Home

https://metro.co.uk/2018/07/11/wear-helmet-bike-7705704/#mv-a

Does anyone know how the lad came to be “knocked off”? 

 

 

 

35 comments

Avatar
don simon fbpe [2735 posts] 5 months ago
10 likes

Shouldn't the headline read "This is why you shouldn't knock people off their bikes."?

Get well soon, little dude.

Avatar
PRSboy [361 posts] 5 months ago
1 like

I saw that article... the elephant in the room did as you say seem to be how did he end up knocked off!  All I've been able to glean from the interweb is that it was a collision with a van.

Lucky lad anyhow by the look of it.  Ouch.

Avatar
KendalRed [261 posts] 5 months ago
2 likes

Okay people, I have my popcorn ready...aaand...GO!

Avatar
brooksby [3846 posts] 5 months ago
2 likes

I'll bite: as others have said, how can we argue pointlessly about this matter unless we have some more detail on what the kid was doing or what the circumstances were of his being knocked off?

(I mean, the photos make it look like a breeze-block dropped on his head, and no bike helmet would protect against that!)

Avatar
HawkinsPeter [2818 posts] 5 months ago
9 likes

Apparently, "he sustained an incredibly serious skull fracture as a result of not wearing a helmet" so being knocked off his bike was merely incidental.

I'd much rather base my opinions on the emotional reaction of a mum rather than look at all the accumulated evidence around helmet wearing from experts, statisticians and helmet designers.

 

Avatar
HawkinsPeter [2818 posts] 5 months ago
3 likes
brooksby wrote:

I'll bite: as others have said, how can we argue pointlessly about this matter unless we have some more detail on what the kid was doing or what the circumstances were of his being knocked off?

(I mean, the photos make it look like a breeze-block dropped on his head, and no bike helmet would protect against that!)

The Mirror article makes the briefest possible mention of a van that was involved:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/policewomans-powerful-warning-after-blood-12829176

There's no mention of the circumstances, so we can only assume that the van driver was so shocked to see a cyclist without a helmet that they had to knock him off his bike to ensure that it wasn't an hallucination.

Avatar
hirsute [529 posts] 5 months ago
4 likes

"Us as parents can prevent this from happening, all it takes is a cycle helmet, and make it compulsory for us and especially our children for their own safety. Act now before it's too late."

As simple as that.

In her spare time PC Stanton specialises in string theory, anglo saxon history and fluid mechanics.

Avatar
ChrisB200SX [863 posts] 5 months ago
3 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

Apparently, "he sustained an incredibly serious skull fracture as a result of not wearing a helmet" so being knocked off his bike was merely incidental.

Fairly sure it wasn't the wearing nothing on his head (like he's done for most of the rest of his time on this earth) that caused the injury. Why do people like this see being "knocked off" as normal and to be expected?

Avatar
Mungecrundle [1178 posts] 5 months ago
3 likes

There is only one solution. Wait for the lad to heal and then recreate the incident while he is wearing a correctly fitted helmet. See what happens.

In the meantime get well little dude and hope you are back on a bicycle as soon as you want to be.

Avatar
alansmurphy [1952 posts] 5 months ago
3 likes
hirsute wrote:

"Us as parents can prevent this from happening, all it takes is a cycle helmet, and make it compulsory for us and especially our children for their own safety. Act now before it's too late." As simple as that. In her spare time PC Stanton specialises in string theory, anglo saxon history and fluid mechanics.

 

At which part of a human being forcing its way out of her body did she change from not giving a shite about the safety of children to being an expert.

 

Also, as a Policeman-woman-person, couldn't she do more good by actually enforcing laws that are likely to prevent many of these incidents from ocurring?

Avatar
HawkinsPeter [2818 posts] 5 months ago
1 like
ChrisB200SX wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:

Apparently, "he sustained an incredibly serious skull fracture as a result of not wearing a helmet" so being knocked off his bike was merely incidental.

Fairly sure it wasn't the wearing nothing on his head (like he's done for most of the rest of his time on this earth) that caused the injury. Why do people like this see being "knocked off" as normal and to be expected?

Metro is owned by DMGT who also happens to own The Daily Heil Mail but I'm sure that fact has no bearing on the standard of their reporting or any hidden agendas.

Avatar
David9694 [60 posts] 5 months ago
0 likes

Anyone feeling brave enough to wade into the discussion on the PC’s Facebook page?

I guess we’re all glad (for the avoidance of doubt, as am I )  that the situation isn’t more serious. It’s clearly fortunate that the pc was on the scene when she was. 

Perhaps an examination of the role of the van and driver will follow and what actually happened will become clearer later on? “A scene of total devastation” and a “potentially fatal road traffic collision” seem unlikely things to have been caused just by a group of lads on bikes: another contributory factor seems likely. 

Avatar
don simon fbpe [2735 posts] 5 months ago
1 like
David9694 wrote:

Anyone feeling brave enough to wade into the discussion on the PC’s Facebook page?

I guess we’re all glad (for the avoidance of doubt, as am I )  that the situation isn’t more serious. It’s clearly fortunate that the pc was on the scene when she was. 

Perhaps an examination of the role of the van and driver will follow and what actually happened will become clearer later on? “A scene of total devastation” and a “potentially fatal road traffic collision” seem unlikely things to have been caused just by a group of lads on bikes: another contributory factor seems likely. 

You must've missed the kids doing wheelies thread then, the resident snobs on here have kids on bikes as being feral, so not beyond the realms of possibility, if you listen to them dumb shits.

Avatar
HawkinsPeter [2818 posts] 5 months ago
2 likes

At the moment, there's also some fuss about "deadly" inflatables after a couple of children have unfortunately died of head injuries (as I recall, one inflatable took off with the kid inside and the other one suddenly popped). However, helmets have not even been mentioned in relation to those cases - double standards?

Avatar
Beecho [431 posts] 5 months ago
6 likes

Compulsory hi-viz on bouncy castles!

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds [2631 posts] 5 months ago
1 like
Beecho wrote:

Compulsory hi-viz on bouncy castles!

doesn't go far enough if you ask me,

This callous victim blaming is insidious and benefits no-one except criminal motorists and the police who then can simply lay the blame at the door of injured or killed people riding bikes as they've ben doing for years. Oh yeah it beenfits the hand-wringers because they'll apparently be justified in their nonsense bullshit.

Avatar
Pitbull Steelers [72 posts] 5 months ago
0 likes

So then are people not allowed to give their opinion on what might or might not have been the outcome if the laddie had been wearing a helmet ? 

It seems not, going by some of the comments on here, but hang on, aren't they giving their opinion on someone else giving their opinion......hmmm interesting. 

It might be right, it might be wrong, we'll never know but freedom of speech is still legal in this country, of course though thats just my opinion.

Avatar
hirsute [529 posts] 5 months ago
1 like
Pitbull Steelers wrote:

So then are people not allowed to give their opinion on what might or might not have been the outcome if the laddie had been wearing a helmet ?

You seem rather confused.

When you say opinion, you mean speculation. You know,  given we don't even know the circumstances. 

Avatar
Pitbull Steelers [72 posts] 5 months ago
1 like
hirsute wrote:
Pitbull Steelers wrote:

So then are people not allowed to give their opinion on what might or might not have been the outcome if the laddie had been wearing a helmet ?

You seem rather confused.

When you say opinion, you mean speculation. You know,  given we don't even know the circumstances. 

Nope, no confusion from me - the Cambridge English dictionary on the word opinion is

"We use opinion as a noun to mean beliefs or judgements about someone or something. When it refers to the beliefs or judgements of individuals"

There you go, it is the opinion of the Police officer and the mam or the opinion of many on here.

However you are right as well,  from the same dictionary Speculation:

"the act of guessing possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain". 

In the end they are both very similar, hope that clears it up for you. 

Avatar
hirsute [529 posts] 5 months ago
2 likes
Pitbull Steelers wrote:
hirsute wrote:
Pitbull Steelers wrote:

So then are people not allowed to give their opinion on what might or might not have been the outcome if the laddie had been wearing a helmet ?

You seem rather confused.

When you say opinion, you mean speculation. You know,  given we don't even know the circumstances. 

Nope, no confusion from me - the Cambridge English dictionary on the word opinion is

"We use opinion as a noun to mean beliefs or judgements about someone or something. When it refers to the beliefs or judgements of individuals"

There you go, it is the opinion of the Police officer and the mam or the opinion of many on here.

However you are right as well,  from the same dictionary Speculation:

"the act of guessing possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain". 

In the end they are both very similar, hope that clears it up for you. 

Neither of them expressd an opinion, they made an assertion. Also you did not mention them in your post.

You also said "So then are people not allowed to give their opinion on what might or might not have been the outcome if the laddie had been wearing a helmet ? "

 That is speculation as we don't even know the circumstances, and especially if you couch it in terms of "might ot might not".

 

Avatar
Pitbull Steelers [72 posts] 5 months ago
1 like

I think you'll find i did mention them, but i'm not going to bicker over it. 

Believe what you want i'm not really interested in arguing over the words opinion speculation or assertion to be honest. I've shared my thoughts on the matter and will leave it at that. 

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds [2631 posts] 5 months ago
4 likes
Pitbull Steelers wrote:

So then are people not allowed to give their opinion on what might or might not have been the outcome if the laddie had been wearing a helmet ? 

It seems not, going by some of the comments on here, but hang on, aren't they giving their opinion on someone else giving their opinion......hmmm interesting. 

It might be right, it might be wrong, we'll never know but freedom of speech is still legal in this country, of course though thats just my opinion.

it's not an opinion, it's a statement made out to be fact by someone who should know better than to make claims that are utterly without fact, it's no different to all helmet saved my life/saved me from TBI stories.

From that it propagates into being fact as in a real hard fact, from that we end up with legislation, victim blaming increases, focus of responsibility turns away from those that harm and policw start handing out £200 fines for not wearing a helmet which is more than fines for distarcted driving. You only need look at NSW were a not wearing a helmet fine is the same for speeding, except more people get busted for not wearing helmets as a proportion of those flouting the law. Near miss law, a handful of transgressors in a year, no bell, no ID, no helmet, over a million dollars in fines.

THAT is what these people's so called 'opinion' leads to, it's not just wildly inaccurate but dangerous and ends up costing more lives, ends up killing off cycling instead of making it flourish.and the end result it a massive clusterfuck, just like Australia, NZ and increasingly Canada and other countries with increasing rates of helmet use/law.

If someone said if a women had not been wearing alluring clothing/walking down x street at x time and had an anti rape alarm she might not have got raped, how would you have reacted to a police constable coming out and saying that?

What about if a child is sexually abused, would you come out and publicly say well if only the child had done x/y/z they might not have been abused, no, thought not, because that would be disgusting, so why do some people including those sworn an oath to keep the peace do exactly that, VICTIM BLAME and come out with absolute unproven bullshit but only for one group of vulnerable people, in this instance it's ALWAYS people riding bikes.

Well?

Avatar
madcarew [901 posts] 5 months ago
4 likes

And back on to the helmet question....
That is precisely the kind of injury a helmet protects against. Don't believe me? Get an egg and tap it on yr kithen bench lightly. You'll see a very similar indentation in the egg shell to that in the boy's CAT scan. Now do the same thing with a few mm of polystyrene wrapped  around the egg....
In just the same way as people used to say about someone thrown from a vehicle "sure it's ok to wear a seatbelt, but isn't it better to not crash n the first place?". 
Crashes happen. Kids do wheelies, van drivers have a momentary lapse of reason when they see a cyclist without a helmet.... wearing a helmet recognises that shit happens, and when it does, wearing a helmet is likely to protect against, or reduce the severity of, just this kind of injury.
However, in the wider scheme of things making helmet wearing compulsory will likely be to the detriment of the entire population. Wear a helmet, just don't tell anyone else they should   1

 

Avatar
giff77 [1333 posts] 5 months ago
4 likes

I would much rather the various police forces enforce the Highways Act and have ‘strong words’ with miscreants if they are not going to charge them. For the CPS/DPP/Fiscal to actually process charges to court And for judges/sheriffs/magistrates doing something other a slap on the hand. 

This young fella should NEVER have been knocked down. The driver in question has received a license to operate HEAVY machinery on a public road. He has been tested to determine if he has the skills and the temperament to do so. The license was introduced because of the increase of motorised vehicles on OUR roads and to ensure the safety of road users. 

It makes little odds on what the lad could have worn to ‘protect’ himself. There would still have been some inattentive, distracted , impatient bugger who would still have hit him. 

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet [2384 posts] 5 months ago
5 likes

Compulsory stab vests for London residents!

Avatar
hirsute [529 posts] 5 months ago
1 like
giff77 wrote:

This young fella should NEVER have been knocked down.

We have no idea what the circumstances are, so that's just a meaningless statement. For all we know, the kid just cycled straight off the pavment without looking

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds [2631 posts] 5 months ago
2 likes
hirsute wrote:
giff77 wrote:

This young fella should NEVER have been knocked down.

We have no idea what the circumstances are, so that's just a meaningless statement. For all we know, the kid just cycled straight off the pavment without looking

Ah so what you are saying is motorists have no responsibility for what's around them and the safety of a child on a bike or indeed on foot is solely down to them?

Gotcha, typical motorcentric victim blaming/responsibility diverting bullshit, you sound like the police and a motorist, they always pull that crap out of their hats to divert the blame and indooctrinate the vulnerable to make them think it's their fault for being killed/harmed!

Fact is the police contable making a statement (made out to be fact) doesn't know the facts either, yet was convinced enough to form a statement based on no knowledge of helmets or the incident itself.

Avatar
don simon fbpe [2735 posts] 5 months ago
2 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
hirsute wrote:
giff77 wrote:

This young fella should NEVER have been knocked down.

We have no idea what the circumstances are, so that's just a meaningless statement. For all we know, the kid just cycled straight off the pavment without looking

Ah so what you are saying is motorists have no responsibility for what's around them and the safety of a child on a bike or indeed on foot is solely down to them?

Gotcha, typical motorcentric victim blaming/responsibility diverting bullshit!

Fact is the police contable making a statement (made out to be fact) doesn't know the facts either, yet was convinced enough to form a statement based on no knowledge of helmets or the incident itself.

As a driver, and a cyclist, I can't disagree with this (even if you have to drill down to get the real meaning).

Avatar
giff77 [1333 posts] 5 months ago
3 likes

[quote=hirsute]

giff77 wrote:

This young fella should NEVER have been knocked down.

We have no idea what the circumstances are, so that's just a meaningless statement. For all we know, the kid just cycled straight off the pavment without looking

[/quote]

Bullshit. Whenever I’m driving in a built up area I’m not only watching traffic. I’m watching the pavements - especially when there’s youngsters about.   This is my responsibility as a driver. Look at rules 208-218 in the HC. While not  DO NOT or MUST. They are guidelines that motorists should follow. As a cyclist and motorist I see very few following any of those guidelines. 

Again, the van driver knocked the lad down. He was obviously driving in a manner that prevented him either avoiding or lessening the injuries caused. 

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds [2631 posts] 5 months ago
0 likes
madcarew wrote:

And back on to the helmet question....
That is precisely the kind of injury a helmet protects against. Don't believe me? Get an egg and tap it on yr kithen bench lightly. You'll see a very similar indentation in the egg shell to that in the boy's CAT scan. Now do the same thing with a few mm of polystyrene wrapped  around the egg....
In just the same way as people used to say about someone thrown from a vehicle "sure it's ok to wear a seatbelt, but isn't it better to not crash n the first place?". 
Crashes happen. Kids do wheelies, van drivers have a momentary lapse of reason when they see a cyclist without a helmet.... wearing a helmet recognises that shit happens, and when it does, wearing a helmet is likely to protect against, or reduce the severity of, just this kind of injury.
However, in the wider scheme of things making helmet wearing compulsory will likely be to the detriment of the entire population. Wear a helmet, just don't tell anyone else they should   1

Except you have precisely the square root of zero proof of that do you? Helmets are not tested for motorvehice impact forces, why, because it would show not only that helmets would be destroyed more often than not but the actual reduction in forces would be negligible simply because the foam would not be depressed in anything like that at low speed/low energy impacts. what with all the increased helmet wearing in this country serious injuries have outstripped cycling increases massively, that's despite driver education, more segregated infra, despite the 'safety in numbers' thinking, this is replicated globally anywhere that helmet laws/increases in wearing, even Denmark ffs!

I look forward to your presentation to local authorities/police forces to promote helmet wearing for children on fooot and in cars, oh wait, did you forget that more children die of head injury alone in motorvehicle crashes (In England and Wales) than the total number of child cyclists in the UK, what do you think the numbers are for child head injury deaths elsewhere, what about adults, what about the serious head injury numbers, care to have a guess like your guessing on the what a helmet will protect against?

Out of the 1.3million reported head injuries annually to UK hospitals (this is a big under estimation of head injuries BTW) and circa 161,000 hospital admissions, what % of those are from people on bikes?

I'll give you a hint, even if we take the 161k as the absolute figure for serious head injuries, (which it can't be because not all serious head injuries are going to be admitted for one thing and it must be fairly serious to be reported at all so it's closer to half a million SI) that still makes cycling head injuries across both adults and children, most of which will be the fault of a criminal around 0.5%. And you think this is the only group that should be targetted despite the facts saying helmets should going by your theory make a massive difference elsewhere.

Well?

You and your type are dangerous and should be exposed as such, you restrict freedoms, you aid impose unlawful rules, you aid impose bias and discrimination from those that are supposed to anything but, you aid exclusiion of participation, you aid ill health and pollution and you aid those that cause the massive harm to have responsibility removed and pushed onto victims of their actions.

Your type are disgusting, not just short sighted but determined to impose your outdated rules so that everyone suffers.

get fucked!

Pages