So there we are then, only any good if you do a complete 180 over your bars. No good for side impact, impact from vehicle going more than 12mph faster than you, or being crushed by a blind sided truck driver(what were you doing there in the first place?). I honestly think if we're going down the compulsory helmet route then elbo,knee and chest armour has to logically come with it. Neck brace anyone?

I'm plus one for the take more responsibility. The universal modern cry of, 'It's not fair' has me gritting my teeth.

Good God I'm officially an old git ! When did that happen? Seems like only yesterday I had waist length hair and flaired jeans. Didn't wear a helmet then either.

So for arguments sake where was the blame in my accident

What could I have done differently to avoid that accident

As obviously according to your post I could have ?

 

No - I was not assigning blame to you. Just an observation of another legal system's different view of things.

 

I believe 100% blame can be apportioned in UK law.

Edited October 20, 20187 yr by oyster

It's alright for posters to say things like, 'My helmet saved my life.'

But I have strong doubts.

We know that current bike helmets will only save you from a blow directly on the top of your head, and just how many people who fall off bikes land right on the top of their head?

Now, a German Army 'coal scuttle' style helmet will offer side protection, but again it is limited by just how good the strap is.

Most cycling helmets have a pathetically poor strapping arrangement and need to be strapped down very firmly. Something, particularly amongst children, I observe to be ignored.

About a year ago I was with the family having a stroll in Aberporth. On a nicely tarmacced flat path we came across a proud Dad with his 3 year old son who was on a sort of scoot it bike, it had no pedals. So the kid was kind of running whilst sitting down. He was having a hoot. Needless to say he was wearing a helmet. Now I know young heads are softer but I wonder if they kit him out similarly when he's running around the garden, or on the climbing frame?

3 year old son who was on a sort of scoot it bike, it had no pedals. So the kid was kind of running whilst sitting down.

 

They're called Balance Bikes, as you say just at normal walking and running height. But for some reason, perhaps the mention of bike, parents obsessively kit the kids with helmets, often wrongly positioned or strapped.

 

Balance Bikes link

 

Of course two hundred years ago these when full size were the original bicycles, called Hobby Horses at the time.

.

It's alright for posters to say things like, 'My helmet saved my life.'

But I have strong doubts.

We know that current bike helmets will only save you from a blow directly on the top of your head, and just how many people who fall off bikes land right on the top of their head?

Now, a German Army 'coal scuttle' style helmet will offer side protection, but again it is limited by just how good the strap is.

Most cycling helmets have a pathetically poor strapping arrangement and need to be strapped down very firmly. Something, particularly amongst children, I observe to be ignored.

I agree

But some of the fault is with the lack of helmet in as much as there not big enough or cover the head enough as mentioned

and quite rightly as also mentioned there just not worn correctly

I only wear full face helmets as I feel there’s no point otherwise also I don’t like the dentist

Edited October 21, 20187 yr by Fat Rat

A driver of a Sierra came out of a side road straight into the side of my car, buckling passenger door and sill

.

I don’t see how you can portion any blame on yourself in such an accident

Unless as I said earlier you stayed home or left 30secs later and you count that as blame which it isn’t ,

The Sierra should never have come out of the side road and T boned you end of,

If he/she had paid attention and followed the rules of the road you would have been going along on your merry way with no issues.

I don’t see how you can portion any blame on yourself in such an accident

Unless as I said earlier you stayed home or left 30secs later and you count that as blame which it isn’t ,

The Sierra should never have come out of the side road and T boned you end of,

If he/she had paid attention and followed the rules of the road you would have been going along on your merry way with no issues.

 

That's because you don't know the circumstances of the accident and why I didn't comment on yours. Accident causes are rarely as simple as they might seem and failing to realise that is often why they still occur. As I said before, blame is too strong a word but valuable in the cautionary sense to make us realise we can do more.

 

Here's what happened with exact details and location:

 

Winter and commuting home in darkness in the usual heavy London traffic, I was driving up Streatham Common North from Streatham High Road, following a slowish bus. As it was clear on the downhill side I was preparing for an overtake opportunity after the Valley Road junction on the left if one occurred. As such I was fairly close behind the bus and in line with its right side.

 

Unbeknown to me the Sierra driver was about to arrive at the Valley Road exit on the left to turn right down the hill of Streatham Common North. To the right of me and the bus and what the Sierra driver was facing was the pitch black common. My car was very dark brown.

 

What happened was that the Sierra driver saw the approaching bus and was planning to nip out just after it passed, not seeing my car behind with its headlights hidden since I was aligned to the right side of the bus and the car colour merged into the inky blackness of the common.

 

So he checked to his left to ensure the downhill he was to enter was empty and then accelerated fast out past the rear of the bus as it passed, straight into the side of my "invisible" car. Needless to say he was very severely shocked by the impact against something that apparently wasn't there and it took a while for me to get him out of that state.

 

So although he was to blame for the accident, I had played a part in two ways. The first that in being aligned as I was to the bus it made it impossible for him to see my headlights until the last moment when he had already taken the foot down plunge. Had I left a bigger gap from the bus he would have seen them. The second contribution I made was my very dark car against the black background of the common, not blameworthy but a major contribution all the same. There was a third minor factor noted afterwards, the critical street light opposite the Valley Road exit was out, Lambeth Council to blame.

 

Today this accident wouldn't happen. First I would be more careful to be seen in my current also dark car. Second, like so many of today's cars it's lighting has some wrapping, LED always on strips at the front sides and some rear light wrap around. Third, front corners sonar sensor plus intelligent camera and radar with automatic braking quicker than a human can operate, and fourth, the now commonplace high intensity street lighting.

 

But importantly as you see, I've headed that list with what I can do, taking responsibility for that. That open mind is my start point, I/we can always do more to prevent accidents in the first place. Primary safety, not having the accident, just needs thought.

 

Google map link to scene

.

Edited October 21, 20187 yr by flecc

Mine was a lot simpler and pretty much as I explained but it was a normal lit day and 3pm and I wasn’t hidden behind a bus in my silver car

 

I understand your outlook on yours and your circumstances leading up to the unfortunate incident

I appreciate the in-depth reply also .

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/11/commentary-why-i-stopped-wearing-a-bike-helmet/

 

Read this, it is a very sane piece.

I prefer not to wear one, and would be against legislation that forced everyone to wear one like Australia.

 

In the country where more people ride a bike than anywhere else, Holland, people agree with me and don't wear one.

 

However I think I am now in the minority in the UK where most other cyclist I see are now wearing them.

 

There is a fierce debate about how useful your standard cycle helmet is with some evidence suggesting that they offer very little protection against serious head injuries.

 

Some also suggest that car drivers pass cyclists wearing helmets closer than those without, and that cyclists who wear helmets take more risks than those without.

 

I am not sure about those arguments and would hope a cycle helmet would offer you a bit more protection than not wearing one, however I just prefer not to.

 

There is also evidence that in Australia when wearing a helmet was made compulsory a significant number of people stopped riding their bikes and many others were put off starting.

 

The number of cyclist was so reduced by the compulsory helmet law that it was theorized that more people would have stayed alive longer if it had not been introduced due to the health benefit of riding a bike that was being missed out on by the people that were put off in comparison to those that might have been saved by their helmets.

 

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

 

My wife now makes me wear a helmet when I go skiing and I believe most ski travel insurance policies require you to wear one.

 

If I suddenly decided to buy a long travel suspension down hill bike and throw myself at speed down as many challenging descents as I could find I would probably get myself a whole set of armour including a helmet.

 

Perhaps I am just an old hippy and the world has just changed around me!

 

Food for debate!

However I think I am now in the minority in the UK where most other cyclist I see are now wearing them.

 

Maybe because they are more noticeable. Here in London TfL did as survey a few years ago which showed 27% wearing helmets. There's various data since showing a lot of growth in that, mainly due to cycle commuting growth, so it's probably well over 50% now.

 

There's big differences for different groups though. Women are the most likely to wear one, children the least likely. Sport cyclists almost always, utility cyclists often not.

 

Circumstances too, the wearing is highest on major roads and lowest on minor roads, which may indicate people don't bother when cycling locally.

.

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/11/commentary-why-i-stopped-wearing-a-bike-helmet/

 

Read this, it is a very sane piece.

 

Many of the cycling deaths do appear to be of such severity that the helmet is irrelevant - classics being the HGV entanglement type of incident.

 

But I do feel slightly better wearing one when I consider some of the possible issues I might encounter. It does depend on exactly what I am doing though.

 

I am very sceptical about behaviour compensation theories. I have seen some where the claim is that something like wearing seatbelts precisely counters the enhanced protection of the measure. People might feel safer with seatbelts or helmets, they might modify their behaviour, but the two effects seem unlikely to balance with any exactness.

I am very sceptical about behaviour compensation theories. I have seen some where the claim is that something like wearing seatbelts precisely counters the enhanced protection of the measure. People might feel safer with seatbelts or helmets, they might modify their behaviour, but the two effects seem unlikely to balance with any exactness.

 

One data collection showed 71% of cyclist head injury arrivals at A & Es were wearing helmets, far higher than the proportion of cyclists that wear them. That at least indicates riskier forms of riding by the helmet wearers.

 

And two years after the seat belt compulsion in the UK, the government's own Roads Research Laboratory showed no saving of lives. In a similar vein, a big increase in the number of GATSO speed camera installations was followed by a marked increase in deaths, to government's great embarrassment.

 

In road safety, outcomes are often not what seems obvious.

.

One data collection showed 71% of cyclist head injury arrivals at A & Es were wearing helmets, far higher than the proportion of cyclists that wear them. That at least indicates riskier forms of riding by the helmet wearers.

 

And two years after the seat belt compulsion in the UK, the government's own Roads Research Laboratory showed no saving of lives. In a similar vein, a big increase in the number of GATSO speed camera installations was followed by a marked increase in deaths, to government's great embarrassment.

 

In road safety, outcomes are often not what seems obvious.

.

 

As a bald statistic, that could mean riders indulging in behaviour more likely to cause a head injury are more likely to wear helmets.

As a bald statistic, that could mean riders indulging in behaviour more likely to cause a head injury are more likely to wear helmets.

 

Exactly, as I posted, riskier forms of riding.

 

Could be fast road riding, MTB off-road or just taking risks due to the nature of the rider.

 

As also posted, utility riders are less likely to wear helmets but rarely suffer head injuries, no doubt due to riding more moderately.

 

It's back to my old argument that we largely control whether we have accidents or not.

.

I wear one:

 

- on the other side of the border on main roads, that is the law

- on the trike because I ride that like a maniac and having rolled it once it seems like quite a good idea... The head is much closer to the ground, especially when upside down

- when it is really sunny because it has better ventilation than a cap and I am bald.

 

The author of that article also wears one when it seems like a good idea. Like for me that doesn't include going to work or going to the shops.

I wear one:

 

- on the other side of the border on main roads, that is the law

- on the trike because I ride that like a maniac and having rolled it once it seems like quite a good idea... The head is much closer to the ground, especially when upside down

- when it is really sunny because it has better ventilation than a cap and I am bald.

 

The author of that article also wears one when it seems like a good idea. Like for me that doesn't include going to work or going to the shops.

Which country is 'over the border' and what is the law please.

Which country is 'over the border' and what is the law please.

 

Pending AK coming in, it's Spain.

 

There's no need to wear helmets there in urban areas, but outside them on main roads they are compulsory for cyclists.

.

Which country is 'over the border' and what is the law please.

 

flecc answered correctly.

 

I think I may have posted a while back that a helmet did prevent a nasty blow there: thanks to cutbacks there are lots of low hanging branches on the side of Spanish roads.

 

Another summer benefit I forgot to note is protection from large flying insects. Especially when you are bald...

flecc answered correctly.

 

I think I may have posted a while back that a helmet did prevent a nasty blow there: thanks to cutbacks there are lots of low hanging branches on the side of Spanish roads.

 

Another summer benefit I forgot to note is protection from large flying insects. Especially when you are bald...

Especially magpies in spring.

Pending AK coming in, it's Spain.

 

There's no need to wear helmets there in urban areas, but outside them on main roads they are compulsory for cyclists.

.

How on earth do legislators delude themselves into nonsense such as that?

How on earth do legislators delude themselves into nonsense such as that?

I guess it's due to accident stats, many times this thread has referred to urban cycling being much safer than 'sports' cycling.

How on earth do legislators delude themselves into nonsense such as that?

Obviously the speed differential between vehicle and cyclist dictates the need for protection. That's how.

But then we come back to these helmets being tested to 12mph, good luck with that kind of speed differential on a main road.

I do see sports cyclists riding fast main roads and dual carriageways, I always wonder what on earth motivates them to want to do such a thing? Why put yourself in such obvious peril for the sake of a few seconds? This is where I subscribe to Flecc's view, we bear the major responsibility for our own safety. We seal our fate with the choices we make.

How on earth do legislators delude themselves into nonsense such as that?

 

As Chris says, the utility cyclists most commonly seen in urban areas have far less accidents, mainly because they generally cycle much slower. It's the types racing along along at 20 plus who are most likely to go over their drop handlebars.

 

Also remember that cycling on the continent is very different, in most countries mainly utility and often leisurely in nature. Britain is uniquely weird in having such a high proportion of cyclists furiously pedalling around helmeted at 20 mph or more as if they are competing in a race. That's something I'm very critical of, since it not only leads to more accidents but also deters the majority from ever taking up cycling.

.