BBC doing ambulance ride-along today

[Canrider]

Live feed is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16030644

10AM, three calls involving cyclists already.

 

[Pisquee]

Debabani and James have already been called out to the scene of a collision between a car and a cyclist. The cyclist, who wasn't wearing a helmet, has a swollen and bruised ankle. James, the paramedic, says the cyclist was lucky to escape without suffering any head injuries.

Swollen and bruised ankle? doesn't sound like a helmet was needed or would have made any difference!

 

[Canrider]

I know. I almost pointed to it, then decided to let other people have the 'joy' of discovering it.

They have chosen to print an email from someone inquiring how to wear a helmet 'just above the foot'.

 

[sheddy]

I shall be emailing BBC London later today.
One of their first stories on air this morning described how a motorist 'spun out of control'
- was he a disc jockey on too much speed ?

 

[cyberknight]

I know. I almost pointed to it, then decided to let other people have the 'joy' of discovering it.

They have chosen to print an email from someone inquiring how to wear a helmet 'just above the foot'.

!st thing the claims solicitor asked me when i had an accident and had a massive bump on my thigh was " were you wearing a helmet "

 

[pshore]

When they ask if you were wearing a helmet, they were surely concerned that if you hit your head with one on, it could be hiding an internal head injury.

 

[CopperCyclist]

!st thing the claims solicitor asked me when i had an accident and had a massive bump on my thigh was " were you wearing a helmet "

That's because there's case law that a judge reduced the amount of compo by a third, as he felt "a cyclist who doesn't wear a helmet is demonstrating a lack of care about protecting himself".

The above statement is not my view!

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

That's because there's case law that a judge reduced the amount of compo by a third, as he felt "a cyclist who doesn't wear a helmet is demonstrating a lack of care about protecting himself".

The above statement is not my view!

This is a very good reason why the majority of the public shouldn't listen to the police when it comes to matters of law. The canteen culture is very bad at transmitting the full , clear facts of a case through the chinese whispers system.

The case is discussed here.

http://www.lyonsdavidson.co.uk/news/152/cycle-helmets-safety-and-the-legal-standpoint

and it's clear that the version that you were given, and then transmitted onwards, is at variance to what the judge said and did.

 

[wiggydiggy]

This is a very good reason why the majority of the public shouldn't listen to the police when it comes to matters of law. The canteen culture is very bad at transmitting the full , clear facts of a case through the chinese whispers system.

The case is discussed here.

http://www.lyonsdavidson.co.uk/news/152/cycle-helmets-safety-and-the-legal-standpoint

and it's clear that the version that you were given, and then transmitted onwards, is at variance to what the judge said and did.

An interesting and thought provoking piece about helmets. Never thought I'd say that lol

 

[CopperCyclist]

This is a very good reason why the majority of the public shouldn't listen to the police when it comes to matters of law. The canteen culture is very bad at transmitting the full , clear facts of a case through the chinese whispers system.

The case is discussed here.

http://www.lyonsdavidson.co.uk/news/152/cycle-helmets-safety-and-the-legal-standpoint

and it's clear that the version that you were given, and then transmitted onwards, is at variance to what the judge said and did.

Sigh.

Civil law, so "The Police" know little about this above and beyond an individual's specific interest, and I happily accept that. I made my post, as many others do, on the basis on what I've read and been told in this past. I can categorically state that it's actually from reading posts on THIS forum too - there is no canteen at work, hasn't been for over eight years, and even if there was we definitely wouldn't be discussing case law, civil or otherwise.

I still stand by the fact that given that I've heard about this case, the reason a lawyer (or potentially an operator on a phone belonging to a firm of lawyers following a checklist of questions) would have likely asked this question is primarily due to this. Whether it makes a difference or not is another thing, but I'm happy with that assumption.

As always, the 'helmet' issue rears its head, and the ugly arguments start to lift themselves out of the dust and follow the usual trend.

My official standpoints with helmets is that I couldn't care less about trying to encourage people to imitate me, whether I wear one or not.

 

[ufkacbln]

What appalling response times (or appalling reporting)...

1607:
Mario and Pete Turns out the injured cyclist was knocked off his bike by a bus a few months ago. An ambulance has arrived and is now taking him to hospital. "Looks like he's got an open fracture or dislocation in his elbow," says Pete.

If I had to wait a few months for an ambulance I would not be happy!

 

[ComedyPilot]

Ref: the helmet comments, will I get less damages if some nutter shoots me and I aren't wearing a bullet-proof vest?

I find the judge's comments about cyclists' helmet wearing a little triesome. The only reason a judge is having to judge is because a driver knocked the cyclist off in the first place.

Thousands of motorists die EVERY year, how many could be saved by wearing helmets and 5 point harnesses?

 

[ComedyPilot]

I think drivers should be made to wear helmets - because they significantly reduce the risk of head injury in an [sarcasm mode on/]'accident'[sarcasm mode off/] - Just ask motor racing enthusiasts.

If cyclists are going to be judged as reckless for failing to protect themselves from motorists, I think we should turn on the judiciary who are failing to protect the country from rapists/murderers/burglars/gangstas/et al.............

The helmet debate is not something we can discuss further on here without hijacking.

 

[ufkacbln]

Interestingly in Australia, a Judge is supporting someone who refuses to comply with the helmet laws.He quashed the conviction of a cyclist who was not wearing a helmet on the grounds that the cyclist had ...

"an honestly held and not unreasonable belief as to the danger associated with the use of a helmet by cyclists". "It is clear that there is a significant argument taking place in certain scientific circles regarding the efficacy of helmets, in terms of their ability to protect. On one view, they appear to pose as much danger when worn as the danger of not wearing them. Unfortunately, that issue is an issue for Parliament in terms of whether they should rescind the mandatory requirement for helmets to be worn by cyclists," said the judge.

Full text of ruling

 

[semislickstick]

Wasn't there research into helmets(with the bulky and pointy edges) making neck injuries worse?
I'm surprised someone hitting a cyclist wearing a helmet hasn't tried that dodge too.