Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Coroner says cyclist who died in New Forest crash “could have survived” if she had worn a helmet

Keren Zhang fractured her skull when she crashed on descent during day trip to national park

A coroner has said that a cyclist who died after sustaining head injuries when she fell off her bike in the New Forest “could have survived” if she had been wearing a cycle helmet.

Keren Zhang, aged 26, fractured her skull when she lost control of her bike and crashed on a descent while riding with friends near Brockenhurst.

Ms Zhang, who lived in London, had travelled to the national park with six friends on a day trip, reports the Daily Echo.

The inquest at Winchester Coroner’s Court into hear death heard that the party hired bikes from Cyclexperience close to Brockenhurst railway station, but Ms Zhang declined the offer of a cycle helmet.

Ms Zhang, whose mother travelled from China to attend the inquest, was treated by paramedics at the roadside before being transferred to hospital, where she died.

Senior coroner Graham Short, recording a conclusion of accidental death, said: “On the balance of probabilities, I believe she could have survived if she was wearing a helmet.

“I must stress that cycle helmets do save lives. This case illustrates the risks of not doing so.”

The coroner said he was unable to explain how Ms Zhang had lost control of her bike, and the speed she was travelling at when she crashed was not reported.

While the Highway Code says that cyclists “should” wear a helmet, they are not compulsory in the UK.

In a briefing note the charity Cycling UK, which is opposed to making cycle helmets compulsory, says: “Standards only require cycle helmets to withstand the sort of impact that a rider is likely to suffer if they fall from their cycle from a stationary position (about 12mph).”

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

82 comments

Avatar
Dnnnnnn | 5 years ago
3 likes

Keep going guys - I've a fiver on this thread reaching triple figures without anyone having changed their minds about anything.

Avatar
Eton Rifle replied to Dnnnnnn | 5 years ago
2 likes

Duncann wrote:

Keep going guys - I've a fiver on this thread reaching triple figures without anyone having changed their minds about anything.

Rather a pointless contribution.  However, people DO change their minds.  I used to be an advocate of mandatory helmet-wearing but once I started reading about the subject, it quickly became clear that I was wrong.  As the great Keynes once said "When the facts change, I change my mind.  What do you do, sir?".

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to Eton Rifle | 5 years ago
1 like

Eton Rifle wrote:

Duncann wrote:

Keep going guys - I've a fiver on this thread reaching triple figures without anyone having changed their minds about anything.

Rather a pointless contribution.

Not at all - it and the two replies have helped quite a bit to reach my the magic hundred.

Slightly more seriously, and while it's good you've changed your mind (as we all do occasionally), I'm not sure that BTL debates like these do more to constructively challenge opinion than they do to harden it and create unnecessary division. But I'm open to changing my mind about that.

Avatar
jh27 | 5 years ago
3 likes

Just to be clear.. the article reports that the coroner has said :

> Senior coroner Graham Short, recording a conclusion of accidental death, said: “On the balance of probabilities, I believe she could have survived if she was wearing a helmet.

That is... it is probably possible that she would have survived.  Not that she would probably would have survived, just that this could possibly be the case.  That is, it is not (in his expert legal opinion) definitely certain that she would have died even if she had been wearing a helmet - as would have been the case if her head were crushed under wheels of a tractor (that no head or helmet could possibly withstand).

 

>“I must stress that cycle helmets do save lives. This case illustrates the risks of not doing so.”

 

I wonder if he was misquoted, or taken out of context.  To my understanding, he is saying that this case illustrates the risks of him not stressing 'that cycle helmets do save lives'.

 

All he has really said is that it is possible that changing variables can change results.  A coroner is primarily a legal professional, so we can assume he knows how to pick his words.  If there had been any expert medical evidence to say that she probably would have survived, he would have said so. Someone earlier said that if she had plated her hair, that possibly could have saved her life.  If she had hair that could have been plaited and she hadn't done so so, it is absolutely possible that it could have saved her life (though I'd say it is extremely unlikely that it would).  It is absolutely possible that changing any variable could have saved her life.  As a legal expert, he is surely an expert making and understanding arguments - so it really does make me wonder he felt the need to bring this issue up.  Maybe because he's seen other case where helmet usage probabaly would have saved someones life - or maybe he just isn't very good at his job.

 

* edit: maybe he's trying to stress that wearing cycle a helmet won't always save your life, and you should always take all reasonable precautions when performing any activity.

Avatar
n0tanidi0t | 5 years ago
1 like

You must be completely and utterly delusional if you think that wearing a helmet is not safer.

It's never going to protect you completely, it's not going to save your life if the crash is bad enough, but without doubt, there are more situations that you will end up with an injury when not wearing a helmet than with.

Innocuous falls can kill (Natasha Richardson, for example). Helmets protect against incidents like these.

Avatar
kil0ran replied to n0tanidi0t | 5 years ago
2 likes

n0tanidi0t wrote:

You must be completely and utterly delusional if you think that wearing a helmet is not safer.

It's never going to protect you completely, it's not going to save your life if the crash is bad enough, but without doubt, there are more situations that you will end up with an injury when not wearing a helmet than with.

Innocuous falls can kill (Natasha Richardson, for example). Helmets protect against incidents like these.

When it comes to heeds there are so many factors at play. There may be a reduction from wearing one, but they're an undoubted barrier to cycle use. When I was in Sydney recently I used taxis for journeys where I'd have used a hire bike in London.

They're saving a small percentage of cyclists from a KSI but equally you can fall off at 10mph, wearing a helmet, and still die of a TBI. What they become is an emotional crutch - it's easy to say "I'd have been killed without a helmet" but no-one knows. Similarly, it makes you more reckless, and studies have proven that car drivers give a helmeted cyclist less space.

In the pro ranks before helmets were made mandatory we still had massive accidents but I'm not aware of there being a huge number of KSIs/TBIs. It was always rare to hear a pro cyclist had died in a crash, and if you bin it on a 50mph descent it's a lottery whether your helmet will save you.

FWIW I wear a helmet and the rest of my family do too. I undoubtedly take more risks on descents than I would do sans helmet. The NHS narrative (based on a couple of visits for minor cuts to be stitched up) is "good job you were wearing a helmet" (tip - don't get into a helmet debate with the doc who is sewing up your finger, they'll go easy on the numbing cream)

If we're serious about reducing transport-related deaths we should be mandating helmets for all vehicle users. Having whacked my helmeted head against a B-pillar on a track day enough to dent both pillar trim and helmet it's undoubtedly the case that more lives would be saved if they were mandatory - until at least window curtain and pillar airbags are in every car.

Avatar
n0tanidi0t replied to kil0ran | 5 years ago
0 likes

kil0ran wrote:

n0tanidi0t wrote:

You must be completely and utterly delusional if you think that wearing a helmet is not safer.

It's never going to protect you completely, it's not going to save your life if the crash is bad enough, but without doubt, there are more situations that you will end up with an injury when not wearing a helmet than with.

Innocuous falls can kill (Natasha Richardson, for example). Helmets protect against incidents like these.

When it comes to heeds there are so many factors at play. There may be a reduction from wearing one, but they're an undoubted barrier to cycle use. When I was in Sydney recently I used taxis for journeys where I'd have used a hire bike in London.

They're saving a small percentage of cyclists from a KSI but equally you can fall off at 10mph, wearing a helmet, and still die of a TBI. What they become is an emotional crutch - it's easy to say "I'd have been killed without a helmet" but no-one knows. Similarly, it makes you more reckless, and studies have proven that car drivers give a helmeted cyclist less space.

In the pro ranks before helmets were made mandatory we still had massive accidents but I'm not aware of there being a huge number of KSIs/TBIs. It was always rare to hear a pro cyclist had died in a crash, and if you bin it on a 50mph descent it's a lottery whether your helmet will save you.

FWIW I wear a helmet and the rest of my family do too. I undoubtedly take more risks on descents than I would do sans helmet. The NHS narrative (based on a couple of visits for minor cuts to be stitched up) is "good job you were wearing a helmet" (tip - don't get into a helmet debate with the doc who is sewing up your finger, they'll go easy on the numbing cream)

If we're serious about reducing transport-related deaths we should be mandating helmets for all vehicle users. Having whacked my helmeted head against a B-pillar on a track day enough to dent both pillar trim and helmet it's undoubtedly the case that more lives would be saved if they were mandatory - until at least window curtain and pillar airbags are in every car.

I completely agree with you, there's a reduction in chance of injury from wearing one.

The compulsory helmet point is obviously separate, and it's interesting to hear your Sydney experience. My view is that they shouldn't be made compulsory as it reduces participation and that would be far more negative health wise than those lives saved from a (possible) reduction in head injuries.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to kil0ran | 5 years ago
4 likes

kil0ran wrote:

n0tanidi0t wrote:

You must be completely and utterly delusional if you think that wearing a helmet is not safer.

It's never going to protect you completely, it's not going to save your life if the crash is bad enough, but without doubt, there are more situations that you will end up with an injury when not wearing a helmet than with.

Innocuous falls can kill (Natasha Richardson, for example). Helmets protect against incidents like these.

When it comes to heeds there are so many factors at play. There may be a reduction from wearing one, but they're an undoubted barrier to cycle use. When I was in Sydney recently I used taxis for journeys where I'd have used a hire bike in London.

They're saving a small percentage of cyclists from a KSI but equally you can fall off at 10mph, wearing a helmet, and still die of a TBI. What they become is an emotional crutch - it's easy to say "I'd have been killed without a helmet" but no-one knows. Similarly, it makes you more reckless, and studies have proven that car drivers give a helmeted cyclist less space.

In the pro ranks before helmets were made mandatory we still had massive accidents but I'm not aware of there being a huge number of KSIs/TBIs. It was always rare to hear a pro cyclist had died in a crash, and if you bin it on a 50mph descent it's a lottery whether your helmet will save you.

FWIW I wear a helmet and the rest of my family do too. I undoubtedly take more risks on descents than I would do sans helmet. The NHS narrative (based on a couple of visits for minor cuts to be stitched up) is "good job you were wearing a helmet" (tip - don't get into a helmet debate with the doc who is sewing up your finger, they'll go easy on the numbing cream)

If we're serious about reducing transport-related deaths we should be mandating helmets for all vehicle users. Having whacked my helmeted head against a B-pillar on a track day enough to dent both pillar trim and helmet it's undoubtedly the case that more lives would be saved if they were mandatory - until at least window curtain and pillar airbags are in every car.

And as has being said many times PPE/crash protection systems don't work to lower the overall risk and should only ever be a final solution IF it doesn't adversely affect others by doing so. You create yet more risk compensation by putting yet more safety aids into motors (hence why people will drive at the edge with a helmet on on a track with a roll cage et al, compared to a motor that dooesn't have that.

That then creates more risk for those outside the motor, as it did when seatbelts came into force. Reducing speeds of motors and forcing the machine (and by definition the 'operator') to abide 100% by the set maximum speed will have a huge positive effect on road safety, particularly if we reset the limits on our roads aside from motorways which are fine as they are.

 

Avatar
burtthebike replied to n0tanidi0t | 5 years ago
2 likes

n0tanidi0t wrote:

You must be completely and utterly delusional if you think that wearing a helmet is not safer.

It's never going to protect you completely, it's not going to save your life if the crash is bad enough, but without doubt, there are more situations that you will end up with an injury when not wearing a helmet than with.

Innocuous falls can kill (Natasha Richardson, for example). Helmets protect against incidents like these.

Your first post, and apparently another sock puppet.

The risks of cycling are the same per mile travelled as walking, so are you in favour of pedestrian helmets?  And if not, why not?

As for being delusional, try looking at the evidence cyclehelmets.org

Avatar
n0tanidi0t replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
0 likes

burtthebike wrote:

n0tanidi0t wrote:

You must be completely and utterly delusional if you think that wearing a helmet is not safer.

It's never going to protect you completely, it's not going to save your life if the crash is bad enough, but without doubt, there are more situations that you will end up with an injury when not wearing a helmet than with.

Innocuous falls can kill (Natasha Richardson, for example). Helmets protect against incidents like these.

Your first post, and apparently another sock puppet.

The risks of cycling are the same per mile travelled as walking, so are you in favour of pedestrian helmets?  And if not, why not?

As for being delusional, try looking at the evidence cyclehelmets.org

Glad to see you could look through your own prejudices and actually read what I wrote (or not...I wonder what your other 2000+ posts are like).

I never said I was in favour of either wearing or not wearing a helmet, it's personal choice whether you wear one or not.

Undoubtedly making helmets compulsory reduces the number of cyclists, and therefore I'm thoroughly against it, but that's not my argument.

Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now try it without a helmet. Which one hurt the most? Which would do most damage as you increase the force? Now imagine that's a kerb, a tree, a lamp post, a rock?

Avatar
burtthebike replied to n0tanidi0t | 5 years ago
2 likes

n0tanidi0t wrote:

The risks of cycling are the same per mile travelled as walking, so are you in favour of pedestrian helmets?  And if not, why not?

As for being delusional, try looking at the evidence cyclehelmets.org

Glad to see you could look through your own prejudices and actually read what I wrote (or not...I wonder what your other 2000+ posts are like).

I never said I was in favour of either wearing or not wearing a helmet, it's personal choice whether you wear one or not.

Undoubtedly making helmets compulsory reduces the number of cyclists, and therefore I'm thoroughly against it, but that's not my argument.

Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now try it without a helmet. Which one hurt the most? Which would do most damage as you increase the force? Now imagine that's a kerb, a tree, a lamp post, a rock?

[/quote]

OK, let's assume for the sake of argument that you are new to the great helmet debate, and you don't realise that you are regurtitating points which have been made many times and refuted just as many times.

If you are going to discuss anything, you need to understand it, and be in posession of the facts, so I suggest again that you consider looking at them. cyclehelmets.org

You didn't answer my question about pedestrians.

Avatar
n0tanidi0t replied to burtthebike | 5 years ago
0 likes

burtthebike wrote:

n0tanidi0t wrote:

The risks of cycling are the same per mile travelled as walking, so are you in favour of pedestrian helmets?  And if not, why not?

As for being delusional, try looking at the evidence cyclehelmets.org

Glad to see you could look through your own prejudices and actually read what I wrote (or not...I wonder what your other 2000+ posts are like).

I never said I was in favour of either wearing or not wearing a helmet, it's personal choice whether you wear one or not.

Undoubtedly making helmets compulsory reduces the number of cyclists, and therefore I'm thoroughly against it, but that's not my argument.

Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now try it without a helmet. Which one hurt the most? Which would do most damage as you increase the force? Now imagine that's a kerb, a tree, a lamp post, a rock?

OK, let's assume for the sake of argument that you are new to the great helmet debate, and you don't realise that you are regurtitating points which have been made many times and refuted just as many times.

If you are going to discuss anything, you need to understand it, and be in posession of the facts, so I suggest again that you consider looking at them. cyclehelmets.org

You didn't answer my question about pedestrians.

[/quote]

I still don't think you understand my point - wearing a helmet reduces the likelihood of getting a head injury.

From a study found on your bible (cyclehelmets.org), Extent and Severity of Cycle Accident Casualties, page 7, "Those who were wearing a helmet were less likely to have an injury to their head or neck (7% compared to 14%) and this difference was more distinct for children.".

Your pedestrian question is irrelevant - I'm not for compulsory cycling helmets. My point is that if you don't wear one, there are more circumstances in which you could have a head injury.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to n0tanidi0t | 5 years ago
0 likes

n0tanidi0t wrote:

OK, let's assume for the sake of argument that you are new to the great helmet debate, and you don't realise that you are regurtitating points which have been made many times and refuted just as many times.

If you are going to discuss anything, you need to understand it, and be in posession of the facts, so I suggest again that you consider looking at them. cyclehelmets.org

You didn't answer my question about pedestrians.

I still don't think you understand my point - wearing a helmet reduces the likelihood of getting a head injury.

From a study found on your bible (cyclehelmets.org), Extent and Severity of Cycle Accident Casualties, page 7, "Those who were wearing a helmet were less likely to have an injury to their head or neck (7% compared to 14%) and this difference was more distinct for children.".

Your pedestrian question is irrelevant - I'm not for compulsory cycling helmets. My point is that if you don't wear one, there are more circumstances in which you could have a head injury.

[/quote]

Well, you may be new to the great helmet debate, but you're pretty assiduous at quoting selectively to prove your point and missed out the sentence "However, wearing a helmet made no significant difference to outcome in the case of the more serious head injuries measured by need of follow-up or hospital admission."

Helmets are sold by the progandists as life-saving, but as shown elsewhere, all they possibly do is reduce minor injuries.  Do you have any data to show that helmets reduce injuries?  And are you aware that they increase the possibility of the most dangerous kind of injury, Diffuse Axonal Injury?

The pedestrian question is extremely relevant.  Why do seem to think that cyclists should wear something but not another group with the same level of risk?

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to n0tanidi0t | 5 years ago
1 like

n0tanidi0t wrote:

Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now try it without a helmet. Which one hurt the most? Which would do most damage as you increase the force? Now imagine that's a kerb, a tree, a lamp post, a rock?

The problem is that it is not just the impact reduction that the helmet may give you, but also the chance of the impact. Studies have shown that people that wear safety equipment take more risks and also that car drivers take more risks around cyclists who are wearing helmets.

So to use your analogy to compensate for the fact that people in safety gear take more risks:
Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now don't hit yourself on the head with a hammer without a helmet. Which one hurt the most? 

Or to use your analogy to compensate for the fact that drivers take more risks around cyclists wearing helmets:
Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now wave the hammer next to your head without a helmet. Which one hurt the most? 

Even if you believe that a helmet may save you on impact, you have to balance out the  additional risk of increasing the liklihood (and possibly severity) of that impact.

Avatar
n0tanidi0t replied to ClubSmed | 5 years ago
0 likes

ClubSmed wrote:

n0tanidi0t wrote:

Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now try it without a helmet. Which one hurt the most? Which would do most damage as you increase the force? Now imagine that's a kerb, a tree, a lamp post, a rock?

The problem is that it is not just the impact reduction that the helmet may give you, but also the chance of the impact. Studies have shown that people that wear safety equipment take more risks and also that car drivers take more risks around cyclists who are wearing helmets.

So to use your analogy to compensate for the fact that people in safety gear take more risks:
Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now don't hit yourself on the head with a hammer without a helmet. Which one hurt the most? 

Or to use your analogy to compensate for the fact that drivers take more risks around cyclists wearing helmets:
Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now wave the hammer next to your head without a helmet. Which one hurt the most? 

Even if you believe that a helmet may save you on impact, you have to balance out the  additional risk of increasing the liklihood (and possibly severity) of that impact.

Just so I understand, do you therefore advise me to not wear a helment?

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to n0tanidi0t | 5 years ago
1 like

n0tanidi0t wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

n0tanidi0t wrote:

Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now try it without a helmet. Which one hurt the most? Which would do most damage as you increase the force? Now imagine that's a kerb, a tree, a lamp post, a rock?

The problem is that it is not just the impact reduction that the helmet may give you, but also the chance of the impact. Studies have shown that people that wear safety equipment take more risks and also that car drivers take more risks around cyclists who are wearing helmets.

So to use your analogy to compensate for the fact that people in safety gear take more risks:
Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now don't hit yourself on the head with a hammer without a helmet. Which one hurt the most? 

Or to use your analogy to compensate for the fact that drivers take more risks around cyclists wearing helmets:
Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now wave the hammer next to your head without a helmet. Which one hurt the most? 

Even if you believe that a helmet may save you on impact, you have to balance out the  additional risk of increasing the liklihood (and possibly severity) of that impact.

Just so I understand, do you therefore advise me to not wear a helment?

No, I advise you to weigh up the evidenced benefits/risks and make a personal choice based upon the information available and personal circumstance.

Avatar
n0tanidi0t replied to ClubSmed | 5 years ago
0 likes

ClubSmed wrote:

n0tanidi0t wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

n0tanidi0t wrote:

Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now try it without a helmet. Which one hurt the most? Which would do most damage as you increase the force? Now imagine that's a kerb, a tree, a lamp post, a rock?

The problem is that it is not just the impact reduction that the helmet may give you, but also the chance of the impact. Studies have shown that people that wear safety equipment take more risks and also that car drivers take more risks around cyclists who are wearing helmets.

So to use your analogy to compensate for the fact that people in safety gear take more risks:
Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now don't hit yourself on the head with a hammer without a helmet. Which one hurt the most? 

Or to use your analogy to compensate for the fact that drivers take more risks around cyclists wearing helmets:
Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now wave the hammer next to your head without a helmet. Which one hurt the most? 

Even if you believe that a helmet may save you on impact, you have to balance out the  additional risk of increasing the liklihood (and possibly severity) of that impact.

Just so I understand, do you therefore advise me to not wear a helment?

No, I advise you to weigh up the evidenced benefits/risks and make a personal choice based upon the information available and personal circumstance.

Ok, to phrase it differently, do you personally think that by not wearing a helmet you are making yourself safer and less likely to be injured (cars taking less risks around you, you yourself taking less risks)?

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to n0tanidi0t | 5 years ago
0 likes

n0tanidi0t wrote:

Ok, to phrase it differently, do you personally think that by not wearing a helmet you are making yourself safer and less likely to be injured (cars taking less risks around you, you yourself taking less risks)?

In some circumstances yes and in others no. I personally sometimes wear a helmet and sometimes do not depending on the circumstances that I am going out in.

Avatar
Jetmans Dad replied to n0tanidi0t | 5 years ago
2 likes

n0tanidi0t wrote:

Ok, to phrase it differently, do you personally think that by not wearing a helmet you are making yourself safer and less likely to be injured (cars taking less risks around you, you yourself taking less risks)?

For me, this is the crux of it. My experience (YMMV) tells me that I am passed closely more often and more dangerously when I wear a helmet than when I do not, but I still tend to wear one, partly because it is just a habit and partly because it makes my wife feel better about me being out on the road.

Compulsory helmet laws would make practically no difference to me, but I would very definitely resist them because the case in their favour is simply not compelling enough weighed up against the inevitable reduction in people taking up, or continuing, cycling and my experience that drivers take less care around riders with helmets on. 

The statistics show that cycling is not more dangerous than other forms of transport and the more we guilt, pressurise or force riders to wear protective gear, the greater the impression in society as a whole that it is a dangerous activity, which again suppresses the numbers riding. 

Let me wear a helmet if I want and not if I don't ... I am not going to be attempting to force anyone else to wear one or not wear one, that is their choice. 

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to n0tanidi0t | 5 years ago
4 likes

n0tanidi0t wrote:

You must be completely and utterly delusional if you think that wearing a helmet is not safer.

It's never going to protect you completely, it's not going to save your life if the crash is bad enough, but without doubt, there are more situations that you will end up with an injury when not wearing a helmet than with.

Innocuous falls can kill (Natasha Richardson, for example). Helmets protect against incidents like these.

I think the issue - as often online - is that people are often arguing about different things using different evidence.

Helmets do provide some impact protection. Not a huge amount - but then sometimes a little is enough.

There are valid counterarguments, though. I think these are:

  • helmets and other safety equipment can encourage riskier behaviour thus increasing the risk of a crash.

Personally, I tend to be more cautious when helmetless (at least until I forget about it after 5 minutes). Perversely, of course, being over-cautious can also be risky too!

  • a culture of helmet use - whether due to peer/media/social expectation or legal compulsion - may deter people from cycling and fewer cyclists tend to mean drivers are less used to expecting and accommodating them (including because they are less likely to be cyclists themselves).

Many collisions are due to drivers not seeing cyclists, even when they are looking (what's visible and what's seen not being the same). If there are lots of cyclists around then they are more likely to expect to see them - partly because there are just more of them to see but also because they are more expecting of them and attuned to looking out for them.

When I moved to London lots of people said, "oh, it must be terrifying cycling there!" to which my reply was, "not as terrifying as being a rare cyclist in smallerplaces when you often see drivers pulling into your path while looking straight at you and not registering your presence" (which is what my collisions have been due to).

I'd summarise that if you're going to bash your head, a helmet is a better idea than not. But it's better not be in a position to bash your head in the first place, and helmets may not be helpful in that.

Avatar
arckuk | 5 years ago
2 likes

The evidence regarding whether helmets make cycling as a whole safer or more dangerous is limited and uncompelling. This points to it being not the biggest source of protection or risk available. There are far more important issues regarding cycle safety, yet we sit here chasing our own tails on the issue, and allowing the cycling news agenda to be driven by this distraction.

I wear a helmet nearly every time I get on my bike, but I would rather never wear one again than for them to become compulsory, which is the logical extension of much of this debate.

Avatar
ChrisB200SX | 5 years ago
5 likes

For those that are missing the point and insisting that cycle helmets save lives...

Have you considered whether coroners report on if a crash helmet could have saved a car occupant's life... I happen to have a coroner in the family so I know the answer.

Avatar
Glov Zaroff | 5 years ago
3 likes

Good to see the usual road.cc comment w@nkers are our in force. 

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to Glov Zaroff | 5 years ago
2 likes

See 59 wrote:

Good to see the usual road.cc comment w@nkers are our in force. 

Which side of the argument are the wankers?

Avatar
peted76 replied to Glov Zaroff | 5 years ago
0 likes

See 59 wrote:

Good to see the usual road.cc comment w@nkers are our in force. 

 

Hey come on... everyone does it.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Glov Zaroff | 5 years ago
1 like
See 59 wrote:

Good to see the usual road.cc comment w@nkers are our in force. 

Is there an official list of members?

Avatar
burtthebike | 5 years ago
0 likes
Avatar
burtthebike | 5 years ago
1 like

I keep seeing stories about coroners making totally unjustifiable statements about helmets, so is there some sort of governing authority for them that I could report them to?

Avatar
Spats Bellini | 5 years ago
4 likes

<p>Strange that you never hear anybody say “ not wearing a helmet saved me from injury”.</p>

<p>. Once saw a cyclist hit a pot hole and go right over his handlebars, his helmet was a right off but he was fine. I have no doubt that it would have been far more serious without his helmet.</p>

Avatar
burtthebike replied to Spats Bellini | 5 years ago
13 likes

Spats Bellini wrote:

Strange that you never hear anybody say “ not wearing a helmet saved me from injury”.

You're new here aren't you?

Pages

Latest Comments