for some sort of reassurance that wearing one would help.

Unfortunately, the report only say 'the man sustained a head injury'. However such an injury could have been due to many different causes; collision with the van, road, wall, bike, etc. It could even mean he was under the van (in which case a helmet may have been virtually useless - it could even have made things worse, catching and dragging).

Regrettably, tensions run high on the subject of helmets and seldom are these things a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer.

It’s very much down to the individual’s choice

.

Thank you for the response, I guess I was looking for some sort of reassurance that wearing one would help.

 

Hi Intex, I'm new here so not sure what's been said on old threads, so I apologise if this has been covered before, but I can definately assure you wearing one helps. I think wearing one helps a great deal, having been knocked off myself, and witnessed 2 accidents where the helmet wearer managed to cycle home, helmet in pieces. I somehow don't think that would be the case if he was not wearing anything. For a conclusion just go onto youtube and type in bicycle accident or various similar wording, see how many hit their heads. An accident is just that, accidental. You have no control over what happens once you start falling, so it's best in my opinion to offer yourself the best possible chance of protection.

Intex, if you type "cycle helmets" into Google you will soon find plenty of advice regarding them, but, as cycle helmets are designed to provide protection only in falls where no other vehicle is involved, I doubt if much of it will reassure you: the only certain way to avoid head injury is to get off your bike, stay at home, and be careful you neither fall out of bed or down the stairs. And do not think you will be any safer travelling by car or walking: the incidence of head injuries within these travel modes is just as high.

 

The problem is that motor vehicles are very dangerous. Unfortunately their new owners, styling them innocuously as "horseless carriages", managed to gradually insinuate them on to our public highways, and our forebears were then unable to relegate them to separate "ways" as they had wisely done a century earlier with the railways. Even their puny attempt to restrict speeds with the red flag men was soon derided, the new motor vehicles being in the hands of the rich and the powerful. If you read some Edwardian novels such as E M Forster's, Howards End, you will find already references to "road hogs", and collisions, all the perpetrators being "upper class".

 

Here is a brief selection of sites which may be of help:

 

Peter Clinch's Packs Page 2

 

Cycle Helmets: an international resource

 

Cyclecraft

Edited August 23, 200817 yr by rooel

Frankly I am amazed that anyone could argue against wearing a cycle helmet. Last year I was knocked off my Powabike by a reversing pickup truck. I was thrown across Newmarket High street and the side of my helmet was crushed where my head hit the ground.

 

Five weeks later I had two holes drilled through my head to relieve a 'chronic subdural haematoma' or blood pooling on the brain. I was within 48 hours of death and no amount of arguing will convince me the helmet did not save my life. The fact that the helmet crushed and my skull did not obviously saved me.

 

It is essential the helmet fits properly and is held on firmly. If you want to go without a helmet, fine. I speak from first hand experience and I wont be joining you.

 

Rod

I am equally amazed that those who argue in favour of wearing cycle helmets do not also argue in favour of wearing pedestrian helmets, and motor helmets, and going-up-and-down the stairs helmets, etc., etc.

You see now what I mean Intex, here we go again.

 

Got to be the world's most boring subject.

.