Remember kids... always wear a helmet. (The almighty bikeradar helmet thread)

This bloke has sense. Someone could chuck an egg at him

COMMON sense.

there's a difference.

When I crashed nearly a year ago all the doctors in the A&E ward ceremoniously gathered around me to give me the helmet lecture like some kind of rehearsed drill. I let them finish before asking if it would have made any difference to my injuries, the answer was no...

I don't usually wear a helmet for nipping into town, but at the weekend I was planning to get very drunk so decided it was sensible to take one for the inevitable topple off on the ride home.

I got home without incident.

Irrelevant tho cos I'd accidentally left the cunting thing in the pub anyway.

I think natural selection left you off lightly there.

I smashed into a fence pretty hard and fucked up my foot, elbow, hands and groin. Thankfully I wasn't wearing a helmet so didn't hurt my head.

I smashed into a fence pretty hard and fucked up my foot, elbow, hands and groin. Thankfully I wasn't wearing a helmet so didn't hurt my head.

Did your helmet protect your groin?

http://static.squarespace.com/static/50243645c4aa8efe0b634495/t/530b0043e4b039a663b33d75/1393229896647/chart%20copy.png?format=750w

injuries per million hours from a 1996 Australian study looking at head injury risk before the beginning of any helmet laws:

Risk of head injury per million hours travelled

Cyclist - 0.41
Pedestrian - 0.80
Motor vehicle occupant - 0.46
Motorcyclist - 7.66

Doncha love stats

I prefer damned lies.

From 1978? Not exactly current, are they...

For statistics to have any value, they need to have context.

8/10 cat owners in Hartlepool on Thursday said so.

It depends on whether or not you live in the past.

http://georgehahn.com/2013/05/30/so-i-dont-wear-a-helmet-get-off-my-ass/

jesus that was hard to read. comically poor writing.

http://www.blackmorevale.co.uk/Cycle-helmet-saves-life-Dorset-chief-8217-s/story-21101803-detail/story.html
Van crashes into fire chief's daughter throwing her 20 feet in the air so he calls for all to wear helmets, rather than for drivers to stop for people on Toucan crossings -crazy!

Top quality just shows what useless people are in charge of our road policy

No mention of driver whatsoever, bizarre.

As if it's her own fault for getting in the way.

Erm... obviously the more important thing here is the driving, but one can as an individual control whether or not you wear a helmet but one cannot influence how every other person on the road drives. Very important distinction. When advising government on what to do I would agree that 100% of the enrgy should go into trying to prevent bad driving.

3rd last paragraph is interesting (shit). "I know that had Hannah not been wearing her helmet on Tuesday morning, this could be a totally different incident" (fair enough). "her helmet really did save her life" (not fair enough, COULD be different and certainty of a helmet being responsible for her life are very different things, why make too utterly different assertions one after the other?)

He then goes on to talk about proper protective clothing. I wounder what other proper protective clothing his daughter was wearing? full downhill body armour? Or bugger all and he's just made a vague bullshitty statement?

But perhaps the most intersting thing here is the accident itself. Have we any idea whether the lights were in her favour or the van's? Assuming that she was in the right (as far as the lights go) then the child was walking across the pelican crossing legally (in which case the father should be advocating peds wear helmets). If she was cycling then it seems that the father's priority should be teaching his kid the highway code, and it also seems to me perfectly possible that she came out quickly, potentially from a path hidden behind a hedge, which might help explain why the van hit her. (Obviously the van should have been taking care at school time near a crossing, whether the light was green or red and whether he could see anyone or not, but it is possible that her cycling where she should not have been cycling contributed.

A toucan crossing is similar to a pedestrian crossing but also allows allows bicycles.

Ignorance is not a legal defence.

I don't think anyone's accusing Jeez of having broken the law.

The driver assumed that no-one would cross because no ped could cross, but hit a cyclist who moved much quicker and unexpectedly as far as the driver was concerned?

If there's a crossing, approach with caution regardless, not at the max speed enough to propelled a person in the air for 20 metres.

A toucan crossing is similar to a pedestrian crossing but also allows allows bicycles.

As illustrated;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Colliers_Wood_London_2011_15.jpg/220px-Colliers_Wood_London_2011_15.jpg

As illustrated;

https://sslcache.se/1d7ea40992bb76aa967c95aa33b84cf5eec51301/687474703a2f2f75706c6f61642e77696b696d656469612e6f72672f77696b6970656469612f636f6d6d6f6e732f7468756d622f662f66312f436f6c6c696572735f576f6f645f4c6f6e646f6e5f323031315f31352e6a70672f32323070782d436f6c6c696572735f576f6f645f4c6f6e646f6e5f323031315f31352e6a7067

That's quite new, Ed. More commonly, signals at toucan crossings look like this:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/llandudno.jpg

What a bullshit headline. Saved her life? How do they know that? Did they repeat the accident without the helmet to see if she suffered fatal injuries. I'll be referring the article to the PCC.

A toucan crossing is similar to a pedestrian crossing but also allows allows bicycles.

easy way to remember this...

toucan = two can = peds and bikes.