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
madcarew [1002 posts] 1 year ago
1 like
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
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!

Well done. The injury was most likely caused by hitting the ground. Sure the car pushed him there, but the injury was likely from hitting the ground. A hlemet would likely have protected him from the worst effects of that. And you have precisely zero evidence to the contrary. 

I don't support mandating helmet wearing, so the rest of your post is simply you spitting your usual, pointless, mis-directed bile. 

I promote the freedom to chose. 

Avatar
hirsute [905 posts] 1 year ago
1 like
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, 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.

Oh, gosh, perhaps I should have thought about a completely water tight scenario, whereby the kid cycles out of his front door, across 1m of pavement straight into the path of the van. Or like the little shit tonight who decided to cycle across the zebra crossing and then halfway across, decided to cycle straight at me on the wrong side of the road.

 

If you had bothered to read the thread, you would have seen that I have criticised PC Stanton.

Since there are no details about the "incident", coming out with 'it's the fault of X' or 'helmets save the day' is pointless.

Avatar
hirsute [905 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
giff77 wrote:

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. 

You can't conceive then of any circumstance where a pedestrian or cyclist could be a fault?

 

 

Avatar
madcarew [1002 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
hirsute wrote:
giff77 wrote:

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. 

You can't conceive then of any circumstance where a pedestrian or cyclist could be a fault?

It is very hard to conceive of a likely circumstance where the pedestrian or cyclist is entirely at fault.

I don't entirely disagree with you, but you are showing some of the bias that is inherent in our vehicle-centric society. There are scenarios where the unforeseeable happens, but they are extraordinarily rare. In the vast majority of cases, if the driver was driving with enough care that they could deal with all foreseeable issues, then most 'accidents' wouldn't happen. We drive as if the status quo is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Look at motorway traffic, lines of cars 8-10 m apart at 70 mph. Realistically, to be driving with due care and attention they should all be about 80 - 90m apart. But there is a very strong expectation that the foreseeable, but unexpected, won't happen. And that is considered fair and reasonable behaviour. To be driving at  25 mph around a residential area, or through town with pavements full of people,  rather assumes that the highly possible, but unlikely, won't happen. In nearly every other sphere of life this is considered completely irresponsible (Coffee cups have "beware, contents may be hot" on them, as do apple pies. A toilet brush I once bought had "not for personal hygiene uses" on it.... but I digress). Fluffykitten has a very responsible, but rather rare, personal approach to this.... she doesn't drive.

Avatar
Rich_cb [926 posts] 1 year ago
1 like

I think a helmet would have helped in this situation.

The CT shows a depressed skull fracture, this is caused by a relatively high amount of energy being applied to a small area.

If you hit someone on the head with a small hammer for example.

A helmet would dissipate the energy over a wider area reducing the likelihood of fracture. If a fracture did still occur it would be less severe as there would be less energy involved.

(BTW I'm not advocating compulsion and I don't think that a helmet would help in every collision. I also don't think that helmets are a panacea for all of the problems we encounter on the road. Reducing the number of collisions between motor vehicles and cyclists should be the number 1 priority.)

Pages