Helmet safety has never been so fun...reaction to Road Safety Council's Viking comedy worthy of Netflix; Prince of Wheels; Laura Kenny hitches a cargo bike lift; Buzz Bikeyear; Van Aert's costly day in court; 24 rainbow jerseys + more on the live blog

eburtthebike wrote:

Very impressed with the educated readers of road.cc, demolishing so completely the ridiculous message behind the viking helmet promotion movie.  I first saw it yesterday and commented on the website along the lines of most of the comments here, and was immediately banned.  This is the fb post I put up:

"Wow! I knew helmet zealots were firmly fixed in their views and refused to see any alternatives, but I've just been suspended from a web group because I disagreed with one. Must be so tough when you can't argue your case and just ban anyone who doesn't agree with you.

"Account suspended until 9 June 3021: Helmets save lives. I'm sorry this disagrees with your reality."  BBS.BOINGBOING.NET

Not sure I'll be around in 3021 when the ban ends.
 

Yeah, I think that was a reasonable response to your post.

eburtthebike wrote:

Not sure I'll be around in 3021 when the ban ends.

would wearing a helmet increase the odds? 

Maybe their trainer is outside on the patio?

brooksby wrote:

Maybe their trainer is outside on the patio?

do the doors have long handles......?

I think we ought to know.....

They didn't have full-colour, video photography 'back then' either. 

Should I have written it in capitals ?

Hint: DOOR

I think the concept of Englaland or land of the Angles dates back to Alfred the Great although a unified England probably post dates the heyday of most Danish raiding. 

I'll get my coat.....

sparrowlegs wrote:

As funny as the vid is (and I thought it was hilarious) it reminds me of one of the last scenes in Blackadder Goes Forth where Lt George says he wouldn't want to face the German's machine guns without his stick. Wearing a helmet does very little if your'e hit by some prick in a car. It might if you fall off by your own hand but all this does is allow the "higher ups" to walk away satisfied that if a cyclist is in an accident (whatever accident that may be) and isn't wearing a helmet then it's their own fault.

It was funny though.

 

Spot on with the analogy, and you're exactly right with the intent of these campaigns

I kind of agree with the funny, but only if taken out of context of its intent. 

A helmet can do quite a lot if you are hit by some prick in a car, actually.

SaintClarence27 wrote:

A helmet can do quite a lot if you are hit by some prick in a car, actually.

 it can prevent

lots of tut tutting from the medical professionals 

reduction of compensation payout due to contributory negligence 

does that qualify as 'lots'

wycombewheeler wrote:

SaintClarence27 wrote:

A helmet can do quite a lot if you are hit by some prick in a car, actually.

 it can prevent

lots of tut tutting from the medical professionals 

reduction of compensation payout due to contributory negligence 

does that qualify as 'lots'

There has been a single case in the UK of reduced compensation because of failure to wear a helmet, in unique circumstances and it doesn't set a precedent.  Car insurance companies will often try to reduce compensation because of no helmet, but as far as I know, these are always withdrawn if challenged.

eburtthebike wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

SaintClarence27 wrote:

A helmet can do quite a lot if you are hit by some prick in a car, actually.

 it can prevent

lots of tut tutting from the medical professionals 

reduction of compensation payout due to contributory negligence 

does that qualify as 'lots'

There has been a single case in the UK of reduced compensation because of failure to wear a helmet, in unique circumstances and it doesn't set a precedent.  Car insurance companies will often try to reduce compensation because of no helmet, but as far as I know, these are always withdrawn if challenged.

It's standard common law that they have to take the victim as they find them.  It's in every England-based legal system.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull

eburtthebike wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

SaintClarence27 wrote:

A helmet can do quite a lot if you are hit by some prick in a car, actually.

 it can prevent

lots of tut tutting from the medical professionals 

reduction of compensation payout due to contributory negligence 

does that qualify as 'lots'

There has been a single case in the UK of reduced compensation because of failure to wear a helmet, in unique circumstances and it doesn't set a precedent.  Car insurance companies will often try to reduce compensation because of no helmet, but as far as I know, these are always withdrawn if challenged.

This is simplistic. Most compensation claims never go to court, but are negotiated with the insurance company. Do you mean that the insurance companies categorically do not ever reduce payout when a victim was not wearing a lid?

Or do you mean that it has only once been upheld when challenged in court?

There is a vast difference between the two.

Of course, then there are the cases where a claimant takes their case to court independently. Again are you saying that presence or absence of a lid is not taken into account when calculating compensation?

Captain Badger wrote:

There has been a single case in the UK of reduced compensation because of failure to wear a helmet, in unique circumstances and it doesn't set a precedent.  Car insurance companies will often try to reduce compensation because of no helmet, but as far as I know, these are always withdrawn if challenged.

[/quote]

This is simplistic. Most compensation claims never go to court, but are negotiated with the insurance company. Do you mean that the insurance companies categorically do not ever reduce payout when a victim was not wearing a lid?

Or do you mean that it has only once been upheld when challenged in court?

[/quote]

The info I recall from solicitors who deal with this kind of thing says the insurance companies will routinely deduct a percentage for lack of helmet, and that it is always withdrawn if challenged, sometimes at the doors of the court.  The insurance companies don't want it to go to court because they know their deduction will fail, and that really would set a precedent, and they wouldn't be able to claim it in future.

As far as I know, there has only ever been that one court case, in unique circumstances, and if a normal case went to court and the insurance company lost, which is pretty certain, they wouldn't be able to browbeat the ignorant into a reduced settlement.

eburtthebike wrote:

.......

The info I recall from solicitors who deal with this kind of thing says the insurance companies will routinely deduct a percentage for lack of helmet, and that it is always withdrawn if challenged, sometimes at the doors of the court.  The insurance companies don't want it to go to court because they know their deduction will fail, and that really would set a precedent, and they wouldn't be able to claim it in future.

As far as I know, there has only ever been that one court case, in unique circumstances, and if a normal case went to court and the insurance company lost, which is pretty certain, they wouldn't be able to browbeat the ignorant into a reduced settlement.

Sorry Eburt, my challenge was meant to be directed at Saint - but thanks for your extra data, pretty much confirms what I suspeceted

That's the second time I've replied to you meaning to reply to someone else. I blame Raod.cc....

Captain Badger wrote:

Sorry Eburt, my challenge was meant to be directed at Saint - but thanks for your extra data, pretty much confirms what I suspeceted

That's the second time I've replied to you meaning to reply to someone else. I blame Raod.cc....

Are you a Guradian reader perhchance?

eburtthebike wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

Sorry Eburt, my challenge was meant to be directed at Saint - but thanks for your extra data, pretty much confirms what I suspeceted

That's the second time I've replied to you meaning to reply to someone else. I blame Raod.cc....

Are you a Guradian reader perhchance?

Giulty

Captain Badger wrote:

Don't tell me to wear a helmet

Just don't hit me...

This facking idea that I'm fine with negligent or murderous wankers hitting me with their cars, cos I've got a bit of polystyrene on my head.

FFS

I think you are the only one coming up with the idea that you are "fine with negligent or murderous wankers hitting me with their cars, cos I've got a bit of polystyrene on my head." No one else was saying that.  That's just an excuse because you don't want to wear a helmet.  Don't pretend otherwise.

SaintClarence27 wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

Don't tell me to wear a helmet

Just don't hit me...

This facking idea that I'm fine with negligent or murderous wankers hitting me with their cars, cos I've got a bit of polystyrene on my head.

FFS

I think you are the only one coming up with the idea that you are "fine with negligent or murderous wankers hitting me with their cars, cos I've got a bit of polystyrene on my head." No one else was saying that.  That's just an excuse because you don't want to wear a helmet.  Don't pretend otherwise.

Unfortunately not Saint, if only. Have been told "don't know what you're worried about, you're wearing a helmet" on more than one occasion.

I'm ambivalent about wearing one as it happens - it's really useful for protecting the bonce from branches. It also helps protect from cycnical insurance companies in reducing their payouts - luckily I haven't had to put that to the test yet, but I doubt they'll catch me out.

Also somewhere useful to perch the GoPro....

No, my dislike of this shit is that it is victim-blaming and diversionary, and distracts from the only real way of reducing injuries, and that is by reducing collisions. Concentraing on PPE (of dubious efficacy) is a big statement that the present collision rate is acceptable, and/or impossible to tackle.

SaintClarence27 wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

Don't tell me to wear a helmet

Just don't hit me...

This facking idea that I'm fine with negligent or murderous wankers hitting me with their cars, cos I've got a bit of polystyrene on my head.

FFS

I think you are the only one coming up with the idea that you are "fine with negligent or murderous wankers hitting me with their cars, cos I've got a bit of polystyrene on my head." No one else was saying that.  That's just an excuse because you don't want to wear a helmet.  Don't pretend otherwise.

I totally agree with the sentiment of Captain Badger's comment and I do wear a helmet. 

What is wrong with the message is that it puts the onus onto cyclists to protect themselves (not that a helmet will offer much protection if you get hit by 2 tonnes of metal travelling at anything above walking pace). I don't think that most cyclists need to be told that. As cycoists are vulnerable road users the onus needs to be put on other road users to not endanger cyclists by dangerous driving. That is the message that should be promoted. 

But they only think you need one in England (or Northumbria/Anglia/Mercia/Wessex as was for Hirsute's benefit*). I suspect they'd come in handy for raids on Hibernia and Alba too, having ridden in both)

(*Other ancient kingdoms of Britain are available.)

There isn't enough Anglo-Saxon history on road.cc for my liking.

Would the Venerable Bede have been in favour of disc brakes? Would King Edwin of Northumbria have been a supporter of the extension to York's 'footstreets' area, or opposed?

Big questions, few answers.

I've learnt all my anglo saxon history from reading the last kingdom novels.