I think it's a good thing you don't make these decisions.
Someone Ran me over..
- Thread starter jonneymendoza
- Start date
I think it's a good thing you don't make these decisions.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
They use the roads so should have insurance etc. Only ones who moan about that are usually the ones who cycle through red lights, on pavements, disregard all other road users and have a weird looking bill/beak on their face! 
They use the roads so should have insurance etc. Only ones who moan about that are usually the ones who cycle through red lights, on pavements, disregard all other road users and have a weird looking bill/beak on their face!
And yet you're the one moaning?
Seems reasonable to me that they should carry 3rd party insurance. Up to them if they want to go fully comp.
My 4yo was run over by a cylicst a few months ago (he was 3 at the time), sustaining a concerning looking head injury that had us heading to hospital. Quite a lot of blood, nasty bump. We were fortunate it wasn't more serious (my lad would probably have been fine if he was wearing a cycle helmet but he wasn't actually cycling).
You can do quite a bit of damage on a bike.
I'd make mobility scooter drivers carry insurance too.
My 4yo was run over by a cylicst a few months ago (he was 3 at the time), sustaining a concerning looking head injury that had us heading to hospital. Quite a lot of blood, nasty bump. We were fortunate it wasn't more serious (my lad would probably have been fine if he was wearing a cycle helmet but he wasn't actually cycling).
You can do quite a bit of damage on a bike.
I'd make mobility scooter drivers carry insurance too.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,150
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
No.
Seriously? Because helmets prevent some head injuries.
Would you rather more, less serious accidents, or fewer, more serious accidents? I'd take two broken arms over a personality change.
Last edited:
Like I said before; I'm glad you don't make these decisions.
Why is it that in countries where they take cycling seriously such as Denmark or Holland there isn't ever a debate about helmets or insurance for cyclists, because they know how spurious it is, and how distracting it is from the actual problems. Whereas in this country people leap to victim blaming and insurance nonsense because we as a nation are utterly wed to the stupid idea that the motor is king.
Last edited:
Read the link that I posted before. Some analysis shows cyclists are at greater risk of injury when wearing helmets. There's also no agreed concensus that they prevent injury.
Helmets can prevent some head injuries, in some cases.
You've also ignored where I said it's been proven that wearing a helmet makes drivers give you less space, thereby making it more dangerous for you.
I'd rather we as a nation stopped victim blaming, personally.
And I'd much rather the debate moved past such spurious things.
Last edited:
Nice link. I don't see any studies that mention 'greater risk of injury when wearing helmets' though (apart from perhaps the remote chance of strangulation by the strap). The only one that might fall into that category is Wasserman (1998), and if you follow the link through they conclude that 'due to the small numbers involved, little weight can be put on this study'.
It seems that most studies have shown anything from 'effective' to 'no effect'.
Something that really comes out reading that is how the best solution by far is to segregate cyclists and motor vehicles. Unfortunately that's not always possible.
So are you saying that it's better to not wear a helmet and accept some head injuries?
I'm aware of the drivers giving less space argument, it's why I didn't wear one for over a year in London cycling every day!
I don't see how that relates to my post.
Also, Cycling is the least risky mode of transport when it comes to head injuries, if you want to wear a helmet, it's far more sensible to wear a helmet when walking, or in a car.
http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets
Risk of head injury per million hours travelled
Cyclist - 0.41
Pedestrian - 0.80
Motor vehicle occupant - 0.46
Motorcyclist - 7.66
In Australia, where helmets are mandatry, there has been a decreace in the number of cyclists, and in increase in the number of injury:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Personal_choice/Submissions
page 21 , Submission 411
H) Increased risk of injury per cyclist since helmet laws were introduced
Several analyses have compared numbers of injuries with the numbers of cyclists. They all suggest that injuries per cyclist have increased from what would have been expected without helmet laws.
In New Zealand, from 1989 to 2011, average time spent cycling (on roads and footpaths) fell by 79% for children aged 5-12 (from 28 to 6 minutes per person per week) and 81% for 13-17 year olds (52 to 10 mins/person/week).
Adult cycling declined from 8 to 5 minutes/person/week then trended back up to 8 minutes. Graphs of cycle use over time provide strong evidence that the requirement to wear a helmet discouraged cycling.12
The reductions in cycling were accompanied by increased injury rates. Between 1989 and 2012, fatal or serious injuries per million hours of cycling increased by 86% for children (from 49 to 91), 181% for teenagers (from 18 to 51) and 64% for adults (from 23 to 38).12
http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets
Risk of head injury per million hours travelled
Cyclist - 0.41
Pedestrian - 0.80
Motor vehicle occupant - 0.46
Motorcyclist - 7.66
In Australia, where helmets are mandatry, there has been a decreace in the number of cyclists, and in increase in the number of injury:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Personal_choice/Submissions
page 21 , Submission 411
H) Increased risk of injury per cyclist since helmet laws were introduced
Several analyses have compared numbers of injuries with the numbers of cyclists. They all suggest that injuries per cyclist have increased from what would have been expected without helmet laws.
In New Zealand, from 1989 to 2011, average time spent cycling (on roads and footpaths) fell by 79% for children aged 5-12 (from 28 to 6 minutes per person per week) and 81% for 13-17 year olds (52 to 10 mins/person/week).
Adult cycling declined from 8 to 5 minutes/person/week then trended back up to 8 minutes. Graphs of cycle use over time provide strong evidence that the requirement to wear a helmet discouraged cycling.12
The reductions in cycling were accompanied by increased injury rates. Between 1989 and 2012, fatal or serious injuries per million hours of cycling increased by 86% for children (from 49 to 91), 181% for teenagers (from 18 to 51) and 64% for adults (from 23 to 38).12
I don't quite understand how you've inferred that.
You concretely stated that "helmets prevent head injuries", suggesting that helmets will always prevent head injuries, which simply isn't true. It's a fair clarification to say that helmets will prevent injuries in some cases.
That was the implication unless you tell me otherwise.
Thanks for the minor clarification. I don't think it changes any of my posts.
Apart from the part you were wrong in saying that helmets prevent head injuries? It's hardly a clarification just because you don't happen to like it.
100% agree
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
The evidence is inconclusive
The only injuries I'd be confident that helmets can protect against are grazes and strikes from low branches, which is why I wear a helmet when I go mountain biking but not when I cycle on the road.
You're still at liberty to persue a civil claim in that instance - a cyclist having or not having third party insurance make no difference in your scenario. Remember, third party insurance isn't there to protect third parties, it's there to protect the the person liable against ruinous claims.
Last edited by a moderator:
I assume you have 3rd party insurance for your kids as well? I assume they ride bikes?
Except as has been pointed out several times that's not the case.
In the Iraq war it was found that some helmet designs increased the severity of blast injuries suffered by soldiers. They'd have been better off wearing nothing.