James Cracknell urges cyclists to wear helmets after being photographed riding without one

Tinbob49 wrote:

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.

Hope you have lights FIXED to your bike as well!

KINGHORN wrote:

Tinbob49 wrote:

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.

Hope you have lights FIXED to your bike as well!

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...

AMcCulloch wrote:

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 .

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:

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 .

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.

Chris Hayes wrote:

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  

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.

billymansell wrote:

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.

individuals don’t evolve, species do.

ConcordeCX wrote:

billymansell wrote:

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.

individuals don’t evolve, species do.

 

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:

ConcordeCX wrote:

billymansell wrote:

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.

individuals don’t evolve, species do.

 

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?

a prime example of equivocation.

ConcordeCX wrote:

billymansell wrote:

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.

individuals don’t evolve, species do.

 

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.

BBB wrote:

What is so f****** special about cyclists?

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:

BBB wrote:

What is so f****** special about cyclists?

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. 

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:

yeah, you know jack shit sonshine. (sic)

I suggest you get your blood pressure checked, but then again, I'm not a doctor.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Organon wrote:

BBB wrote:

What is so f****** special about cyclists?

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. 

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.

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:

Like I've told you before helmets do save lives period.  No ifs, buts, maybes, they do.

Got any proof of your assertion?  For the avoidance of doubt, anecdote is not proof.

burtthebike wrote:

RTB wrote:

Like I've told you before helmets do save lives period.  No ifs, buts, maybes, they do.

Got any proof of your assertion?  For the avoidance of doubt, anecdote is not proof.

Yes me.  Do keep up.  [Anecdote definition - interesting story about a real incident or person.].  QED.

RTB wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

RTB wrote:

Like I've told you before helmets do save lives period.  No ifs, buts, maybes, they do.

Got any proof of your assertion?  For the avoidance of doubt, anecdote is not proof.

Yes me.  Do keep up.  [Anecdote definition - interesting story about a real incident or person.].  QED.

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:

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.

The 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/e67d4b8aac0c709c5801ce466bdcd...

Simon E wrote:

RTB wrote:

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.

The 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/e67d4b8aac0c709c5801ce466bdcd...

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:

The helmet saved me in my case.  It may not fit what you and some "ultras" want to hear but it did.

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.

RTB wrote:

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.

I'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:

Organon wrote:

BBB wrote:

What is so f****** special about cyclists?

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. 

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?

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:

And Cracknell's injury could be the perfect example of where a helmet did actually make the difference and save a live.

No. 

I'd go into detail, but I'm sure you don't want to know.

BBB wrote:

What is so f****** special about cyclists?

Everything.