- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Maisie Godden-hall incident (via BBC).jpgGirl who went under car after braking too hard and going over handlebars now campaigning to make helmets compulsory
The BBC reports on a 12-year-old girl who is campaigning for there to be a mandatory cycle helmet law after she was told by doctors that hers had saved her life. Maisie Godden-Hall was riding to school more quickly than usual after struggling to find her helmet when she went over her handlebars and under a car.
Speaking to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Air Ambulance website, Maisie recalled the events leading up to the incident on November 3, 2016.
“On the morning of my accident I got ready for school as usual, but I was running a bit late as I couldn’t remember where I’d put my cycle helmet. It was a strict rule that I wasn’t allowed to cycle without it, and by the time I did find it, it was later than usual.
“I was cycling my regular route, which involved using the crossings and cycling on the pavement. There is a junction on my route where I generally move into the bus lane, as there is a wall that blocks the view for drivers. I was travelling quite fast to make up some time, but I realised that a car at the junction was moving out and I needed to brake hard. I don’t remember much about the next few minutes, only what people have told me, as it all happened so fast.
“As I braked, my bike stopped, but I didn’t. I flew over the handlebars of my bike and landed in front of the car. The driver didn’t see me and, spotting a gap in the traffic, moved forward over me. Her son was sitting in the passenger seat and saw me fall so it didn’t take long for her to realise that something had happened.”
Maisie sustained three breaks in her pelvis, a broken collarbone, major facial injuries and the loss of seven teeth.
She stayed in hospital until November 28 and by the time she left was allowed to sit in a wheelchair for one hour, twice a day. By Christmas she was on crutches and she has now recovered sufficiently that she is back doing gymnastics.
Having been told that without her helmet she would probably have died, Maisie said: “I know I am only 11 years old, but I really want to use what happened to me to promote the cause for wearing cycle helmets; I think it should be law.”
Campaigners including Cycling UK say that it should be up to individuals to decide whether or not to wear a cycle helmet, often citing Australia as an example of a country that made them mandatory only to see levels of cycling plummet.
Opponents say that legislation deters people from riding a bike and therefore has an overall negative effect on public health.
British Cycling policy advisor Chris Boardman has previously been critical of the perennial debate, saying: “It’s not even in the top 10 of things you need to do to keep cycling safe or more widely, save the most lives.”
Responding to a link to the BBC article by Hampshire Roads Policing which stressed the importance of wearing a helmet, he tweeted:
The girl was ran over by a car and had her pelvis crushed....and this what you take from it? Wow https://t.co/XameeHMdm0
— Chris Boardman (@Chris_Boardman) December 15, 2017
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Geordiepeddeler 4 hours 37 min ago
Cycling infrastructure does not force drivers to break the law, drivers are the reason they break the law, no one else.
- chrisonabike 4 hours 50 min ago
Ah but taking pictures of things to defy the man (avoid a fine) is righteous. Taking pictures of people to grass on them to the cops (perhaps...
- ktache 6 hours 40 min ago
But getting paid for it is the very definition of professional....
- ktache 6 hours 49 min ago
Never had a Shimano QR fail on me. They just work. And the top end ones look good too....
- Backladder 7 hours 35 min ago
If you're only looking at the guy in front of you then you're going to crash whatever brakes you have, you need to look beyond them to anticipate...
- jaysa 8 hours 43 sec ago
As a woman, this works great for me! My chain broke once, and a kind guy stopped with a chain breaker and sorted it all out for me. We stopped at a...
- andystow 8 hours 52 min ago
Same. I also have gone through a bunch of their tyres, and only the extralight disappointed (torn sidewall) but the standards are fantastic....
- chrisonabike 10 hours 49 min ago
Indeed - but it's no more inconsistent than our current road design - very often UK high streets are "for shopping" and also a busy through route....
- mike the bike 12 hours 20 min ago
If you ask the world's leading economic commentators how many people have been rescued from abject poverty by capitalism the average answer would...
Add new comment
116 comments
We all want to keep people safe, so what's the best way to save the most lives from TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury)?
Well, the number one cause (14%) of TBI is to vehicle occupants in motor vehicle accidents, so clearly we should start by making everyone inside a motor vehicle wear a helmet. We want the most lives saved after all.
Then we can talk about cyclists.
Just bunged in a complaint http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/:
"This article and video present the unsubstantiated claim that a cycle helmet saved a child's life with no evidence, when all the scientific, reliable evidence shows that to be extremely unlikely. The video is extremely emotional and lacking completely in balance or any factual information, quite blatantly using the mother and child's emotions to manipulate the viewer. The statement by the road safety officer was not challenged and was accepted as fact while it is merely assumption. Basically, this "report" if I could dignify with that name, is nothing but helmet propaganda, with not even the most cursory attempt at balance or due impartiality, and gives undue prominence to the views and opinions of those people who believe the helmet was effective. There was no attempt to counter these with facts, data or scientific analysis.
The BBC has been promoting cycle helmets for thirty years, but this is the most blatant, obvious, clear example of helmet propaganda there could possibly be. I look forward to you rejecting my complaint with the usual tedious, irrelevant excuses."
If you make a complaint on line, make sure that you copy and paste it into a text document before sending it so that you have a record.
The problem is that as far as I know there are no proper tests of helmets so its impossible to argue convincingly for, or against.
Can someone not do proper euro NCAP style simulations of accidents with dummies, cars, pavements etc, rather than just dropping a bit of metal on the helmet?
What worries me is that people are being strongly encouraged by the media/govt/highway code to wear helmets, when no one can make an informed view of how safe a particular model is. At least with a car you can take a view based on Euro NCAP etc.
Its such a big issue, surely its time it was properly looked at with independent testing, if such a thing is possible.
Here's the text of my complaint to the BBC in case it helps anyone else write one too:
I would, but there are too many that get offended easily.
Either you're new to this or a troll, and I'm going to assume the first.
There are proper tests, real life, whole population tests over a long period, as done by those kind Aussies and Kiwis. This kind of data is much, much more reliable than laboratory testing or any of the other research used by helmet promoters which are inevitably small scale, short term studies.
The results from the reliable research are clear: no reduction in risk despite near universal cycle helmet wearing. Not only no reduction in risk to cyclists, but massive negative unintended consequences in health, pollution and congestion terms.
A wise man once said "If you don't understand what's happening, follow the money." In this case, helmets are a licence to print money for a product that doesn't work and can't be taken back when it fails, and probably more profitable than drugs.
cyclehelmets.org
They do work sometimes though don't they?
Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
What I'm trying to get at is; assuming I have made the decision to buy a helmet, how do I know which will provide the best protection within the sort of circumstances in which such a device could reasonably be expected to help?
The only way to tell is with some graphs...
I'd pop along for a quick read here http://road.cc/content/news/233382-dad-stops-kid-crashing-bike-parked-ca... I believe that all your helmet related questions will be answered conclusively...
In all seriousness PRS, they have to pass a standard so will all provide a level of protection somewhere between 'nothing' and 'magic'. Bugger I forgot to be serious.
If you decide to wear one, fit is the most important thing followed by comfort and style i.e. will you continue to wear it. You can get extra vents to keep your head cool or less to be aero, dial fitting systems, carbon for lightness etc. They now offer MIPS which supposedly helps the skull rotate a little to assist potential brain damage.
I crashed in a Boardman Carbon helmet and it took a big impact against a metal pole, my head survived and my shoulder and helmet didn't. Had cost me £50 in sale, replaced with a Giro with MIPS at around £40...
Most people on here actually wear helmets.
It is those who don't know the limitations of helmets that are the problem. If you are cycling at around 30 mph and crash into the open door of a van then don't expect to live.
You are mean...
Not really sure you understand natural selection.
Is that the first Road CC post from beyond the grave?
I’d like to take invasive action against many brummie drivers.
I think that you've mistaken BikeBikeBike for BikeLikeBike - totally different people.
Nice one, I omitted the last bit and changed/added some bits but have done a complaint too.
All have to conform to EN1078 so a £30 model is expected to function as well as one costing £150. Some (IIRC Bell and Specialized) conform to the apparently higher CPSC standard set in the USA.
This is from an old usenet post: "To pass the EC EN1078 test a helmet has to withstand a drop height onto a hard surface of 1.5 metres at a speed of 5.4 m/s (19.4kph, 12 mph), with a maximum peak translational acceleration to the head of 250g. While this is very much better than hitting a hard surface with your bare head, the drop height is slightly less than the typical cyclists head height in the riding position, and a fit cyclist should be able to ride at more than 12 mph. You may also collide with a vehicle going much faster than this.
The American CPSC standards have an increased drop height of 2.0m, with a maximum translational peak acceleration to the head of 300g."
You should bear in mind that a lightweight polystyrene hat - which in some cases appears to have more hole than hat - can only do so much to protect your skull when it comes into contact with a hard surface. The benefits of MIPS technology are unproven so take any claims about that with a large pinch of salt. Selecting a helmet that fits you properly and is correctly adjusted is the most important thing to consider.
There's not a huge amount of difference between different road-style helmets. Some are tested to slightly higher standards so you can assume that they provide marginally more protection. If you really want proper head protection, you'll be wanting to use either full-face off-road or motorbike helmets. However, they're significantly more hassle to wear and will cause much sweating in summer.
The usual rule of thumb is that a typical road helmet will provide protection up to about 12mph providing you only hit your head against a flat surface (e.g. not a kerb corner or another vehicle).
The most useful way of protecting your head is to keep a very high level of awareness of other vehicles and try to anticipate where they are going and react accordingly. This should allow you to avoid most crashes, but it takes experience to know where the dangerous places are (e.g. schools, take-away shops etc) and how to negotiate them safely.
Mandatory helmets are coming, its only a matter of time.
We have an institution who's entire raison d'etre is perversely warped. A police force who do not think it is their job to police things and provide protection for people, but continue to demonstrably victim blame.
UK Police do not give a fuck about the safety of road users. They are not fit for purpose.
UK Police do not give a fuck about the safety of *non-motorised* road users. They are not fit for purpose.
FTFY
ban pelvises!
But thankfully the police don't make the laws, our representitives in Parliament do - the police are there to enforce them (sometimes!)
Another point, having watch the vid again, there seems to be many references to children wearing helmets 'not looking cool' 'messing up hair' 'A helmet saved Maisie's life. Now she wants other children to wear theirs' - I'm just wondering if this is a cack-handed attempt to suggest helmets should be compulsary for childen? If so, then it should really be clearer. But even if it is relating to children only - is this a different debate?
I suspect the drop off in cycling due to making helmets compulsary would be even greater in the under 16s - and reinforcing the perception that cycling is inherently dangerous.
In Australia massively so, teenage girls in Victoria gave up cycling at the rate of just over 90% post MHL! Cycling to school dropped like a stone and children cycling as a whole dropped at a ridiculous rate and thus turned a generation into overweight motons who'll carve you up at the drop of a hat instead of being a person more likely to cycle into work or going where they need to by bike and when driving have respect for other people.
This gave the tossers in charge the ammunition to state that head injuries had gone down, perversely ignoring that they had gone down by less than the overall drop in cycling/people on bikes not even taking into account other measures that had a positive effect on cycling safety that also benefitted pedestrians. This is the type of thing that people like Rich _cb will not take any notice of.
We all know you post lies continually.
Just leave me out of them.
I've never called for compulsory helmet laws, in fact I've argued against them on this page several times.
Thanks for a helpful reply. It doesn't look a particularly rigorous test!
Clearly a helmet will be of little use should I get run over by a truck, or hit a tree at 40mph. However, there may be some value in a low speed impact, say an unclip fail onto a kerbside, or black ice. It also might just reduce an injury below a critical level, who knows. The only certainty to me is that if I don't have one I wont have any protection at all, which makes it worth it even for a small chance. But that's my choice, each to their own.
We already know that a helmet cannot by its design reduce the forces enough to prevent a serious TBI. The info is out there, the reduction level isn't sufficient in a lab with just a head weight never mind the additional mass and kinetic energy of a human body.
And if you are minded to wear a helmet for protection at low speed incidents then by definition you should also wear one for when you are walking and driving, you know for when in inclement weather, or you miss the kerb/trip on a raised bit of pavement, someone bumps into you and catches you off balance, that person pulls out in front of you whilst you are driving etc etc.
This is why the whole idea of wearing a helmet for low level incidents only whilst riding bikes is such a nonsense, you yet again increase the chance of hitting your head when at these lower speeds even small children are able to keep their heads away from hitting the ground when they fall off a bike. The vast majority of serious child incidents involve a motorvehicle, something the helmet is not designed to help with and again is not enough protection to mitigate a serious TBI.
We know this because the rates of child head injuries whilst cycling at any grade have never ever being higher than many other activities including being on foot, in cars, sport and in the home, even long before helmet wearing was ever a thing. Again not just here but in Aus and NZ which proves this. Recorded deaths of all children riding a bike from all injury types in the UK is half that of child deaths in motorvehicles by head injury alone in just England and Wales for the same period (2016)
The thought that wearing helmets just in case or for lower speed incidents really doesn't add up and there is no evidence to prove otherwise (unless you are rich_cb of course), it's incredible that people have irrational thinking when it comes to riding a bike yet ignore that same line of thinking when it comes to other asepects in our lives and the wearing and promotion of helmets actually makes that environ for everyone including the individual less safe than not wearing, all the whilst destroying freedoms and focusing yet again on the wrong thing and victim blaming left, right and centre.
Think i might start wearing my helmet whilst reading this site just to spite you all. melon twisters
It'd save your life!
1t3jcb.jpg
Pages