Fair Sentence for killing a cyclist, again.

[walm]

It would be incredibly surprising to me if you were wrong SC. It makes common sense.

However, surely you have to admit that it is odd that helmets would reduce the severity of head injuries UP TO THE EXACT POINT OF HOSPITAL ADMISSION - you are better off with the helmet - but you're still going to hospital (for a head injury - the other injuries are irrelevant - this is the 30% of "admitted owing to noggin problems" category not the others).

You would imagine more of a sliding scale (no pun intended) of protection.
Surely intuition says, all else equal some people will be saved a trip to hospital by wearing a helmet.

There could be any number of reasons for this.

The one I am amazed you haven't jumped on is that maybe MORE people are cycling!!

The one I favour though is the risk enhancement...

i.e. you do more dangerous stuff because you feel protected by the helmet.
I know that definitely happens to me when I ski.

[heebeegeetee]

Snowboy said:

I just find it tragic that some people argue so vehemently against safety gear, putting do much emphasis and faith in such flimsy arguments.

I'll ask yet again, what safety gear do you wear when you step outside?

The HC gives advice on what to wear when you step outside at night. https://www.gov.uk/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35/gener...
I do hope you're not going to show that you're a staggering hypocrite and consider that safety wear is something only other people should wear.

[walm]

singlecoil said:

walm said:

"overall rates of head injuries were not appreciably altered by helmet legislation"

Severity would be an issue too, don't you think, not just rates. Still, if that doesn't suit your argument then by all means ignore it...

Absolutely, and I agree with you.
I suspect that it is difficult to measure severity objectively while a hospital admission is binary.

Since the data wasn't presented it was difficult to ignore.

Feel free to present the data you have... oh wait...

[singlecoil]

Snowboy said:

singlecoil said:

walm said:

"overall rates of head injuries were not appreciably altered by helmet legislation"

Severity would be an issue too, don't you think, not just rates. Still, if that doesn't suit your argument then by all means ignore it...

I'm guessing it wasn't ignored.
It just wasn't noticed.
I certainly missed it when I read it.

It is a very good point.
A helmet may not prevent a recorded head injury, but it may reduce it from a serious one to a minor one.

Another very good piece if disembling journalism.
Don't forget, these guys are paid to write articles to enforce their points.
We're just chatting about it.
I'm not suprised that cunning writing is misread - that's what they intended.

It points up the riskiness of relying on 'research'. Unless carried out by an organisation of the very highest ethcical and scientific values, it really isn't worth very much of anything. Interested parties can cherry pick data and bend the results to support their preconceived conclusions.

[heebeegeetee]

singlecoil said:

Snowboy said:

singlecoil said:

walm said:

"overall rates of head injuries were not appreciably altered by helmet legislation"

Severity would be an issue too, don't you think, not just rates. Still, if that doesn't suit your argument then by all means ignore it...

I'm guessing it wasn't ignored.
It just wasn't noticed.
I certainly missed it when I read it.

It is a very good point.
A helmet may not prevent a recorded head injury, but it may reduce it from a serious one to a minor one.

Another very good piece if disembling journalism.
Don't forget, these guys are paid to write articles to enforce their points.
We're just chatting about it.
I'm not suprised that cunning writing is misread - that's what they intended.

It points up the riskiness of relying on 'research'. Unless carried out by an organisation of the very highest ethcical and scientific values, it really isn't worth very much of anything. Interested parties can cherry pick data and bend the results to support their preconceived conclusions.

I think you guys are confusing the newspaper article on the study for the study itself.

The study wasn't carried out by the Guardian.

[Gargamel]

singlecoil said:

It points up the riskiness of relying on 'research'. Unless carried out by an organisation of the very highest ethcical and scientific values, it really isn't worth very much of anything. Interested parties can cherry pick data and bend the results to support their preconceived conclusions.

You are making a fool out of yourself. I really shouldn't add anything more, because you are doing all the hard work for me. The more of this utter drivel you post the better as far as I can see.

We both know you are trolling this subject in an old school way, baiting and waiting. But to be honest I think it is quite funny.

Carry on, what was it you were saying, let me paraphrase

'All "research" is dodgy and a waste of time, unless I Singlecoil have agree that it is both ethical (ie no seals were killed obtaining the information) and the highest scientific values - is that x or Y or epsilon?'

[singlecoil]

Gargamel said:

singlecoil said:

It points up the riskiness of relying on 'research'. Unless carried out by an organisation of the very highest ethcical and scientific values, it really isn't worth very much of anything. Interested parties can cherry pick data and bend the results to support their preconceived conclusions.

You are making a fool out of yourself. I really shouldn't add anything more, because you are doing all the hard work for me. The more of this utter drivel you post the better as far as I can see.

We both know you are trolling this subject in an old school way, baiting and waiting. But to be honest I think it is quite funny.

Carry on, what was it you were saying, let me paraphrase

'All "research" is dodgy and a waste of time, unless I Singlecoil have agree that it is both ethical (ie no seals were killed obtaining the information) and the highest scientific values - is that x or Y or epsilon?'

You are dead to me

[singlecoil]

heebeegeetee said:

singlecoil said:

Snowboy said:

singlecoil said:

walm said:

"overall rates of head injuries were not appreciably altered by helmet legislation"

Severity would be an issue too, don't you think, not just rates. Still, if that doesn't suit your argument then by all means ignore it...

I'm guessing it wasn't ignored.
It just wasn't noticed.
I certainly missed it when I read it.

It is a very good point.
A helmet may not prevent a recorded head injury, but it may reduce it from a serious one to a minor one.

Another very good piece if disembling journalism.
Don't forget, these guys are paid to write articles to enforce their points.
We're just chatting about it.
I'm not suprised that cunning writing is misread - that's what they intended.

It points up the riskiness of relying on 'research'. Unless carried out by an organisation of the very highest ethcical and scientific values, it really isn't worth very much of anything. Interested parties can cherry pick data and bend the results to support their preconceived conclusions.

I think you guys are confusing the newspaper article on the study for the study itself.

The study wasn't carried out by the Guardian.

I think you are confusing us with someone who cares about what you say.

We know perfectly well that the study was not carried out by the Guardian

[NWTony]

heebeegeetee said:

yes, it seems to be a review of the legal position of helmets and the consequences of not wearing helmets.

What is is:
APIL TRANSPORT SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP
March 2012
Cycle Helmets: A Duty to Wear?
Martin Porter QC, 2 Temple Gardens.

And it's from:

"WE ARE 2TG
We are leading civil and commercial barristers.

We are experienced advocates who appear in courts and arbitral tribunals at all levels throughout the UK and overseas.

We are friendly and approachable and provide pragmatic and commercial advice to our clients, combined with unrivalled specialist knowledge across our practice areas.

We are supported by an outstanding team of clerks and administrators dedicated to providing the best possible service to our clients."

http://www.2tg.co.uk/
http://www.2tg.co.uk/assets/docs/article_documents...

Byw on my laptop the link to the pdf just opens, it doesn't download.

Yes I was aware of the author / source.

Did you think it had a pro cyclist leaning from the language used? Or I suppose an anti helmet compulsion leaning if you prefer? I may have been reading too much into it, I just felt that evidence that supported compulsory helmets wearing was couched in terms that minimised it's weight and those that opposed it stated much more strongly. I suppose it may reflect on who was paying for the opinion?

I did let me discover the parliamentary records from one of the links though which was an insight of sorts They like their flowery language and procedures do our MPs.

Incidentally the quote on page 1 from the MP and the link given don't correlate which was what I was trying to see.

Still, I'm confident another couple of pages on this thread will resolve the issue once and for all .

[heebeegeetee]

NWTony said:

Yes I was aware of the author / source.

Did you think it had a pro cyclist leaning from the language used? Or I suppose an anti helmet compulsion leaning if you prefer? I may have been reading too much into it, I just felt that evidence that supported compulsory helmets wearing was couched in terms that minimised it's weight and those that opposed it stated much more strongly. I suppose it may reflect on who was paying for the opinion?

It may well be that the person who wrote the piece may be a cyclist, but I see no harm in having someone with practical experience of his subject compile the document.

I've learned one or two interesting things over the past day or two: This solicitors company had the following to say about the case:

"Audrey Fyfe, a lifelong cyclist, was found by Sheriff Scott to bear no blame at all for the accident, but Sheriff Scott – taking account of matters of no legal relevance and without hearing expert medical evidence – decided that by not wearing a helmet, Audrey Fyfe contributed towards her own death."
http://www.brodielegal.com/cycling/scandalous-sent...

Another thing to bear in mind is that a cycle helmet, or one to BS and European standards anyway, is designed to play no part in an accident involving another vehicle. To quote from the APIL link:

>>Cycle helmets are not designed to protect the wearer from impact with a moving motor vehicle. There has to be a compromise between protection and usability. The ‘current regulations’ referred to in
the Highway Code are BS EN 1078:1997 (British and European Standards are now the same). The requirements involve a freefall drop from 1.5 metres onto a flat and a kerb shaped anvil at an impact speed of 5.42 m/s (12.1 mph). Such a helmet will comply with the advice in the Highway Code so there can be no realistic argument that a more robust helmet should be worn.<<

This of course will be backed up by the HC. Therefore I question why the aspect of helmets is ever mentioned when a cyclist is involved in a collision with another vehicle. Why would a helmet perform a function it was never designed to do? Surely we might as well state that rear wheel panniers could have saved Mrs Fyfe by cushioning the blow - they may have done but that's not what they're for so there's no point in discussing it.

A helmet has tight parameters, to cushion a blow against either a flat or kerb shaped surface from a free-fall of 1.5m or 12.1 mph. Given that in Mrs Fyfe's case the offender stated that she 'somersaulted', as no precise height or speed of the impact of Mrs Fyfe's head could possibly be determined, what on earth was Sheriff Scott wittering on about?

Another point: not sure if everyone is aware that the when the offender McCourt killed his first cyclist, it was in a hit-and-run incident whereby he was uninsured and had only a provisional licence. According to one report I've seen (but don't have the link now) he fled the scene and the police had to track him down.

For this McCourt received a two year prison sentence but the family of his victim believes he only served 8 months. So that's now 8 months for killing two people.

[singlecoil]

heebeegeetee said:

It may well be that the person who wrote the piece may be a cyclist, but I see no harm in having someone with practical experience of his subject compile the document.

No-one is suggesting that there is any harm in such a case, what they are suggesting is that anyone reading such a document is entitled to take information about the compiler into their consideration of the value of the document.

[jaf01uk]

Slightly o/t
The above quote about jail terms and standards of protection raises a couple of points for me, my brother and 3 others were killed by a guy joining the A13? with no rear view mirrors and various other CUR faults and forcing them through a gap into a BMW on the other side, he did not stop and was only traced as someone had the presence of mind to note his number, he received 12 months of which he probably served half of that? For killing 4 people! We had a talk from a police accident investigator and he told us that if you ever wanted to kill someone to do it with a car as the sentencing is ridiculous, guess he was right?
And as regards the design and effectiveness of helmets, why do sky divers jumping out of aircraft at 12,000 feet wear a canoe type helmet?
Gary

[Snowboy]

So now your saying "anti helmet = pro cycling and pro helmet = anti cycling?"
That's pretty absurd even for this thread.


Also, that article posted earler aboot canada.
If I read it correctly it said;
We don't need a helmet law because we've already seen a drop in head injuries because people are already wearing helmets due to safety campaigns.

Now, that's an interesting result.
It's taking pro helmet findings and creating an anti helmet law argument.

And you ask why we don't imediately change our minds based on your 'evidence'.

[heebeegeetee]

Snowboy said:

So now your saying "anti helmet = pro cycling and pro helmet = anti cycling?"
That's pretty absurd even for this thread.


Also, that article posted earler aboot canada.
If I read it correctly it said;
We don't need a helmet law because we've already seen a drop in head injuries because people are already wearing helmets due to safety campaigns.

Now, that's an interesting result.
It's taking pro helmet findings and creating an anti helmet law argument.

And you ask why we don't imediately change our minds based on your 'evidence'.

I don't think I understand any of that.

I don't even know who it's aimed at.

[singlecoil]

heebeegeetee said:

Snowboy said:

So now your saying "anti helmet = pro cycling and pro helmet = anti cycling?"
That's pretty absurd even for this thread.


Also, that article posted earler aboot canada.
If I read it correctly it said;
We don't need a helmet law because we've already seen a drop in head injuries because people are already wearing helmets due to safety campaigns.

Now, that's an interesting result.
It's taking pro helmet findings and creating an anti helmet law argument.

And you ask why we don't imediately change our minds based on your 'evidence'.

I don't think I understand any of that.

I don't even know who it's aimed at.

I understand all of it.

The context would suggest that it's aimed at you.

[heebeegeetee]

singlecoil said:

heebeegeetee said:

Snowboy said:

So now your saying "anti helmet = pro cycling and pro helmet = anti cycling?"
That's pretty absurd even for this thread.


Also, that article posted earler aboot canada.
If I read it correctly it said;
We don't need a helmet law because we've already seen a drop in head injuries because people are already wearing helmets due to safety campaigns.

Now, that's an interesting result.
It's taking pro helmet findings and creating an anti helmet law argument.

And you ask why we don't imediately change our minds based on your 'evidence'.

I don't think I understand any of that.

I don't even know who it's aimed at.

I understand all of it.

The context would suggest that it's aimed at you.

Nope, I still don't get it. I posted what I posted at 9.36 this morning and I cannot see how SB can draw that conclusion. I don't even understand it.

Re the article: Again, I think this comes down to SC and SB wanting to beat someone in an argument on the internet so they can feel superior about themselves - if that wasn't the case SC, you'd have seen those Wki articles on page 6 two weeks ago and saved yourself a humongous amount of embarrassment - whereas I and others are trying to have a discussion about helmets and the effects they have on cyclists, one way or another.

But either way SB, are you talking about the article or the report? Do you know the difference?

[Gargamel]

Wasting your time HB

SC is a pure and simple troll. He hasn't read anything here.

He won't answer the questions put to him, nor apologise when required to do so. He merely shifts the ground and argues on.

He hasn't ridden a bicycle since Titty and Susan took him whizzing through deserted country lanes sometime on the 1950,s and certainly hasn't grasped your excellent points on why Cycle Helmets are a waste of time in a collision.

[singlecoil]

heebeegeetee said:

Nope, I still don't get it. I posted what I posted at 9.36 this morning and I cannot see how SB can draw that conclusion. I don't even understand it.

Re the article: Again, I think this comes down to SC and SB wanting to beat someone in an argument on the internet so they can feel superior about themselves - if that wasn't the case SC, you'd have seen those Wki articles on page 6 two weeks ago and saved yourself a humongous amount of embarrassment - whereas I and others are trying to have a discussion about helmets and the effects they have on cyclists, one way or another.

But either way SB, are you talking about the article or the report? Do you know the difference?

When are we going to get it through your un-compulsively-helmeted skull that I simply don't care what so-called evidence in support of your ridiculous claims that you have managed to dig up in your internet searches? That's right, I don't care. My opinion is based on my own observations and experience.

You really must stop stamping your foot in rage that I don't acknowledge the strength of your 'evidence-based' arguments, it's making you seem very childish.

[heebeegeetee]

I think we might as well leave it there.

[MrTrilby]

singlecoil said:

My opinion is based on my own observations and experience.

You fell off your bicycle and damaged your head? That explains a lot. No wonder you're so pro helmet.