“Reckless” taxi driver who left cyclist with life-changing brain injury avoids jail

There's a bloke I see riding his bike around Bristol with what looks like a motorbike helmet: no visor but he's retrofitted a V-for-Vendetta Guy Fawkes mask on the front 

Car Delenda Est wrote:

While we're having the helmet Vs cars debate has anyone put any consideration into wearing a motorcycle helmet? Those are actually designed to protect the user in a motor vehicle collision, and there's even a helpful dft website (SHARP) that tests and rates individual helmets. Would probably be good to have that for bicycle helmets too actually.

I'd guess that most motorbike helmets would quickly get too hot for cycling in as they enclose most of the head. Also possibly an issue with reducing hearing although that shouldn't be an issue if the cyclist just takes care to look around before turning etc.

The closest thing seems to be full face downhill MTB helmets - I don't know how good they are, but should be more protective than standard cycle helmets.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'd guess that most motorbike helmets would quickly get too hot for cycling in as they enclose most of the head.

They do, wore one once cycling to pick up my motorcycle from a garage (garage loaned me an old bicycle to get home on), very quickly overheated. Also the extra weight which you don't notice with a big solid motorbike suspension really gets to your neck quickly. Ended up taking it off and carrying (and I wear a bike helmet everywhere).

hawkinspeter wrote:

The closest thing seems to be full face downhill MTB helmets - I don't know how good they are, but should be more protective than standard cycle helmets.

The ones I've worn - hire ones at MTB centres - seemed to be pretty much like standard helmets only reaching a few inches lower down and obviously with the chin protection as well, so they protected more areas but I didn't feel the level of protection was any better - subjective impression though.

Fundamentally I believe the difference is not the height of fall but the ability to respond. If you trip as a pedestrian, you will perform various gymnastics to protect yourself - which is what wrinklies can't do so tend to hurt themselves more in a fall (as well as being more fragile).

On a bike, the frame constricts your movement so you tend to fall badly.

A little example, I managed to trip my wife while ballroom dancing, she fell backwards. As I was holding her I broke her fall and she didn't hit her head. I was pulled forwards of balance, was able to deliberately roll and fall so didn't hurt myself either. Compare that with the experience of your mate failing to unclip and falling on top of you.

You could certainly make an argument that cycling with cleats but no helmet is unnecessary risk taking while a fall from a Brompton with rubber pedals is several times easier to manage in a tumble.

Yes, but it would seem a matter of degree.  I'd agree with you that foot retention could make things more dangerous.  Otherwise though...

You might be slightly higher on a bike - or not.  (Or like me on the recumbent definitely lower!).  Your legs might be tangled up in the bike - but then they might not be usefully in contact with the ground in a fall while walking.  You are likely to be moving forwards faster on a bike - but that's very likely not the speed between your head and the ground on impact.  (It might impact [!] your ability to control the landing in general though).

The clear differences between cycling and walking are in a direct forward impact between you and something when your head could experience greater accelleration than landing a sideways fall.  So headlong into a wall or some street furniture.  (Plus points for recumbents as you'll be feet first there, probably...) For evaluating safety when counting those make sure to discard the ones where this is above the protective abilities of a helmet!

We should probably do the numbers though.  I guess you'd to compare the rate at which cyclists come off AND then hit their heads (are they more likely to do either?) with the rate at which than a pedestrian is to fall and do same.  Call the latter a baseline if you will.

And that's why helmets are irrelevant and you should always ride a recumbent trike and not walk!  (Is this right?)

That was what e.g. Martin73 was missing from their plaint.

Quote:

Compare that with the experience of your mate failing to unclip and falling on top of you.

Stop ballroom dancing on your bikes then, or at least clipped in.
 

wycombewheeler wrote:

"In my view no prison sentence is going to seem long enough to him and his family."

I always thought this meant that any sentance given would be insufficient. I did not realise that a zero custodial sentance would be deemed sufficient

This seems to have become a common trope with judges recently, "No prison term can bring back the deceased or assuage their family's grief...so I'm not going to bother." I'm certainly not one for prison sentences just for the hell of it, but "I can't give you a sentence long enough to satisfy the wishes of the victim so I'm giving you nothing" is palpably absurd.

I think the main thing is to get drivers off the road so they can't be a danger to other road users. In this case a 3 year ban was given which also means he loses his job. I'm coming round to the view that a ban is more important than a prison sentence especially if genuine remorse is evident. In this case he stopped at the scene and pleaded guilty to dangerous driving both of which show remorse in my opinion.

Cases where the driver doesn't stop and pleads not guilty may be a different matter.

There is also community service which should give some time to reflect on his actions.

In my opinion this driver will be a lot more careful around vulnerable road users when he gets back behind the wheel and at the end of the day that is what we all want, isn't it?

Bungle_52 wrote:

In my opinion this driver will be a lot more careful around vulnerable road users when he gets back behind the wheel and at the end of the day that is what we all want, isn't it?

When a driver has caused such a life-changing injury, then I don't see why they should have a second chance to cause such damage. When someone shows you that they can't be trusted in control of a vehicle, then you should believe them.

That's a fair point but surely that would be dealt with better by a lifetime ban rather then a short spell in prison. He does have to pass an extended test before he gets his license back.

I would have been calling for prison at one time but reading comments on this site my view is changing. The key to me is remorse and I get the impression this driver is genuinely sorry. There have been instances where the driver hasn't stopped and pleaded not guilty to dangerous driving where I may think differently. It seems to me that no remorse means less likelihood of a change of driving.

Bungle_52 wrote:

That's a fair point but surely that would be dealt with better by a lifetime ban rather then a short spell in prison. He does have to pass an extended test before he gets his license back.

I would have been calling for prison at one time but reading comments on this site my view is changing. The key to me is remorse and I get the impression this driver is genuinely sorry. There have been instances where the driver hasn't stopped and pleaded not guilty to dangerous driving where I may think differently. It seems to me that no remorse means less likelihood of a change of driving.

I tend to agree that prison may not be necessary in this instance as he seems to recognise what he did wrong. However, the courts should also consider the victim and their family and it's important to see justice in action. Considering that this was dangerous driving and not the lesser careless driving, it really should have resulted in a prison sentence of some kind.

Good point with respect to the dangerous driving but I suspect he only got charged with that because he agreed to plead guilty. Any other motorist would have agreed to careless to avoid the dangerous driving charge and the CPS would have agreed to that as dangerous probably wouldn't have succeeded in court based on all the examples we've dicussed on here in the past*. I would argue that pleading not guilty to dangerous does not show remorse and should be treated accordingly.

*Assuming the cyclist had nothing to do with the police that is. Just playing devil's advocate there.

LeadenSkies wrote:

I always wear a helmet when cycling either on the road or on rough off road trails. I have absolutely no illusions that it will do anything to worthwhile protect my brain from a serious impact but wearing it keeps my wife happy and protects my loved ones from tactics like this by lowlife defence barristers should I be wiped out by a driver and they need to sue for compensation in my absence.

I usually wear a helmet for the same reasons. It is absolutely disgusting that behavior has to be modified for the failures of the legal system and the sheer fucking audacity of shit motorists.

I do cheer my self up with a frankly ridiculous look helmet (complete with wonky hi-viz cover) which adds a performative element when having a "nice little chat" with a motorist that "didn't see me"

Me too. It's also a great place for a high rear light, camera and in heavy rain it holds my hood back from blocking my vision.

I have a small led cell on the rear that I use if visibility is really bad but I won't attach a camera or light to the helmet. I worry that stuff stuck on the side via nonstandard mounts might create unexpected forces should they be the point of contact between the helmet and the ground or any other object.

The mounts are plastic though. If you take the drift one which is mainly aimed at motorcyclists, the mount is stuck onto the helmet. It would not take much to shear off the plastic.

Plenty of poor quality road surfaces will create unexpected forces !

I know it's extremely unlikely, but I still can't get the thought out of my head. A handlebar mount is my preference.

hirsute wrote:

The mounts are plastic though. If you take the drift one which is mainly aimed at motorcyclists, the mount is stuck onto the helmet. It would not take much to shear off the plastic.

Plenty of poor quality road surfaces will create unexpected forces !

the thing about shearing is it doesn't work if the line of impact is through light/camera-helmet-head. I.e. from the top of the head if the mount is on the top. But the chance of landing square on the top of the head seems remote, and likely to cause catastropic neck injuries to me.

You have an object that can concentrate the force in one place - much as if you fall on a kerb edge or stone you have an increased chance of injury. A camera or light may or may not detach and may or may not become the point of contact rather than the hoped for diffuse contact of a flat surface. It is also a reason why hitting a car with a helmet isn't a good idea if you hit a nobbly bit.

I work on the idea that hitting a car or the ground with my head isn't a good idea, helmet or not, light / camera or not, and should probably be avoided if at all possible.

I've thought about that too but I figure if I'm flying through the air at 15mph the possibility of my camera making it worse when I land is probably the least of my problems.

The light is built in to the helmet and I also have cameras on the bike but I'd rather take every opportunity to get a good shot of the driver who hits me and risk the chance of making my injuries worse.

+1 - almost never wear one nowadays * but while I did I ended up mostly seeing it as a thing to fill the hood with, a place for extra lights (don't have a camera) or extra insulation in winter.

Now I can avoid the road some of the time it's a cap or a hood with earflaps in winter!

* I ended up mostly doing this for social conformity reasons - like not turning up to events with my paint-splattered DIY trousers on.  OTOH anyone who didn't know me who expressed opinion about what I should do - especially those who didn't cycle - was going to get bored!

Also because it just feels weird wearing it on the recumbent - oddly where it would likely be most effective.

I attach a GoPro to the rear of my rack; I want the minimum weight on my helmet and the camera perched at the end of the bike really stands out to motorists behind and acts as a visual deterrent to poor driving.

Same; I also choose high visibility helmet colours, yellow or white and I affix a high intensity flashing red led light to the rear of the helmet; same principle as the mandatory high mount braking lights for cars; anything to stand out in traffic.

I thought you weren't allowed to attach things to your helmet or is that only certain states with that law ?