A taxi driver has been sentenced to two years in prison, suspended for two years, following a collision which left a cyclist with a devastating and life-changing brain injury.
23-year-old Mohammed Israar pleaded guilty to causing serious injury by dangerous driving at Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court earlier this week, 16 months after cutting across and colliding with a cyclist on a roundabout on the Lightwood Road in Longton.
Israar, a taxi driver who was off duty at the time of the collision, was also banned from driving for three years and must complete a rehabilitation activity for 15 days along with 150 hours of unpaid work, Stoke-on-Trent Live reports.
On 16 July 2021 Israar entered the roundabout on the Lightwood Road in the right-hand lane, despite intending to turn left.
“The cyclist was in the correct left-hand lane and intended to go straight on,” prosecutor Jonathan Dickinson told the court.
“However, the defendant cut across him to turn left and the back of his car hit the cyclist and knocked him off. The defendant stopped after realising he had struck the cyclist.”
> Community sentence for van driver convicted of killing cyclist
According to Dickinson, the cyclist suffered memory loss in the collision and can only remember waking up with a head injury four days later in hospital, where he remained for two weeks. A CT scan revealed that he had suffered a skull fracture and bleeding of the brain.
In two victim statements, the cyclist, a former addict, revealed that he had managed to steer his life back on track before the incident but that the effects of the crash had been “catastrophic”. He said that eating is now an inconvenience, he can so longer smell or taste food, he has problems with his eyesight, short-term memory, and processing information, and that he has experienced a range of cognitive issues.
He told the court that he has since relapsed and is currently struggling to fight his addiction due to the brain injury suffered in July last year. The cyclist added that the aftermath of the collision will affect him and his family for years to come.
Mitigating, Ekwall Tiwana argued that taxi driver Israar – who said he is “very sorry” for what had happened – had a clean driving record, no previous convictions, and that his driving on the day of the crash was “an impulsive, reckless decision”.
“The doctor who examined the injuries stated the injuries would have been significantly mitigated if the cyclist was wearing a helmet,” Tiwana added.
> Drink driver who ploughed into cyclist with friend riding on bonnet jailed for 14 months
Reader Amy Jacobs concluded: “As you approached the roundabout you were in the right-hand lane. The cyclist was to your left. You cut across him, knocking the bike from underneath him causing his head to hit the road.
“This was committed in a few seconds. He sustained a brain injury. It was life-changing for him. He had a fracture to his skull and a bleed in the brain. He was kept in hospital for two weeks.
“You were in the wrong lane. Despite knowing he was in the inside lane you decided to turn across him. In my judgement, you thought he was turning left, and you were taken by surprise when he did not.
“It is aggravated by the fact it was a cyclist. They are vulnerable road users and you have a duty to take extra care in respect of them. He was not doing anything wrong. You were the one who cut across him.
“In my view no prison sentence is going to seem long enough to him and his family. It seems that this was a short lapse in an otherwise unblemished driving history. You are working to improve your life.”
Along with his suspended sentence and driving ban, Israar was ordered to pay £400 in costs.
115 thoughts on ““Reckless” taxi driver who left cyclist with life-changing brain injury avoids jail”
““The doctor who examined the
““The doctor who examined the injuries stated the injuries would have been significantly mitigated if the cyclist was wearing a helmet,” Tiwana added.”
Sick of this victim blaming BS. Would this have been said if the driver had knocked over a pedestrian? Of course not.
The injuries would have been entirely mitigated if this “professional driver” had tried driving with some consideration for other road users.
Seems like merely a statement
Seems like merely a statement of fact to me. There are some accidents where a helmet helps (or would have helped, such as this) and others where a helmet would/does make no difference. It’s not like the doctor said “the cyclist should have been wearing a helmet”, or “the victim deserves their head injury” is it.
I’m not an advocate for making helmets mandatory or even saying that cyclists should be wearing them.
But don’t pretend that they serve no purpose, or that there aren’t accidents where they mitigate the outcome
The point is there is zero
The point is there is zero evidence for the doctors statement (which is anecdotal anyway since it was in the defence’s mitigation plea).
It unlikely 99.9% of doctors could state for certain a helmet protects from a given injury unless they are actually involved in designing and testing helmets.
So it’s basically double BS.
I’m not going to guess
I’m not going to guess whether a doctor really did say that (or whether it was just made up), but the article only mentions that the defence made that statement, and has no detail on any challenge, so I presume that it was factual and unchallenged.
And I’m not going to guess whether the doctor was right or wrong in saying that a helmet would have helped, as I’m neither a doctor nor informed about the specifics about the head injury, but I find it very interesting you’d outright say “there is zero evidence for the doctors statement”. Do you think that there are no situations and no head injuries where a helmet would help?
A doctor might know about
A doctor might know about head injuries but we can’t guarantee they know anything about bicycle helmets.
Indeed. I think
Indeed. I think ShutTheFrontDawes is fair to say “if you don’t have more evidence this is speculation” but you’re correct too – it’s not a given that a particular doctor (or even many) will have that knowledge. It may just be they know “helmets protect” and here are some survivable head injuries, so therefore helmet it better, right?
And since doctors have to deal with the end result they tend to be focussed on things which might have ameliorated the injuries (PPE like helmets) rather than preventing the collision entirely (properly designed infra) or making it much less likely (improved driving standards, policing, better licencing for professional drivers etc.) or even mitigating in other ways (lower speed limits with street design that is self-enforcing).
And some (former) doctors are just as full of it as the average tabloid columnist.
Not really the point
Not really the point
In what other criminal trials would PPE be discussed? And why/how ?
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
I think that there are situations where helmets might help and there are situations where helmets might make the situation worse and that nobody knows with certainty which are which without extensive independent testing. If you are going ot make a statement on helmet effectivity you should have independent testing to back it up or expect it to be challenged.
Backladder wrote:
Firstly, I didn’t make a statement about the effectivity of helmets, a doctor did, and I merely said it seems like a statement of fact.
Secondly, I have shared a few studies already but they don’t seem to meet the high bar that the armchair experts on here consider acceptable. No-one has yet shared any studies countering, although HP did share an interesting article.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
— ShutTheFrontDawes Firstly, I didn’t make a statement about the effectivity of helmets, a doctor did, and I merely said it seems like a statement of fact. Secondly, I have shared a few studies already but they don’t seem to meet the high bar that the armchair experts on here consider acceptable. No-one has yet shared any studies countering, although HP did share an interesting article.— Backladder
The doctor made the original statement and you agreed with it to such an extent that you labelled it a statement of fact rather than an opinion.
My own study on this subject is as yet incomplete, however with over 200,000 miles ridden by the test subject there have been no serious head injuries when riding with or without a helmet.
Initial reports suggest that helmets are noisy and uncomfortable, and hot in summer or when training and racing.
The final conclusion will either be published after I retire from cycling or as a “news” article in the daily mail.
I don’t find them noisy or
I don’t find them noisy or uncomfortable, but I understand some do, and I don’t think they should be mandatory. That would present a barrier to entry and I think that we should be making cycling easier, not harder.
Finally, I doubt that the daily mail would be interested. It sounds like it would be far too factual for them.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
I’m sure they could do something along the lines of “Helmetless cyclist commits suicide to damage innocent car”
“I presume”
“I presume”
Here’s an idea – do not presume anything from a summary of a trial.
You are missing the point. So answer this – do stab victims end up with comments “if they had been wearing a stab vest” ?
hirsute wrote:
I don’t know about stab victims, but I do know that I was criticized when trying to claim compensation for a motorbike accident that left me in hospital because I wasn’t wearing motorcycle trousers (not that they would have helped with the crushing impact that caused the blood clot I could have died from), and I know that car drivers are usually criticised if they fail to wear a seat belt (see https://www.accidentclaims.co.uk/personal-injury-compensation/faqs/can-i-claim-compensation-for-a-car-accident-if-not-wearing-a-seatbelt#:~:text=Where%20an%20injury%20would%27ve,compensation%20awarded%20is%20not%20reduced.)
And yes, I think it is reasonable for a defence solicitor to point out reasonable things the victim could have done to mitigate the outcome of an incident.
Like I said before, I don’t advocate that helmets should be mandatory, but I do think it’s reasonable to expect a doctor (and given the severity of the injuries concerned, I think it’s reasonable to think that a doctor that specialises in head injuries was likely involved here, and if not, it’s likely that the defence engaged such a doctor, usually considered an ‘expert’) might be able to say that a helmet likely would or wouldn’t have helped.
You’re telling me not to presume. I’m forming an opinion based on information I have. You are forming an opinion based on information you do not have. You do not know that a doctor is right or wrong to say that a helmet would have helped (unless you have far more information than provided in the article).
This is an emotive subject for me. A family member died after a head injury sustained while cycling. Quite a long time after actually, after a long period of deterioration where they were suffering from the head injury, but had not yet died. The injury was to an area that would have been completely covered by a helmet. We can’t help but think that they might have been ok if they’d been wearing one. Head injuries like that are avoidable.
So this doctor has done
So this doctor has done comparative testing that shows a better outcome for a helmetted cyclist in situations like this, in which case a link to the results of this research would be useful, or is it just an uneducated opinion?
Backladder wrote:
I do not expect that this specific doctor has done studies themselves, no. But studies have been done that show that to be the case.
E.g. Thompson RS, Rivara FP, Thompson DC. A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets. N Engl J Med 1989.
Perhaps they read something that is related to their field of expertise. Seems a pretty reasonable thing to expect.
“E.g. Thompson RS, Rivara FP,
“E.g. Thompson RS, Rivara FP, Thompson DC. A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets. N Engl J Med 1989.”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
marmotte27 wrote:
Thanks for that enlightening input.
Joseph, B. et al. Bicycle helmets work when it matters the most. Feb 2017.
Fitzpatrick, DG et al. Bicycle helmets are protective against facial injuries, including facial fractures: a meta-analysis.
Department of Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Eastbourne Hospital, Eastbourne, UK. September 2018
Williams, C. et al. Pediatric bicycle helmet legislation and crash-related traumatic brain injury in Illinois, 1999-2009. Feb 2018
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Marmotte wasn’t being particularly rude to you, Dawes (I think), but surely you are aware that Thompson Rivera et al is basically the poster boy for “how not to do a study into the efficacy of bike helmets”.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
I think these are the links to those studies you mentioned:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27596799/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29622478/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29229283/
There’s a major problem with bike helmet studies in that using hospital admissions means that the study will have significant participation bias and won’t represent the wider population. Aside from double-blind studies (which would raise ethical issues if performed with bike helmets), the most accurate way of studying the effect of helmets is to look at population wide studies. I recall there have been many analyses of Australia’s injury rate following their helmet mandate law, but the significant take-away is that mandating bike helmets drastically reduces the number of people cycling and that can actually result in an increase in collisions (due to drivers not being so used to seeing cyclists).
I’ve come to the opinion that cycle helmets probably provide a small amount of protection overall, but focussing on bike helmets and ignoring the proven effective methods of improving cycle safety, will likely reduce the numbers of people cycling. Obviously cycling is a huge health benefit, so anything that acts as a barrier to getting people on bikes is to be avoided.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I agree.
ShutTheFrontDawes][quote
Wow! I’m astonished that anyone with the teensy-weeniest knowledge about cycle helmets would quote this in their defence, since it has been disproved, trashed, ritually disembowelled because of its glaring flaws and blatant bias. It is literally the essence, the distillation, the very definition of bad science; but you still quote it. Double, triple, quadruple WOW.
Either your knowledge in this area could be written on the back of a stamp and still leave room for the Gettysburg Address, or you’re a troll.
eburtthebike wrote:
That’s a bit harsh!
Thank you. I’m aware of the
Thank you. I’m aware of the limitations of scientific studies, and I’m also aware of the ethical implications of trying to conduct effective studies in the subject (i.e. causing head injuries on otherwise healthy people for the purposes of determining the efficacy of helmets obviously isn’t going to happen).
I know that many people quote those studies as proof that helmets should be mandatory because they provide a wide range of protections, but that it not what I’m arguing. I’ve already said that I don’t advocate for mandatory helmet use. But it is true that helmets provide a level of protection in some instances. To suggest otherwise is saying that helmets always have no effect or make the outcome worse – if anyone has any evidence that this is the case, please provide it.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
There’s some links in this interesting article: https://crag.asn.au/the-myth-that-bicycle-helmets-protect-against-brain-injury/
The argument is that brain injury is mainly caused by rotational acceleration rather than straight on impacts (I’d rather not have either, thanks very much) and bike helmets are likely to increase the rotational components as they increase the diameter of the head. I think one of the links examines whether helmets should be made to slide rather than stick to road surfaces to reduce that aspect.
I’m not convinced by that argument as I’d guess that most crashes involve more hitting than twisting of the head, but it’s something else to consider.
Edit: also found some discussion of bike helmets and rotational injuries here (cyclehelmets.org are usually biased against helmet use but there are links to actual studies): https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1182.html
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’m just fed up with people quoting the worst of bad science and claiming it’s valid.
eburtthebike wrote:
Unfortunately there’s an epidemic of bad science out there, especially as scientific careers are based on quantity of published papers and not their quality. Along with the reproduction crisis (many studies are not reproduced and those that do often arrive at different conclusions), there’s also a whole host of problems with using statistical analysis that are not at all obvious to those inexperienced with statistics (I’d definitely include myself). Berkson’s paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox) is probably the most relevant with trying to analyse hospital admissions: https://towardsdatascience.com/top-3-statistical-paradoxes-in-data-science-e2dc37535d99?gi=90b15cdbcdfc
eburtthebike wrote:
I’m just fed up with people quoting the worst of bad science and claiming it’s valid.[/quote]
Well thanks in advance for sharing the good science.
Thanks HP for sharing that article, but to me it reads like a list of things that some doctors have said (and it’s a pretty short list too) based on their own experience and none of it is convincing. At least one of them is honest in saying “I don’t know if [helmets] do much to protect the inner part of the brain”. There is also some re-hashed data from a study from 1987.
Cycling UK does a decent analysis of the evidence I think. https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/2020/01/helmets-evidence_cuk_brf_0.pdf
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Well thanks in advance for sharing the good science.
Thanks HP for sharing that article, but to me it reads like a list of things that some doctors have said (and it’s a pretty short list too) based on their own experience and none of it is convincing. At least one of them is honest in saying “I don’t know if [helmets] do much to protect the inner part of the brain”. There is also some re-hashed data from a study from 1987.
Cycling UK does a decent analysis of the evidence I think. https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/2020/01/helmets-evidence_cuk_brf_0.pdf%5B/quote%5D
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Yeah, I didn’t intend it to be taken as definitive, but more as a possibility. There’s also the Dr Ian Walker study on close passing that suggests that helmets increase danger although the study is way too small to be authoritative http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/index.html
There’s a bunch of interesting stuff on his website (despite him not supporting HTTPS – that bugs me): http://drianwalker.com/
hawkinspeter wrote:
I realise, and I genuinely appreciate you sharing. In an ideal world, we would be able to test the theory presented and create some data to support or disprove the theory. Unfortunately to do so effectively we would need to subject twins to identical collisions, one with and one without a helmet and see whether they have different outcomes. And not just one set of twins, but many to create a statistically significant result.
When my revolution comes, I’ll put it on the to do list ;-).
I agree that the link between close passing and helmet use is interesting. It could present a reason to forego helmets, but in my view it’s more of a reason to crack down on close passing, which we should be doing anyway.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
-Thanos enters the chat-
Ah but would he use the
Ah but would he use the reality stone to test the theory, or just click his fingers and wipe out every motorist who has ever close-passed? I hope the latter.
eburtthebike wrote:
Yes! Over THIRTY years later this Thompson Rivara shit is still being rolled out in politics, the media and even in a f… cycling forum as proof of god knows what. I laughed when really I want to weep…
“The doctor who examined the
“The doctor who examined the injuries stated the injuries would have been significantly mitigated if the cyclist was wearing a helmet,” Tiwana added.
‘The injuries would have been mitigated had they been wearing a stab vest.’
Are pedestrians and vehicle passengers also subject to doctor statements about whether PPE would have reduced their injuries ? Any other crimes where PPE is introduced and commented on ?
We appear to have made
We appear to have made roughly the same comment within 7 seconds of each other, chapeux ?
Boopop wrote:
And you’re both right. The doctor’s statement was completely unwarranted and has no validity. It’s really frightening that people rigorously trained in use of evidence and diagnosis can make such statements without the faintest evidence to support it.
hirsute wrote:
I can think of several cases, both famous and in my own experience, where doctors have said that death would/would not have been the likely outcome if the person in the car hadn’t/had been wearing a seatbelt.
I’ve also gone over a couple of bonnets while cycling, and hit my helmeted head. It hurt, but I wasn’t seriously concussed (or worse). Having fallen and hit my unhelmeted head at similar velocities, and having blacked out on both occasions, I’m minded to agree with my GPs who both felt the helmet was likely to have helped.
I don’t know why this is so hard for some anti-helmet types to accept. I don’t think they should be mandatory for adults, and I’m quite aware they will do nothing if I’m run over. But, having hit my head against the ground more often than I’d like, I’ve had better outcomes in the times it’s happened with a helmet on. I don’t find wearing one difficult, uncomfortable or inconvenient, so I wear one because I don’t want to go temporarily blind again if I fall and hit my head. It doesn’t surprise me that my doctor thinks this is a good idea.
Hear hear! Frankly, I think
Hear hear! Frankly, I think that by pretending that helmets are irrelevant to a collision involving a severe head injury, the anti-helmet types lose all credibility.
I get that helmets aren’t relevant to a broken leg, but to say that they don’t help head injuries is disingenuous and undermines available scientific studies.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Given that you seem to be suffering considerable bias yourself, it’s hard to accept your view that others are biased.
You are right, and some studies show massive benefits from cycle helmet wearing, but the problem is that these are not proven to exist in population level studies. The first studies are short term, small scale, using low reliability methodology, while the latter are long term, large scale and highly reliable. You appear to believe that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, but you ignore the most reliable evidence; why?
I don’t think anyone has put
I don’t think anyone has put any ‘reliable evidence’ to me. Perhaps I missed it.
Edit: I genuinely would stop wearing a helmet if someone showed me evidence that they made injuries worse. Please do share if you can.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
There’s a bunch of research listed here: https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1146.html
I don’t know how reliable it is though
Well there’s my bedtime
Well there’s my bedtime reading sorted for the next couple of weeks! Thanks for sharing
Agreed. I can only speak
Agreed. I can only speak from limited personal experience but having hit my head on frozen grass after losing the front wheel I almost blacked out. I remember feeling I’d like to just relax and go to sleep but I managed to resist. No problems since, as far as I know.
I also came off at a mini roundabout in rain and hit my head on the road. I was wearing a helmet this time, I usually do in the rain, and had no problems head wise. The only thing that was damaged was my pride.
When I went over a bonnet, and when I went over the handlebars after the front brake locked up, I wasn’t wearing a helmet but I was younger and bouncier than I am now and managed to not hit my head in either incident. I don’t know what would have happened if I had been wearing a helmet. I suspect it’s possible that I wouldn’t have been able to protect my head instinctively and it may have lead to a twisting injury which is, I believe, the down side of wearing a helmet.
One final thought. I wonder what would have happened in the Charlie Alliston case if the pedestrian had been wearing a helmet. I don’t remember that being mentioned at the trial.
Bungle_52 wrote:
That might be because people don’t expect pedestrians to wear helmets. Unlike for cyclists, the highway code doesn’t say that pedestrians should wear them
Good point.
Good point.
As others said, they are
As others said, they are neither seat belts (legally required) nor pedestrian helmets (unknown but cycle helmet here would at least be within specification to protect against most falls). So there’s an odd situation here where not having one can be prejudicial in court but the circumstances of impact may often be well beyond the maximum protection they could deliver.
The difference between “could have helped maybe” and “irrelevant” are not well understood by the public, the law or even the medical profession. (Lawyers might also use this to say “but not wearing it shows this person was careless *in general*…”).
UK legal fudge (or flexibility, you decide).
I hear your “could it have helped in my case”? It’s hard to be left with “if only” or “what if”.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Not wishing to victim blame, but a pedestrian helmet would have had a reasonable chance of saving her life as her fall was within the parameters of bike helmet tests. However, I think it would be inappropriate to mention PPE at trials unless it’s mandatory (e.g. construction site).
Brauchsel wrote:
— BrauchselThank you for so graphically demonstrating the risk compensation effect; merely one of the reasons why helmets don’t reduce the death rate of cyclists.
It’s not a matter of being
It’s not a matter of being pro or anti helmet but whether PPE should be brought up by the defence in a criminal trial.
If the argument is the cyclist should have been wearing PPE, then the counter argument is “you saw the person had no PPE but you did not adapt your driving to this”.
There might well be an exploration of PPE in a civil case for damages, but in a criminal trial I don’t see this as relevant.
.
.
Under our system, ‘the truth’ is of no relevance to lawyers in court.
.
They are there to make the best case possible for their client.
.
As such, a defence lawyer would be remiss in their duties if they did not bring up helmet/lights/PPE (no matter that most of us seem to agree that these issues should have little or no bearing on the case).
.
No! Many, many unrecorded
No! Many, many unrecorded lapses and a detereorating standard of driving over many years that ulitmately results in life changing injuries for a vulnerable road user. He needs to go to gaol, have a lengthy ban and face an extended test.
“It seems that this was a
“It seems that this was a short lapse in an otherwise unblemished driving history”
I read this as, up until now you have got away with your selfish driving
This is so wrong on many
This is so wrong on many levels….
How about some retraining in order to get your licence back such as recording X miles on a bike to understand what it’s like to ride one? Verified on Strava with a selfie on every ride.
Also, “Professional” drivers should be held accountable to higher standards and regularly retested against those standards. I’ve had jobs like that and been given a rigourous assessment before I got the job or was allowed to drive.
I have yet to be driven in a Private Hire or Taxi where I couldn’t have pulled their driving up on at least one thing that would have been scored on a driving test
“Also, “Professional” drivers
“Also, “Professional” drivers should be held accountable to higher standards and regularly retested against those standards.”
This.
You didn’t have a full helmet
You didn’t have a full helmet, fire retardant clothing and a halo.
Why was that ?
My client was traveling at 90
My client was traveling at 90 mph in a 30 on the wrong side of the road. As a motorcyclist, you did not have an inflatable suit that would have reduced your injuries.
Why was that ?
It seems that this was a
It seems that this was a short lapse in an otherwise unblemished driving history. You are working to improve your life.”
So the cyclist, as a former addict, is not worth being treated fairly by the judge as the taxi driver is obviously aspirational and the cyclist not.
Fuck me, how the class system continues to ride rough shod over everything in the UK.
The difference between
The difference between wearing a seatbelt and wearing a cycle helmet is that one is mandatory and one is recommended.
Gus T wrote:
Also, one is designed for collisions with cars and one isn’t
Both are mandatory in
Both are mandatory in Australia; makes it easy to spot bogans on bikes, as bogans never wear helmets..
grOg wrote:
Sounds like the mandatory helmet law is more about class divisions than safety.
The helmet law is also abused to target minorities (e.g. aborigines) and as a pretext for stop and search: https://www.uow.edu.au/media/2019/over-the-top-policing-of-bike-helmet-laws-targets-vulnerable-riders.php
Sounds very divisive to me, but then I do find Australian society to be very divided.
I don’t have an issue with a
I don’t have an issue with a doctor’s opinion that a helmet may have lessened head injuries. I am more uncomfortable with it being presented as definitive as I wouldn’t have though there was sufficient evidence to be definitive.
I have huge issues with opinions on helmets being utilised as some form of mitigation of murderous driving.
Quite. Helmets aren’t
Quite. Helmets aren’t designed to cover the results of vehicular impact. Without knowing the trajectory of the person, is it reasonable to suggest that the helmet was able to cope and that the nature and direction of the impact was within scope of the helmet’s capacity to mitigate injury. That is an engineering question, not an anecdotal evidence question, so the doctoir should not have been providing “expert” opinion, as no doubt this would have been perceived.
A helmet is designed for a passive drop head height while cycling. As soon as you impart energy into the head with an impact you are going to create some sort of different impact, energy and trajectory. We might as well say, if the cyclist had been wearing a towel round their head or a bucket full of tennis balls their injuries may well have been reduced.
There are plenty of people who end up with severe injuries wearing a helmet. The only factor here is one of law – did the person suffer a severe injury due to the unlawful driving of another person? Yes. Was the other person riding in or attired in an unlawful manner? No. Guilty. Helmet irrelevant.
Assessing damages for the insurer as a consequence – was there contributory negligence? Lawyerly argument may now ensue.
Another point to consider is
Another point to consider is that bike helmets don’t provide much help in averting brain damage (typically caused by the brain sloshing against the skull) – they’re better at preventing skull fractures. They would need more cushioning to be effective at preventing concussion etc.
But iss this really true? A
But is this really true? A bicycle helmet WILL reduce the acceleration experienced by the head in many lower velocity impacts and so also the brain inside it.
Chose not to wear a helmet because you like the increased freedom and sense of awareness, but it is very wrong to justify it with incorrect statements that may mislead others.
Robert Hardy wrote:
Well, a bicycle helmet will reduce the linear peak acceleration, but the person’s head will still need to decelerate from cycling speed to a stop so the total acceleration is the same. Luckily, the peak deceleration is what we’re interested in, but the torque effects are also very important when it comes to brain (as opposed to skull) injuries. Newer helmet designs are attempting to address the rotational component with technologies such as MIPS, but the amount of protection is still far too small to help with RTCs.
From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6928098/
Some other details here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000145750200012X
Found this article which does some tests of bike helmet rotational systems: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11559-0
Whether or not people choose to wear cycle helmets (I do wear one), it’s important to be aware of their limitations as otherwise there’s the unintended consequence of risk compensation – cyclists feel safer with a helmet, take more risks and thus can have more collisions. Arguably, people pushing helmet wearing for cyclists could be unintentionally causing more incidents as cyclists can have an inflated sense of protection.
Acceleration is the rate of
Acceleration is the rate of change in velocity, not the change in velocity. Your unprotected head hitting the hard pavement is subjected to much higher acceleration than if that impact is mediated by 2cm of energy absorbing foam. As for rotational accelerations, the cradle of the helmet and shearing of the foam allow some mitigation in many circumstances. In my time as a climber we have seen the widespread adoption of improved head protection, both against direct impact from falling stones and more recently from dynamic impacts with the rock in falls. Unlike anti helmet cyclists, who in this regard are very like those motorists in the 1980s who argued vociferously against seat belts, few climbers indulge in spurious arguments quoting the uselessness of the helmet when hitting the ground head first from 30m.
Former climber here. I do
Former climber here. I do note the change in the growing use of very similar materials to cycling helmets (e.g. more energy absorbtion). Yes, physics and biomechanics are physics and biomechanics. However climbing is a very different sphere of activity from cycling though. Especially “casual cycling for transportation”.
Climbing is very much an (occasional) recreational activity – with risk awareness and how much you accept and how you manage it being a distinct part of the game. And as for “spurious arguments” at least when I was at it there were quite a few climbers who made definite choices about when they did and didn’t wear hats. (opinionated folks, like many current UK cyclists…)
Personally I was almost always (hard) hatted but that was for slightly different reasons than apply to cycling. I’ve a tendency to bang my head on things anyway (I don’t when cycling). A non-harmful knock while climbing can cause you to come off. There was also the need for protection against small debris from above – sometimes from “helpful” spectators (or oiks), a clumsy partner dropping gear etc.
Little of that applies to cycling – it’s only at the point when we get to “protection during a fall” that the two start to overlap. In that case your comparison is closer. However climbing is an activity where in many cases falls are accepted or a relatively frequent event (they’re a given in sport climbing). Not so much in cycling outside of certain sport disciplines (crashes in pro peleton / velodrome, mountain biking, cyclocross…). See e.g. this Dutch roundabout or this very busy street for how it looks when many cycle.
As noted – in some senses this “casual” cycling is where modern cycle helmets would be most useful. However the same argument applies to people on foot – that level of fall is all a cycle helmet is rated to protect against.
Again – as for “spurious” I guess you’re referring to a “major fall” which is probably similar to “hit by a fast motor vehicle” or “ran into a wall during a 30mph+ descent” – where the PPE is irrelevant as it’s far overmatched by the force of impact.
None of that I would disagree
None of that I would disagree with, I am absolutely against the suggestion of cycle (and climbing) helmet mandation, however I was responding to what I consider dangerous misinformation. There are plenty of cycle accidents where a helmet offers sufficient protection to potentially make the difference between a scare and life changing injuries, just as it might in those handful of tragic fatalities where a pedestrian is knocked down by a cyclist; it is irresponsible to deny that is so, particularly on the basis of a serious misunderstanding of even the most basic physics and biomechanics involved.
Agree. Through observation /
Agree. Through observation / my own risk analysis I ended up wearing a climbing helmet as standard for that but have almost binned the cycle one – but I spend a lot of time on safer infrastructure! (Maybe I’ll dust off the helmet again now it’s getting frosty though!)
The reason for “contentious” is that – it seems – helmets are (currently) somewhat of a turn-off for getting mass casual cycling. Statistically the health benefits of mass cycling* far outweigh the additional expected injuries given number of people involved.
Secondly people are easily triggered by this since it is very common to find people proposing to fix systemic road safety issues with with PPE. Or using “lack of PPE” as an excuse for any number of ridiculous assertions. The equivalent of “yes, my client admits they were glissading / rolling boulders at the top of an avalanche-prone slope, but when the victim was dug out some hours after the accident they sadly weren’t wearing a helmet, therefore they must bear some responsibility…”
* Assuming the conditions necessary for it to happen at all e.g. good quality protected infra.
Robert Hardy wrote:
I’d guess that rock climbing involves a significant risk of pebbles/rocks being dislodged above you, so head protection makes a lot of sense. I’m doubtful that a helmet will do much to help a 30m head first drop though.
I’m not disputing that 2cm of material is better than nothing in a crash, but the issue is with the benefits of helmets being exaggerated (also risk compensation can mean the difference between crashing or not). They’re not designed and tested to withstand a RTC, but that’s what people are proposing that they’re used for.
As for misinformation – are you disputing the sources I provided? If you have some credible debunking info, then it’d be good to see it.
87 kph.
87 kph.
Sounds fatal due to neck, spinal injuries.
Falling a decent distance
Falling a decent distance quite often leads to disintegration – you hit things on the way down.
This chap has managed to land some long-ish falls and is still alive. Legally disabled now apparently though you can’t tell by looking. No comment on whether he was wearing a helmet but if you look at the pictures you can probably draw your own conclusions.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I believe the elite rock climbers don’t often bother with climbing helmets, but that may be to do with climbing overhangs as they’ll likely have less chance of having rubble land on your head. There’s also less chance of climbing equipment being dropped by other climbers if you’re the only one there.
You’d be surprised how some people can survive falls that you’d otherwise think were fatal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc8ngiMlCto
hirsute wrote:
That’s what I’d reckon
Helmets are designed and
(sorry, duplicate post – deleted)
Given that people rarely go
Given that people rarely go to prison for killing people [edit]by car[/edit], actual prison is highly unlikely. The sentence is fairly significant relative to the feeble sentences meted out for cycling conflicts – seems to me it’s about the same as the killer of Tony Slatterthwaite. Will sentencing increase as incidents under the new HWC change the law’s perspective on vulnerable road users?
Will sentencing increase as
Will sentencing increase as incidents under the new HWC change the law’s perspective on vulnerable road users?
No. The ‘new’ HC has been ignored by the police, which has given all drivers the nod to ignore it too
I had the pleasure of
I had the pleasure of recently witnessing a police van being forced to abide by the new hc by a determined pedestrian and a healthy number of witnesses.
There’s a legal rule that
There’s a legal rule that defendants must “take their victims as they find them” (Eggshell skull rule). So I’d hope the judge wouldn’t be swayed by the shameless victim blaming from the defence laywer.
That is interesting (and
That is interesting (and makes sense too)! But does the rule even bear on cyclist head injury cases? After all, it is not a question of “unexpected frailty” (compared to the average skull).
Would be good if road.cc could write a decent article about how that plays out with helmets/cyclists compared to helmets/pedestrians. Why are helmets a factor for cyclists injury legal cases, but not for pedestrian cases? Is there any legal justification, or has it just been allowed to creep in unchallenged?
And I don’t mean in the court of public opinion, but rather in actual court cases. And would the situation be changed if helmet wearing was made compulsory, like seat belts for motorists?
Tom_77 wrote:
This should be the de facto logical stance.
Unfortunately, victims are apportioned blame, even if they in no way contributed to the collision, due to “contributory negligence” of not wearing a helmet… purely because it is recommended in the Highway Code.
Perverse that this is not also recommended for motor vehcile occupants or pedestrians.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Unfortunately, victims are apportioned blame, even if they in no way contributed to the collision, due to “contributory negligence” of not wearing a helmet… purely because it is recommended in the Highway Code.
[/quote]There has been a single case where contributory negligence has been found by a court, in such peculiar circumstances that it does not make case law.
Unscrupulous insurance companies will try to reduce compensation paid by claiming it, but they always withdraw if you stick to your guns.
Perversely, wearing bicycle
Perversely, wearing bicycle helmets inside a motor vehicle probably makes more sense to surviving an accident than wearing one on a bicycle..
I always wear a helmet when
I always wear a helmet when cycling either on the road or on rough off road trails. I have absolutely no illusions that it will do anything to worthwhile protect my brain from a serious impact but wearing it keeps my wife happy and protects my loved ones from tactics like this by lowlife defence barristers should I be wiped out by a driver and they need to sue for compensation in my absence.
LeadenSkies wrote:
I usually wear a helmet for the same reasons. It is absolutely disgusting that behavior has to be modified for the failures of the legal system and the sheer fucking audacity of shit motorists.
I do cheer my self up with a frankly ridiculous look helmet (complete with wonky hi-viz cover) which adds a performative element when having a “nice little chat” with a motorist that “didn’t see me”
Me too. It’s also a great
Me too. It’s also a great place for a high rear light, camera and in heavy rain it holds my hood back from blocking my vision.
I have a small led cell on
I have a small led cell on the rear that I use if visibility is really bad but I won’t attach a camera or light to the helmet. I worry that stuff stuck on the side via nonstandard mounts might create unexpected forces should they be the point of contact between the helmet and the ground or any other object.
The mounts are plastic though
The mounts are plastic though. If you take the drift one which is mainly aimed at motorcyclists, the mount is stuck onto the helmet. It would not take much to shear off the plastic.
Plenty of poor quality road surfaces will create unexpected forces !
I know it’s extremely
I know it’s extremely unlikely, but I still can’t get the thought out of my head. A handlebar mount is my preference.
hirsute wrote:
the thing about shearing is it doesn’t work if the line of impact is through light/camera-helmet-head. I.e. from the top of the head if the mount is on the top. But the chance of landing square on the top of the head seems remote, and likely to cause catastropic neck injuries to me.
You have an object that can
You have an object that can concentrate the force in one place – much as if you fall on a kerb edge or stone you have an increased chance of injury. A camera or light may or may not detach and may or may not become the point of contact rather than the hoped for diffuse contact of a flat surface. It is also a reason why hitting a car with a helmet isn’t a good idea if you hit a nobbly bit.
I work on the idea that
I work on the idea that hitting a car or the ground with my head isn’t a good idea, helmet or not, light / camera or not, and should probably be avoided if at all possible. 😉
I’ve thought about that too
I’ve thought about that too but I figure if I’m flying through the air at 15mph the possibility of my camera making it worse when I land is probably the least of my problems.
The light is built in to the helmet and I also have cameras on the bike but I’d rather take every opportunity to get a good shot of the driver who hits me and risk the chance of making my injuries worse.
+1 – almost never wear one
+1 – almost never wear one nowadays * but while I did I ended up mostly seeing it as a thing to fill the hood with, a place for extra lights (don’t have a camera) or extra insulation in winter.
Now I can avoid the road some of the time it’s a cap or a hood with earflaps in winter!
* I ended up mostly doing this for social conformity reasons – like not turning up to events with my paint-splattered DIY trousers on. OTOH anyone who didn’t know me who expressed opinion about what I should do – especially those who didn’t cycle – was going to get bored!
Also because it just feels weird wearing it on the recumbent – oddly where it would likely be most effective.
I attach a GoPro to the rear
I attach a GoPro to the rear of my rack; I want the minimum weight on my helmet and the camera perched at the end of the bike really stands out to motorists behind and acts as a visual deterrent to poor driving.
Same; I also choose high
Same; I also choose high visibility helmet colours, yellow or white and I affix a high intensity flashing red led light to the rear of the helmet; same principle as the mandatory high mount braking lights for cars; anything to stand out in traffic.
I thought you weren’t allowed
I thought you weren’t allowed to attach things to your helmet or is that only certain states with that law ?
“In my view no prison
“In my view no prison sentence is going to seem long enough to him and his family.”
I always thought this meant that any sentance given would be insufficient. I did not realise that a zero custodial sentance would be deemed sufficient
wycombewheeler wrote:
This seems to have become a common trope with judges recently, “No prison term can bring back the deceased or assuage their family’s grief…so I’m not going to bother.” I’m certainly not one for prison sentences just for the hell of it, but “I can’t give you a sentence long enough to satisfy the wishes of the victim so I’m giving you nothing” is palpably absurd.
I think the main thing is to
I think the main thing is to get drivers off the road so they can’t be a danger to other road users. In this case a 3 year ban was given which also means he loses his job. I’m coming round to the view that a ban is more important than a prison sentence especially if genuine remorse is evident. In this case he stopped at the scene and pleaded guilty to dangerous driving both of which show remorse in my opinion.
Cases where the driver doesn’t stop and pleads not guilty may be a different matter.
There is also community service which should give some time to reflect on his actions.
In my opinion this driver will be a lot more careful around vulnerable road users when he gets back behind the wheel and at the end of the day that is what we all want, isn’t it?
Bungle_52 wrote:
When a driver has caused such a life-changing injury, then I don’t see why they should have a second chance to cause such damage. When someone shows you that they can’t be trusted in control of a vehicle, then you should believe them.
That’s a fair point but
That’s a fair point but surely that would be dealt with better by a lifetime ban rather then a short spell in prison. He does have to pass an extended test before he gets his license back.
I would have been calling for prison at one time but reading comments on this site my view is changing. The key to me is remorse and I get the impression this driver is genuinely sorry. There have been instances where the driver hasn’t stopped and pleaded not guilty to dangerous driving where I may think differently. It seems to me that no remorse means less likelihood of a change of driving.
Bungle_52 wrote:
I tend to agree that prison may not be necessary in this instance as he seems to recognise what he did wrong. However, the courts should also consider the victim and their family and it’s important to see justice in action. Considering that this was dangerous driving and not the lesser careless driving, it really should have resulted in a prison sentence of some kind.
Good point with respect to
Good point with respect to the dangerous driving but I suspect he only got charged with that because he agreed to plead guilty. Any other motorist would have agreed to careless to avoid the dangerous driving charge and the CPS would have agreed to that as dangerous probably wouldn’t have succeeded in court based on all the examples we’ve dicussed on here in the past*. I would argue that pleading not guilty to dangerous does not show remorse and should be treated accordingly.
*Assuming the cyclist had nothing to do with the police that is. Just playing devil’s advocate there.
I have tripped and fell while
I have tripped and fell while on foot with similar frequency to falling of cycles – the distance of my head to the ground is almost the same in both cases so impacts will be almost the same, the extra speed of cycling adds little as the speed of the car is what matters.
You could imagine similar situations where pedestrians gets hit. There would be no mention of helmets, even though the risk of head injury when hit by a car is almost the same as when cycling. Why are blame transfer statements even allowed – the judges should order them to be struck out.
Fundamentally I believe the
Fundamentally I believe the difference is not the height of fall but the ability to respond. If you trip as a pedestrian, you will perform various gymnastics to protect yourself – which is what wrinklies can’t do so tend to hurt themselves more in a fall (as well as being more fragile).
On a bike, the frame constricts your movement so you tend to fall badly.
A little example, I managed to trip my wife while ballroom dancing, she fell backwards. As I was holding her I broke her fall and she didn’t hit her head. I was pulled forwards of balance, was able to deliberately roll and fall so didn’t hurt myself either. Compare that with the experience of your mate failing to unclip and falling on top of you.
You could certainly make an argument that cycling with cleats but no helmet is unnecessary risk taking while a fall from a Brompton with rubber pedals is several times easier to manage in a tumble.
Yes, but it would seem a
Yes, but it would seem a matter of degree. I’d agree with you that foot retention could make things more dangerous. Otherwise though…
You might be slightly higher on a bike – or not. (Or like me on the recumbent definitely lower!). Your legs might be tangled up in the bike – but then they might not be usefully in contact with the ground in a fall while walking. You are likely to be moving forwards faster on a bike – but that’s very likely not the speed between your head and the ground on impact. (It might impact [!] your ability to control the landing in general though).
The clear differences between cycling and walking are in a direct forward impact between you and something when your head could experience greater accelleration than landing a sideways fall. So headlong into a wall or some street furniture. (Plus points for recumbents as you’ll be feet first there, probably…) For evaluating safety when counting those make sure to discard the ones where this is above the protective abilities of a helmet!
We should probably do the numbers though. I guess you’d to compare the rate at which cyclists come off AND then hit their heads (are they more likely to do either?) with the rate at which than a pedestrian is to fall and do same. Call the latter a baseline if you will.
And that’s why helmets are irrelevant and you should always ride a recumbent trike and not walk! (Is this right?)
That was what e.g. Martin73 was missing from their plaint.
Quote:
Stop ballroom dancing on your bikes then, or at least clipped in.
While we’re having the helmet
While we’re having the helmet Vs cars debate has anyone put any consideration into wearing a motorcycle helmet?
Those are actually designed to protect the user in a motor vehicle collision, and there’s even a helpful dft website (SHARP) that tests and rates individual helmets. Would probably be good to have that for bicycle helmets too actually.
There’s a bloke I see riding
There’s a bloke I see riding his bike around Bristol with what looks like a motorbike helmet: no visor but he’s retrofitted a V-for-Vendetta Guy Fawkes mask on the front
Car Delenda Est wrote:
I’d guess that most motorbike helmets would quickly get too hot for cycling in as they enclose most of the head. Also possibly an issue with reducing hearing although that shouldn’t be an issue if the cyclist just takes care to look around before turning etc.
The closest thing seems to be full face downhill MTB helmets – I don’t know how good they are, but should be more protective than standard cycle helmets.
hawkinspeter wrote:
They do, wore one once cycling to pick up my motorcycle from a garage (garage loaned me an old bicycle to get home on), very quickly overheated. Also the extra weight which you don’t notice with a big solid motorbike suspension really gets to your neck quickly. Ended up taking it off and carrying (and I wear a bike helmet everywhere).
The ones I’ve worn – hire ones at MTB centres – seemed to be pretty much like standard helmets only reaching a few inches lower down and obviously with the chin protection as well, so they protected more areas but I didn’t feel the level of protection was any better – subjective impression though.
We are at a ‘never the twain
We are at a ‘never the twain shall meet’ impasse over helmets here. I will continue to wear one approaching 100% of the time while cycling and climbing and when up a ladder by the house or a tree, but am highly opposed to attempts to make them compulsory when cycling, or their absence as ‘contributory negligence’. I think that the utility of a helmet as a reliable and reproducibly accurate mount for a headcam has not been emphasised enough.