BTCC's Frank Wrathall in court after cyclist collision

[OTBC]

LiamM45 said:

I say this from having a friend killed while riding a bike with no helmet, he would've walked away from his accident if he had a helmet on.

I'm sorry about your friend, what was his name? If the collision was hard enopugh to kill him I'm afraid a helmet wouldn't have made a scrap of difference.

I've been following the Wrathall case, it's worth noting that he originally lied to the police and tried to blame the man he killed, it was only when police discovered the cctv footage that they found what Wrathall was telling them was a pack of lies:

The court heard how CCTV showed Wrathall overtaking his victim before cutting back across him, but that he was 'clearly unaware of Paul's presence'.
When police arrived and arrested Wrathall, he told officers the cyclist ran into the side of him, the court heard.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2553969/Ch...

So Wrathall killed a man, then tried to blame the dead man, which is a despicable thing to do. Hands-free kits cost, what, £30?

[LiamM45]

heebeegeetee said:

Oh for fking crying out loud! The evidence is that the cyclist had massive head and spinal injuries and that a cycle helmet would have made no difference! What on earth magical pieces of polystyrene are these cycle helmets that they can operate wildly beyond their design parameters and can protect against *everything*?

If these cycle helmets are *so* effective, against *everything*, why aren't all of us wearing them all of the time? Some 700,000 to a million people go to hospital every year in the UK having suffered a head injury and 98%+ are not cyclists. If cycle helmets have such magical powers why aren't we all wearing them, all of the time?

It is just so depressing how every time a cyclist accident is debated, such stupid, stupid people come out and ignore *all* evidence and spout their nonsense about bloody helmets!

I never said a helmet would've saved this fellas life!

All I suggest is that it should be the law that cyclists on the road wear a helmet, akin to a motorist wearing a seatbelt. It may not save your life in an accident, (seatbelt or helmet) but if it saves one life, or prevents a more serious injury, then it's a good thing.

[OTBC]

cycle helmets can make cycling more dangerous- the risk of rotational injuries is greatly increased, they may encourage close passes (drivers assume the rider is more experienced) and there's a risk of strangulation.

If it's about saving lives a lot more would be saved if all motor vehicle occupants wore helmets. Would you make helmets in cars compulsory? After all, if it saves one life..

I'm curious about the example you cited Liam, where you claim a helmet would have saved a life, have you the details?

[LiamM45]

OTBC said:

cycle helmets can make cycling more dangerous- the risk of rotational injuries is greatly increased, they may encourage close passes (drivers assume the rider is more experienced) and there's a risk of strangulation.

If it's about saving lives a lot more would be saved if all motor vehicle occupants wore helmets. Would you make helmets in cars compulsory? After all, if it saves one life..

I'm curious about the example you cited Liam, where you claim a helmet would have saved a life, have you the details?

It was a fair few years ago. Backflip on a BMX went wrong and landed on the back of his head. I was told he would've been ok if wearing a decent helmet, not coming from a Doctor I don't know how true that is.

[OTBC]

There was this case:

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/bmx-rider-greg-richardso...

a lad landed on the handlebars and died of internal injuries. There is no trace of any death that took place in the way you describe. It's a shame you can't provide details.

[heebeegeetee]

LiamM45 said:

It was a fair few years ago. Backflip on a BMX went wrong and landed on the back of his head. I was told he would've been ok if wearing a decent helmet, not coming from a Doctor I don't know how true that is.

So because a bmxer died doing a back flip you want every cyclist riding to the shops to wear a helmet?

Its like equating the dangers of motoring with Motorsport.

[OTBC]

I think Liam invented a dead cyclist to make a vague, unsubstantiated point.

I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

[lotus99t]

The thing I don't understand with all the phone stuff in cars is that you can have a CB radio and that's ok. You often see big trucks on the road with the driver on a CB. They even have them on top gear.

[BullyB]

wolves_wanderer said:

LiamM45 said:

Sad waste of a promising career for Wrathall.

The waste of a father and husband is the sad part.

This

[Mr_Thyroid]

OTBC said:

I think Liam invented a dead cyclist to make a vague, unsubstantiated point.

I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

Your posts are very confusing. They could be from someone who has a huge amount of inside knowledge on safety testing of cycle helmets but they are very brash, and have little detail and therefore come across as the highly prejudiced ravings of someone with a weird axe to grind against polystyrene hats.

To my knowledge there is not huge amounts of testing data for cycle helmets but on balance if I was going to bash my head against concrete, asphalt or a car windscreen I'd rather have an inch of plastic foam between me and it.

[acer12]

OTBC said:

I think Liam invented a dead cyclist to make a vague, unsubstantiated point.

I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

What an aggressive attitude and stance for a poster on only their 4th post.

Fairly sure this poster has another pistonheads ID and wants to hide behind a new identity, either that or they are one if those single agenda posters who add nothing to pistonheads. "Happy to be proved wrong bla bla"

[LiamM45]

OTBC said:

I think Liam invented a dead cyclist to make a vague, unsubstantiated point.

I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

Sure, I get my kicks from coming on forums and inventing stories of dead people.

I'm sorry my point of 'cyclists should wear helmets' has clearly upset a couple of people!

Have a nice day.

[heebeegeetee]

Mr_Thyroid said:

Your posts are very confusing. They could be from someone who has a huge amount of inside knowledge on safety testing of cycle helmets but they are very brash, and have little detail and therefore come across as the highly prejudiced ravings of someone with a weird axe to grind against polystyrene hats.

To my knowledge there is not huge amounts of testing data for cycle helmets but on balance if I was going to bash my head against concrete, asphalt or a car windscreen I'd rather have an inch of plastic foam between me and it.

Blimey.

So you must wear one all the time then, 'cos only 2% of hospitalised head injuries are cyclists, and head injuries are a common injury.

As a pedestrian, if you're struck by a car then your head will very likely hit the bonnet or windscreen first, and then you'll be propelled onto the tarmac or concrete at speed.

I'm not a cyclist myself, but do other non-cyclists think they won't have a head injury because they don't cycle?

I'm just trying to figure out why people pick cyclists out of the general population, when there isn't much evidence to suggest that an ordinary cyclist is any more likely to suffer a head injury than anyone else.

[Mr_Thyroid]

heebeegeetee said:

Blimey.

So you must wear one all the time then, 'cos only 2% of hospitalised head injuries are cyclists, and head injuries are a common injury.

As a pedestrian, if you're struck by a car then your head will very likely hit the bonnet or windscreen first, and then you'll be propelled onto the tarmac or concrete at speed.

I'm not a cyclist myself, but do other non-cyclists think they won't have a head injury because they don't cycle?

I'm just trying to figure out why people pick cyclists out of the general population, when there isn't much evidence to suggest that an ordinary cyclist is any more likely to suffer a head injury than anyone else.

Nice use of statistics. Does it take into account the amount of time an average person spends cycling - I'm sure it's a whole lot less than 2%?

Anyway, cycling on the raods is pretty safe. I've been knocked off my bike once - by another cyclist, on a dedicated cycle path. I landed on my back and got whiplash, I don't know if my helmet hit the ground, I don't know if my head would've hit the ground if I wasn't wearing one.

[heebeegeetee]

Nor does the 2% take into account whether the cyclists were just ordinary cyclists or racers or off roaders. I do know that there is a statistic that says the average cyclist will have one serious injury every 175 years.

Head injuries are common and 98% of them do t involve cycling, so we should all be weari g these magical pieces of polystyrene all the time, according to the views posted on ph.

[Mr_Thyroid]

heebeegeetee said:

Nor does the 2% take into account whether the cyclists were just ordinary cyclists or racers or off roaders. I do know that there is a statistic that says the average cyclist will have one serious injury every 175 years.

Head injuries are common and 98% of them do t involve cycling, so we should all be weari g these magical pieces of polystyrene all the time, according to the views posted on ph.

Given that most cyclist will live to be more than 60 years old does that mean 1 in 3 will have a serious incident in their life time?

I think you are wrong to think that 2% is an insignificant amount. The other 98% will include all other sports including contact sports such as rugby and football, all bat and club sports such as golf, cricket and squash where head injuries are common. Then there's horse riding, and there's skateboarding where I'm not sure I've see someone stay on one for more than about 15 seconds. Also consider DIY, general tom-foolery and foolhardiness, criminal injuries, and finally, probably largest of all, being drunk. The proportion of injuries that come from people going about their ordinary day-to-day business will be tiny.

I think that pretty much all single-use helmets are made from 'magical' pieces of polystyrene - which reminds me of the old saying that to the simple mind science is indistinguishable from magic.

[Reardy Mister]

lotus99t said:

The thing I don't understand with all the phone stuff in cars is that you can have a CB radio and that's ok. You often see big trucks on the road with the driver on a CB. They even have them on top gear.

I have questioned this with a few law-men. Apparently the difference is that a two-way or CB can only transmit OR receive at one time, therefore a true conversation is not taking place and it isn't considered a distraction. Its basically a technicality to allow emergency services and utilities companies etc, to carry on as normal.

I use a two-way a lot. I don't think its as distracting as a phone, the incoming transmission is on a loud speaker so in that way is no different from a hands free phone. But the outgoing transmission still requires me to press and hold a button down and speak to a specific device, which requires more effort than a hands free microphone.

I think if you think about a phone conversation, you're constantly concentrating on the call and caller, to know where and how to respond or interject to maintain a normal exchange. With a two-way, you have no choice but to wait until the incoming transmission has finished before you respond and then you can do that at your leisure.

[1]

OTBC said:

LiamM45 said:

I say this from having a friend killed while riding a bike with no helmet, he would've walked away from his accident if he had a helmet on.

I'm sorry about your friend, what was his name? If the collision was hard enopugh to kill him I'm afraid a helmet wouldn't have made a scrap of difference.

I've been following the Wrathall case, it's worth noting that he originally lied to the police and tried to blame the man he killed, it was only when police discovered the cctv footage that they found what Wrathall was telling them was a pack of lies:

The court heard how CCTV showed Wrathall overtaking his victim before cutting back across him, but that he was 'clearly unaware of Paul's presence'.
When police arrived and arrested Wrathall, he told officers the cyclist ran into the side of him, the court heard.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2553969/Ch...

So Wrathall killed a man, then tried to blame the dead man, which is a despicable thing to do. Hands-free kits cost, what, £30?

If he hadn't noticed the guy then he may well have felt that's what happened rather than lying to save his skin.

[anonymous-user]

A few people seem keen to find excuses for the driver. Is this simply because he was a racing driver (PH says racing drivers good) and some here don't approve of cyclists (PH says cyclists bad)?

I am not saying that the driver should be hanged in the public square, as he did not intend to harm anyone, but his selfish behaviour has to have consequences, and if this cases serves as an exemplar to those who still drive holding their phones (and sadly I see such people almost every day), then so much the better.

I agree with the points above about two way radio. A radio conversation is in my experience much less situationally distracting than a phone conversation, even one conducted hands free. For some reason also, talking on the phone is more distracting than talking to someone who is in the car with you.

[1]

Breadvan72 said:

A few people seem keen to find excuses for the driver. Is this simply because he was a racing driver (PH says racing drivers good) and some here don't approve of cyclists (PH says cyclists bad)?

I am not saying that the driver should be hanged in the public square, as he did not intend to harm anyone, but his selfish behaviour has to have consequences, and if this cases serves as an exemplar to those who still drive holding their phones (and sadly I see such people almost every day), then so much the better.

I agree with the points above about two way radio. A radio conversation is in my experience much less situationally distracting than a phone conversation, even one conducted hands free. For some reason also, talking on the phone is more distracting than talking to someone who is in the car with you.

It's all the same really. Lots of things distract us, adjusting the radio/sat nav, crying children a heated conversation with a passenger can all be far more distracting than a mobile phone and I suspect we have all been there and lost concentration for a second, unfortunately in this case someone died. Sad for everyone concerned.