A coroner has said that a cyclist who died after sustaining head injuries when she fell off her bike in the New Forest “could have survived” if she had been wearing a cycle helmet.
Keren Zhang, aged 26, fractured her skull when she lost control of her bike and crashed on a descent while riding with friends near Brockenhurst.
Ms Zhang, who lived in London, had travelled to the national park with six friends on a day trip, reports the Daily Echo.
The inquest at Winchester Coroner’s Court into hear death heard that the party hired bikes from Cyclexperience close to Brockenhurst railway station, but Ms Zhang declined the offer of a cycle helmet.
Ms Zhang, whose mother travelled from China to attend the inquest, was treated by paramedics at the roadside before being transferred to hospital, where she died.
Senior coroner Graham Short, recording a conclusion of accidental death, said: “On the balance of probabilities, I believe she could have survived if she was wearing a helmet.
“I must stress that cycle helmets do save lives. This case illustrates the risks of not doing so.”
The coroner said he was unable to explain how Ms Zhang had lost control of her bike, and the speed she was travelling at when she crashed was not reported.
While the Highway Code says that cyclists “should” wear a helmet, they are not compulsory in the UK.
In a briefing note the charity Cycling UK, which is opposed to making cycle helmets compulsory, says: “Standards only require cycle helmets to withstand the sort of impact that a rider is likely to suffer if they fall from their cycle from a stationary position (about 12mph).”
82 thoughts on “Coroner says cyclist who died in New Forest crash “could have survived” if she had worn a helmet”
I’m ready, let’s bring it.
I’m ready, let’s bring it.
What is that? Some kind of
What is that? Some kind of squirrel themed sanitary product?
Mungecrundle wrote:
Dammit I need to clean my keyboard now. Coffee everywhere.
Mungecrundle wrote:
It’s clearly a squirrel shaped piece of popcorn.
HawkinsPeter wrote:
You Sir, are a genius.
The Echo article says she
The Echo article says she fell off on a downhill and hit her head on the road, fracturing her skull. Would a typical helmet protect from a fall from a moving bicycle, going downhill at (presumably) speed? I’d thought not…
brooksby wrote:
My head is still on after falling downhill at 50kph on my head.
Whether or not I would have been going around a wet downhill bend at 50kph in winter if I [i]hadn’t[/i] been wearing a helmet is a different argument… The psychological aspect wasn’t a factor in the deceased’s misfortune.
longassballs wrote:
The Echo article says she fell off on a downhill and hit her head on the road, fracturing her skull. Would a typical helmet protect from a fall from a moving bicycle, going downhill at (presumably) speed? I’d thought not…
— longassballs My head is still on after falling downhill at 50kph on my head. Whether or not I would have been going around a wet downhill bend at 50kph in winter if I [i]hadn’t[/i] been wearing a helmet is a different argument… The psychological aspect wasn’t a factor in the deceased’s misfortune.— brooksby
I had the same experience and was glad I wore a helmet too.
I don’t understand all the hate about this, it reminds me of the debates we have regarding vaccines on the other side of the Channel.
brooksby wrote:
Why would you say that? I have had 5 crashes in the last 3 years, all my own fault. In four of the five, my helmeted head definitely hit the road, and probably the 5 too. In my anecdotal experience, you are almost guaranteed to hit your head on the road when you crash. I’m not saying my helmet saved my life or anything that dramatic, but I’m fairly sure my injuries would have been worse without it, and I am glad I had it on. Two of these accidents were on ice, one very slow but I still broke my wrist, one nearer 15 mph and no lasting damage. One was on a downhill road with a a group of mates who all got round the slight kink in the road with mud and gravel covering it, the 4th (and 5th) were going downhill, I got the speed wrong for the corner I was trying to get round.
Maybe without a helmet, I would have made more of an effort to not let my head hit the road, who knows.
I happen to wear a helmet whenever I ride my bike, but like a lot of people here I do not want them to be made compulsory. I know you are more likely to hurt yourself getting out of the bath than out on a bike ride. It’s people’s choice whether they wear one or not, but if you think they are of no benefit in any situation, you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
Or you are far more likely to hit your head when you wear a helmet, a fact which has been demonstrated any number of times. This is one explanation of the thousands of “helmet saved my life” stories, where the cyclist holds up a broken helmet and makes that claim, but without the helmet, they wouldn’t have hit their head.
“I must stress that cycle
“I must stress that cycle helmets do save lives.”
Something the helmet manufacturers do not claim themselves.
aegisdesign wrote:
I read an article about that recently, and the author said he could not get any helmet company to say that their helmets provided actual protection or could save lives. Not one. If that’s the case, well then polystyrene is not really my hat material of choice, m’kay?
brooksby wrote:
Got a link to that article please?
burtthebike wrote:
Afraid not. Thinking back, I think it was something by Mikael Colville-Andersson (isn’t everything?). Might have been in his latest book – I’ll check it out in the morning.
brooksby wrote:
That is simply because if they did and somebody fell off and was killed the cycle helmet company with be open to a massive law suit, airbags save lies every day but not one airbag company would say they save lives, unfortunately we live is a law suit society these days.
There is no question that a helmet can save your head in certain types of falls and there is no question there are other whereby it would be of no help what so ever.
bigbiker101 wrote:
Except that all reliable evidence shows that cycle helmets don’t reduce the death rate of cyclists, so if they save some lives, they must kill other people and the chances must be the same. So what is the point of wearing something which is just as likely to kill you as save you?
burtthebike wrote:
There is no way we can know that, how do you gather evidence of people who are alive who should be dead, it is nonsense.
bigbiker101 wrote:
There is no way we can know that, how do you gather evidence of people who are alive who should be dead, it is nonsense.
[/quote]
OK, explain to me how, if cycle helmets save lives, the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase?
And why there was no dose response in Australia and New Zealand when helmet wearing rates doubled overnight when they brought in a helmet law?
What is nonsense is claiming that cycle helmets save lives when all the reliable evidence shows that they don’t. For the avoidance of doubt, anecdotes are not reliable evidence.
burtthebike wrote:
OK, explain to me how, if cycle helmets save lives, the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase?
And why there was no dose response in Australia and New Zealand when helmet wearing rates doubled overnight when they brought in a helmet law?
What is nonsense is claiming that cycle helmets save lives when all the reliable evidence shows that they don’t. For the avoidance of doubt, anecdotes are not reliable evidence.
[/quote]
The number of deaths indicates the number of times a helmet was of no use, it has no bearing at all on the number of times it was useful, it simply is not relevant in judging how many times a helmet saved somebody, I had an accident at the velodrome, my helmet was split in two, my collarbone into 4 bits, I had a headache for a week and I had blurred vision for a few days due to swelling, the doctor at the hospital said that the helmet limited the swelling and that without it I could likely be in a coma and possible worse, who knows if it really did save my life, but I use this incident to point out that this accident isn’t recorded in anyway that a helmet was useful, and it is these types of incidents that really prove if a helmet is worth it or not, but I want to add something, I am not Pro Helmet, I am Pro choice… I am only arguing the point here because I don’t agree with some of the assumptions being made.
bigbiker101 wrote:
The number of deaths indicates the number of times a helmet was of no use, it has no bearing at all on the number of times it was useful, it simply is not relevant in judging how many times a helmet saved somebody, I had an accident at the velodrome, my helmet was split in two, my collarbone into 4 bits, I had a headache for a week and I had blurred vision for a few days due to swelling, the doctor at the hospital said that the helmet limited the swelling and that without it I could likely be in a coma and possible worse, who knows if it really did save my life, but I use this incident to point out that this accident isn’t recorded in anyway that a helmet was useful, and it is these types of incidents that really prove if a helmet is worth it or not, but I want to add something, I am not Pro Helmet, I am Pro choice… I am only arguing the point here because I don’t agree with some of the assumptions being made.
[/quote]
Which bit of this did you not understand “For the avoidance of doubt, anecdotes are not reliable evidence.”
Given that you don’t agree with some of the assumptions being made, and you make assumptions which contradict the evidence, do you disagree with your own assumptions, or just those of other people who’ve looked at the evidence?
If helmets save all these lives, how come the death rate of cyclists doesn’t fall as helmet wearing rates increase? Facts only please, not assumptions or anecdotes.
burtthebike wrote:
Ignoring the UK stats again Burt. Good lad.
If the case against helmets is so clear cut why do you need to lie continually in order to make it?
Rich_cb wrote:
OK, explain to me how, if cycle helmets save lives, the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase?
And why there was no dose response in Australia and New Zealand when helmet wearing rates doubled overnight when they brought in a helmet law?
What is nonsense is claiming that cycle helmets save lives when all the reliable evidence shows that they don’t. For the avoidance of doubt, anecdotes are not reliable evidence.
— Rich_cb Ignoring the UK stats again Burt. Good lad. If the case against helmets is so clear cut why do you need to lie continually in order to make it?— burtthebike
It’s YOU that ignore the facts as always!
Since helmet wearing started to become a thing, most notably post UCI and BC rules, cycling injuries have gone up, Between 2003 and 2016 serious injuries rose by 48 per cent, (Pedal Cycling Road Safety Factsheet March 2018) whilst cycling miles only went up by 15%!
At the same time the rates of injuries elsewhere on the roads have gone down, the swing in cycle injuries is massive comparatively, all the whilst that helmet wearing has increased significantly across the board and 45-50% is thrown around as a wearing rate. Certainly since the UCI and BC made it compulsory for their events that’s been replicated in most cycling clubs, it’s compulsory for charity rides, sportives, racing, even CUK groups are being forced to wear by the vocal few, compulsory for kids doing cycle training, kids being forced to wear going to school, mums and dads + othger relatives forcing their kids to wear (and wonder why their kids don’t want to cycle as much if at all!), despite more infra in London, Cambs/Oxford, York, Bristol etc etc, despite better brakes and other so called ‘safety’ devices such as disc brakes which are again supposed to increase safety, despite all that and the noddy hat wearing the injury rates are a complete about turn to that displayed by other road users!
So how are you going to worm your way out of that sonshine?
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
When helmet use started to rise in the UK cycling KSIs plummeted.
That is an indisputable fact.
When you and Burt and other claim otherwise you are lying.
Where are your stats from for helmet wearing over that period? I don’t believe any exist for the last few years. If you don’t have the stats then you are also lying.
If your argument is so convincing why do you constantly lie?
Finally your own cited evidence reports a drop in fatalities over the period in question.
If there are more serious injuries but fewer deaths then something must be limiting the severity of the damage.
Rich_cb wrote:
You have tried this approach previously and I find it disturbing.
It’s disingenuous to accuse someone of lying simply because they either have a different evidence base or differing perspective to you, particularly on a contentious topic like this (and for many an emotive one). It undermines the integrity of your own case so that an impartial observer may think that in fact you are the charlatan, or at least not playing with a straight bat. I hope that’s not the case but you’re not helping yourself.
If everyone tries to be a bit more grown-up and civil, and stick to facts instead of faith-based declarations, then maybe we can have a discussion instead of a war of words. But the more you entrench your position and hurl abuse the less likely anyone will listen.
Simon E wrote:
You have tried this approach previously and I find it disturbing.
It’s disingenuous to accuse someone of lying simply because they either have a different evidence base or differing perspective to you, particularly on a contentious topic like this (and for many an emotive one). It undermines the integrity of your own case so that an impartial observer may think that in fact you are the charlatan, or at least not playing with a straight bat. I hope that’s not the case but you’re not helping yourself.
If everyone tries to be a bit more grown-up and civil, and stick to facts instead of faith-based declarations, then maybe we can have a discussion instead of a war of words. But the more you entrench your position and hurl abuse the less likely anyone will listen.— Rich_cb
The fact is that as helmet use rose in the UK cycling KSIs fell. There was a correlation.*
To claim otherwise is incorrect and demonstrably so.
If people on this forum insist on making claims that they know are incorrect then they are deliberately misleading people.
To deliberately mislead is to lie.
*We can argue until the cows come home about the significance of the correlation but you cannot deny that it exists.
Rich_cb wrote:
You have tried this approach previously and I find it disturbing.
It’s disingenuous to accuse someone of lying simply because they either have a different evidence base or differing perspective to you, particularly on a contentious topic like this (and for many an emotive one). It undermines the integrity of your own case so that an impartial observer may think that in fact you are the charlatan, or at least not playing with a straight bat. I hope that’s not the case but you’re not helping yourself.
If everyone tries to be a bit more grown-up and civil, and stick to facts instead of faith-based declarations, then maybe we can have a discussion instead of a war of words. But the more you entrench your position and hurl abuse the less likely anyone will listen.
— Simon E The fact is that as helmet use rose in the UK cycling KSIs fell. There was a correlation.* To claim otherwise is incorrect and demonstrably so. If people on this forum insist on making claims that they know are incorrect then they are deliberately misleading people. To deliberately mislead is to lie. *We can argue until the cows come home about the significance of the correlation but you cannot deny that it exists.— Rich_cb
Is it a fact that as “helmet use rose in the UK cycling KSIs fell” for all groups of cyclists? I seem to remember the study you usually reference showing the reverse in some groups. Is this not considered misleading not to disclose this in your statements? remember, “If people on this forum insist on making claims that they know are incorrect then they are deliberately misleading people. To deliberately mislead is to lie”
ClubSmed wrote:
I don’t think there is detailed enough information about KSIs and helmet use to differentiate cyclists into groups.
So the statement is AFAIK correct.
If you know of any such data I’d like to see it.
One research paper which we previously discussed showed a larger decrease in paediatric head injuries relative to adult head injuries over a specific time period. I think that may be what you’re referring to.
Rich_cb wrote:
Is it a fact that as “helmet use rose in the UK cycling KSIs fell” for all groups of cyclists? I seem to remember the study you usually reference showing the reverse in some groups. Is this not considered misleading not to disclose this in your statements? remember, “If people on this forum insist on making claims that they know are incorrect then they are deliberately misleading people. To deliberately mislead is to lie”
— Rich_cb I don’t think there is detailed enough information about KSIs and helmet use to differentiate cyclists into groups. So the statement is AFAIK correct. If you know of any such data I’d like to see it. One research paper which we previously discussed showed a larger decrease in paediatric head injuries relative to adult head injuries over a specific time period. I think that may be what you’re referring to.— ClubSmed
That is exactly what I am refering to, there was a larger decrease in paediatric head injuries yet a lower uptake of helmet wearing.
Rich_cb wrote:
Very quick pick from 2017 stats (PDF available on this page):
“Although the number of pedal cyclists killed on the roads in 2017 was slightly lower than in 2016, the 101 fatalities is very similar to the level seen since 2008. Any changes since that point are most likely to be as a result of natural variation and cannot be attributed to underlying causes.”
So did helmet use plateau after 2007?
The charts in the annual report suggest that the number of fatalities for car occupants, pedestrians and motorcyclists all followed a similar trajectory from 2007 to 2010. How do we explain those?
But are you sure it was deliberate? Would it not be better to disagree and suggest why they are wrong? We all know that statistics can be used to say all sorts of things. Your accusatory tone does not help the discussion. Perhaps you don’t want be constructive but keep throwing stones.
If that indicates the quality of your knowledge then this discussion has nose-dived. It remind me of the old adage of arguing with an idiot.
Simon E wrote:
Please educate me as to how not wearing a helmet will make me safer and less likely to injure myself?
I’ve looked through cyclehelmets.org and found evidence to the contrary, but I’m open to having my opinion changed.
Very quick pick from 2017
Burt is definitely aware of the correlation in the UK yet continues to deny it exists.
It is a deliberate attempt to decieve on his part.
AFAIK there is no UK wide data on helmet use available for most of the last decade, I think they stopped collecting it around 2008.
So it’s impossible to know what the relationship between helmet use and KSIs is over that time.
The other difficulty post 2007 is the emergence of smart phones. This introduces yet another variable.
It’s difficult to assess trends over such a short period regardless.
burtthebike wrote:
Can I clarify something about the nature of anecdotal evidence? Anecdotes (well, true anecdotes anyway) *are* reliable evidence. But only of what happened in a specific set of circumstances. They’re no guide to what might happen in different circumstances in the future. Even if one could somehow replicate exactly the same circumstances, the outcome might well be different. Or not, who knows?
The point of statistics (speaking here with my statisticians hat on) is to generalise from specific events & outcomes to get some approximate idea of the probabilities of various possible outcomes in similar circumstances in the future. This is useful information for insurance companies, & would be useful too for governments if they ever paid any attention to evidence or facts.
However, it’s no use to individuals at all. As we’re only ever going to experience one future, not a multiplicity, there’s absolutely no way way of knowing whether statistical generalisations are appropriate in any given situation. So… wear a helmet or not, as you choose. It may or may not make a difference, but you’ll never find out.
oceandweller wrote:
Surely you mean “we’re probably only ever going to experience one future, not a multiplicity”.
I used to watch Star Trek, so I know what I’m talking about.
oceandweller wrote:
Anecdotes are not reliable. If they were factual and backed up with irrefutable evidence, they would be reliable, but then they wouldn’t be anecdotes. Anecdotes are somebody’s idea of what they think happened, and are entirely subjective and completely unreliable; that’s why there are so many cases of injustice because of faulty memory and indentification.
Stats are indeed useful to organisations, but they are also useful to individuals, and only a fool would ignore stats which have a very high degree of confidence of outcome, which define the level of risk. It may be true that in vanishingly unlikely circumstances, a helmet could save a life, but when robust epidemiological studies show no benefit, or even an increase in risk from helmet wearing, there is more chance of winning the lottery every week for a year.
Statistics are a very good way of predicting the outcome for an individual in any given situation, and are far from irrelevant as you claim.
brooksby wrote:
no one will because if you have an accident and it doesn’t save your life the lawyers come out
aegisdesign wrote:
Why bother when you can leave it to the idiots at Winchester Coroner’s Court
aegisdesign wrote:
That is simply because if they did and somebody fell off and was killed the cycle helmet company with be open to a massive law suit as making such a claim would imply that even if they got run over by a tank the helmet would still save their lives, well I suspect this coroner would think so anyway.
To be fair though, the coroner knows a hell of a lot more about the accident and injury than we do, there are absolutely crashes where a helmet could save a life and there are far more where it wouldn’t.
Respectful comments please.
Respectful comments please.
Cycle helmets don’t protect in all eventualities. No safety equipment protects in all circumstances – including seat belts in vehicles. That’s not a reason not to use safety equipment . It’s not a big deal wearing a helmet – they’re affordable, light & comfortable. I don’t wear a helmet to compensate for other idiots on the road, I do it in case something goes wrong – including me making a mistake at low speed.
Someone cut across a junction when I had my 5 year old son strapped in a child seat on the back of the tandem. I had to stop suddenly; the foot I needed to put down got snagged in the toe clip, the bike went down from the stopped position and son’s head hit the road. I was damn glad he was wearing a helmet. No injury and we got to school with no drama……
danhopgood wrote:
That’s an interesting story, but I don’t ride with children strapped to my bike (although I think that’s a perfectly acceptable practice) and, if I did, I certainly wouldn’t do it on a bike with any kind of pedal clips.
slappop wrote:
I am trying to remember if I was using pedal clips or not at the time I was cycling to Nursery with my daughter strapped to my bike. Though as the seat that she was strapped to was mounted on the toptube she would probably have been protected by me in a fall. At school age though I did use pedal clips but she was too big for the top tube seat so had a padded seat on the rear pannier rack. As she was not strapped into it she could jump clear if needed, indeed she did when I lost my balance once going through the park (attempting to stupidly do some of the bmx bumps for fun).
danhopgood wrote:
Read the evidence cyclehelmets.org
Your anecdote is not evidence.
danhopgood wrote:
Glad your child is ok and none the worse physically at least due to the incident.
But respectfully,
it IS a big deal to wear a helmet, they’re not comfortable for all people and certainly not for all situations either, they absolutely do increase chances of heat related issues to the head.
They increase chances of child strangulation, the increase chances of your head being caught in something and have you actually considered that your child only hit their head BECAUSE of the helmet, because your child had increased the size of their head and weight thus had more kinetic energy as they were flung thus significantly increasing the chances of a head strike?
Children particularly are effected by wearing PPE or something they percieve will make them safer, there are plenty of tests done on this and we see the results of risk compensation in adults all the time, not just cycling and sports activities but everywhere.
Let me put this to you, there are more children dying solely of head injuries in England and Wales whilst being occupants of motorvehicles than there are total number of child cyclists by ALL types of injuries for the whole of the UK. That’s despite low rates of helmet wearing in children and despite airbags/crash cells etc in motors.
More children dying of head injuries in playgrounds and schools, more child pedestrians dying of head injuries, more children dying of head injuries in the home than total number of child cyclists by all injury types.
This stat (similar to that from a fair few years ago) is taken from HEADWAY
“There were 155,919 hospital admissions in 2016-17 due to head injury, that’s people actually staying in hospital not just attending hospital. For England only there were 430,725 A&E head injury reports, there are circa 1.3 million total reported head injuries.
The number of child cycling deaths of all injury types was 8 in 2016
For those concerned with protecting their child I suggest that they reasses their understanding of risk and put helmets on their kids before they get up in a morning and take them off just after they’ve got into bed, in fact probably best to put one on yourself too outside of sleeping hours (and even then there’s a risk of head injury) afterall there’s not a reason not to use safety equipment whilst going about your normal activities in life, It’s not a big deal wearing a helmet – they’re affordable, light & comfortable … RIGHT??
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
This has always been the big thing for me.
You can get in to the semantics of how much difference a helmet makes (in the example of this news report, of course the helmet ‘could’ have made a difference, just as much as a helmet ‘could’ have made absolutely no difference at all, the non-wearing of said helmet means we’ll never really know) however the bigger quesiton, for me anyway, is establishing what is the size of the actual risk a helmet is mitigating against?
So far, and as alluded to above, the actual risk involved is very small, and crucially smaller than other far more common activity that are not deemed as requiring dedicated safety measures.
This whole image of cycling as dangerous thing is frankly bull crap. Its an image touted by the media and motoring lobby to help justify avoidable death, and to stigmatise those on bikes as risk taking outgroups in order to shift blame and focus away from the real problem on our roads.
The really sad thing is that the cycle industry and community have jumped on board and frankly love it… ‘oooh cycling its all edgy and dangerous, look at us risk taking rebels’.
Not being funny to all the adrenalin junkies out there, riding a bike is something my kids were very quickly capable of doing before they were six years old… its hardly rocket science.
Try and remember this whenever the talk turns to danger, saving lives and stuff. Beyond the bravado, you are talking about mitigating against freak events / unlawful driving practices.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
So far, and as alluded to above, the actual risk involved is very small, and crucially smaller than other far more common activity that are not deemed as requiring dedicated safety measures. — Jimmy Ray WillTrue. CUK claim that “the health benefits of cycling outweigh the injury risks by between 13:1 and 415:1”. Them is big numbers. More information in their briefing on Health and cycling.
Ian Walker’s research stated “wearing a bicycle helmet led to traffic getting significantly closer when overtaking”. It would seem that, in relation to collisions with other vehicles, wearing a helmet may make cycling slightly more dangerous. We may also wish to consider risk compensation in adult cyclists, also studied by Walker and published in 2016.
Sadly true. The ‘road safety’ lobby is run by motoring organisations, which is why its messages are loaded with victim-blaming crap that doesn’t address the real problem. They do not have our wellbeing at heart, money is what interests them. I believe it was dissected in Robert Davies’s book ‘Death on the Streets’ published in 1992. Very little has changed since then.
Agreed. Far too many people just believe what they consider a ‘credible’ source (or well-meaning parenting advice) and assume it is correct. They then argue with anyone who thinks differently rather than step back and consider whether the issue is more complex than they assumed.
A question for any helmet-shaming zealots to consider: how many of you are involved in advocacy or any degree of campaigning for better facilities or safer cycling or better driving? I bet it’s not many (and not much). IME those looking down at people for not wearing a helmet don’t generally make an effort to improve things for vulnerable road users, press their councillors or their MP for better infrastructure or improved policing. If you’re not part of the solution you are part of the problem.
Simon E wrote:
What are you talking about? Parents taking their kids to school by bike obviosly are assessing and balancing the risks – the same way they do in the rest of life. They take the view, as I do, that the benefits of cycling – a quicker, healthier and environmentally responsible journey outweighs the downside – of having to use poor quality road infrastructure; the risks of falling off and sharing the road with people who don’t treat cyclists with respect. Parents take action to mitigate the risks – such as choice of route, choice of vehicle – I use a tandem – and protective equipment like hi-vis and helmets.
Not sure if that makes me a “helmet zealot”. I, like many, am involved in campaigning for better facilities. I’ve been a member of a local cycling campaining group, have commented on planning applications, have written to my MP and local councillors on numerous occasions for starters – as do many people I know. I see no evidence to support the point you’re making.
danhopgood wrote:
The parents who do take their kids to school by bike may well be assessing and balancing the risks, but they are few and far between, and even in that group, there are many who are not accurately informed about risk.
We all know the benefits of cycling, health, pollution, congestion, safety, financial, and the costs of motoring, pretty much the same list but negative. The question is why so many people chose the unhealthy, polluting, jam-causing, dangerous, expensive method, and the biggest reason is perception of risk. In all surveys to determine why people don’t ride more, danger is always top of the list, so why do people think cycling is so dangerous, and much more dangerous than other common activities like walking?
The answer is that there has been a thirty year campaign to sell helmets by deliberately exaggerating the risks of cycling, ably fronted by the BBC, which to all intents and purposes advertised helmets and refused to publish the facts, against all their own rules. The media loves stories about helmets saving lives, cheap sensational journalism, but almost never question or investigate the truth of that proposition. The accumulation over the years of the mantra that cycling is incredibly risky has had a massive effect, with most people thinking that cycling is much, much riskier than it actually is, and hence, they avoid it.
You can’t assess and balance risks if you don’t understand them because you have been subject to propaganda for thirty years. If people made rational decisions based on risks and benefits, the number of people cycling would be orders of magnitude higher, as all those surveys also show that many more people want to do it, but are too scared.
Cycle helmets and their promotion have been an absolute disaster in health, pollution, congestion, safety, and financial terms for society.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Sorry but I have to call out this as utter shite, have you fallen off the wagon today?
Heat related issues?
I wonder why is it a big deal to you to wear a helmet? Will it mess you hair up? Or perhaps the increased mass slows your strava times down.
Or maybe it is just something you object to which in actual fact wouldn’t actually prevent or hinder anything in your daily life of substance..
The bloke just said his five year old didn’t crack his head on the curb instead the helmet took the brunt. Do you really think that that child had a say on where he was going to fall and that the inch of foam protruding was the inch where the five year old would have saved himself if he wasn’t wearing a lump of foam. You’re really scraping the barrel here… shame on you.
FWIW I’m pro-choice helmeteer, I do wear a helmet in a group and I may or may not wear a helmet when on my own or pottering.
FWIW, never forget that this is a pointless ‘argument’. You can pretty much turn any set of stats/figures to read whatever conclusion you want them to, or just disregard them with some form of reason. The only people winning this argument have graphs, squirrels and monty python in their arse-nal.
“Could have” and not “would
“Could have” and not “would have”, it is an important difference.
A pink tutu and 6″ stiletto heels could have saved he life too.
Sadly probably only using
Sadly probably only using that road (narrow, broken surface with ragged edges) because the A337 still has no cycle path and is treated as a motorway by many drivers.
Whilst not much a descent I doubt very much she’d have been travelling at 12mph or less.
Sad tale that unfortunately will be picked up on by the usual suspects
The particularly sad thing
The particularly sad thing now is the poor girl’s family have listened to the coroner apportion blame to their daughter.
It was a tragic accident, no-one will know for certain whether a helmet would have helped.
Having platted hair may also
Having platted hair may also have saved her life…
Strange that you never
Strange that you never hear anybody say “ not wearing a helmet saved me from injury”.
. Once saw a cyclist hit a pot hole and go right over his handlebars, his helmet was a right off but he was fine. I have no doubt that it would have been far more serious without his helmet.
Spats Bellini wrote:
You’re new here aren’t you?
Spats Bellini wrote:
Probably not, and probably because it’s such a convoluted sentence that no one what speaks english, speaks like what you wrote.
But people who have been injured while wearing a helmet like what they say here https://crag.asn.au/5-ways-wearing-a-bicycle-helmet-can-result-in-injuries/ might agree with the sentiment.
I keep seeing stories about
I keep seeing stories about coroners making totally unjustifiable statements about helmets, so is there some sort of governing authority for them that I could report them to?
Couldn’t get that link to
Couldn’t get that link to work, so try this https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/17346433.cyclist-keren-zhang-chose-not-to-wear-helmet-before-fatal-accident-inquest-hears/
Good to see the usual road.cc
Good to see the usual road.cc comment w@nkers are our in force.
See 59 wrote:
Which side of the argument are the wankers?
See 59 wrote:
Hey come on… everyone does it.
See 59 wrote:
Is there an official list of members?
For those that are missing
For those that are missing the point and insisting that cycle helmets save lives…
Have you considered whether coroners report on if a crash helmet could have saved a car occupant’s life… I happen to have a coroner in the family so I know the answer.
The evidence regarding
The evidence regarding whether helmets make cycling as a whole safer or more dangerous is limited and uncompelling. This points to it being not the biggest source of protection or risk available. There are far more important issues regarding cycle safety, yet we sit here chasing our own tails on the issue, and allowing the cycling news agenda to be driven by this distraction.
I wear a helmet nearly every time I get on my bike, but I would rather never wear one again than for them to become compulsory, which is the logical extension of much of this debate.
You must be completely and
You must be completely and utterly delusional if you think that wearing a helmet is not safer.
It’s never going to protect you completely, it’s not going to save your life if the crash is bad enough, but without doubt, there are more situations that you will end up with an injury when not wearing a helmet than with.
Innocuous falls can kill (Natasha Richardson, for example). Helmets protect against incidents like these.
n0tanidi0t wrote:
When it comes to heeds there are so many factors at play. There may be a reduction from wearing one, but they’re an undoubted barrier to cycle use. When I was in Sydney recently I used taxis for journeys where I’d have used a hire bike in London.
They’re saving a small percentage of cyclists from a KSI but equally you can fall off at 10mph, wearing a helmet, and still die of a TBI. What they become is an emotional crutch – it’s easy to say “I’d have been killed without a helmet” but no-one knows. Similarly, it makes you more reckless, and studies have proven that car drivers give a helmeted cyclist less space.
In the pro ranks before helmets were made mandatory we still had massive accidents but I’m not aware of there being a huge number of KSIs/TBIs. It was always rare to hear a pro cyclist had died in a crash, and if you bin it on a 50mph descent it’s a lottery whether your helmet will save you.
FWIW I wear a helmet and the rest of my family do too. I undoubtedly take more risks on descents than I would do sans helmet. The NHS narrative (based on a couple of visits for minor cuts to be stitched up) is “good job you were wearing a helmet” (tip – don’t get into a helmet debate with the doc who is sewing up your finger, they’ll go easy on the numbing cream)
If we’re serious about reducing transport-related deaths we should be mandating helmets for all vehicle users. Having whacked my helmeted head against a B-pillar on a track day enough to dent both pillar trim and helmet it’s undoubtedly the case that more lives would be saved if they were mandatory – until at least window curtain and pillar airbags are in every car.
kil0ran wrote:
I completely agree with you, there’s a reduction in chance of injury from wearing one.
The compulsory helmet point is obviously separate, and it’s interesting to hear your Sydney experience. My view is that they shouldn’t be made compulsory as it reduces participation and that would be far more negative health wise than those lives saved from a (possible) reduction in head injuries.
kil0ran wrote:
And as has being said many times PPE/crash protection systems don’t work to lower the overall risk and should only ever be a final solution IF it doesn’t adversely affect others by doing so. You create yet more risk compensation by putting yet more safety aids into motors (hence why people will drive at the edge with a helmet on on a track with a roll cage et al, compared to a motor that dooesn’t have that.
That then creates more risk for those outside the motor, as it did when seatbelts came into force. Reducing speeds of motors and forcing the machine (and by definition the ‘operator’) to abide 100% by the set maximum speed will have a huge positive effect on road safety, particularly if we reset the limits on our roads aside from motorways which are fine as they are.
n0tanidi0t wrote:
Your first post, and apparently another sock puppet.
The risks of cycling are the same per mile travelled as walking, so are you in favour of pedestrian helmets? And if not, why not?
As for being delusional, try looking at the evidence cyclehelmets.org
burtthebike wrote:
Glad to see you could look through your own prejudices and actually read what I wrote (or not…I wonder what your other 2000+ posts are like).
I never said I was in favour of either wearing or not wearing a helmet, it’s personal choice whether you wear one or not.
Undoubtedly making helmets compulsory reduces the number of cyclists, and therefore I’m thoroughly against it, but that’s not my argument.
Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now try it without a helmet. Which one hurt the most? Which would do most damage as you increase the force? Now imagine that’s a kerb, a tree, a lamp post, a rock?
n0tanidi0t wrote:
Glad to see you could look through your own prejudices and actually read what I wrote (or not…I wonder what your other 2000+ posts are like).
I never said I was in favour of either wearing or not wearing a helmet, it’s personal choice whether you wear one or not.
Undoubtedly making helmets compulsory reduces the number of cyclists, and therefore I’m thoroughly against it, but that’s not my argument.
Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now try it without a helmet. Which one hurt the most? Which would do most damage as you increase the force? Now imagine that’s a kerb, a tree, a lamp post, a rock?
[/quote]
OK, let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are new to the great helmet debate, and you don’t realise that you are regurtitating points which have been made many times and refuted just as many times.
If you are going to discuss anything, you need to understand it, and be in posession of the facts, so I suggest again that you consider looking at them. cyclehelmets.org
You didn’t answer my question about pedestrians.
burtthebike wrote:
OK, let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are new to the great helmet debate, and you don’t realise that you are regurtitating points which have been made many times and refuted just as many times.
If you are going to discuss anything, you need to understand it, and be in posession of the facts, so I suggest again that you consider looking at them. cyclehelmets.org
You didn’t answer my question about pedestrians.
[/quote]
I still don’t think you understand my point – wearing a helmet reduces the likelihood of getting a head injury.
From a study found on your bible (cyclehelmets.org), Extent and Severity of Cycle Accident Casualties, page 7, “Those who were wearing a helmet were less likely to have an injury to their head or neck (7% compared to 14%) and this difference was more distinct for children.”.
Your pedestrian question is irrelevant – I’m not for compulsory cycling helmets. My point is that if you don’t wear one, there are more circumstances in which you could have a head injury.
n0tanidi0t wrote:
I still don’t think you understand my point – wearing a helmet reduces the likelihood of getting a head injury.
From a study found on your bible (cyclehelmets.org), Extent and Severity of Cycle Accident Casualties, page 7, “Those who were wearing a helmet were less likely to have an injury to their head or neck (7% compared to 14%) and this difference was more distinct for children.”.
Your pedestrian question is irrelevant – I’m not for compulsory cycling helmets. My point is that if you don’t wear one, there are more circumstances in which you could have a head injury.
[/quote]
Well, you may be new to the great helmet debate, but you’re pretty assiduous at quoting selectively to prove your point and missed out the sentence “However, wearing a helmet made no significant difference to outcome in the case of the more serious head injuries measured by need of follow-up or hospital admission.”
Helmets are sold by the progandists as life-saving, but as shown elsewhere, all they possibly do is reduce minor injuries. Do you have any data to show that helmets reduce injuries? And are you aware that they increase the possibility of the most dangerous kind of injury, Diffuse Axonal Injury?
The pedestrian question is extremely relevant. Why do seem to think that cyclists should wear something but not another group with the same level of risk?
n0tanidi0t wrote:
The problem is that it is not just the impact reduction that the helmet may give you, but also the chance of the impact. Studies have shown that people that wear safety equipment take more risks and also that car drivers take more risks around cyclists who are wearing helmets.
So to use your analogy to compensate for the fact that people in safety gear take more risks:
Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now don’t hit yourself on the head with a hammer without a helmet. Which one hurt the most?
Or to use your analogy to compensate for the fact that drivers take more risks around cyclists wearing helmets:
Hit yourself on the head with a hammer with a helmet on. Now wave the hammer next to your head without a helmet. Which one hurt the most?
Even if you believe that a helmet may save you on impact, you have to balance out the additional risk of increasing the liklihood (and possibly severity) of that impact.
ClubSmed wrote:
Just so I understand, do you therefore advise me to not wear a helment?
n0tanidi0t wrote:
No, I advise you to weigh up the evidenced benefits/risks and make a personal choice based upon the information available and personal circumstance.
ClubSmed wrote:
Ok, to phrase it differently, do you personally think that by not wearing a helmet you are making yourself safer and less likely to be injured (cars taking less risks around you, you yourself taking less risks)?
n0tanidi0t wrote:
In some circumstances yes and in others no. I personally sometimes wear a helmet and sometimes do not depending on the circumstances that I am going out in.
n0tanidi0t wrote:
For me, this is the crux of it. My experience (YMMV) tells me that I am passed closely more often and more dangerously when I wear a helmet than when I do not, but I still tend to wear one, partly because it is just a habit and partly because it makes my wife feel better about me being out on the road.
Compulsory helmet laws would make practically no difference to me, but I would very definitely resist them because the case in their favour is simply not compelling enough weighed up against the inevitable reduction in people taking up, or continuing, cycling and my experience that drivers take less care around riders with helmets on.
The statistics show that cycling is not more dangerous than other forms of transport and the more we guilt, pressurise or force riders to wear protective gear, the greater the impression in society as a whole that it is a dangerous activity, which again suppresses the numbers riding.
Let me wear a helmet if I want and not if I don’t … I am not going to be attempting to force anyone else to wear one or not wear one, that is their choice.
n0tanidi0t wrote:
I think the issue – as often online – is that people are often arguing about different things using different evidence.
Helmets do provide some impact protection. Not a huge amount – but then sometimes a little is enough.
There are valid counterarguments, though. I think these are:
Personally, I tend to be more cautious when helmetless (at least until I forget about it after 5 minutes). Perversely, of course, being over-cautious can also be risky too!
Many collisions are due to drivers not seeing cyclists, even when they are looking (what’s visible and what’s seen not being the same). If there are lots of cyclists around then they are more likely to expect to see them – partly because there are just more of them to see but also because they are more expecting of them and attuned to looking out for them.
When I moved to London lots of people said, “oh, it must be terrifying cycling there!” to which my reply was, “not as terrifying as being a rare cyclist in smallerplaces when you often see drivers pulling into your path while looking straight at you and not registering your presence” (which is what my collisions have been due to).
I’d summarise that if you’re going to bash your head, a helmet is a better idea than not. But it’s better not be in a position to bash your head in the first place, and helmets may not be helpful in that.
Just to be clear.. the
Just to be clear.. the article reports that the coroner has said :
> Senior coroner Graham Short, recording a conclusion of accidental death, said: “On the balance of probabilities, I believe she could have survived if she was wearing a helmet.
That is… it is probably possible that she would have survived. Not that she would probably would have survived, just that this could possibly be the case. That is, it is not (in his expert legal opinion) definitely certain that she would have died even if she had been wearing a helmet – as would have been the case if her head were crushed under wheels of a tractor (that no head or helmet could possibly withstand).
>“I must stress that cycle helmets do save lives. This case illustrates the risks of not doing so.”
I wonder if he was misquoted, or taken out of context. To my understanding, he is saying that this case illustrates the risks of him not stressing ‘that cycle helmets do save lives’.
All he has really said is that it is possible that changing variables can change results. A coroner is primarily a legal professional, so we can assume he knows how to pick his words. If there had been any expert medical evidence to say that she probably would have survived, he would have said so. Someone earlier said that if she had plated her hair, that possibly could have saved her life. If she had hair that could have been plaited and she hadn’t done so so, it is absolutely possible that it could have saved her life (though I’d say it is extremely unlikely that it would). It is absolutely possible that changing any variable could have saved her life. As a legal expert, he is surely an expert making and understanding arguments – so it really does make me wonder he felt the need to bring this issue up. Maybe because he’s seen other case where helmet usage probabaly would have saved someones life – or maybe he just isn’t very good at his job.
* edit: maybe he’s trying to stress that wearing cycle a helmet won’t always save your life, and you should always take all reasonable precautions when performing any activity.
Keep going guys – I’ve a
Keep going guys – I’ve a fiver on this thread reaching triple figures without anyone having changed their minds about anything.
Duncann wrote:
Rather a pointless contribution. However, people DO change their minds. I used to be an advocate of mandatory helmet-wearing but once I started reading about the subject, it quickly became clear that I was wrong. As the great Keynes once said “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”.
Eton Rifle wrote:
Not at all – it and the two replies have helped quite a bit to reach my the magic hundred.
Slightly more seriously, and while it’s good you’ve changed your mind (as we all do occasionally), I’m not sure that BTL debates like these do more to constructively challenge opinion than they do to harden it and create unnecessary division. But I’m open to changing my mind about that.