Wear that helmet!
Discussion
I think we're all grown-up & risk aware in here, able to make our own judgements on what to wear/use & when. I do believe in personal choice but if you ever need to convince anyone in your family to wear a helmet, use lights or even the old staple that I recall from the 70's road safety adverts, wearing something light at night - then you may want to point them at this video.
I sort of know the PCSO - she's a talented photographer who contributes to a regular competition that I do. Kudos to her for making the video. It's hard-hitting and gives a glimpse into what goes on behind the uniforms that scrape road users of all types off the sceneray on a daily basis.
http://www.wastedlives.co.uk/lewis
If you listen to that & don't find that it's got a bit dusty in the room then you may not be human...
I sort of know the PCSO - she's a talented photographer who contributes to a regular competition that I do. Kudos to her for making the video. It's hard-hitting and gives a glimpse into what goes on behind the uniforms that scrape road users of all types off the sceneray on a daily basis.
http://www.wastedlives.co.uk/lewis
If you listen to that & don't find that it's got a bit dusty in the room then you may not be human...
The video in that link certainly is strongly emotive, but I think it focuses far too closely on helmet use.
The crux of the matter is the death of a young man, killed by a Transit van which, from reading comments on other reports of the case, was on the 'wrong' side of the road, mid overtake when it hit him. Driver was found not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving too, which seems to lay the blame for young Lewis' death firmly at his own door as a result of him 'riding in dark clothing and without lights' (paraphrasing, there). A clergyman even gave testimony that he'd "narrowly avoided" a collision with Lewis himself.
Therefore, instead of stoking up the same old ferocious arguments on both sides of the helmet debate, perhaps the thread title would have served us all a little better if it read "Use those lights when it gets dark!" But there shouldn't need to be a campaign to make cyclists light up after dark. The law already requires it (Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations). Helmets, on the other hand, are not required by statute, and therefore are rightly a 'matter of choice for the individual'.
I feel sorry for the family, for Lewis himself, for the PCSO in the video, and for the team who had to witness and investigate the aftermath. It would be easy to find the van driver 'not guilty' for a jury, if Lewis was indeed darkly clad and unlit, because it's easy for the driver to slope his shoulders and say 'SMIDSY', especially when a clergyman concurs. The fact remains that Lewis was killed, and given the pictures of his bike and the van, it looks unlikely that the presence of a helmet on his head would have made much difference to the outcome.
A balanced Police campaign to sort the problem of illegal road use by unlit cyclists would help. Issue (and publicise) fines to enough of them, and most sensible folk would quickly fit a set of even the most basic lights. A balanced campaign would also target motorists, though. The ones who's lights are broken, or who fail to use them correctly. You know the ones, they appear to be a motorcycle from distance, and then turn out to be a feckin' Transit van with it's offside front lights blown. So yes, by all means, campaign to try to help alleviate a problem, but recognise what that problem actually is. It's poor/absent lighting on a multitude of vehicle types, and not a lack of helmets on cyclists' heads. Head injuries are a consequence of collisions, they do not cause them. If, by 'lighting up', you avoid a potential collision, then the helmet (or lack of it) is no longer an issue. Tackle the cause to reduce the effect, not the other way around
The crux of the matter is the death of a young man, killed by a Transit van which, from reading comments on other reports of the case, was on the 'wrong' side of the road, mid overtake when it hit him. Driver was found not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving too, which seems to lay the blame for young Lewis' death firmly at his own door as a result of him 'riding in dark clothing and without lights' (paraphrasing, there). A clergyman even gave testimony that he'd "narrowly avoided" a collision with Lewis himself.
Therefore, instead of stoking up the same old ferocious arguments on both sides of the helmet debate, perhaps the thread title would have served us all a little better if it read "Use those lights when it gets dark!" But there shouldn't need to be a campaign to make cyclists light up after dark. The law already requires it (Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations). Helmets, on the other hand, are not required by statute, and therefore are rightly a 'matter of choice for the individual'.
I feel sorry for the family, for Lewis himself, for the PCSO in the video, and for the team who had to witness and investigate the aftermath. It would be easy to find the van driver 'not guilty' for a jury, if Lewis was indeed darkly clad and unlit, because it's easy for the driver to slope his shoulders and say 'SMIDSY', especially when a clergyman concurs. The fact remains that Lewis was killed, and given the pictures of his bike and the van, it looks unlikely that the presence of a helmet on his head would have made much difference to the outcome.
A balanced Police campaign to sort the problem of illegal road use by unlit cyclists would help. Issue (and publicise) fines to enough of them, and most sensible folk would quickly fit a set of even the most basic lights. A balanced campaign would also target motorists, though. The ones who's lights are broken, or who fail to use them correctly. You know the ones, they appear to be a motorcycle from distance, and then turn out to be a feckin' Transit van with it's offside front lights blown. So yes, by all means, campaign to try to help alleviate a problem, but recognise what that problem actually is. It's poor/absent lighting on a multitude of vehicle types, and not a lack of helmets on cyclists' heads. Head injuries are a consequence of collisions, they do not cause them. If, by 'lighting up', you avoid a potential collision, then the helmet (or lack of it) is no longer an issue. Tackle the cause to reduce the effect, not the other way around
I think the second poster has some sort of alert system set up for when helmet threads get posted, he's always right in there.
Frankly, if people want to cycle without one, thats fine by me, its your life and your risk, go right ahead.
But...I had an off on Sunday, impact was mostly on my torso so got winded heavily and hit my head as I bounced off it. Judging by the damage to the helmet that would have been a trip to A&E and a day off or two yesterday I'd say so its £50 well spent. Plus I don't have another hole in my head to go with the other two (one of which I got while...not wearing a helmet at aged 16).
I believe it free choice, much like seat belts (outside my own car), if you want to go without good luck, the worlds quite overpopulated anyway.
Frankly, if people want to cycle without one, thats fine by me, its your life and your risk, go right ahead.
But...I had an off on Sunday, impact was mostly on my torso so got winded heavily and hit my head as I bounced off it. Judging by the damage to the helmet that would have been a trip to A&E and a day off or two yesterday I'd say so its £50 well spent. Plus I don't have another hole in my head to go with the other two (one of which I got while...not wearing a helmet at aged 16).
I believe it free choice, much like seat belts (outside my own car), if you want to go without good luck, the worlds quite overpopulated anyway.
yellowjack said:
Therefore, instead of stoking up the same old ferocious arguments on both sides of the helmet debate, perhaps the thread title would have served us all a little better if it read "Use those lights when it gets dark!" But there shouldn't need to be a campaign to make cyclists light up after dark. The law already requires it (Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations).
Good point well made & I wasn't consciously biasing towards helmets when I wrote it, visibility was more my line of thought so apologies for igniting the helmet debate!Indeed when I bought a new bike recently, the Indie shop I bouight from pretty much insisted on throwing in a set of lights gratis. They needn't have done that but it was a nice touch. (They're only cheap & cheerfull but can certainly be seen).
I just think back to my youth when it was drummed into me that it was my responsibility as a rider to be seen (lights, light clothing etc) just as much as it was for a driver to see & avoid.
The video case I linked to is a tragic case on so many levels. Regardless of fault/blame, the driver never set out that day with the aim of killing someone. The rider wasn't intentionally dangerous (even said to his Mum previously that he needed some new lights). Just tragic for all.
What struck me was that the PCSO had no difficulty in handing out lights & slapbands - didn't have them when I was a kid! - to kids without lights, riding around after dark.
I was a typical kid, out on 2 wheels all the time BUT my parents - and apparently others too - were adamant that I had to have lights on when I was old enough to be out after dark. And all my friends did too. Perhaps it's just rose tinted glasses but I wouldn't consider letting my daughter out on a bike (when she's old enough) without lights. But then I'll probably be shadowing her 10ft behind anyway, warning off the boys!
Did the lad die because of lack of helmet?
I wear one now because I take selve preservation more seriously but when I was younger I rode a BMX everywhere and fell of many times and I am still here.
It's a personal choice and should always be so, imagine trying to police it for a start.
Bit of a misguided post to be honest
I wear one now because I take selve preservation more seriously but when I was younger I rode a BMX everywhere and fell of many times and I am still here.
It's a personal choice and should always be so, imagine trying to police it for a start.
Bit of a misguided post to be honest
Interesting rants above ^ :-)
I was cycling back from breakfast on Sunday morning with family, wife on a shopper and 2yr old in carrier on my MTB, all with helmets. A couple a blokes (serious roadies by the look) where leaving a carpark and stopped us, one had forgotten to pack his Helmet and was anxious to buy another, sadly could only direct him to Halfords as the LBS's would defo be shut on Sundays, typical!
Clearly for many people a helmet is seen an essential. I think as long as your understand that its roll is to protect your head in falls to the ground from the bike you're ok, if you start thinking its "protection" from impacts you're not understanding its worth.
I wouldn't ride without one but I don't see it as my place to tell others what to do, heaven help us if they where ever made mandatory as no-doubt lots of people would stop wearing them in protest!
I was cycling back from breakfast on Sunday morning with family, wife on a shopper and 2yr old in carrier on my MTB, all with helmets. A couple a blokes (serious roadies by the look) where leaving a carpark and stopped us, one had forgotten to pack his Helmet and was anxious to buy another, sadly could only direct him to Halfords as the LBS's would defo be shut on Sundays, typical!
Clearly for many people a helmet is seen an essential. I think as long as your understand that its roll is to protect your head in falls to the ground from the bike you're ok, if you start thinking its "protection" from impacts you're not understanding its worth.
I wouldn't ride without one but I don't see it as my place to tell others what to do, heaven help us if they where ever made mandatory as no-doubt lots of people would stop wearing them in protest!
Watchman said:
Always amazes me when people post threads to encourage this forum to use a helmet knowing the sort of polarised opinions that exist here, and the inevitable arguments that their post will likely trigger.
Yeah I kinda walked into that didn't I? 
Sorry Everyone!!As a recent convert to the forum (having only recently returned to 2 wheels with any sort of regularity) I didn't realise the depth of feeling & FWIW I heartily endorse freedom of choice! I found the human element interesting and thought others might too. I thought she deserved a wider audience after putting herself through the wringer again to video about it.
Thread re-direct...
"Get Yourself Seen!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MFuSMz1zh0
...1970s/1980s era 'Public Information Film'. Maybe we need a few more of these things, interspersed with the dog food and tampon commercials.
"Get Yourself Seen!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MFuSMz1zh0
...1970s/1980s era 'Public Information Film'. Maybe we need a few more of these things, interspersed with the dog food and tampon commercials.
There are a lot of parallels between the pro-helmet lobby for cycling and the anti-speed lobby for driving. Both focus on a single issue to the extent that they obscure the real problems and end up making the roads more dangerous.
Wear a helmet if you like. Drive slower if you like. Just don't believe that either is a magic bullet that'll keep you safe.
Wear a helmet if you like. Drive slower if you like. Just don't believe that either is a magic bullet that'll keep you safe.
Pot Bellied Fool said:
Last comment from me as I shouldn't really be feeding the trolls & wasting everyone's time. It wasn't an order. FFS, I don't exist to give peopole orders. I did think some people might find it of interest. Sure, there was an exhortation towards safety - I found it hard-hitting and thought someone might be able to put the video to good use but orders? No. That's just how you chose to interpret it.
I'm quite happy to defend anything I say & if you read the follow up posts you'll see that my comments are about visibility, lighting & awareness rather than head protection. I'll care about whether my family wear helmets (and lights etc) but I really don't care if you do. Happy?
I do wonder why your first reaction was a spiteful, venemous, angry attack though. Would you do that to a random stranger at the bus stop? If you don't agree with someone how about trying to educate them rather than attack?
There are at least three topics guaranteed to provoke instant and immediate polarised responses from some cyclists.I'm quite happy to defend anything I say & if you read the follow up posts you'll see that my comments are about visibility, lighting & awareness rather than head protection. I'll care about whether my family wear helmets (and lights etc) but I really don't care if you do. Happy?
I do wonder why your first reaction was a spiteful, venemous, angry attack though. Would you do that to a random stranger at the bus stop? If you don't agree with someone how about trying to educate them rather than attack?
Helmets, Headphones and cyclepaths.
I wear a helmet unless I'm nipping t'pub or into town - under a mile. Otherwise I learned it kept my brains on the inside in a couple of smashes - one quite nasty hitting Ice and braining the tarmac last year.
I'm indifferent about headphones.
"Use the Cyclepaths" on the other hand will provoke an instant response from me, total kneejerk and possibly of the same kind of magnitude.
Any cycling forum, avoid those three topics like the plague!
[quote=Watchman]Always amazes me when people post threads to encourage this forum to use a helmet knowing the sort of polarised opinions that exist here, and the inevitable arguments that their post will likely trigger.
I agree. It's a polarising subject and I also think that in this case a helmet had nothing to do with the incident, lights would have helped far more (prevention is better than protection).
However, that's exactly the sort of post that doesn't belong in this quiet little corner of PH.
I agree. It's a polarising subject and I also think that in this case a helmet had nothing to do with the incident, lights would have helped far more (prevention is better than protection).
However, that's exactly the sort of post that doesn't belong in this quiet little corner of PH.
Edited by Gaz. on Wednesday 10th September 14:55
Gaspode said:
Genuine question. What's the problem with cycle paths?
Depends on the type of cyclist. Faster-paced cyclists will inevitably find other people (cyclists and pedestrians) hold them up. They are happier on the roads where their pace isn't limited and where regulation encourages people to act in a predictable manner. There's also a perception that the cycle path surfaces are poor and owing to the lack of motorised traffic, broken glass isn't swept away by that traffic, leaving the cyclist at risk.I'm a slower cyclist, so cycle paths suit me. I have invested in Conti-Gator-Hardshells though, for the reasons explained. They're not confidence inspiring tyres but as I said, I'm slow (av=12mph) so their benefits outweigh their problems.
My current 14 mile evening "loop" consists of about 30% cycle paths which are useful and "good enough". There are others in my area that are very poorly surfaced but I've mapped my loop to avoid those.
Watchman said:
Gaspode said:
Genuine question. What's the problem with cycle paths?
Depends on the type of cyclist. Faster-paced cyclists will inevitably find other people (cyclists and pedestrians) hold them up. They are happier on the roads where their pace isn't limited and where regulation encourages people to act in a predictable manner. There's also a perception that the cycle path surfaces are poor and owing to the lack of motorised traffic, broken glass isn't swept away by that traffic, leaving the cyclist at risk.I'm a slower cyclist, so cycle paths suit me. I have invested in Conti-Gator-Hardshells though, for the reasons explained. They're not confidence inspiring tyres but as I said, I'm slow (av=12mph) so their benefits outweigh their problems.
My current 14 mile evening "loop" consists of about 30% cycle paths which are useful and "good enough". There are others in my area that are very poorly surfaced but I've mapped my loop to avoid those.
Gaspode said:
Genuine question. What's the problem with cycle paths?
Most cycle paths are badly surfaced, narrow, have frequent give way bits where you have to stop for vehicles to turn across you, covered in glass/litter/dog s
te, have dimwitted pedestrians meandering around, dog walkers who can't control the lead never mind the dog...Gaspode said:
Genuine question. What's the problem with cycle paths?
They are often simply a pavement with a bike symbol painted on them so you have to stop and give way before you cross roads repeatedly. If's obviously then much quicker to just cycle on the road. Also they are often shared use with pedestrians or covered in puncture causing debris.
Great for children going to school or people going to the shops though.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff