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

For one reason that it's extremely rare for this to happen, which increase the shock factor.

Sadly, driver hitting people with such regularity lessen this.

It is possible that the police believe that a helmet could have prevented death so a charge of "causing death by dangerous driving" might not be appropriate. If they think that they should let the judge and jury examine the evidence and make a decision. It does not explain why there was no prosecution for careless driving.
lcc.org.uk/articles/dead-cyclists­-family-let-down-at-every-stage-by-met-p­olice

This fact makes me want to weep.

Yesterday I had a delicious moment of irony. Another cyclist I know was lecturing me on how dangerous it is to ride without a helmet. He was proudly telling me he stops next to cyclists at the lights and says "you look pretty smart on your bike but you won't be so clever when you smash your face into something not wearing a helmet".

I tried to explain that he was just fear mongering but he was not having any of it. He was on foot and as we went our separate ways he stepped out into the road without looking, and went straight into the path of a cyclist who gently bumped into him. He was not so amused when I pointed out that he probably needs a helmet for walking across the street.

That reminds of my father in law telling me I should wear one. I was just leaving my house to pop into town, he was just walking up to the house as I left. When I got home an hour later he was sitting in the kitchen with a nasty cut on his head, having walked into the up and over garage door.

This is the nub of the issue.Helmets may help anyone who suffers a head injury by whatever cause. Drivers head hitting the windscreen when bumbed from behaind by another driver, someone in a bub brawl who dies, someone falling down the stairs due to a trip hazard in a building, and if a third person is involved in some else head injury would their responsibility in law be diminished it the victim was not wearing PPE in any other instance? Doubt it.

It is farcical that only in cases of bike riders incidents that this is even considered a factor

Great story. What did he say after that?

http://putalidonit.co.uk/

As Carlton Reid has pointed out, with Indegogo crowdfunding these people get the cash even if they don't raise enough to design and build a helmet. A folding helmet that meets EU standards is a tough ask.

Saw this on Twitter earlier. More unhelpful scaremongering from people who want to make money out of cyclists' fears. Absolute twaddle. Wish they'd put-a-sock-in-it!

We want to get every cyclist in London wearing a helmet and our campaign starts with Boris Bikers.

^ they could also help him get his feet on the pedals properly

they could also help him get his feet on the pedals properly

Boris is a fan of mid-foot, but then so is @hippy so maybe it's a tubster thing.

I like what you've done with the place, slim.

(From the biek carrying thread.)

Also parents that arent wearing helmets making their kids wear helmets. Set an example.

Heh, this is me.

Because softer skulls, still learning, etc. She will get to make up her own mind when she's older, but until then she wears one[1].

I don't make her wear one for scooting though (closer to the ground, less speed, etc).

1. I'm pro-choice FWIW, anyone else can do as they please, but I choose for my own child until she's old enough to make her own informed choice.
   

"I don't make her wear one for scooting though (closer to the ground, less speed, etc)."

Do you have any evidence for this?

Do you have any evidence for this?

I didn't say it was completely rational.

What exactly does 'not refer the case to the CPS' mean?

True story: back when I was a spritely lad just out of university, I had a temp job working for the CPS helping set up their new system where they would have CPS lawyers in or accessible to police stations, and it was going to become the job of the duty prosecutor to decide whether to bring charges based on the likelyhood of winning the case, or tell the officers to get more evidence or whatnot. The purpose of this was to increase conviction rates. Obviously this also meant cases that were considered not certain of winning would get dropped completely so as to not lower the all important conviction rates.

But what does it mean if they don't even refer it to the CPS? Does this mean the officers involved decided they had no intention of charging the driver regardless of available evidence and didn't even bother contacting the CPS to ask if it's worth charging them?

A man was killed, and the police's reaction was "ah, fuck it"?

Because if it's that, then, well ... fuck the police.

I didn't say it was completely rational.

It's not. I'm the same. My kids always wear lids on their bieks, I don't always. But then they're capable of regularly falling off while stationary with both feet on the floor, whereas I usually only fall of when trackstanding.

I don't wear a polyhat when I drive a car either so I basically apply no evidence-based logic to my personal safety choices.

A man was killed, and the police's reaction was "ah, fuck it"?

Bingo. In one.

More victim blaming nonsense from the guy I spoke with last week.

"I have one reason why you should wear a helmet - your family will hate you when you are a vegetable because you did not wear one!"

FFS this guy used to be a personal injury lawyer and spouts shit like this. I dread to think how he has brought up his kids that they would hate him if he had a helmetless crash on his bike. If he had been hit harder by the cyclist when he stepped out into the road last week, would his kids have hated him for not wearing a helmet?

He went on to tell me how he got taken out by a car door a few months ago, and "helmet saved my life". Perhaps he needs to ride outside of the door zone to save his own life.

Airplane passengers should probably also wear one...no?
(definitely too soon)

His kids probably hate him already

Airplane passengers should probably also wear one...no?

Probably not, but they should certainly be seated facing the rear of the aircraft.

Maybe just stop being anywhere near this person?

In terms of a bad analogy it's like going up to the smokers at work and bellowing

"YOUR MUM WILL HATE YOU WHEN YOU GET CANCER".