"I had cyclists telling me I was a disgrace for saying my helmet saved my life": Dan Walker recalls helmet backlash after being knocked off bike by driver

So the MAIN thing people (including the writer of this story) has taken from this is the helmet debate.  NOT the motorists saying they would have finished him off???

Of course! Haven't they been repeatedly told by those great organs of truth and the state, Telegraph and Mail, that cyclists are the worst people in the world and that their columnists would like to kill them all

Which is exactly what the linked feature article was a very long-winded explanation of;
A helmet may well reduce harm in a collision, and it's perfectly reasonable to be thankful of making a choice to wear one.
BUT it should not be detracting from the conversation of why motorists keep colliding with cyclists, and what can be done to stop the collisions happening in the first place

They're vile idiots. What is to be gained by thinking about them? And what is to be gained by thinking about other idiots squabbling on sushul meejah?

Seriously? I swear we live in an age where people are expected to somehow give a completely accurate and objective view on events that are subjective and somehow manage to please everyone. 

I would very much be focussing on the thing that might have saved my life after I had a nasty off. I wouldn't be overly concerned about the big picture or the politics of either side. 

Far too many people will pick at anything they can even if the person they are picking at has good intentions and is on their side. The police get this too if they dare suggest that cyclists can help themselves in any road safety matter. Yes it would be lovely if telling drivers to stop being utter twats around us worked but it largely doesn't so anything I can do to protect or save myself from serious harm is a good thing. I don't care what the world should look like, I care how the world is. 

I will happily support a move towards a better world but I'm not going to wilfully put myself in harms way while we get there to prove a point. 

.

Very well put, mate. Ta.

.

Thank god for a sane and rational comment on this one. The militant anti-helmet brigade do my head in (pun intended).

Ah the MAHB. They cause chaos round here - chaining themselves to railings, disrupting traffic, terrorising old ladies. They are all paid up members of the Cycling Mafia don't you know. Or the Evil Cycling Lobby. Or both.

perce wrote:

Ah the MAHB. They cause chaos round here - chaining themselves to railings, disrupting traffic, terrorising old ladies. They are all paid up members of the Cycling Mafia don't you know. Or the Evil Cycling Lobby. Or both.

Damn, I didn't know you could be in both.  Application form in the post.

mctrials23 wrote:

I don't care what the world should look like, I care how the world is.

And yet, what was the trajectory of his comment praising PPE, if not to change how the world is (too few cyclists wearing helmets) to how it should look (all cyclists wearing helmets)?

Perhaps you meant that we should change the things we can (personal decision to wear a helmet) rather than wasting time wishing the world was different? That would make sense.

But as soon as you fly the PPE message on a blog it becomes the opposite, it becomes a wish to change the world. At that point, it's no surprise if people take issue and argue that whilst we're wishing for a better world that would be drivers not hitting cyclists rather than cyclists defending themselves against being hit.

No excuse for the ad-hominems of course.

What 'well informed critiques'? The so called experts on here? 

Give me a break; nothing wrong with wearing a helmet, and people need to stop losing their minds when people advise people to wear one.....

In this particular case there's no reason to think the woman hit him because he was wearing a helmet, and pretty good reason to think if he'd had the same experience, but wihtout a helmet, he may have died or experienced a severe and permanent brain injury. The 'stop victim blaming' lot seem quite keen on blaming the victim when it suits them.

That doesn't undo all of the other issues of cycling safety, and Dan's injuries were nasty, in spite of the helmet. Dan was perhaps overly generous by not wishing to press charges, but he presumably knows more about the person and if he thinks she's genuinely sorry and learnt her lesson then I'm not going to argue with him. Presumably she was breathalised etc.

It's worth noting that if there was a possibility of a criminal case then Dan going public to blame the driver could have landed him in trouble and resulted in her getting off.  That said, there was no excuse for the 'colliding with a car'  reporting when there was plenty of evidence it was the other way around.

FionaJJ wrote:

Dan was perhaps overly generous by not wishing to press charges, but he presumably knows more about the person and if he thinks she's genuinely sorry and learnt her lesson then I'm not going to argue with him. Presumably she was breathalised etc.

I'm always torn on this point. We will never change drivers attitudes towards endangering others if we normalise bad driving and say "don't worry, you didn't mean to". I think that most people who endanger cyclists don't intentionally do it. They just don't even think about it. They get past a cyclist and thats that. Had an argument with a guy who couldn't fathom why I had an issue with his overtake (<30cm from my bars) because "I didn't hit you". He thought there was nothing wrong there. 

He might even have said sorry and been genuinely sorry if he did hit me. Doesn't change the fact his driving is fundamentally dangerous and we need to stop accepting bad driving, inattentive driving and criminally dangerous driving as a fact of life. 

I'm torn too. 

I'm generally a forgive and forget kind of person, and I think the world would be a better place if we held fewer grudges etc. I suspect Dan didn't feel any need for personal revenge, or to shame the lady in question. This particular case making national news would be a factor too.

BUT, I agree that the prevailing attitude of too many drivers is that they don't take enough care, with some very reckless driving socially acceptable. In that respect, I support the police taking more action in the hope it will eventually improve collective driving standards.

My point really was that I don't like the way Dan is being harassed for wanting to move on. He was the victim, and he knows far more about this incident than myself or the internet commentators. And was already being abused by the anti-cycling lobby for being on his bike in the first place. Although as someone else says, the police could have taken action regardless of his personal views. I'd imagine a careless driving charge would be easy enough to prove and the onus shouldn't have been on him.

We don't have pressing charges in UK law. Police and cps can bring a prosecution without the victim being involved as they can use other evidence.

And yet it does seem that in some cases the police leave it to the discretion of the victim - a sort of "we wouldn't trouble our crime stats for this, but do you want to push it?" Happened to my sister who was presumably in shock at the time, on her way to hospital with broken bones after being hit by a cyclist.  

How would Dan Walker et al explain this from 20th Feb:

A lorry driver was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving in relation to a "highly dangerous manoeuvre" that resulted in the death of cyclist Dr Krawiec who was wearing brightly coloured clothes and a helmet.

Did the cyclist die of head injuries or from other catastrophic damage?

It was just to highlight survival bias, as cycle helmets aren't designed to protect one from being hit, just a fall to the ground from cycling height.

So ... that's a "died from catastrophic injuries" then.

Depending on the type of truck (I suspect an N3G off road spec?)  the victim will go under the front (a gap of at least 40 cm) and go under 1 or more 9 Ton axles. You need to be incredibly lucky to survive going under a wheel on a 9 Ton axle

A V Lowe wrote:

Depending on the type of truck (I suspect an N3G off road spec?)  the victim will go under the front (a gap of at least 40 cm) and go under 1 or more 9 Ton axles. You need to be incredibly lucky to survive going under a wheel on a 9 Ton axle

Yup. The only helmets that are designed to survive that are top spec motorbike crash helmets.

Why? Has he argued that wearing a hemet will stop a lorry from running you over or that it will save you if you get run over by a lorry? Or are just being a little bit silly?

I have used that cross roads on regular journeys from Euston to Waterloo, and investigated several fatal RTC in the area
I have also had an identical move made by a truck driver to that which killed Dr Krawiec but a few years earlier
There were 2 identical fatal RTC in 5 years where drivers of large vehicles turned left from Vernon Place into Southampton Row, but despite only 2% of motor vehicles turneing left here it took a further 5 years to get left turns banned (and even then the sign is hardly visible)
The lane markings for every lane approaching the cross roads are barely 3 metres wide, but DfT's own standards say that a 3.25 metre DKE is required for a bus or HGV travelling at 30mph
Heading South on Southampton Row there were 3 lanes marked at the junction, squeezed in after splitting up the 2 lanes coming down from Tavistock Square. Although the corener radius was ample for an HGV driver to turn from the left hand lane, many straddled or approached in the centre lane to turn left, and I had this with a 2-axle box van (7.5-18T HGV) as the driver came alongside and tried to turn left. I punched the nearside door & window, and strong words were exchanged, as I stopped him making the left turn
Finally (and a lot faster than for Vernon Place) the left turn lane has been made wider and the centre lane eliminated, which should be deliverd by the mandatory duty on Camden Council spelled out by Section 39 RTA1988 - to investigate RTC and take action to eliminate the hazards found
Let's hope the Coroner at the inquest for Dr Krawiec calls for a Rule 28 report to confirm that actions have been taken to remove the embedded hazard here

I love my bike wrote:

How would Dan Walker et al explain this from 20th Feb:

A lorry driver was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving in relation to a "highly dangerous manoeuvre" that resulted in the death of cyclist Dr Krawiec who was wearing brightly coloured clothes and a helmet.

Even this gets my gut, as it somehow implies that had she not worn the shit there'd have been some excuse for him....

I love my bike wrote:

How would Dan Walker et al explain this from 20th Feb:

A lorry driver was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving in relation to a "highly dangerous manoeuvre" that resulted in the death of cyclist Dr Krawiec who was wearing brightly coloured clothes and a helmet.

Wouldn't want to press charges, we all make mistakes, don't we.

I love my bike wrote:

How would Dan Walker et al explain this from 20th Feb:

A lorry driver was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving in relation to a "highly dangerous manoeuvre" that resulted in the death of cyclist Dr Krawiec who was wearing brightly coloured clothes and a helmet.

Because we all remember the safety Nazis claiming that a helmet and hiviz will save your life if a lorry runs over your torso, don't we? Trying to co-opt the tragic death of Dr Krawiec in such an irrelevant fashion to support your argument is in extremely poor taste, to say the least.

Wearing a helmet did not prevent the TBI I received.

What it did do, was stop the TBI from being far greater than it was and causing more than the small amount of cognitive damage I suffer as a result.

To that extent - the extent that I am in reasonable control of my faculties, still able to work and not in a catatonic or near catatonic state - my helmet saved my life.

And so did the paramedic giving me CPR for the 6 times my heart stopped.

Oldfatgit wrote:

Wearing a helmet did not prevent the TBI I received. What it did do, was stop the TBI from being far greater than it was and causing more than the small amount of cognitive damage I suffer as a result. To that extent - the extent that I am in reasonable control of my faculties, still able to work and not in a catatonic or near catatonic state - my helmet saved my life. And so did the paramedic giving me CPR for the 6 times my heart stopped.

You may find this research quite interesting then. It's about the only real data on this contentious subject, done by actual experts on trauma and death. 

The big issue is that the helmets won't prevent harm denialists like to use an irrelevant example of where a helmet didn't save someone to claim that helmets are pointless. Well of course a helmet won't save you if your torso is crushed, but if the cause of death is a TBI, then that's where the reseach above clearly shows it can be the differnce between life and death, or in lesser impacts the difference between a hospital visit and finishing ride before going to shops to buy a new helmet.