James Cracknell has urged people to wear a helmet “whenever riding a bike” after the Daily Mail published photographs of him riding in Cambridge without one recently. The double Olympic gold medallist told the newspaper his helmet had been stolen but said he, “should have made alternative travel plans.”
Cracknell has been a prominent advocate of cycle helmets ever since he was hit by the wing mirror of a passing truck while cycling in Arizona in 2010.
He suffered a fractured skull and bruising to his brain and spent ten days in a coma. He later said it was ‘selfish’ of riders not to wear a helmet.
Cracknell, who is currently studying for a Masters in human evolution, was snapped riding around Cambridge with the Mail predictably making a big point about the fact that he was on the pavement at one point.
Questioned about the lack of helmet, he said: “I was without my helmet for a few days after it was stolen from my bike but to be honest that’s not a good enough excuse.
“I should have made alternative travel plans and put safety ahead of convenience. I would urge everyone to wear a helmet whenever riding a bike, however short a distance.”
62 thoughts on “James Cracknell urges cyclists to wear helmets after being photographed riding without one”
Do they not have any bike
Do they not have any bike shops in Cambridge?
Not even Halfords?
“James Cracknell urges
“James Cracknell urges cyclists to wear helmets”
I commute on some shared cycle paths and shockingly none of the runners, dog walkers and families with kids wear helmets. Also pedestrians walking next to busy roads with +40mph traffic don’t wear any… Drivers doing over 60mph don’t wear any head protection either which despite the presence of other safety devices would still save more lives than that of cyclists.
What is so f****** special about cyclists?
BBB wrote:
Sometimes they get hit on the back of the head by wing mirrors, and other random shit that skill and experience can’t avoid. And Cracknell’s injury could be the perfect example of where a helmet did actually make the difference and save a live.
But what would I know. I just enjoy the usuals on the verge of an aneurysm whenever the H-word is mentioned.
Organon wrote:
clearly you haven’t absorbed any of the facts, logic and reasoning as to why helmets don’t work. Do you think a shattered helmet that absorbs a tiny fraction of the forces involved that leaves the wearer in intensive care one that has actually worked?
If so then you really know nothing at all and have ignored everything that has been talked about here and elsewhere.
You don’t grasp that the continual bullshit/lies/anecdote serve against you, me and cycling as a whole not just on the streets but actually in sporting cycling too as seen by the worse outcomes since helmets became a big deal/rule and the never ending blame culture forced onto victims of crime/lowered responsibility for those that harm!
Sometimes in life people get hit on the head by shit or bang their heads against shit, as stated many times 1.3million people in the UK report a head injury annually, 160,000 stay in hospitals as a result of those head injuries yet the vast majority are people not on bikes, not even close, yet cyclists are the only ones that have helmets forced on them.
Such is the inequity of matters that even when we had bikes that had worse brakes, worse tyres, fewer safety features on the roads, motorists driving machines with no ped/cyclist safety in mind, when medical treatment was night and day to now and 16x more cyclists on the roads than now there still wasn’t even close to the deaths and injuries from a result of shit hitting a head for people not on bikes
This has all been mentioned yet you still ignored it all!
yeah, you know jack shit sonshine.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I suggest you get your blood pressure checked, but then again, I’m not a doctor.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
You can add rude (no surprise), limited, arrogant to the already established ignorant. Like I’ve told you before helmets do save lives period. No ifs, buts, maybes, they do.
A helmet did so for me as I’ve told you before when I was smashed by a car. It didn’t save me having spino/pelvic dislocation, mashed nads or a snappped leg but it did mean that the brain haemorrhage I suffered was massively minimised. Had it not been there my head would have hit directly onto the telegraph pole and/or road and that would have been game over.
RTB wrote:
Got any proof of your assertion? For the avoidance of doubt, anecdote is not proof.
burtthebike wrote:
Yes me. Do keep up. [Anecdote definition – interesting story about a real incident or person.]. QED.
RTB wrote:
So no proof then. Thanks for clearing that up.
Again, for the avoidance of doubt, proof by repeated assertion, like anecdotes, is not proof.
RTB wrote:
A helmet did so for me as I’ve told you before when I was smashed by a car. It didn’t save me having spino/pelvic dislocation, mashed nads or a snappped leg but it did mean that the brain haemorrhage I suffered was massively minimised. Had it not been there my head would have hit directly onto the telegraph pole and/or road and that would have been game over.
— RTBThe poor chap who died in Velo Birmingham at the weekend was wearing a helmet. It didn’t save his life (his head injuries proved fatal).
Those of us arguing with you – and with sponsored athlete James Cracknell – invariably just want a sensible, evidence-based discussion, not mudslinging. The constant stream of pro-helmet diatribes and ‘helmet shaming’ is often negative and could easily lead to calls for compulsion, as it did in Aus and NZ. That is not good for cycling in general.
Have a look at what the voice of reason Chris Boardman has to say about it:
https://chrisboardman.com/blog/index_files/e67d4b8aac0c709c5801ce466bdcd90e-1.html
Simon E wrote:
Very sad indeed but this plight also sadly happens with motor cyclists who have worn full helmets and Dainese (or similar) protective gear on the torso and limbs. It is always situational dependent and no guarantees. I was very lucky in my smash. I was hit from behind and knew nothing about it. The helmet saved me in my case. It may not fit what you and some “ultras” want to hear but it did.
I’ve met Boardman and had a chat with him on a range of topics. He is a very decent, balanced person but one of his frustrations is how people on both sides of the debate take him out of context and misunderstand his actual views and intentions. He is not anti-helmet, far from it in fact. His focus and brief for cycling safety and development is much broader.
Helmets in the UK are not compulsory, as you well know, so stop fighting a phoney battle. You have a choice, I have a choice.
RTB wrote:
You can’t be sure of that. No-one can.
By labelling me an “ultra” you are trying to put me down and discredit my opinion and statements. I think that says more about you than about me.
— RTBI’d prefer that you didn’t twist my words. We both have a choice at the moment but helmet shamers that want everyone to conform to their idea of what is ‘best’ don’t care whether that changes or the possible consequences of that change.
I know very well Boardman is not anti-helmet, I read the article I linked to as well as much of the information he and others have provided over the years. Unlike you I’m still undecided about whether it is better to wear one; I ponder it every time I’m on my bike. Having read widely and listened to many online discussions, I am still not persuaded that it could save my life. Once thing I am sure of is that I won’t bow to pressure from people like you.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
To someone (me) who has been through that experience winding up in ICU for almost a week where the helmet did its job to save me and my head from far worse than the sub-arachnoid haemorrhage I suffered I find those vacuous, empty, cheap words from you patronising, offensive and insulting. Ignorant is the least thing it is.
Organon wrote:
No.
I’d go into detail, but I’m sure you don’t want to know.
BBB wrote:
Everything.
BBB wrote:
The contents of our heads is more valuable.
Haa, how ironic he’s studying
Haa, how ironic he’s studying human evolution.
He’s a prime example that some humans don’t evolve instead preferring to cling onto ill-informed views, that despite the capacity for intelligent thought some will remain driven by emotion over fact.
billymansell wrote:
individuals don’t evolve, species do.
ConcordeCX wrote:
Individuals do evolve, particularly in their knowledge and understanding. Evolution isn’t limited to evolution theory but can apply to any process of development that leads to a progressive change, ideally for the better.
In Crackers case it’s ironic that while studying human evolution, therefore acknowledging the principles of evolution, he can’t similarly apply evolution to his own thinking about helmets despite the evidence.
In the years that he’s worn and campaigned about helmets he hasn’t had another accident for wearing a helmet but because no vehicle has hit him again. In addition, in not wearing a helmet for the past few weeks he still didn’t suffer being hit.
Maybe it’s because wearing a helmet doesn’t prevent you getting hit by a vehicle but will his thinking evolve or will hold on to his dogmatic beliefs that somehow helmets are magic, a bit like religious dogma?
billymansell wrote:
a prime example of equivocation.
ConcordeCX wrote:
No, individuals can evolve, in response to their environment, without the entire species being affected.
Our own species originated in Africa’s Rift Valley and then spread outwards across the golbe something like 60K years ago. Last time I checked we don’t all look the same … but we are still the same species.
Google the word ‘epigenetics’ to understand more.
“Helmets are absolutely vital
“Helmets are absolutely vital and all cyclists should wear one whenever they ride. Except me of course.” Says the man who was paid to promote the helmet that he wore.
“weapons-grade fuckwit”
“weapons-grade fuckwit”
I’m stealing that one
.
He’s probably been cycling up
He’s probably been cycling up and down Sidney Street without a helmet for the past three days trying to get photographed to get it the news. Poor man. He’s had no exposure whatsover since the Boat Race. Whatever will he do next 🙂
Chris Hayes wrote:
Uses downing street mostly, then goes wrong way down Trinity!
I leave work and he’s coming down downing street, I then go down Sidney and he pops out at round church from Trinity street.
Spent a Mother’s Day mouling
Spent a Mother’s Day mouling over the above article, Compulsory helmet law is not a solution, better infrastructure and better driving education will go a long way.
From what I gleaned off the the internet in regards to James Cracknel crash, because that what it was. He was involved in a cycling event at the time, he was on a quiet road in Arizona at 5:30am and was hit by a truck or best discribe as a “Pickup” in the U.S obviously from behind and reportable traveling at 70mph or 112 km, His helmet was “shorn in two”. What save his life was quick medical response not the helmet. He suffered a Coup contrecoup injury where the brain move and hit the inside of the skull, something a helmet is not designed to protect against, in his word his brain rang like a bell. To single out the helmet as the being the life saving factor is ridiculous, most people do not read the helmet manual but they do clearly state that there can not protect the wear in some events.
James is entitle to his opinion but mine is completely opposite. Being an Australian and subject to MHL and being involved in a car on bike crash which left me with a concussion and a fracture neck I put little faith in the helmet. The drive admitted in court, whiles trying to get out of the $170 fine, not to have seeing me because he had not seen a cyclist past his car in the last 10min so it was safe to turn across a bike lane without looking.
Helmet are not a solution, better separated infrastructure is the way to do but we continue get it wrong in Australia by putting unprotected bike lanes next to high speed vehicle and people continue to die.
Sorry I’ve had a couple, I will get of my soap box .
AMcCulloch wrote:
Imagine the damage to the skull if he hadn’t that little bit of protection, that’s what helmets are for.
Helmets are meant to protect the skull in a fall, not prevent concussion!
AMcCulloch wrote:
From someone like you who suffered an accident this is sorry to read. I too suffered a catastrophic accident at the hands of a car travelling at ~80km/h including spinal separation, snapped leg, multiple spinal, pelvic and other fractures, and a brain haemorrhage. That helmet saved my life beyond dispute. The thought of my head taking directly whatever impacts happened (I have amnesia) does not bear thinking about.
It is not an either/or which is the mistake “ultras” on here consistently make. I.e. helmets (non-compulsory) AND better infrastructure, education etc. Helmets are part of the solution.
Thankfully it is very rare to see a non-helmeted rider (never women I would add) on what I would call performance bikes, maybe 1 in 500 or a 1000. They stick out like a circumcision on display and draw as much respectful disdain as they deserve.
I’ll respect anyone’s
I’ll respect anyone’s privilege to make their own decisions as to what level of personal protection they are willing to accept. Hi viz clothing, gloves, full body armour, helmet, or even just choosing to avoid risks such as competitive / group riding or avoiding certain roads at certain times.
Mr Cracknell has certainly endured a life changing incident that hopefully none of us will ever experience. But I’m sort of surprised that he doesn’t advocate a full on climbing helmet / hardshell style helmet, and maybe he should be campaigning to have the authorities address the problem (driving standards) and not fixate on an unproven solution.
I choose to wear a helmet
I choose to wear a helmet because I can strap a massive great light on it and then point directly in the face of mugwump drivers when they act like idiots. (Only when they’re stopped at lights mind – can’t have any accusations that I’m blinding drivers in traffic).
I’m under no illusions that it will save my life, but I do like having lights on it.
It’s also in the colours of my local football team, because I’m 12.
Tinbob49 wrote:
Hope you have lights FIXED to your bike as well!
KINGHORN wrote:
Absolutely. 2 front, 2 back, and 1 on the helmet that does front and back, so 3 pointing each way.
Each year I buy 2 new bigger lights, and relegate the least powerful of my current lights to the shelf as back up. It’s getting a bit silly now…
I don’t who knows James
I don’t who knows James Cracknell personally on this thread.
Who the heck is anyone to judge him? Take a look in the mirror.
Plasterer’s Radio wrote:
If you don’t want to be judged, it might be better not to indulge in quite so much self-publicity. If Mr Cracknell would stop telling other people, better qualified than him, how to live their lives, he might not get quite so much criticism.
If you deliberately put yourself in the public eye, you can expect to be judged, and you’d probably be a lot better off not complaining about it.
Plasterer’s Radio wrote:
I didn’t go looking for personal glory/adulation at the expense of my child, I can judge him on that seeing as I was a single parent who was treated like shit by my son’s mother and nothing got in the way of giving him everything I could in terms of support, friendship, usual parent stuff. Crackers obviously thinks going back to school so he can get more plaudits is more important.
And, I’m not a shill, flogging a product because you’re getting a hefty wedge despite it actually having a negative effect overall on society and making forceful statements/stance about said product and it’s beneffits and then being a massive hypocrite by not following that same advice you were spouting so that you could get your bank balance sorted.
So yeah, I’m judging him because I would never do that and think it’s pretty shitty by him
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
You have a set of life experiences that have led you to certain conclusions and you would have to admit that you are quite passionate about putting forward those views be they about disc brakes, hi viz clothing, driver attitudes or helmets.
James Cracknell has gone through a massive near death experience that literally changed his life. I’ll personally cut the guy some slack on the brain injury that he is the first to admit made him a difficult person to live with. That he was wearing a helmet at the time of the incident is fact. Whether it had any effect on his survival is impossible to proove but he obviously feels that it did and that life experience has led him to a conclusion that he is at perfect liberty in our free society to espouse. Exactly the same as your good self.
As to sponsorship, I guess that as a high profile sportsman, he makes a lot of income from numerous commercial deals. I wouldn’t read too much into that. As I understand it he talks about wearing helmets not a specific brand.
I haven’t seen a copy of the
I haven’t seen a copy of the Mail for yonks, but is this what counts as news in that “news”paper? Man rides bike without helmet?
srchar wrote:
The Mail is for people with a reading age of over 7 who find the Sun too simple. News is currently defined as anything that will increase circulation, and nothing whatever to do with importance or truth; even better if it involves a C grade celeb like Cracknell, who can be shown to be a complete hypocrite.
Bullshit it was stolen,
Bullshit it was stolen, everytime I’ve seen him since Sept, he hasn’t been wearing a helmet!
RTB, does your positive
RTB, does your positive experience of helmet wearing mean that you now wear one when driving a car, riding a bus, or crossing the road? Do you exhort friends and relatives over the age of 65 to wear one at all times, lest they have a fall? Genuine question.
srchar wrote:
“Positive experience”. Did you really write that to someone who still struggles after 1.5 years since a life changing incident? Insensitive is the least thing it is. Ridiculing, low and insulting. Absurd too.
Let me tell you there is nothing positive about being airlifted to hospital, spending a week intensive care, months in hospital and stillhaving procedures (latest yesterday) to sort problems out.
RTB wrote:
Fair enough, I accept it was a poor choice of words on my part and wasn’t intended to belittle what you’ve been through, but I’m still interested in your answer to the question posed.
Does your no doubt honestly held belief that wearing a helmet saved you from a worse fate mean that you recommend helmet wearing to people who are more likely to suffer a head injury than a cyclist?
RTB wrote:
Beautifully swerved, managed to not answer the question like a pro. Are you a politician ?
I wear a helmet, have done
I wear a helmet, have done every time I have been on my bike since 92, apart from a couple of weeks in 93 when I returned a Specialized one under crash replacement. Feels weird not to now.
It has stopped me getting a nasty bump on the head on several occasions, but nothing more, maybe an abrasion or two.
I would never, ever dare condemn anyone for their choices whether to wear or not a helmet, it is purely their own personal choice. If the claims made by some for their magical safety prowess could be proved, you might think that some significant statistical proof might emerge from the data, yet I, someone who has worn one longer than most, could possibly have seen some evidence of this.
Maybe your life was saved by a thin bit of polystyrene, RTB, but until they do a crash test of a head being hit at 50mph by a motor vehicle with the impact being lowered to under 250g, then I will consider that you stick out like a circumcision on display and draw as much respectful disdain as you deserve.
I will tell you someone whose life was definitely saved by the wearing of a helmet and that us Filepe Massa, but that would mean car helmets for all wouldn’t it.
Oh, and Cracknell is a hypocrite.
ktache wrote:
Young Henry Surtees (john Surtees son) was killed 6 days previously despite wearing a helmet when a wheel struck him killing him instantly, Dan Wheldon was killed when he was struck on the head, Jules Bianchi died when struck on the head, the protective nature of motor-racing helmets, even the very latest ones are not as good as you think.
People saying that the new Halo system would prevented these incidents is yet more speculation, part of the reason why competition/sports participants push more is in part due to the very things that are invented/trying to protect them and the outcomes from that further pushing outweigh the protection offered.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
He was “struck on the head” by an earth-moving machine and was subject to an impact of 250G.
I am in agreement with your position on cycle helmet compulsion, but motorsport helmets (and the HANS devices that are attached to them) definitely do save lives (Felipe Massa, Martin Brundle, Fernando Alonso, Robert Kubica, I could go on). Bringing motorsport into the cycling helmet debate is stupid.
I’m a member of several road
I’m a member of several road cycling clubs, we ride hundreds of miles every week year in year out, stopping regulary at popular cyclist coffee stops, so I see a lot of road cyclists (and more than a few mountain bikers) and from this limited observation almost every single one wears a helmet.
They’ve all decided that they will wear this non-compulsory device yet I dare say most don’t kid themselves that it will save them if they are unfortunate enough to be involved in serious accident but they have decided that it may lessen the damage in a less serious incident.
The anti helment brigade have unwisely rejected any chance of themselves being involved in less serious accidents.
What we are observing is Darwinism whereby those who make poor choices will gradually be removed from the gene pool.
It is pointless engaging with them.
bikeman01 wrote:
You might like to look up “observation bias”.
Since all the reliable data shows that cycle helmets don’t reduce the risks of cycling, I fail to see where Darwin could possibly be applied. Fools and their money being soon parted however, is immediately relevant. Try cyclehelmets.org for a few facts. Or that cyclist who makes such poor choices Chris Boardman https://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe
But what would he know?
bikeman01 wrote:
What we are observing is Darwinism whereby those who make poor choices will gradually be removed from the gene pool.
— bikeman01More helmet shaming and name-calling.
Is that the best you can do? Pathetic.
By mentioning Darwinism are you talking about your own inability to be objective and rational when boring things like facts are presented and instead rely on your own experience?
Do you wear a helmet when walking down a flight of stairs or working on a ladder? Do your kids wear them to climb trees or on play equipment? If the answer is no then, if we judge you by your own measures, you are a selfish, arrogant A&E statistic waiting to happen and deserve to die. [I don’t believe that, I am merely illustrating your own method]
Those of us disagreeing with you are against compulsion and have no desire to call you names because you choose to wear a helmet when cycling.
Perhaps you and RTB (if you are not the same individual) can get your own little room somewhere and stick pins in dolls of people cycling helmetless instead of trolling what was a fairly reasonable discussion.
Simon E wrote:
Eh? Where was that then? Does such a thing even exist where helmets are involved?
bikeman01 wrote:
What the fuck is this shit?
Has it occurred to you that you’re describing a scenario very similar to one where helmets are mandated. And we know what happens when helmets are mandated, don’t we. Because we have EVIDENCE. People stop riding bikes.
This is what’s routinely missed by evangelists like you. There is a wider point about cycling and society that will continue to bounce off your head.
Me, I ride with my comfort blanket. I haven’t had a spill since I started doing that, so my comfort blanket stops collisions. 100%.
Helmut D. Bate wrote:
This is what’s routinely missed by evangelists like you. There is a wider point about cycling and society that will continue to bounce off your head.— Helmut D. BatePeople like bikeman01 don’t give a shit about everyday cycling, about population level stats or about health and the other factors related to this topic.
They memorise their copy of the Rules, they unthinkingly absorb and repeat the code passed on by the in-group they wish to belong to; and, because they’re invariably insecure, they use whatever means they have to assert their status. That invariably means dismissing or badmouthing people whose views, appearance, values or conduct don’t fit in with the ones they have taken on.
I have seen it all my life and I have no time for it. I may occasionally unwittingly succumb to similar behaviour, and believe me I chastise myself when I realise I have because it’s just so shit.
I don’t care how many fucking miles he rides (and it’s always blokes), how much his bike cost or whatever other pathetic method he uses to raise his self-worth, it just makes me more determined to not be browbeaten by that kind of condescending bullshit.
bikeman01 wrote:
Bollocks. I wear a helmet while commuting because it means the “but he wasn’t wearing a lid” excuse won’t be available in court should the worst happen. I’m fully aware that it’s a chocolate teapot.
srchar wrote:
There has been a single case where not wearing a helmet was found to be contributory negligence, in very peculiar circumstances, and it didn’t make case law. Drivers’ insurance companies will try to claim that not wearing a helmet was contributory negligence, and try to reduce the payout accordingly, but they always withdraw this if you stand up to them. Some people will accept this, which is why they try it, but don’t be fooled.
So no need to worry about it being brought up in court; it won’t be.
burtthebike wrote:
They don’t always withdraw the contributary negligent bit.
Take a look at Bethany Probert -v- Churchill Insurance.
I doubt anyone who reads that would consider buying from Churchill.
atgni wrote:
There has been a single case where not wearing a helmet was found to be contributory negligence, in very peculiar circumstances, and it didn’t make case law. Drivers’ insurance companies will try to claim that not wearing a helmet was contributory negligence, and try to reduce the payout accordingly, but they always withdraw this if you stand up to them. Some people will accept this, which is why they try it, but don’t be fooled.
So no need to worry about it being brought up in court; it won’t be.
— atgni They don’t always withdraw the contributary negligent bit. Take a look at Bethany Probert -v- Churchill Insurance. I doubt anyone who reads that would consider buying from Churchill.— burtthebike
She was walking and the sole grounds for Churchill trying to claim contributory negligence was the lack of hi-viz. Nothing whatsoever to do with cycle helmets, so totally irrelevant I’m afraid, and my point that insurance companies will drop the contributory negligence claim about helmets still stands.
bikeman01 wrote:
This is the sort of self-praising, illogical, and just plain stupid drivel that helmet-obsessives come out with, which is what makes me rant against helmets _even though I wear one_ (when cycling…most of the time).
When I started cycling I had two opinionated cyclist friends, one a generally ultra-risk-averse chap, who explained I had to get a helmet, and another (a woman, perhaps significantly) who went into angry lectures against them. Not knowing anything about it I felt caught between the two of them. Since then it’s more than anything the pro-helmet lobby that has made me realise where the second was coming from.
I think it’s less ‘helmets’ I object to, maybe not _even_ compulsory helmet laws (enraging though those are), but the flaws in human nature that the helmet pushers illustrate.
Yup, I agree with what Fluffy
Yup, I agree with what Fluffy just posted.
I always wear a helmet on my bike (otherwise my wife gets anxious), but I don’t have much faith in it though I’m open-minded about how effective helmets are – show me some convincing stats and I’m more than happy to change my mind about them.
The issue is that the most vocal helmet advocates just go with emotional ploys and I just don’t find that convincing at all. If they really are that effective, then it should be easy to demonstrate that with a solid statistical analysis. However despite countless studies, the data is marginal at best and at worst shows that the anti-cycling effect of helmets is more powerful than their protective effect.
What bugs me the most is the people who call others “stupid” for not wearing a helmet even when the rider may have spent a lot of time studying the myriad effects of helmets. It’s just lazy thinking that doesn’t contribute anything.
BTBS has stretched this a new
BTBS has stretched this a new level. Have you actually seen the Dan Wheldon crash? Pretty hard not to strike your head when you’ve just disintergrated at 230 mph.
I’ve been watching motorsport and involved with it at some point for 35+years and have seen a lot of people die on TV and sadly at events I’ve attended. Righting stuff off like Bianchi as ‘struck on the head’ as if he tapped a tyre wall or something is disrespectful. You forgot to stick Schumacher in there. Struck on the head. Helmet didn’t do him any good.
Motorsport is all about pushing the envelope of corner speeds and braking limits. Accidents are inevitable at some point. The same should not be said of cycling, professional cycling, maybe but everyday cycling not really. I don’t know how you can try and make some point about people who died in motorsport wearing helmets in what you think was a futile manner. Maybe a return to the polo shirt and goggles of the Fangio era is in order?
Myself, I wear a helmet when I feel like it. If I ‘had’ to wear one it wouldn’t be the end of world but since I’m a rebel I’d possibly not wear one just to get involved in a low speed police chase with the police having to put their forks on lock just to keep up.
Rick_Rude wrote:
I haven’t “stretched” anything, all the ones I mentioned who died were struck on the head or collided with something that meant the head hit something, there are many more BTW. ALL of them were wearing modern helmets. There is as elsewhere a belief that wearers are virtually invincible when the facts as shown in the testing how little they are able to withstand comparative to the high forces (due to the very high speeds) involved. Or maybe as a long time motorsport viewer you haven’t accepted that sometimes helmet wearers still die when blows to the head occur?
Maybe all motorsport should be closed cockpit, thus making the drivers take even more risks
2018
2018
Greg Hodnett – death by multiple blunt force trauma, helmet did not save him
Jim Victor, Jason Johnson, Jeff Green, Bill Egleston, 8 year old Anita Board, Dave Steel all multiple (incl head) blunt force trauma deaths, Brian Clauson (specifically defined as traumatic Brain injury) and so on, there are many just in professional motorsport alone.
ALL wearing modern motorsport helmets, ALL died of serious blunt force trauma to the head and other parts of the body or had traumatic brain injury specified as cause of death. So again, how am I stretching matters by mentioning these deaths with respect to how people make false presumptions as to how helmets protect and even with HANS devices, best in the world crash cells/protection systems some do not survive.
It was not BTBS who bought
It was not BTBS who bought the topic of motor sports into this thread, it was me and I was very specific in my choice of Filepe Massa, who was, I believe, very much saved by his helmet.
And it was an attempt at the ridiculous proposition that if it had saved him it should mean driving helmets for all.
I apologise.