“Reckless” taxi driver who left cyclist with life-changing brain injury avoids jail

"Also, "Professional" drivers should be held accountable to higher standards and regularly retested against those standards."
This.

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 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 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 head injuries but we can't guarantee they know anything about bicycle helmets.

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
In what other criminal trials would PPE be discussed? And why/how ?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Do you think that there are no situations and no head injuries where a helmet would help?

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:

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.

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:

Backladder wrote:

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.

 

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.

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 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:

Finally, I doubt that the daily mail would be interested. It sounds like it would be far too factual for them.

I'm sure they could do something along the lines of "Helmetless cyclist commits suicide to damage innocent car"

"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 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" ?

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....)

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 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:

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?

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, Thompson DC. A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets. N Engl J Med 1989."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

marmotte27 wrote:

"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

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:

marmotte27 wrote:

"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

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

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:

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

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'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.

 

I agree.

ShutTheFrontDawes][quote=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.

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:

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.

That's a bit harsh!

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:

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.

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:

eburtthebike wrote:

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.

That's a bit harsh!

I'm just fed up with people quoting the worst of bad science and claiming it's valid.