preferred-google-button
log in
register

I may have found a good reason for a bike helmet!

  • Creator
    Topic
  • April 15, 2014 at 9:35 pm #21181
    pakennedy

    Well, apart from it being a good place to mount the camera which had a flat battery by this point, I have a feeling it saved me a trip to a hospital at the very least.

    Quick sum up – I got hit across the back of the head by a high mounted van wing mirror at a speed differential of around 40mph.

    Longer – I crested a hump back bridge towards the end of a long ride (for me) of 25 miles. The bridge is pretty narrow and double white lines adorn the roadway. I take primary when crossing it to avoid stupid passes. After the crest I’ll move over if I see nothing coming the other way.

    Today I was a bit slower than usual due to muscles claiming that 100 miles in 3 days is too much (I’m trying to work up for a 70 mile day towing a trailer in the summer). I moved over as I sped up and before I saw the Yaris coming the other way.

    A good thing I did. A van came over the bridge behind me at full revs and apparently trying to catch air. If any brain cells in the driver’s brain did engage, I can only assume they went “Oh S***” as he realised he was landing with no control head on into a Yaris or rear ending a bike.

    So he did the only *sensible* thing *cough*. He accelerated through the erm… gap.

    I got a very hard smack on the head from his wing mirror and the Yaris ended up taking emergency avoiding action onto the pavement.

    The lady driving the Yaris blew out a tyre and may have knackered some suspension.

    The van shattered his wing mirror and passenger window (the mounting sprang round on impact and caved it in.).

    I have the attached image of my helmet.

    I *think* that’s an imprint of the interior workings of the mirror where it hasn’t just gone to pieces vertically.

    I’m not an advocate of compulsory helmets. The chances of this incident are stupidly slim that this isn’t an argument in favour of wearing them all the time either (even when riding a bike!)

    I get the feeling that something taking lots of the impact, distributing the energy and breaking apart that wasn’t my skull was probably a good thing. It’s also occurred to me that the 12mph rating is into the ground. That’s a sudden stop. An estimated 40mph energy differential is a lot less energy given that the impacting item was sprung and only a few Kg in spite of what it was attached to.

    Tomorrow… I may not be out on my bike. I have a bit of a headache. The day after. I’ll be out. I won’t be wearing a helmet. I haven’t got a spare.

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 82 total)
1 2 3 4 5 6
  • Author
    Replies
  • April 25, 2014 at 9:20 pm #787031
    0
    fukawitribe

    Paul J wrote:700c,
    No

    Paul J wrote:
    700c,

    No offence, but it’s that kind of reasoning that has me baffled. On the one hand, every little anecdote about a helmet *possibly* helping are seen as informative (“like in this incident, it’s possible that it could help”, you said), while on the other hand actual statistically meaningful data is dismissed (“they can be manipulated to back up any argument”).

    Pointing out how this kind of thinking – if it were logical and evidence based – should similarly lead one to conclude that pedestrians must wear helmets is then painted as “polarising” or “antagonising”. Why is that? Why is it “antagonising” to point out a possible problem with how people are applying logic and/or evidence?

    Sometimes I feel the problem is that people recognise there is some absurdity hiding here in advocating for one but not the other, and do not like to be confronted with that.

    Paul, if that was my comment about antagonisation – please I thought i’d put forward the logic behind that and the reason why I said it. It has nothing to do with the general discussion of risk and avoidance, in which i’m not really in disagreement with you. The figures i’ve seen seem to indicate there is a difference in the case of the cyclist and the pedestrian, even ignoring the issue of wing mirrors striking pedestrian which I still maintain, even without statistics, would
    be a minority event. I have equally little time with others arguing the same way advocating the contrary position.

    Anyway, i’ve said my bit on that before and i’ll leave it there.

    April 25, 2014 at 7:51 pm #787029
    0
    bobdelamare

    How is it that all the
    How is it that all the discussion is about speed limits and not that the van driver was entirely in the wrong in going over a hump back without being sure of the other side? I drive a van and cross hump backs every day. You have to give way if there is some one else on or nearer the bridge. It’s just common sense. The van driver should be done for at least “driving without due care”.

    April 25, 2014 at 3:35 pm #787027
    0
    oozaveared

    Jimmy Ray Will wrote:Hmmm,

    Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
    Hmmm, I’ve had one speeding ticket in my years of driving, and I have to say that such a polarized view quite grating.

    I picked up a ticket from some cheeky copper sat with his gun next to the de-restriction sign moving from a 30 – 70mph speed limit.

    I was apparently doing 40mph, after getting on the gas pedal a little earlier than I should have, having driven at the speed limit through the village in question. Still, it was speeding so caught fair and square I suppose.

    It was however in my opinion a very cynical placement of a camera. If the PC had been placed on the entrance to the village in question, not the exit, I’d have been less disgruntled about things.

    To me it was a revenue/statistical operation… easy pickings. What grates is not so much the £60 fine, its the 5 years of increased insurance premiums plus the £20 to finally remove the points from the licence. Very annoying.

    Anyway, I guess my point is, its easy to be holier than thou, until you get caught yourself, then you’ll see that far too often its not about saving lives, its about meeting quotas.

    I’ve been driving since 1979. For many years all over Europe as a rep. To my deep shame I got a ticket in 2007 on the A303 for doing 79mph on a 70mph dual carriageway. I was in the car with my son. We were chatting away. It was very early on a Sunday morning and the road was empty.

    I did not lament the placing of the camera or the fact the road was empty. I considered the fact that whilst chatting away I had not checked my speed, ot seen two warning signs about a camera which may have prompted me to chack my speed and I had not seen a bloody great yellow speed camera as I approached it.

    I had a word with my self about how much attention I was actually paying at the time.

    I was driving. I knew the speed limit, I was warned several times about the camera, I was flashed, I paid the fine. No whingeing.

    April 25, 2014 at 3:16 pm #787025
    0
    Jimmy Ray Will

    Hmmm, I’ve had one speeding
    Hmmm, I’ve had one speeding ticket in my years of driving, and I have to say that such a polarized view quite grating.

    I picked up a ticket from some cheeky copper sat with his gun next to the de-restriction sign moving from a 30 – 70mph speed limit.

    I was apparently doing 40mph, after getting on the gas pedal a little earlier than I should have, having driven at the speed limit through the village in question. Still, it was speeding so caught fair and square I suppose.

    It was however in my opinion a very cynical placement of a camera. If the PC had been placed on the entrance to the village in question, not the exit, I’d have been less disgruntled about things.

    To me it was a revenue/statistical operation… easy pickings. What grates is not so much the £60 fine, its the 5 years of increased insurance premiums plus the £20 to finally remove the points from the licence. Very annoying.

    Anyway, I guess my point is, its easy to be holier than thou, until you get caught yourself, then you’ll see that far too often its not about saving lives, its about meeting quotas.

    April 25, 2014 at 3:13 pm #787023
    0
    Stumps

    allez neg wrote:stumps

    allez neg wrote:
    stumps wrote:
    allez neg wrote:
    That’s harsh, given that the same ACPO pdf I’ve just seen indicates device accuracy tolerance to 2 mph

    Yep it is, but there will be people who can say (some no doubt on this forum) they’ve been done through a camera at 32 and got the ticket through the post. In the end its a guideline not a strict ruling and that leaves it open to the person setting the camera up.

    Then I say again that speed enforcement of that nature is more about revenue raising or box ticking and would do nothing to get the public ‘onside'

    Yep, revenue raising, plain and simple. In the USA the force issuing the ticket gets half the fine so it can bump its own revenue quite easily whereas over here it ALL goes to the chancellor so he can give tax breaks to his cronies – sorry slipped off track there !

    April 25, 2014 at 2:33 pm #787021
    0
    oozaveared

    allez neg wrote:stumps

    allez neg wrote:
    [quote=stumps][quote=allez neg]
    Then I say again that speed enforcement of that nature is more about revenue raising or box ticking and would do nothing to get the public ‘onside'

    I’m onside. Speeding fines are voluntary taxes. I am all for them. Blimey if the police were resourced to be able to enforce laws properly on the road we’d get the national debt paid by the start of May.

    On my ride to work today 16 miles I have seen at least 200 cars speeding ( I wasn’t counting ) at least 5 vehicles parked on pavements. dozens in bike boxes at lights. A fair few on the phone. not to mention defective lights, substandard driving and the like. I bet if I had ANPR ther’s have been quite a number of uninsured vehicles or with no MOT. And that doesn’t even pick up drivers with no licence or people driving cars that are insured but not for them.

    I see the police ignoring most of this and I understand why. They’d run out of time on the defective lights alone and they have to prioritise.

    I have zero sympathy, none zipp zilch nada for people fines for speeding. Speed limits are posted, cameras are warned about if you get caught then you weren’t paying attention either.

    Voluntary taxes which generate revenue is one of the very best reasons for enforcement. It’s like a a charitable donation from people with an attention span problem.

    April 25, 2014 at 2:03 pm #787019
    0
    allez neg

    stumps wrote:allez neg

    stumps wrote:
    allez neg wrote:
    That’s harsh, given that the same ACPO pdf I’ve just seen indicates device accuracy tolerance to 2 mph

    Yep it is, but there will be people who can say (some no doubt on this forum) they’ve been done through a camera at 32 and got the ticket through the post. In the end its a guideline not a strict ruling and that leaves it open to the person setting the camera up.

    Then I say again that speed enforcement of that nature is more about revenue raising or box ticking and would do nothing to get the public ‘onside’

    April 25, 2014 at 1:56 pm #787017
    0
    700c

    Paul J wrote:700c,
    No

    Paul J wrote:
    700c,

    No offence, but it’s that kind of reasoning that has me baffled. On the one hand, every little anecdote about a helmet *possibly* helping are seen as informative (“like in this incident, it’s possible that it could help”, you said), while on the other hand actual statistically meaningful data is dismissed (“they can be manipulated to back up any argument”).

    Pointing out how this kind of thinking – if it were logical and evidence based – should similarly lead one to conclude that pedestrians must wear helmets is then painted as “polarising” or “antagonising”. Why is that? Why is it “antagonising” to point out a possible problem with how people are applying logic and/or evidence?

    No offence taken!
    why rely on anecdotes? I’m not. Nor am I relying on statistics. I don’t think either will give you a definitive answer. I’m balancing risk and probability, adding a bit of common sense and drawing my conclusion accordingly.

    Thinking that you can justify a decision, and be entirely confident in it, by either using anecdotes or ‘evidence’ is wrong when it comes to wearing helmets I feel. Doing this would apparently lead all pedestrians to wear helmets! which demonstrates the ludicrousness of holding such an uncompromising position. Not that anyone with any common sense would, of course.

    Why do I feel that comment was polarising? simply because, suggesting that someone’s else’s reasoning would lead to all pedestrians wearing helmets assumes they will apply no common sense or be able to factor in risk and probability, just because of disagreement with their decision to wear a helmet!

    April 25, 2014 at 1:40 pm #787015
    0
    Stumps

    allez neg wrote:That’s harsh,

    allez neg wrote:
    That’s harsh, given that the same ACPO pdf I’ve just seen indicates device accuracy tolerance to 2 mph

    Yep it is, but there will be people who can say (some no doubt on this forum) they’ve been done through a camera at 32 and got the ticket through the post. In the end its a guideline not a strict ruling and that leaves it open to the person setting the camera up.

    April 25, 2014 at 1:39 pm #787013
    0
    andyp

    My apologies, the word
    My apologies, the word ‘guideline’ was indeed used.

    It is, however, exactly that – a guideline. Prosecutions have – and will – be made at lower speeds than those.

    April 25, 2014 at 1:35 pm #787011
    0
    allez neg

    That’s harsh, given that the
    That’s harsh, given that the same ACPO pdf I’ve just seen indicates device accuracy tolerance to 2 mph

    April 25, 2014 at 1:34 pm #787009
    0
    Stumps

    Mind you a camera van will be
    Mind you a camera van will be set at a certain speed and i’ve known them be set at the likes of 32mph in a 30 limit but if its through the vascar or laser then the 10% +2 will probably be used.

    April 25, 2014 at 1:27 pm #787007
    0
    allez neg

    andyp wrote:’ I’m glad

    andyp wrote:
    ’ I’m glad there’s the common sense 10%+2mph guideline here in the UK’

    er….there isn’t, and hasn’t been for quite some time.

    er……I’m not a traffic cop but have just seen a table on an ACPO pdf that indicates that 10%+2mph seems to be the threshold for a FPN. The ACPO link goes straight to downloading a pdf but this link below shows the same information. I know it’s only a guideline and the individual officer still has discretion but I doubt that plod would bother reporting / ticketing a person knowing that it doesn’t meet charging standards, unless he/she can evidence other factors that justify it.

    http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_fixed_penalty_notices/

    April 25, 2014 at 1:24 pm #787005
    0
    Stumps

    andyp wrote:’ I’m glad

    andyp wrote:
    ’ I’m glad there’s the common sense 10%+2mph guideline here in the UK’

    er….there isn’t, and hasn’t been for quite some time.

    and you know that how ?

    because all the traffic lads i work with will take that into account.

    April 25, 2014 at 1:10 pm #787003
    0
    andyp

    ‘ I’m glad there’s the common
    ‘ I’m glad there’s the common sense 10%+2mph guideline here in the UK’

    er….there isn’t, and hasn’t been for quite some time.

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 82 total)
1 2 3 4 5 6
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.