Compulsory lid legislation?

Discussion in 'Helmet Discussions' started by Drago, 24 Nov 2017.

  1. MichaelW2

    MichaelW2 Über Member

    Better quality cycle training would probably have prevented this cyclist from having a self inflicted crash that put her under the car. She was riding downhill on the pavement, braked hard, was unable to maintain control and came off hard, into the road,under a car, at which point the helmet may or may not have been helpful in reducing injuries.
     
  2. DaveReading

    DaveReading Veteran

    She had already suffered major facial injuries, lost a bunch of teeth and been rendered unconscious when her head hit the road, so you could argue that a helmet might have lessened the effect of those injuries, given that that's what helmets are supposed to do.

    Obviously once she had been subsequently hit by the car, the helmet became irrelevant. Although you could argue, had she not been unconscious, she might have been able to scramble out of the way.

    None of it provable, of course.
     
    Andy in Germany likes this.
  3. mjr

    mjr Wanting to Keep My EU Citizenship

    Helmets are supposed to prevent unconsciousness now, are they? I thought some manufacturers explicitly warned they aren't sufficient to prevent that or concussion.

    Only full-face MTB helmets would protect face and teeth significantly and I doubt that's what she's calling for.
     
    NickNick likes this.
  4. YukonBoy

    YukonBoy Veteran

    Location:
    Mars
    Had the school not had a helmet policy she would have not been late (not being able to find her helmet) most likely not rushed to school, avoided the accident altogether, and been much better off.
     
  5. NickNick

    NickNick Well-Known Member

    The irony of that was particularly striking when I read the road.cc article on. It seems to have more detail than the BBC and from the description of the accident & injuries I really doesn't look to me like the helmet would have made any difference. It seems like one of those "common sense" statements that her doctors made but I'm not convinced.

     
  6. User1252

    User1252 Guest

    Do you know that those things occurred in that order?
     
  7. DaveReading

    DaveReading Veteran

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but helmets are intended to lessen the impact forces sustained in a low-energy contact between the head and a solid object, such as might occur when falling off a bike.

    So it's perfectly possible that that could make the difference, under certain circumstances, between a force that's sufficient to cause loss of consciousness and one that isn't.

    The fact that a helmet may mitigate the effect of certain types of impact doesn't equate to a guarantee that it will, so the answer to your question is No.
     
    Andy in Germany likes this.
  8. SkipdiverJohn

    SkipdiverJohn Senior Member

    Location:
    London
    Changes to car design in the 1950's wouldn't account for much difference. No such thing as crumple zones back then.
    The things you can probably attribute most to safety improvements are the ones that don't get mentioned. For a start, more and more drivers would have had to actually pass a driving test to obtain a licence, rather than just pay their few shillings fee with no test.
    Then you've got improvements to road surfaces, barriers to stop vehicles crashing down hillsides, better street lighting etc. Statistically minor rural roads are the most dangerous, so it makes perfect sense that as more higher quality roads, dual carriageways, then motorways were built, the accident rate per mile travelled would start to decline.
    We have now pretty much got down to the level at which safety and accident rates are not going to get any better. From now on, expect the figures to more or less just bump along from year to year at a fairly constant level with a bit of apparently random variation.
     
  9. mjr

    mjr Wanting to Keep My EU Citizenship

    And that, folks, is why the helmet zealots should be spending some tiny fraction of their money on promoting better de-icing or studded tyres or some other actual crash prevention measures instead of head-only mitigation devices.
     
  10. TheDoctor

    TheDoctor Man-Machine Moderator

    Location:
    Stevenage
    There's no reason to be nasty to children.
    Equally, there's no reason to accept thier opinion as authoritative fact.
     
  11. Dave Davenport

    Dave Davenport Guru

    Location:
    Hampshire
    To be clear; I'm annoyed by the shoddy excuse for journalism from the BBC and not the kid who's had a very nasty experience.
     
    theclaud and TheDoctor like this.
  12. Andy in Germany

    Andy in Germany Senior Member

    Location:
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Roadside breathalyzers and a legal alcohol limit were introduced in 1967, which made a difference. Also 3 point seat belts gradually became cumpolsory from 1968 onwards, first for drivers seats and then passengers.
     
  13. Andy in Germany

    Andy in Germany Senior Member

    Location:
    Stuttgart, Germany
    I don't know about the UK, but that would certainly apply here. Cycle training is little more then "Know street signs, wear a helmet, and of course keep out of the way of Very Important Drivers."
     
    theclaud likes this.
  14. Dave Davenport

    Dave Davenport Guru

    Location:
    Hampshire
    No it's not.
     
  15. SkipdiverJohn

    SkipdiverJohn Senior Member

    Location:
    London
    Bottom line is the girl was going too fast for the conditions. No different to a car being driven downhill too fast, fails to stop in time, and crashes through a set of traffic lights. Bad judgement - operator error.
    As far as compulsory helmets go, no. Helmet wearing compulsion = Nanny State interference. There's enough do-gooders trying to tell us what food to eat, how much alcohol to drink etc. We don't need yet more of this crap from the political classes. Do I think wearing a helmet is generally sensible in traffic? Yes, but it should be personal choice. Do I think a helmet is needed for a slow speed ride in the woods or on a quiet cycle path? No, not really.
     
    Andy in Germany likes this.
  16. Andy in Germany

    Andy in Germany Senior Member

    Location:
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Sorry, typo there. I should have written "Cycle training locally" ie. in Germany where we live is little more than this. I've had three children do cycle training here and the message didn't vary.

    I can't comment on the UK as I've not lived there in 17 years.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice