Killed cyclist 'not wearing helmet'

[4F]

Just as I am with lights and RLJ

So you obey the highway code when it suits you then ?

 

[swee'pea99]

I am sure the bloke that RLJ'd and hit domtyler side on considered he was RLJ'ing safely.

How sure are you, and on the basis of what evidence?

 

[Funtboy]

I am sure the bloke that RLJ'd and hit domtyler side on considered he was RLJ'ing safely.

Well he was wrong. What can I say - I've never come even close to causing an accident in all my time riding (4 whole weeks, mind).

 

[4F]

[quote name='swee'pea99']How sure are you, and on the basis of what evidence?[/quote]

Do you need evidence now to back up a discussion on here ?

 

[Chris James]

def wear a helemt, but its up to teh cyclist if they do, a bit like lights.

Erm, no.

Lighting at night is a legal requirement, it is not up to the rider to choose whether they want to have lights on their bike.

Whereas there is no legal complusion for a cyclist to wear a helmet, or any other protective equipment that 'may' help in the event of an accident.

 

[nilling]

I'm still waiting for the headline "Cyclist killed whilst wearing a helmet".

Inflamatory headline again <yawn> better to have stated a more neutral "cyclist died after collision" given the apparent lack of facts and appeals for witnesses.

 

[JamesAC]

... I don't like seeing someones death being used in this way without a more solid argument. It is simply distasteful.

Quite. 'nuff said.

James

 

[Jake]

Erm, no.

Lighting at night is a legal requirement, it is not up to the rider to choose whether they want to have lights on their bike.

Whereas there is no legal complusion for a cyclist to wear a helmet, or any other protective equipment that 'may' help in the event of an accident.

you would not know this by riding around london. quite the opposite. I see far more people without lights at night then i do with helmets.

 

[Cab]

I'm not sure where you're going with this. We don't know exactly what might have happened but what harm has done to mention
it and highlight it?

I don't think you read my post.

We don't know whether a helmet would have saved this chap. If it would have done then the statement ought to be clear on that. If it wouldn't have done then this is misleading, and misusing an event like this way is most distasteful. Either way, its using someones death as a way to reinforce the contentious claim that cycle helmets 'save lives', and you simply can't do that lightly, not when referring to someones death.

I hate to be a killjoy but everyone should wear a helmet really. If it takes propaganda to achieve this then so be it.

The evidence for helmet wearing does not convincingly support your claim.

 

[bryce]

It's hard to judge whether people are being facetious or serious on this thread... I sincerely hope it's the former!

 

[BentMikey]

Why is it good to promote helmets when at the population level their effect on safety is either not noticeable or slightly negative?

 

[Cab]

I can see your point but surely it is better to get the message across that you should wear a helmet rather than not wear one.

The stats do not sustain the claim that such campaigning has the desired impact either on cycling uptake or safety. Or, in other words, the population is not made safer through such messages, nor is it clear that the individual is. Therefore no, it is not surely better to get that message across.

 

[Cab]

Then why bother wearing a helmet at all then?

Why ask me?


Edit: Does give something to attatch a camera to, of course.

 

[swee'pea99]

Yes.... and no. I think that though an article can report the truth, it's just as important about how the truth is reported!

Absolutely. Compare 'Killed cyclist 'not wearing red socks''. Probably equally true. The point being, somebody - police or journo - decided that of those two 'true' facts, one was important enough to put in the headline. Which constitutes a major - and potentially threatening (to those of us who are pro-choice) - presumption.

 

[tdr1nka]

If you follow up the stats on head injuries you'll find that pedestrians need to be wearing helmets too! Wanna try and get that message home?


A friend was right hookjed by a car on the Old Kent Road last Friday morning, broke his hip. A mutual friend said, with well meaning authority that our friend should have been wearing a helmet.

When I asked what head injuries had been sustained the reply was, 'None.'.
So why did he need to be wearing a helmet? ''Cos he should', came the sotto reply.