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

^

At which point are cycle helmets sold to people as false hope and are just adding regret...?

A minute spent putting on her helmet at home and that arsehole would've missed her.

Did you read the story ? Driver passed Breathalyzer and drugs test. He was confirmed by crash investigators as not speeding. He also had his GF and her 10 year old daughter in the car.

but yeah he was clearly off his tits wasn't he?

He was confirmed by crash investigators as not speeding.

No he wasn't.

Driver who hit Jodie Rogers had traces of cannabis and alcohol in his system

But what's the limit that can be in your system and still be able to operate heavy machinery?
Not being a dick but I've had traces of both in my system and driven a car/ridden a bicycle/rode a motorcycle but if I'm not illegal what's the point of bringing it up if I have an accident.
Feels like muddying the water.

Ps haven't read the article or what the accident involved, but if they're not over the limit, then that information doesnt need to be included...

The child was hit by a ton of metal doing 30mph, no helmet in the world can offer protection in those circumstances so mentioning her lack of helmet didn't need to be included.

always

1 Attachment

Tragic incident in Canada.
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/cyclist-killed-in-richmond-accident
The news report still has to end it's piece with the usual helmet victim blaming sh*t. When will this stop?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38004215

I think that may work...but it's cardboard, will it get wet/will it last?

(and does it come with LED christmas lights) :)

Just hope it doesn't rain, and you don't hit the back of your head. And no-one sees you (that you wouldn't want to, at least).

FTS

But is it aero

"The helmet uses a honeycomb structure to protect the head..."

I'd say more Crunchie.

But is it aero

It is when it's folded up.

Monster helmet article on the Guardian today: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/21/bike-helmet-cyclists-safe-urban-warfare-wheels

Sums the debate up pretty well. Very comprehensive. Some interesting findings in the various studies. This one particularly:

In contrast, the tabard saying “polite” saw the nearest average overtaking distance and almost twice as many potentially dangerous passes as “police”.

Very good article I thought. Just a shame that the nuances are all ignored by people with entrenched views.

Great read Scrabble

Many thanks for the link.

A review of the Chapter on helmets in Peter Walkers book, How Cycling can Save the World, from the Road Danger Reduction Forum chair Bob Davis

The “H” word
In his chapter “If Bike Helmets are the Answer, you’re Asking the Wrong Question”, Walker correctly identifies helmet advocacy along with hi-viz clothing advocacy as a victim-blaming red herring without a firm evidence base. Or to be more precise, he wears a helmet and doesn’t object to them or hi-viz: “But when it comes to genuine efforts to make cycling safer, they’re a red herring, an irrelevance, a peripheral issue that has somehow come to dominate the argument”.
He gives a good discussion about risk compensation (adaptive behaviour) by both helmeted riders and other road users, referencing myself (thanks) and Ian Walker respectively. The latter’s work on how drivers decide how much space to give when passing is salutary in bringing us back to what Walker – and all of us – should actually be looking at. So too is his consideration of the politics of hi-viz in a section aptly titled “Seeing, but choosing not to see”.
He quotes Goldacre and Spiegelhalter at length: “…current uncertainty about any benefit from helmet wearing…is unlikely to be substantially reduced by further research”. Popularity of bike helmets as a road safety measure was based less on any direct benefits, but more on people’s often very skewed personal perceptions of risk (p.186).
But if anything, he seems to give (although this may just be my reading) the benefit of the doubt – albeit slightly – to helmets, with repeated reference to not objecting to helmets, despite:
“…whatever the benefits in each individual case, a population-wide increase in helmet use, for example after legislation, is not generally matched by similar reductions in overall head injury rates” (p.176)
The problem with his discussion is precisely that he attempts to derail ideological pre-judgement simply by rational discussion. His persistent – and correct – claim that helmets mustn’t be seen as a panacea and that the danger from motor vehicles needs to be tackled won’t, in my view, cut it as long as helmets are seen as basically a good thing. Yes, I too think that people should be allowed to wear helmets irrespective of the lack of evidence of benefits. Insofar as risk compensation/adaptive behaviour is central to why the lack of evidence of head injury rates declining persists, at least other road users – unlike those adversely affected by car and highway safety engineering – are not going to suffer significantly as a result.
But I have seen apparent acceptance of Walker’s incontrovertible argument that motor danger needs to be tackled by government and “road safety” professionals for the last 30 years. And what have we had? Precious little in the way of helpful infrastructure, a recent glimmer of light with regard to close passing policing – and that’s about it. Perhaps some of the cycle training programmes have been genuinely empowering – but that’s dubious. The benefits of safety in numbers – such as they exist – have happened largely without any officially inspired increase in cycling.
And during this time we have moved from total absence of helmets to widespread wearing (although substantial pockets of lidlessness exist in, for example, outer London suburbs outside commuting hours) with its attendant message of cycling as inherently hazardous. While motorisation and car dependence have massively increased, and motor danger has not been properly addressed, “road safety”, medical and other professionals have continually acknowledged that something must be done, and that helmets are not a panacea. Yet their efforts to reduce motor danger have been minimal or negative, and their advocacy of helmets substantial and absolute.
Walker is excellent in this chapter – but in the current context I would consider the benefits of a slightly more circumspect approach to helmets than his.

https://rdrf.org.uk/2017/04/05/review-bike-nation-how-cycling-can-save-the-world-by-peter-walker/

I agree with Bob's suggestion that Peter Walker could have had a more circumspect approach especially in light of the rest of the books approach

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/cyclists-brain-injury-award-cut-e750k-wore-no-helmet/

It's clear from the report that the case was settled by agreement. The judge didn't find that there was any contributory negligence from not wearing a helmet. So as a lawyer, it's not much of a story. Other than demonstrating that insurance companies are weasels, but that's hardly news.

lawyer...s ... are weasels, but that's hardly news.

#selectivequoting

Not going to find me arguing on that front. #proudtobeweaselly

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/15321507.BE_BIKE_SAFE_CAMPAIGN__How_many_cyclists_wear_helmets__We_went_to_find_out/

#stealthgoatse