motorist, second cyclist fatality, and helmets

[Toom Tabard]

Interesting report of recent Scottish case

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/motorist-who-caused-death-of-cyclists-spared-jail-1-2919275

particularly:-

--------------------------

�Mrs Fyfe wasn�t to blame in any way for the accident. However, she was not wearing a safety helmet and that, in my view, contributed to her death.�

The sheriff said he was following guidelines laid down by the Criminal Court of Appeal, and the circumstances surrounding Mrs Fyfe�s death meant a non-custodial sentence could be imposed. McCourt was also banned from driving for five years.

---------------------------

Toom

[Tosspot]

That's unreal, he's killed two people in two separate incidents and gets
300 hours! One you could put down to being unlucky, two smacks of a
basic inability to drive a vehicle.

Mind you, on the plus side, he might find himself cycling himself a lot
more soon...

[Peter Clinch]

Ah yes, and as we know from the recent case of the Scottish judiciary
"accidentally" suggested Prof. Sue Black, one of the world's leading
forensic anthropologists, a "quack" incapable of giving evidence[1], its
judges are *incredibly* well versed in osteology, biomechanics etc.[2]

Pete.

[1] http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/24/1032/KIMBERLEY-HAINEY-v-HMA
[2] Not
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Toom Tabard]

See also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22410799
for family reaction and Crown Office consideration of leniency of sentence.

Toom

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <aumj1a...@mid.individual.net>,

Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Ah yes, and as we know from the recent case of the Scottish judiciary
>"accidentally" suggested Prof. Sue Black, one of the world's leading
>forensic anthropologists, a "quack" incapable of giving evidence[1], its
>judges are *incredibly* well versed in osteology, biomechanics etc.[2]
>

>[1] http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/24/1032/KIMBERLEY-HAINEY-v-HMA
>[2] Not

Hmm. If that was merely in his opinion, then it was a perfectly
reasonable statement phrased carelessly. If he prevented her from
giving evidence and did not give another, solid reason, then the
relevant idiot should be at least slapped down hard.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Julian Bradfield]

Sigh. Read the apology; then go and read the original judgment.
Then comment.
That goes for both of you.

The court was discussing how a trial judge should direct a jury, when
expert witnesses (including Black) had given evidence on a topic on
which they later acknowledged they had no expertise.
As part of the discussion of principles, the comment about what to do
with quacks came up. Then the court moved to consider the case at
hand.

However, I did get the impression that the court was justifiably
unimpressed by expert witnesses who give opinions outside their area
of expertise.

The conclusion was that the trial judge should have directed the jury
to put out of their minds entirely the unsound "expert" evidence; he
hadn't, and thus the conviction was unsound.

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Toom Tabard" <toomtab...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:de6ef022-4999-4775...@googlegroups.com...

> Interesting report of recent Scottish case
>
> http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/motorist-who-caused-death-of-cyclists-spared-jail-1-2919275
>
> particularly:-
>
> --------------------------
>
> “Mrs Fyfe wasn’t to blame in any way for the accident. However, she was
> not wearing a safety helmet and that, in my view, contributed to her

> death.”

It's entirely possible that this could be factually correct.

That doesn't excuse the driver's behaviour at all though.

--
Alex

[Allan]

On 05/05/2013 00:27, Toom Tabard wrote:

A five-year ban is going to cost McCourt quite a lot (inconvenience of
no car, cost of buses/trains/taxis), and 300 hours is going to give a
lot to society (hopefully).

What would giving McCourt a custodial sentence cost society: how much
does it cost to keep someone in prison? 5 years' ban would equate to 5
years in prison in terms of a reckless driver being off the road.

It's sad, but you can't get a life back.

And a lesson to us all that if you don't wear a helmet, you may be
considered to be contributing to your own situation.

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <slrnkodas...@home.stevens-bradfield.com>,

Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Hmm. If that was merely in his opinion, then it was a perfectly
>> reasonable statement phrased carelessly. If he prevented her from
>> giving evidence and did not give another, solid reason, then the
>> relevant idiot should be at least slapped down hard.
>
>Sigh. Read the apology; then go and read the original judgment.
>Then comment.
>That goes for both of you.

Sigh. Read what I posted. Then comment :-)

I did the former and attempted to do the latter before commenting.
My remaining life is too brief to waste time trying to fight
broken Web servers/pages unless it is critical. That is why I
expressed my comment as a conditional, not an absolute.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Andy Leighton]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 13:08:39 +0100, Allan <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 05/05/2013 00:27, Toom Tabard wrote:
>> Interesting report of recent Scottish case
>>
>> http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/motorist-who-caused-death-of-cyclists-spared-jail-1-2919275
>>
>> particularly:-
>>
>> --------------------------
>>
>> “Mrs Fyfe wasn’t to blame in any way for the accident. However, she was not wearing a safety helmet and that, in my view, contributed to her death.”
>>
>> The sheriff said he was following guidelines laid down by the Criminal Court of Appeal, and the circumstances surrounding Mrs Fyfe’s death meant a non-custodial sentence could be imposed. McCourt was also banned from driving for five years.
>>
>> ---------------------------
>
> A five-year ban is going to cost McCourt quite a lot (inconvenience of
> no car, cost of buses/trains/taxis), and 300 hours is going to give a
> lot to society (hopefully).
>
> What would giving McCourt a custodial sentence cost society:

Quite a bit. However McCourt has killed someone before due to reckless
driving (and was imprisoned). I think that at the very least he
should have lost his licence for good.

There does seem to be an appeal of the sentence underway (supported
quite widely by the politicians) so maybe it will be increased.

I will also note that this Sherriff has form for leniency in
these type of cases. He let Lady Risk off with a £200 fine and
6 points after she had driven into a bloke on a bike.

--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[Owen Dunn]

Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> writes:

> This is exactly the kind of injustice which leads to people taking the
> law into their own hands, having lost all confidence in those
> entrusted with administering it through the "proper channels".

I don't buy it. Nothing `leads to' people taking the law into their
own hands, or any other kind of law breaking. Some people may
_choose_ to do so.

> You could hardly blame the relations of Mrs Fyfe if they
> "accidentally" chanced upon Mr McCourt, and inexplicably found
> themselves unable to avoid colliding with him in their motor
> vehicle. Of course, they'd be genuinely remorseful, and there would
> be no evidence that it was anything but a momentary loss of
> concentration. And with no previous, they might not even get a ban,
> never mind any community service.

I absolutely would blame the relations of Mrs Fyfe in this
circumstance.

(S)

[Simon Mason]

On May 6, 12:52�pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Toom Tabard <toomtabard1...@gmail.com> considered Sun, 05 May 2013

> 00:27:53 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >Interesting report of recent Scottish case
>

> >http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/motorist-who-caused-dea...

>
> >particularly:-
>
> >--------------------------
>
> >�Mrs Fyfe wasn�t to blame in any way for the accident. However, she was not wearing a safety helmet and that, in my view, contributed to her death.�
>
> >The sheriff said he was following guidelines laid down by the Criminal Court of Appeal, and the circumstances surrounding Mrs Fyfe�s death meant a non-custodial sentence could be imposed. McCourt was also banned from driving for five years.
>
> >---------------------------
>
> >Toom
>

> This is exactly the kind of injustice which leads to people taking the
> law into their own hands, having lost all confidence in those
> entrusted with administering it through the "proper channels".
>

> If there was a properly safe policy of never allowing anyone who had
> killed with a motor vehicle to drive again, this latest death would
> have been avoided.
> Isn't that the minimum we should expect of any proper licensing
> system?

>
> You could hardly blame the relations of Mrs Fyfe if they
> "accidentally" chanced upon Mr McCourt, and inexplicably found
> themselves unable to avoid colliding with him in their motor vehicle.
> Of course, they'd be genuinely remorseful, and there would be no
> evidence that it was anything but a momentary loss of concentration.
> And with no previous, they might not even get a ban, never mind any
> community service.

Indeed - it is often said that if you want to murder somebody, all you
have to do is use a motor vehicle as your weapon of choice and the
chances are that you will walk free from court with the barest fine or
ban to your name. You might even get (as in this case) an ignorant and
unqualified judge partly blaming the victim themselves if you are
lucky.


--
Simon Mason

[Tosspot]

On 06/05/13 13:08, Allan wrote:
> On 05/05/2013 00:27, Toom Tabard wrote:
>> Interesting report of recent Scottish case
>>
>> http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/scotland/motorist-who-caused-death-of-cyclists-spared-jail-1-2919275
>>
>>
>>
particularly:-
>>
>> --------------------------
>>
>> �Mrs Fyfe wasn�t to blame in any way for the accident. However, she
>> was not wearing a safety helmet and that, in my view, contributed
>> to her death.�
>>
>> The sheriff said he was following guidelines laid down by the
>> Criminal Court of Appeal, and the circumstances surrounding Mrs
>> Fyfe�s death meant a non-custodial sentence could be imposed.
>> McCourt was also banned from driving for five years.
>>
>> ---------------------------
>
> A five-year ban is going to cost McCourt quite a lot (inconvenience
> of no car, cost of buses/trains/taxis), and 300 hours is going to
> give a lot to society (hopefully).

No it's not, he'll manage fine like the rest of us with no car. He
might even become a regular cyclist when he discovers the benefits.

> What would giving McCourt a custodial sentence cost society: how
> much does it cost to keep someone in prison?

On that basis let all the murderers, rapists and paedophiles out, it
would save us a fortune!

> 5 years' ban would equate to 5 years in prison in terms of a reckless
> driver being off the road.
>
> It's sad, but you can't get a life back.

All water under the bridge, let's turn a new leaf and get on with our
lives eh?

> And a lesson to us all that if you don't wear a helmet, you may be
> considered to be contributing to your own situation.

"She was asking for yer honor, that short skirt and cropped top, she was
*begging* for it"

[Julian Bradfield]

On 2013-05-06, nm...@cam.ac.uk <nm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> In article <slrnkodas...@home.stevens-bradfield.com>,
...

> Sigh. Read what I posted. Then comment :-)

Touché!

> broken Web servers/pages unless it is critical. That is why I
> expressed my comment as a conditional, not an absolute.

The use of the conditional to express unvarnished material implication
rather than as a rhetorical device is so rare, you see...

[jon...@breathe.com]

5yrs without driving is not a punishment at all. Both my sons have never owned a car , both have licences, one working and well paid for several years.
300hrs picking up bags of poo on roadsides is a bit of a bargain for slaughtering 2 innocent people.

And the judge thinks we must all wear helmets. All the time , I suppose, since even he must realise that almost all serious head injuries do not involve cycling .

[Simon Mason]

On May 7, 8:20�am, jone...@breathe.com wrote:

>
> And the judge thinks we must all wear helmets. All the time , I suppose, since even he must realise that almost all serious head injuries do not involve cycling .

Why should he?
In what part of his law degree does the mitigation of head injuries by
wearing head PPE get taught?
He should not give advice in areas he knows nothing about - if he
wants to pontificate on subjects beyond his training, he should summon
the appropriate expert to the dock and keep his private opinions to
himself.

--
Simon Mason

[Dr Zoidberg]

<jon...@breathe.com> wrote in message
news:b553e31d-1739-413f...@googlegroups.com...

> 5yrs without driving is not a punishment at all.

That depends entirely on your lifestyle and job.
For some people it would be a very minor inconvenience - for others it could
be devastating.

I do think it's not an adequate punishment for a second offence of this sort
though.

> Both my sons have never owned a car , both have licences, one working and
> well paid for several years.
> 300hrs picking up bags of poo on roadsides is a bit of a bargain for
> slaughtering 2 innocent people.
>
> And the judge thinks we must all wear helmets. All the time , I suppose,
> since even he must realise that almost all serious
> head injuries do not involve cycling .

As you know, that's not what he's suggesting. In this specific case, the
injuries were such that a helmet would have reduced or negated them. If you
want to extrapolate from that, then if you are doing something where the
likelihood of head injuries is greater than normal, then a helmet can be a
sensible precaution.
--
Alex

[Andy Leighton]

On Tue, 07 May 2013 13:14:13 +0100, Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
><jon...@breathe.com> wrote in message
> news:b553e31d-1739-413f...@googlegroups.com...

>> And the judge thinks we must all wear helmets. All the time , I suppose,
>> since even he must realise that almost all serious
>> head injuries do not involve cycling .
>
> As you know, that's not what he's suggesting. In this specific case, the
> injuries were such that a helmet would have reduced or negated them.

The judge is probably not qualified to come to that decision on his own?
Was there a lot of expert testimony on that in the trial? If there was,
did the prosecution challenge the expert witness the defence found, did
they put up opposing experts?

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-06, Allan wrote:

> A five-year ban is going to cost McCourt quite a lot (inconvenience of
> no car, cost of buses/trains/taxis), and 300 hours is going to give a
> lot to society (hopefully).
>
> What would giving McCourt a custodial sentence cost society: how much
> does it cost to keep someone in prison? 5 years' ban would equate to 5
> years in prison in terms of a reckless driver being off the road.
>
> It's sad, but you can't get a life back.

There's no reason he should ever be allowed to drive again.

> And a lesson to us all that if you don't wear a helmet, you may be
> considered to be contributing to your own situation.

Oh, you think she was asking for it by not covering up sufficiently?

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-07, Dr Zoidberg wrote:

>
><jon...@breathe.com> wrote in message
> news:b553e31d-1739-413f...@googlegroups.com...
>> 5yrs without driving is not a punishment at all.
>
> That depends entirely on your lifestyle and job.
> For some people it would be a very minor inconvenience - for others it could
> be devastating.
>
> I do think it's not an adequate punishment for a second offence of this sort
> though.

I don't think it's adequate for the first one.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-07, Dr Zoidberg wrote:

><jon...@breathe.com> wrote in message
> news:b553e31d-1739-413f...@googlegroups.com...

>> And the judge thinks we must all wear helmets. All the time , I suppose,
>> since even he must realise that almost all serious
>> head injuries do not involve cycling .
>
> As you know, that's not what he's suggesting. In this specific case, the
> injuries were such that a helmet would have reduced or negated them. If you

That could also be true for a pedestrian hit by a car or bicycle, so...

> want to extrapolate from that, then if you are doing something where the
> likelihood of head injuries is greater than normal, then a helmet can be a
> sensible precaution.

pedestrians should wear helmets.

[Toom Tabard]

On Tuesday, 7 May 2013 17:41:32 UTC+1, Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Tue, 07 May 2013 13:14:13 +0100, Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> ><jon...@breathe.com> wrote in message
> > news:b553e31d-1739-413f...@googlegroups.com...
> >> And the judge thinks we must all wear helmets. All the time , I suppose,
> >> since even he must realise that almost all serious
> >> head injuries do not involve cycling .
> >
> > As you know, that's not what he's suggesting. In this specific case, the
> > injuries were such that a helmet would have reduced or negated them.
>
> The judge is probably not qualified to come to that decision on his own?
> Was there a lot of expert testimony on that in the trial? If there was,
> did the prosecution challenge the expert witness the defence found, did
> they put up opposing experts?
>

It would be useful to have that information. But what is also said is

"The sheriff said he was following guidelines laid down by the Criminal Court of
Appeal, and the circumstances surrounding Mrs Fyfe"s death meant a
non-custodial sentence could be imposed."

and it would be interesting to have details of the guidelines and circumstances
referred to, since there is the implication that failure of the victim to
protect herself might be regarded as mitigating the offence.

Toom

[Simon Mason]

On May 8, 5:19�pm, Toom Tabard <toomtabard1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 May 2013 17:41:32 UTC+1, Andy Leighton �wrote:

> > On Tue, 07 May 2013 13:14:13 +0100, Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > ><jone...@breathe.com> wrote in message

> > >news:b553e31d-1739-413f...@googlegroups.com...
> > >> And the judge thinks we must all wear helmets. All the time , I suppose,
> > >> since even he must realise that almost all serious
> > >> head injuries do not involve cycling .
>
> > > As you know, that's not what he's suggesting. In this specific case, the
> > > injuries were such that a helmet would have reduced or negated them.
>
> > The judge is probably not qualified to come to that decision on his own?
> > Was there a lot of expert testimony on that in the trial? �If there was,
> > did the prosecution challenge the expert witness the defence found, did
> > they put up opposing experts?
>
> It would be useful to have that information. But what is also said is
>
> "The sheriff said he was following guidelines laid down by the Criminal Court of
> Appeal, and the circumstances surrounding Mrs Fyfe"s death meant a
> non-custodial sentence could be imposed."
>
> and it would be interesting to have details of the guidelines and circumstances
> referred to, since there is the implication that failure of the victim to
> protect herself might be regarded as mitigating the offence.
>

> Toom- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So if I trip over a wonky kerb stone walking home and bang my head on
the pavement causing an injury, if I am not wearing a helmet can the
local Council get off paying me as much compensation as a helmeted
pedestrian would get as I was obviously contributing to my own injury
by not wearing one?

Similarly, if I am driving and am not wearing a helmet and become
involved in a head on crash caused by another driver drifting onto the
wrong side of the road and hitting me, do my severe head injuries get
laid partially at my door since I was being negligent in being bare
headed? I mean, rally and F1 drivers wear them, so why not all car
occupants?

--
Simon Mason

[Toom Tabard]

On Wednesday, 8 May 2013 18:32:58 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
> On May 8, 5:19�pm, Toom Tabard <toomtabard1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > It would be useful to have that information. But what is also said is
> >
> > "The sheriff said he was following guidelines laid down by the Criminal Court of
> > Appeal, and the circumstances surrounding Mrs Fyfe"s death meant a
> > non-custodial sentence could be imposed."
> >
> > and it would be interesting to have details of the guidelines and circumstances
> > referred to, since there is the implication that failure of the victim to
> > protect herself might be regarded as mitigating the offence.
> >
>

> So if I trip over a wonky kerb stone walking home and bang my head on
> the pavement causing an injury, if I am not wearing a helmet can the
> local Council get off paying me as much compensation as a helmeted
> pedestrian would get as I was obviously contributing to my own injury
> by not wearing one?
>
> Similarly, if I am driving and am not wearing a helmet and become
> involved in a head on crash caused by another driver drifting onto the
> wrong side of the road and hitting me, do my severe head injuries get
> laid partially at my door since I was being negligent in being bare
> headed? I mean, rally and F1 drivers wear them, so why not all car
> occupants?
>

If the absence of the helmet was a material consideration in the sentencing, I
assume it would an issue of not taking precautions which are reasonably and
commonly taken. That could apply to a helmet when cycling but not as a
pedestrian or driver. However, I think any such considerations, if they are to
apply at all, would, in the absence of legislation making helmets compulsory, be
more appropriate to a civil action than to a criminal case.

Toom

[Simon Mason]

Why is there a difference?

--

Simon Mason

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <365d9e04-fcc6-4b03...@g9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,

Really! We all know why, so it is not even effective as a rhetorical
question. Just in case someone doesn't, it's because the infernal
Highway Code singles out cyclists for helmet wearing.

That is why the 1998 Highway Code was opposed by the thinking
classes, who (as usual) lost out. It didn't JUST single out cyclists,
because pedestrians were hammered, too, but cyclists were hammered
worse.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Owen Dunn]

Because, in Toom's words, wearing a helmet as a pedestrian or driver
is not a precaution which is `reasonably and commonly taken'. Whether
or not you think helmets for cyclists are a good idea, you will find a
reasonable number of people wearing them and you won't find many
people wearing pedestrian or driver helmets.

(S)

[Peter Clinch]

This is true, but is based on perception of risk rather than actual risk.

There are a great many people still wearing St. Christopher pendants as
they perceive they may be blessed with safety when travelling. So is a
St. Christopher a "reasonably and commonly taken precaution"? It is
certainly taken, whether it's "reasonable" is a matter of your
particular belief (i.e., perception).

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Toom Tabard]

On Thursday, 9 May 2013 10:55:29 UTC+1, Peter Clinch wrote:
> On 09/05/2013 10:16, Owen Dunn wrote:
> > Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> On May 8, 10:36 pm, Toom Tabard <toomtabard1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If the absence of the helmet was a material consideration in the
> >>> sentencing, I assume it would an issue of not taking precautions
> >>> which are reasonably and commonly taken. That could apply to a
> >>> helmet when cycling but not as a pedestrian or driver.
> >>
> >> Why is there a difference?
> >
> > Because, in Toom's words, wearing a helmet as a pedestrian or driver
> > is not a precaution which is `reasonably and commonly taken'. Whether
> > or not you think helmets for cyclists are a good idea, you will find a
> > reasonable number of people wearing them and you won't find many
> > people wearing pedestrian or driver helmets.
>
> This is true, but is based on perception of risk rather than actual risk.
>
> There are a great many people still wearing St. Christopher pendants as
> they perceive they may be blessed with safety when travelling. So is a
> St. Christopher a "reasonably and commonly taken precaution"? It is
> certainly taken, whether it's "reasonable" is a matter of your
> particular belief (i.e., perception).
>

The law would not normally accept a person's talisman of faith or belief as an
effective practical precaution. Nor would it accept an interpretation of
a commonly taken real and demonstrable practical precaution as equivalent to a
talisman of belief.

An acceptance in law that a helmet is a reasonable and common precaution
would need something stronger than sophistry to challenge it.

Toom

[John Benn]

"Simon Mason" <swld...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:365d9e04-fcc6-4b03...@g9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...

Because you are much more likely to suffer a head injury cycling than
walking. The severities of any head injuries are likely to be more serious.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-09, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

> Really! We all know why, so it is not even effective as a rhetorical
> question. Just in case someone doesn't, it's because the infernal
> Highway Code singles out cyclists for helmet wearing.
>
> That is why the 1998 Highway Code was opposed by the thinking
> classes, who (as usual) lost out. It didn't JUST single out cyclists,
> because pedestrians were hammered, too, but cyclists were hammered
> worse.

What happened to pedestrians in that revision?

Are old HC versions available on the WWW somewhere for comparison?

[Andy Leighton]

Are you? You are stating that as a fact without numbers to back it up.
I have seen public figures (not just some name on a newsgroup) claim
otherwise. A few weeks back both Chris Boardman and Norman Baker
indicated the injury rates between cyclists and pedestrians were
broadly similar and no special protection is or should be needed.

> The severities of any head injuries are likely to be more serious.

Again I am not sure this is the case.

[Peter Clinch]

On 09/05/2013 13:34, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2013-05-09, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>
>> Really! We all know why, so it is not even effective as a rhetorical
>> question. Just in case someone doesn't, it's because the infernal
>> Highway Code singles out cyclists for helmet wearing.
>>
>> That is why the 1998 Highway Code was opposed by the thinking
>> classes, who (as usual) lost out. It didn't JUST single out cyclists,
>> because pedestrians were hammered, too, but cyclists were hammered
>> worse.
>
> What happened to pedestrians in that revision?

Rule 3
Help other road users to see you. Wear or carry something
light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions. When
it is dark, use reflective materials (e.g. armbands, sashes, waistcoats,
jackets, footwear), which can be seen by drivers using headlights up to
three times as far away as non-reflective materials.

plus a helpful picture showing 2 entirely visible people in normal
clothes being Wrong and themselves again looking like, errr, how
cyclists are apparently meant to be dressed (aside from a lid) being Right.

An important difference is, as noted, the bits that cyclists "should" be
doing have passed in to the general consciousness and they're publicly
disapproved of when not dressing like the Yellow Power Ranger, while
that bit above for pedestrians is almost universally ignored and left
unquoted. I've often been asked where my helmet is when on a bike, I
can't recall any comment to the tune of I'm irresponsible not wearing
reflectives walking the streets after sundown.

> Are old HC versions available on the WWW somewhere for comparison?

Not that I know. But I don't recall my need for reflectives when
reading it as a child. Amazing how I made it though alive!

[Simon Mason]

On May 9, 10:16�am, Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

That runs contrary to my experience at least since the only time I
wear a helmet at all is when I am a pedestrian and a driver, but never
when cycling. My helmet as a pedestrian has saved me from bangs caused
by walking into pipework and scaffolding and only yesterday, some berk
dropped a spanner from about 40 ft above my head which pinged its way
down a tall distillation column missing my bonce by a few feet. As a
driver it has had no benefit though as the site speed limit is only
15mph and I have yet to crash the lab van.

The last time I was in A+E the medic treating me for a bust clavicle
did admit when pressed that he had treated far more drunken peds and
car occupants for head injuries in his 25 years experience than
cyclists so my question to Toom was why he thought that it was
recommended that cyclists should always wear a helmet when in fact the
other two groups actually suffered more recordable incidents of head
injuries than cyclists do, at least with my medic pal's experience
anyway.

Mind you, my A+E medic friend only had 25 years experience in medicine
and not a law qualification :-)

--
Simon Mason

[Simon Mason]

On May 9, 10:16�am, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <365d9e04-fcc6-4b03-aec1-5b895ff6b...@g9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,

> Simon Mason �<swldx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 8, 10:36 pm, Toom Tabard <toomtabard1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> If the absence of the helmet was a material consideration in the sentencing, I
> >> assume it would an issue of not taking precautions which are reasonably and
> >> commonly taken. That could apply to a helmet when cycling but not as a
> >> pedestrian or driver.
>
> >Why is there a difference?
>
> Really! �We all know why, so it is not even effective as a rhetorical
> question. �Just in case someone doesn't, it's because the infernal
> Highway Code singles out cyclists for helmet wearing.
>

That is not strictly true - here is rule 49 for horse riders.

49

Safety equipment. Children under the age of 14 MUST wear a helmet
which complies with the Regulations. It MUST be fastened securely.
Other riders should also follow these requirements. These requirements
do not apply to a child who is a follower of the Sikh religion while
wearing a turban.
Laws H(PHYR) Act 1990, sect 1 & H(PHYR) Regulations 1992, reg 3


--
Simon Mason

[Owen Dunn]

Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> writes:

> On May 9, 10:16�am, Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>> Because, in Toom's words, wearing a helmet as a pedestrian or driver
>> is not a precaution which is `reasonably and commonly taken'. �Whether
>> or not you think helmets for cyclists are a good idea, you will find a
>> reasonable number of people wearing them and you won't find many
>> people wearing pedestrian or driver helmets.
>

> That runs contrary to my experience at least

Unless your vision is really squiffy, I don't think looking at
yourself in the mirror counts as seeing a reasonable number of people
wearing a pedestrian helmet, you know!

(S)

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <275d1e48-b651-40b7...@k8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The last time I was in A+E the medic treating me for a bust clavicle
>did admit when pressed that he had treated far more drunken peds and
>car occupants for head injuries in his 25 years experience than
>cyclists so my question to Toom was why he thought that it was
>recommended that cyclists should always wear a helmet when in fact the
>other two groups actually suffered more recordable incidents of head
>injuries than cyclists do, at least with my medic pal's experience
>anyway.

Given that there are vastly more pedestrians and car occupants
than cyclists, that proves nothing - either way. Your question
remains reasonable.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <c0e3b7f8-5d77-44e2...@dl10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>

Yes but horse-riding is *really* dangerous, indeed it's much more
dangerous than use of illegal drugs, as David Nutt tried to point out to
certain government ministers without much success.

>From Hospital Episode Statistics in 2010-11 there were nearly 4,000
hospital admissions for injuries reported to be equine-transport related
traffic accidents (gleaned from http://www.bhs.org.uk/ )

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/

[Simon Mason]

On May 9, 5:31�pm, Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

When I am at work and am outside *everyone* has to wear a pedestrian
helmet, so on any given work day I could see around 500 people wearing
them.
So at least in my bit of the world they are ubiquitous whereas on the
ride home it is very unusual to see any fellow cyclists wearing one.

--
Simon Mason

[Toom Tabard]

On Thursday, 9 May 2013 16:51:05 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:

>
>
>
> That runs contrary to my experience at least since the only time I
> wear a helmet at all is when I am a pedestrian and a driver, but never
> when cycling. My helmet as a pedestrian has saved me from bangs caused
> by walking into pipework and scaffolding and only yesterday, some berk
> dropped a spanner from about 40 ft above my head which pinged its way
> down a tall distillation column missing my bonce by a few feet. As a
> driver it has had no benefit though as the site speed limit is only
> 15mph and I have yet to crash the lab van.
>

What might be prudent for specific onsite risks has little bearing on what might
be prudent and reasonable in walking and driving in the context of normal road
risk. That is industrial safety risk, not common law road liability risk

>
>
> The last time I was in A+E the medic treating me for a bust clavicle
> did admit when pressed that he had treated far more drunken peds and
> car occupants for head injuries in his 25 years experience than
> cyclists so my question to Toom was why he thought that it was
> recommended that cyclists should always wear a helmet when in fact the
> other two groups actually suffered more recordable incidents of head
> injuries than cyclists do, at least with my medic pal's experience
> anyway.
>

I was impersonally mentioning the implication in the sentencing that the legal
guidelines might take into consideration whether the victim was wearing
or should have been wearing a helmet. That seems to be implied by what the
Sheriff said in applying the guidelines.

It not an issue of what 'I' think or whether I think it should or shouldn't be
applied to other categories of road user.

Toom

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-09, Peter Clinch wrote:

> On 09/05/2013 13:34, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2013-05-09, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

>>> That is why the 1998 Highway Code was opposed by the thinking
>>> classes, who (as usual) lost out. It didn't JUST single out cyclists,
>>> because pedestrians were hammered, too, but cyclists were hammered
>>> worse.
>>
>> What happened to pedestrians in that revision?
>
> Rule 3
> Help other road users to see you. Wear or carry something
> light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions. When
> it is dark, use reflective materials (e.g. armbands, sashes, waistcoats,
> jackets, footwear), which can be seen by drivers using headlights up to
> three times as far away as non-reflective materials.
>
> plus a helpful picture showing 2 entirely visible people in normal
> clothes being Wrong and themselves again looking like, errr, how
> cyclists are apparently meant to be dressed (aside from a lid) being Right.

I agree that it's objectionable; I didn't know when it was added.

> An important difference is, as noted, the bits that cyclists "should" be
> doing have passed in to the general consciousness and they're publicly
> disapproved of when not dressing like the Yellow Power Ranger, while
> that bit above for pedestrians is almost universally ignored and left
> unquoted. I've often been asked where my helmet is when on a bike, I
> can't recall any comment to the tune of I'm irresponsible not wearing
> reflectives walking the streets after sundown.

I'm sure whose fault it is that that stuff has passed into the general
consciousness.

[Adam Funk]

Did they suggest (as I expect to be the case) that the main danger to
both comes from bad driving?

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Simon Mason" <swld...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:b2ca7108-94c2-4488...@j20g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

Conducting a survey on a building site might skew the results somewhat.



--
Alex

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Andy Leighton" <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote in message
news:slrnkon67f...@azaal.plus.com...

I think we can agree that cyclists are likely to be going faster than
pedestrians.
If they have an accident and come into contact with something head first
there's only three options.

The extra speed either makes no difference, it increases the chance of
serious injury or it reduces it.

It's pretty much basic physics that says the extra kinetic energy increases
the chance of serious injury.

--
Alex

[David Damerell]

Quoting Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>:
>On May 9, 10:16�am, n...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>>Really! �We all know why, so it is not even effective as a rhetorical
>>question. �Just in case someone doesn't, it's because the infernal
>>Highway Code singles out cyclists for helmet wearing.
>That is not strictly true - here is rule 49 for horse riders.

No, but that is a MUST, a legal requirement. Agree or no, it seems clear
the compilers of the Highway Code should put it in.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
And now, a seemingly inexplicable shot of a passing train.
Today is Second Monday, May.
Tomorrow will be Second Tuesday, May.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk>:
>I think we can agree that cyclists are likely to be going faster than
>pedestrians.

>It's pretty much basic physics that says the extra kinetic energy increases
>the chance of serious injury.

You might mention that to "Safe Speed". :-)

But let us suppose there is some other dominating element with far more
kinetic energy which causes the majority of serious casualties. (I'll call
it "motor cars", for the sake of argument.) Then differences between peds
and cyclists might be dwarfed by the kinetic energy of these "motor cars",
and the rate at which they hit peds and cyclists might be more important.

[Simon Mason]

On May 9, 9:42�pm, Toom Tabard <toomtabard1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The last time I was in A+E the medic treating me for a bust clavicle
> > did admit when pressed that he had treated far more drunken peds and
> > car occupants for head injuries in his 25 years experience than
> > cyclists so my question to Toom was why he thought that it was
> > recommended that cyclists should always wear a helmet when in fact the
> > other two groups actually suffered more recordable incidents of head
> > injuries than cyclists do, at least with my medic pal's experience
> > anyway.
>
> I was impersonally mentioning the implication in the sentencing that the legal
> guidelines might take into consideration whether the victim was wearing
> or should have been wearing a helmet. That seems to be implied by what the
> Sheriff said in applying the guidelines.

The "guidelines" the Sheriff referred to related to the type of
sentence he could hand down to the driver and had nothing to do with
his unqualified advice about helmet wearing. As I said before, his
personal opinion should not have been aired in an open court and if he
had wanted advice on the subject he should have summoned experts who
at least know something about the matter as since his qualification is
in law, he is not entitled to hand down "advice" about PPE efficacy.

--
Simon Mason

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-09, Adam Funk wrote:

> On 2013-05-09, Peter Clinch wrote:

>> An important difference is, as noted, the bits that cyclists "should" be
>> doing have passed in to the general consciousness and they're publicly
>> disapproved of when not dressing like the Yellow Power Ranger, while
>> that bit above for pedestrians is almost universally ignored and left
>> unquoted. I've often been asked where my helmet is when on a bike, I
>> can't recall any comment to the tune of I'm irresponsible not wearing
>> reflectives walking the streets after sundown.
>
> I'm sure whose fault it is that that stuff has passed into the general

OOPS! "I'm not sure whose fault..."

> consciousness.

[Adam Funk]

OK, but how often do the relevant accidents happen? The only ones
I've had in 15 years involved my knee (nasty abrasion) & hands
(sprained finger; no other harm because protected by gloves).

[Scion]

Simon Mason put finger to keyboard:

Ah, but would he have summoned pro-helmet experts or anti-helmet experts?
There seem to be plenty of both :-)

[Julian Bradfield]

On 2013-05-10, Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The "guidelines" the Sheriff referred to related to the type of
> sentence he could hand down to the driver and had nothing to do with
> his unqualified advice about helmet wearing. As I said before, his

The sentencing guidelines include as a mitigating factor: Where the
actions of the victim or a third party contributed to the commission
of an offence, this should be acknowledged and taken into account as a
mitigating factor.

That's the only thing I can think of that the sheriff could have been
referring to. It's an interesting question as to whether an omission
by the victim that possibly lead to their death rather than injury, is
covered by "an action contributing to the commission of an offence".
I could argue it both ways - and much hangs on the use of "an" rather
than "the" - but I really hope that if the prosecution appeal the
court will give the right answer!



--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

[Scion]

Simon Mason put finger to keyboard:

> On May 9, 5:31 pm, Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Simon Mason <swldx...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > On May 9, 10:16 am, Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> >> Because, in Toom's words, wearing a helmet as a pedestrian or driver
>> >> is not a precaution which is `reasonably and commonly taken'.
>> >> Whether or not you think helmets for cyclists are a good idea, you
>> >> will find a reasonable number of people wearing them and you won't
>> >> find many people wearing pedestrian or driver helmets.
>>
>> > That runs contrary to my experience at least
>>
>> Unless your vision is really squiffy, I don't think looking at yourself
>> in the mirror counts as seeing a reasonable number of people wearing a
>> pedestrian helmet, you know!
>>
>> (S)
>
> When I am at work and am outside *everyone* has to wear a pedestrian
> helmet

You sound ever so dangerous.

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <giqu5ax...@news.ducksburg.com>,

Not often, because the naive physics leads to an erroneous result,
as is so common.

Aside: the rolling resistance of a tyre is inversely proportional
to the effective pressure, which is why trains use steel ones.
So why don't racing cyclists use a thin layer of grippy stuff on
a metal rim? Because that naive analysis works only on dead flat
surfaces and real races are run on tarmac etc.; on that, pneumatic
tyres roll MUCH better.

The head of a 6' pedestrian toppling sideways rigidly will hit the
ground at c. 19 MPH; the equivalent cyclist doing the same will do
so at 17-22 MPH, depending on riding position. Both will fracture
skulls, but that form of fall is thankfully rare. Pedestrians
usually break their fall or crumple, and so the head impact is
much lower.

Cyclists that come off can usually break their fall to some
extent, but the is an even more important factor. If they
come off when moving reasonably fast, they will usually roll
(with a bit of sliding). That means that the initial head impact
is often prevented by the cyclists' shoulders, because it does
have long enough to reach the ground before the roll takes it up
again. That is why most cyclists who come off do not even hit
their head on the ground, and end up with bruises and abrasions
on hips, knees, shoulders, elbows and hands.

It is also one reason that helmets INCREASE the probability and
severity of at least some head impacts. It may be a negligible
factor, or it may not, but it assuredly exists and there has
been little research into it.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-10, Julian Bradfield wrote:

> On 2013-05-10, Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The "guidelines" the Sheriff referred to related to the type of
>> sentence he could hand down to the driver and had nothing to do with
>> his unqualified advice about helmet wearing. As I said before, his
>
> The sentencing guidelines include as a mitigating factor: Where the
> actions of the victim or a third party contributed to the commission
> of an offence, this should be acknowledged and taken into account as a
> mitigating factor.

I see no reason why that should apply to a crime. Do we reduce a
burglar's sentence because the victim didn't have good locks?

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message
news:ul3v5ax...@news.ducksburg.com...

No, however I bet you there's court cases where the defence lawyer has
argued for a more lenient sentence where an opportunistic theft occurred
after the offender spotted an open door (or similar), as it wasn't a
premeditated offence.

In fact, 2 minutes googling found a couple of examples of this type of
request.
http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Amputee-jailed-after-opportunistic-theft-20130429145350.htm
http://www.tuamherald.ie/2013/03/27/valeo-worker-stole-his-team-leader%E2%80%99s-e500-smartphone/
--
Alex

[Owen Dunn]

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:

> I see no reason why that should apply to a crime. Do we reduce a
> burglar's sentence because the victim didn't have good locks?

We might, yes. For burglary, poor locks may mean less damage or
disturbance to the property, which is a factor which can decrease the
category of the offence.

(S)

[Molly Mockford]

At 15:18:10 on Fri, 10 May 2013, Dr Zoidberg
<AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in
<kmiui1$t7t$1...@dont-email.me>:

>
>"Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message
>news:ul3v5ax...@news.ducksburg.com...
>> On 2013-05-10, Julian Bradfield wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-05-10, Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The "guidelines" the Sheriff referred to related to the type of
>>>> sentence he could hand down to the driver and had nothing to do with
>>>> his unqualified advice about helmet wearing. As I said before, his
>>>
>>> The sentencing guidelines include as a mitigating factor: Where the
>>> actions of the victim or a third party contributed to the commission
>>> of an offence, this should be acknowledged and taken into account as a
>>> mitigating factor.
>>
>> I see no reason why that should apply to a crime. Do we reduce a
>> burglar's sentence because the victim didn't have good locks?
>
>No, however I bet you there's court cases where the defence lawyer has
>argued for a more lenient sentence where an opportunistic theft
>occurred after the offender spotted an open door (or similar), as it
>wasn't a premeditated offence.
>
>In fact, 2 minutes googling found a couple of examples of this type of
>request.

It may also be intended to cover cases of incitement - e.g. a
plainclothes policeman asking a suspected dealer to sell him some drugs,
and then nicking him for complying with his request.
--
Molly Mockford
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton Diamond Ph.D.)
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

[Simon Mason]

On May 10, 2:12�pm, Adam Funk <a240...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-10, Julian Bradfield wrote:
>

> > On 2013-05-10, Simon Mason <swldx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The "guidelines" the Sheriff referred to related to the type of
> >> sentence he could hand down to the driver and had nothing to do with
> >> his unqualified advice about helmet wearing. As I said before, his
>
> > The sentencing guidelines include as a mitigating factor: Where the
> > actions of the victim or a third party contributed to the commission
> > of an offence, this should be acknowledged and taken into account as a
> > mitigating factor.
>
> I see no reason why that should apply to a crime. �Do we reduce a
> burglar's sentence because the victim didn't have good locks?

I have just received an appeal petition via the CTC in my inbox.

Part of the appeal wording is this:

QUOTE:
I am greatly concerned the Sheriff mentioned the fact that Mrs Fyfe
wasn't wearing a helmet in his judgement. Without evidence, he was in
no position to decide whether a helmet might have made a difference.

More importantly though, this fact had no bearing on the matter before
him, namely the criminality of McCourt's driving. Hence he had no
legal basis for referring to it when explaining his sentencing
decision.
END

Also quoted:

"Even worse, Sheriff James Scott mentioned the fact that Mrs Fyfe was
not wearing a helmet at the time of the crash. This fact has nothing
to do with the cause of the crash - only if Mrs Fyfe had done
something to contribute to the 'commission of the offence' could this
be taken into consideration as a mitigating factor when the sheriff
sentenced McCourt."

You can sign the petition here:

http://goo.gl/ZArhx

--
Simon Mason

[Toom Tabard]

On Friday, 10 May 2013 10:45:32 UTC+1, Julian Bradfield wrote:
> On 2013-05-10, Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The "guidelines" the Sheriff referred to related to the type of
> > sentence he could hand down to the driver and had nothing to do with
> > his unqualified advice about helmet wearing. As I said before, his
>
> The sentencing guidelines include as a mitigating factor: Where the
> actions of the victim or a third party contributed to the commission
> of an offence, this should be acknowledged and taken into account as a
> mitigating factor.
>
> That's the only thing I can think of that the sheriff could have bee

> referring to. It's an interesting question as to whether an omission
> by the victim that possibly lead to their death rather than injury, is
> covered by "an action contributing to the commission of an offence".
> I could argue it both ways - and much hangs on the use of "an" rather
> than "the" - but I really hope that if the prosecution appeal the
> court will give the right answer!
>

Well, I suppose since the offence committed was that specifically of 'causing
death by careless driving', it could be argued that if not wearing a helmet was the cause, or contributed to the likelihood, of death, than it was an action (of omission) in contributing to the commission of that specified offence.

Toom

[Percy Picacity]

You may be right about this particular offence. As far as murder is
concerned, though, it is an established principle that you must take
your victim as you find him, and unusual vulnerability to being killed
is not a defence.

--

Percy Picacity

[JNugent]

The most likely charge would be "possession with intent to supply", with
the sale (and the defendant's ability to carry it out) merely confirming
the possession and the intent.

[Adam Funk]

I hope you agree that that's just ridiculous "victim-blaming".

[Adam Funk]

"I swear, when I pulled the trigger, I thought he was wearing a
bulletproof jacket, not just a big one."

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message

news:5r106ax...@news.ducksburg.com...

We're back to taking reasonable precautions again.
If you leave your front door unlocked, it clearly doesn't make it right if
someone walks in and nicks your wallet, or if you leave your phone in the
car on the dash it's entirely predictable that it will get stolen.

You'd still get sympathy, but there is an element of you having brought it
upon yourself.

Whether you agree with it or not, wearing a bike helmet is increasingly
seen, by the legal system and society at large, as a sensible and reasonable
precaution to take.

--
Alex

[Zebee Johnstone]

In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sat, 11 May 2013 08:06:11 +0100
Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> nm...@cam.ac.uk considered Thu, 09 May 2013 17:54:24 +0100 the perfect
> time to write:
>
>>In article <275d1e48-b651-40b7...@k8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

>>Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>The last time I was in A+E the medic treating me for a bust clavicle
>>>did admit when pressed that he had treated far more drunken peds and
>>>car occupants for head injuries in his 25 years experience than
>>>cyclists so my question to Toom was why he thought that it was
>>>recommended that cyclists should always wear a helmet when in fact the
>>>other two groups actually suffered more recordable incidents of head
>>>injuries than cyclists do, at least with my medic pal's experience
>>>anyway.
>>

>>Given that there are vastly more pedestrians and car occupants
>>than cyclists, that proves nothing - either way. Your question
>>remains reasonable.
>>
> And the answer is the same at Addenbrookes, in Cambridge, where there
> are vast numbers of cyclists, which proves rather more.

At least one trauma surgeon in NSW is pushing for car occupants to
wear bicycle helmets.

Apparently car occupants are the largest single group in head injury
wards. Even with modern seatbelts and airbags. I think he said it
was the side pillar that did the damage and even padding around the
temples was better than nothing.

Zebee

[Simon Mason]

On May 11, 9:34�am, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> At least one trauma surgeon in NSW is pushing for car occupants to
> wear bicycle helmets.
>
> Apparently car occupants are the largest single group in head injury
> wards. �Even with modern seatbelts and airbags. �I think he said it
> was the side pillar that did the damage and even padding around the
> temples was better than nothing.
>
> Zebee

An Australian firm once piloted these bespoke driving helmets
convinced that they would catch on as a sensible precaution against
head impacts in car crashes.

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/05/motoring-helmets-for-real-high-risk.html

--
Simon Mason

[Kim Bolton]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 14:11:40 +0100, nmm1 wrote:

> Cyclists that come off can usually break their fall to some extent, but
> the is an even more important factor. If they come off when moving
> reasonably fast, they will usually roll (with a bit of sliding). That
> means that the initial head impact is often prevented by the cyclists'
> shoulders, because it does have long enough to reach the ground before
> the roll takes it up again. That is why most cyclists who come off do
> not even hit their head on the ground, and end up with bruises and
> abrasions on hips, knees, shoulders, elbows and hands.
>
> It is also one reason that helmets INCREASE the probability and severity
> of at least some head impacts. It may be a negligible factor, or it may
> not, but it assuredly exists and there has been little research into it.

If you don't mind my saying so, your last sentence contradicts itself.

If there has been no research, how can one say that something 'assuredly' exists, as you do above? Yet you are
already speculating as to the level of it ('it may be negligible or it may not').

--
Kim Bolton

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <av79dp...@mid.individual.net>,

Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Cyclists that come off can usually break their fall to some extent, but
>> the is an even more important factor. If they come off when moving
>> reasonably fast, they will usually roll (with a bit of sliding). That
>> means that the initial head impact is often prevented by the cyclists'
>> shoulders, because it does have long enough to reach the ground before
>> the roll takes it up again. That is why most cyclists who come off do
>> not even hit their head on the ground, and end up with bruises and
>> abrasions on hips, knees, shoulders, elbows and hands.
>>
>> It is also one reason that helmets INCREASE the probability and severity
>> of at least some head impacts. It may be a negligible factor, or it may
>> not, but it assuredly exists and there has been little research into it.
>
>If you don't mind my saying so, your last sentence contradicts itself.

No, it doesn't.

>If there has been no research, how can one say that something
>'assuredly' exists, as you do above?

Because it follows from basic physics and physiology. It has been
observed in quite a lot of anecdotal evidence, too. There HAS been
some published research into the magnitude of the effect, too; what
there has not been is any research as to how important it is in
actual accidents on the road.

>Yet you are already speculating as to the level of it ('it may be
>negligible or it may not').

The mind boggles. You clearly aren't a logician.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Kim Bolton]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 09:39:29 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote:

> Nowhere in the world has ever been able to show any reduction in head
> injury rates to cyclists that is even coincidental with increased helmet
> wearing rates. In fact, the reverse seems to be true.
> The safest places to ride a bike are those where almost nobody wears a
> helmet, and the most dangerous are those where everyone does.

Taking this statement, for the sake of discussion, as true, it then begs a very significant question.

There are many, many fields of human endeavour where equipment intended to provide some safety benefit
has been developed or improved. Motorcycle crash helmets might be one such, personal safety equipment on
building sites another. Formula 1 racers can now survive without serious injury some incredible crashes. Halifax
bombers were preferred by many crews because the aircraft had well-designed and well-placed escape hatches
- 2 per crew of 7 survived being shot down, compared to the Lancaster's 1 out of 7.

Figures for 2008 show deaths on building sites falling by 26 percent:

http://m.building.co.uk/news/site-deaths-drop-26-to-record-low/3143396.article

Essentially, there are many fields where safety equipment has been imposed, where subsequent death (and,
one hopes, injury) rates have fallen.

The question is this: with the above in mind, what facts or factors conspire in which ways to make cycling unique
in that the use of safety equipment makes things worse?

--
Kim Bolton

[Kim Bolton]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 20:05:49 +0100, nmm1 wrote:

> In article <av79dp...@mid.individual.net>,
> Kim Bolton <nos...@all.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Cyclists that come off can usually break their fall to some extent,
>>> but the is an even more important factor. If they come off when
>>> moving reasonably fast, they will usually roll (with a bit of
>>> sliding). That means that the initial head impact is often prevented
>>> by the cyclists' shoulders, because it does have long enough to reach
>>> the ground before the roll takes it up again. That is why most
>>> cyclists who come off do not even hit their head on the ground, and
>>> end up with bruises and abrasions on hips, knees, shoulders, elbows
>>> and hands.
>>>
>>> It is also one reason that helmets INCREASE the probability and
>>> severity of at least some head impacts. It may be a negligible
>>> factor, or it may not, but it assuredly exists and there has been
>>> little research into it.
>>
>>If you don't mind my saying so, your last sentence contradicts itself.
>
> No, it doesn't.

I'm afraid it does. Your assurance counts for nothing in the world of referenced works. Had it had a sound,
published scientific basis, I'm sure you would have said so, rather than offering a mere personal assurance.

On that basis, the rest of your post has no value.

> The mind boggles. You clearly aren't a logician.

That's a mere ad hominem.


--
Kim Bolton

[Toom Tabard]

On Friday, 10 May 2013 14:11:40 UTC+1, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

>
> Cyclists that come off can usually break their fall to some
> extent, but the is an even more important factor. If they
> come off when moving reasonably fast, they will usually roll
> (with a bit of sliding). That means that the initial head impact
> is often prevented by the cyclists' shoulders, because it does
> have long enough to reach the ground before the roll takes it up
> again. That is why most cyclists who come off do not even hit
> their head on the ground, and end up with bruises and abrasions
> on hips, knees, shoulders, elbows and hands.
>

There may be some circumstances where you fall sideways or hit the ground at
an oblique angle and can avoid banging your head. It's a bit more problematic
in most circumstance and if you 'come off' the bike.

My wife has a plastic bag filled with sand and with a little face drawn on it.
It is to illustrate the weight, size, volume (and content?) of the
average head. She uses it in her physiology classes. It is a surprisinly
weighty object. The momentum of that weight on the shoulders can make
it difficult to avoid hitting your head in many types of fall.

A couple of years ago, as a pedestrian, I slipped on ice and fell on my back,
and even though I'd bent my head forward I couldn't stop my head getting
forced back and hitting the pavement (Oh! Oh! the case for pedestrian helmets!).
The impact was sufficient for me to need checked at A&E. Similarly I recently
tripped and fell forward whilst doing a gentle trot along the pavement.
Even having time to put out both arms and twist my head to the side, I couldn't
avoid hitting my head hard on the pavement. The head is like a substantial
weight at the end of a lever. (Another good example is its substantial
inertia resulting in whiplash injury.)

> It is also one reason that helmets INCREASE the probability and
> severity of at least some head impacts. It may be a negligible
> factor, or it may not, but it assuredly exists and there has
> been little research into it.
>

The weight and size of a helmet may marginally increase the risk of hitting
the head. The protection it gives will, in most cases, totally outweigh
this risk.

Toom

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <1471668d-59e9-45fc...@googlegroups.com>,

Toom Tabard <toomtab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Cyclists that come off can usually break their fall to some
>> extent, but the is an even more important factor. If they
>> come off when moving reasonably fast, they will usually roll
>> (with a bit of sliding). That means that the initial head impact
>> is often prevented by the cyclists' shoulders, because it does
>> have long enough to reach the ground before the roll takes it up
>> again. That is why most cyclists who come off do not even hit
>> their head on the ground, and end up with bruises and abrasions
>> on hips, knees, shoulders, elbows and hands.
>
>There may be some circumstances where you fall sideways or hit the ground at
>an oblique angle and can avoid banging your head. It's a bit more problematic
>in most circumstance and if you 'come off' the bike.

Considering the number of people who can witness that they have
come off their bicycle many times and not hit their heads, you
are ignoring the actual evidence from the field.

>My wife has a plastic bag filled with sand and with a little face drawn on it.
>It is to illustrate the weight, size, volume (and content?) of the
>average head. She uses it in her physiology classes. It is a surprisinly
>weighty object. The momentum of that weight on the shoulders can make
>it difficult to avoid hitting your head in many types of fall.

Let's ignore the minor detail that even dry sand is denser than
heads, yes, heads are weighty. But you either did not read or did
not understand what I said. The naive analysis applies only when
a pedestrian falls over sideways or back, semi-rigidly, or a cyclist
falls over sideways when not moving. At most speeds the cyclist
rolls, and the head does not move far enough to hit the ground
before the cyclist has rolled so that direction is up.

>A couple of years ago, as a pedestrian, I slipped on ice and fell on my back,
>and even though I'd bent my head forward I couldn't stop my head getting
>forced back and hitting the pavement (Oh! Oh! the case for pedestrian helmets!).
>The impact was sufficient for me to need checked at A&E. Similarly I recently
>tripped and fell forward whilst doing a gentle trot along the pavement.
>Even having time to put out both arms and twist my head to the side, I couldn't
>avoid hitting my head hard on the pavement. The head is like a substantial
>weight at the end of a lever. (Another good example is its substantial
>inertia resulting in whiplash injury.)

Yes, but NEITHER are representative of cycling accidents, and that
is the point. You one-track pro-helmet people take evidence that
is supportive of (say) helmets for pedestrians and then say "but
cyclists oviously need it so much more that it should be required
for them but not pedestrians". That's lunacy.

>> It is also one reason that helmets INCREASE the probability and
>> severity of at least some head impacts. It may be a negligible
>> factor, or it may not, but it assuredly exists and there has
>> been little research into it.
>
>The weight and size of a helmet may marginally increase the risk of hitting
>the head. The protection it gives will, in most cases, totally outweigh
>this risk.

It's not marginal - work it out. Not merely does it increase the
moment of inertia about the neck significantly (and remember to
allow for the relative distances of the centres of gravity), it
extends the width of the head sideways by c. 1".

It may or may not increase the torsional effects, which cause
disproportionately more brain damage than impacts. That is a
Carefully Not Researched Question.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Toom Tabard]

On Monday, 13 May 2013 12:13:34 UTC+1, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <1471668d-59e9-45fc...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Toom Tabard <toomtab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>
> Considering the number of people who can witness that they have
>
> come off their bicycle many times and not hit their heads, you
>
> are ignoring the actual evidence from the field.
>
>
>
> >My wife has a plastic bag filled with sand and with a little face drawn on it.
> >It is to illustrate the weight, size, volume (and content?) of the
> >average head. She uses it in her physiology classes. It is a surprisinly
> >weighty object. The momentum of that weight on the shoulders can make
> >it difficult to avoid hitting your head in many types of fall.
>
> Let's ignore the minor detail that even dry sand is denser than
> heads, yes, heads are weighty.

I have it here as I type! It is definitely a mineral sand! It can be
held beside an adult female head and is comparable in size! I've weighed it on
the kitchen scales and consulted several sources which broadly agree it is
towards the lower end of the weight range for an adult human head.

However, since I can't point to any research papers confirming this, I
realise that my empirical observations will not be valid ;-)

Otherwise we are merely getting into the standard and traditional
interchange on helmets. I'm quite happy for people to consider
the points I made on their merits and leave it at that.

Regards,

Toom

[Tom Gardner]

nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> It may or may not increase the torsional effects, which cause
> disproportionately more brain damage than impacts. That is a
> Carefully Not Researched Question.

A few decades ago I saw reports that A&E departments were
seeing more motorcycle riders with brain damage caused by
the "plastic" helmet sticking to the road while they slid
after coming off. Blancmange (the word used to describe
the brain!) is easily disrupted by shear forces when it
is suddenly rotated.

No, I can't supply references and I doubt that I could
have traced them at the time!

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <131c10af-3fef-4157...@googlegroups.com>,

Toom Tabard <toomtab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >My wife has a plastic bag filled with sand and with a little face drawn on it.
>> >It is to illustrate the weight, size, volume (and content?) of the
>> >average head. She uses it in her physiology classes. It is a surprisinly
>> >weighty object. The momentum of that weight on the shoulders can make
>> >it difficult to avoid hitting your head in many types of fall.
>>
>> Let's ignore the minor detail that even dry sand is denser than
>> heads, yes, heads are weighty.
>
>I have it here as I type! It is definitely a mineral sand! It can be
>held beside an adult female head and is comparable in size! I've weighed it on
>the kitchen scales and consulted several sources which broadly agree it is
>towards the lower end of the weight range for an adult human head.

I can believe that, but it's not what most people call sand.

>However, since I can't point to any research papers confirming this, I
>realise that my empirical observations will not be valid ;-)

Well, you could post the weight and diameters!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Toom Tabard]

On Monday, 13 May 2013 13:36:48 UTC+1, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <131c10af-3fef-4157...@googlegroups.com>,
> Toom Tabard <toomtab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> >My wife has a plastic bag filled with sand and with a little face drawn on it.
> >> >It is to illustrate the weight, size, volume (and content?) of the
> >> >average head. She uses it in her physiology classes. It is a surprisinly
> >> >weighty object. The momentum of that weight on the shoulders can make
> >> >it difficult to avoid hitting your head in many types of fall.
> >>
> >> Let's ignore the minor detail that even dry sand is denser than
> >> heads, yes, heads are weighty.
>
> >I have it here as I type! It is definitely a mineral sand! It can be
> >held beside an adult female head and is comparable in size! I've weighed it on
> >the kitchen scales and consulted several sources which broadly agree it is
> >towards the lower end of the weight range for an adult human head.
>
> I can believe that, but it's not what most people call sand.
>

She put the thing together herself from a bag labelled 'sand' by the wholesaler,
and sold by a national garden/diy place as sand. It looks like sand
and feels likes sand.The remainder of it, mixed with cement made an
acceptable mortar.

However, since I can't point to any scientific evaluation confirming this, I

realise that my empirical observations will not be valid :-)

>
> Well, you could post the weight and diameters!
>

My neighbour has just been to the door. I asked her for permission to
compare her head with a bag of sand. We agreed they were reasonably the same size.

Would you also like a phrenology lab report to prove the bumps are in
the right place? Measurement of IQ?

The only point is - it's the shape, size and weight of a heid, a noddle, a bonce, and gives a good illustration of how heavy (and dense!!) heads are.

Toom

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <7ecc196f-ebd4-458d...@googlegroups.com>

It doesn't take much knowledge or observation to realise that a bag
about the size of a head filled with sand, so as to be about the weight
of a head, is not a very good physical model of an actual head.

The head does not have a uniform average density and form, but rather
instead it has within it a brain, within a fluid, that is retained
within a skull which in turn is surrounded by flesh. In a fall the brain
can move within the fluid, the skin can compress and tear, and it
can also can move relative to the skull. The physical forces of
angular and linear acceleration acting on the head in a fall will be
nothing like those acting on a bag of sand when dropped.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/

[Simon Mason]

On May 13, 2:36�pm, Toom Tabard <toomtabard1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Well, you could post the weight and diameters!
>
> My neighbour has just been to the door. I asked her for permission to
> compare her head with a bag of sand. We agreed they were reasonably the same size.
>
> Would you also like a phrenology lab report to prove the bumps are in
> the right place? Measurement of IQ?
>
> The only point is - it's the shape, size �and weight of a heid, a noddle, a bonce, and gives a good illustration of how heavy (and dense!!) heads are.
>
> Toom

ISTR that Edgar Froese (of Tangerine Dream) recorded side B of his
1974 album "Aqua" using Gunther Brunschen's "Artificial Head System",
whereby the microphones were placed inside the ears of a dummy human
head which was supposed to enhance the stereo experience.

QUOTE:

"On Aqua, Edgar Froese did some experiments with artificial stereo as
one of the pioneers in this field of recording; two microphones were
put inside the ears of an artificial head and were supposed to hear --
and record -- as a human being would hear things. One side of the
album is recorded with this new technique, which should help improve
the stereo image and make a more realistic 3D-sound."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUxIDFoo9zI

--
Simon Mason

[Zebee Johnstone]

In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Mon, 13 May 2013 12:58:15 +0100

Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>> It may or may not increase the torsional effects, which cause
>> disproportionately more brain damage than impacts. That is a
>> Carefully Not Researched Question.
>
> A few decades ago I saw reports that A&E departments were
> seeing more motorcycle riders with brain damage caused by
> the "plastic" helmet sticking to the road while they slid
> after coming off. Blancmange (the word used to describe
> the brain!) is easily disrupted by shear forces when it
> is suddenly rotated.
>

That's interesting... When I started riding in 1982 I was seriously
told not to buy a "plastic" helmet because they bounced instead of
asbsorbing shock.

But I never heard that one.

Meaning that the stories going around in different places about things
are different and you can never trace them back. Two different
stories about polycarb helmets do make me wonder if neither was so but
both were about new being bad.

Admittedly if you take a polycarb lid of the era and drop it on the
ground it does bounce. Whether this has any adverse affect in a crash
situation I don't know. But it is an impressive demo that can cause a
gut reaction of "no" if you are led to believe bouncing is bad.

I'll ask around and see if anyone else has heard that sticking story.
If not then maybe confined to the UK and a socioligist could have
heaps of fun about why Oz had one story and the UK another.

It might be as simple as it never came up here because not enoug
crashes in polycarb lids.


Zebee

[Toom Tabard]

On Monday, 13 May 2013 17:31:52 UTC+1, mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

>
> It doesn't take much knowledge or observation to realise that a bag
> about the size of a head filled with sand, so as to be about the weight
> of a head, is not a very good physical model of an actual head.
>
>
> The head does not have a uniform average density and form, but rather
> instead it has within it a brain, within a fluid, that is retained
> within a skull which in turn is surrounded by flesh. In a fall the brain
> can move within the fluid, the skin can compress and tear, and it
> can also can move relative to the skull. The physical forces of
> angular and linear acceleration acting on the head in a fall will be
> nothing like those acting on a bag of sand when dropped.
>
>

I used the example simply as an indication of the gross weight, density and the
considerable momentum which is generated by the head which makes reaction and
avoidance of it hitting the ground rather difficult. It largely acts as a
simple unit entity in that regard. Despite theories about instinctive reaction,
rolling etc, it's a substantial momentum at one end of the body and it's
difficult to stop it hitting the ground, even when you fall forward and can
stick your arms out. Hence all the bashed faces on people who trip. It's also
exemplified in the injury which can occur to spine,
neck and brain when the body stops or is restrained but the head can move
freely, as in the result of many crash test scenarios, and the need for airbags
in addition to body restraint.

What you describe accounts for the complex injuries, rather than whether the head actually strikes the ground or some other object

Toom

[Tom Gardner]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Mon, 13 May 2013 12:58:15 +0100
> Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>>> It may or may not increase the torsional effects, which cause
>>> disproportionately more brain damage than impacts. That is a
>>> Carefully Not Researched Question.
>>
>> A few decades ago I saw reports that A&E departments were
>> seeing more motorcycle riders with brain damage caused by
>> the "plastic" helmet sticking to the road while they slid
>> after coming off. Blancmange (the word used to describe
>> the brain!) is easily disrupted by shear forces when it
>> is suddenly rotated.
>>
>
> That's interesting... When I started riding in 1982 I was seriously
> told not to buy a "plastic" helmet because they bounced instead of
> asbsorbing shock.
>
> But I never heard that one.
>
> Meaning that the stories going around in different places about things
> are different and you can never trace them back. Two different
> stories about polycarb helmets do make me wonder if neither was so but
> both were about new being bad.

Quite possible. ISTR there was a degree of "we like our
metal helmets" in the reports!

> Admittedly if you take a polycarb lid of the era and drop it on the
> ground it does bounce. Whether this has any adverse affect in a crash
> situation I don't know. But it is an impressive demo that can cause a
> gut reaction of "no" if you are led to believe bouncing is bad.

I'm unconvinced that demo represents how the helmet+body would behave
in a crash.

In a perfectly elastic collision between a moving and an
immovable object, the moving object experiences twice the
momentum change that occurs in a perfectly inelastic collision.
And that will tend to be translated into higher forces.

It is best if something other than the brain absorbs the
energy of the impact, and also limits the peak forces.
Hence energy absorbing foam is used in ejector seats,
to minimise the damage to the spine.

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <6f9892fe-d95d-4137...@googlegroups.com>,

I think that you will find that Mike knows quite a lot about that.
The person who is quoting personal theories unsupported by either
appropriate physics and physiology or statistical evidence is you.

Despite your claims, the simple fact is that most cyclists do not
hit their heads when falling. You are completely ignoring the
fact that acceleration is the second derivative of distance, and
an (effectively fast rotating) acceleration doesn't necessarily
have much of an aggregate effect. It's the rolling that does it,
which is why cyclists that hit a solid object come off very badly
and those that don't usually just get up and carry on.

Your other examples are totally irrelevant. The head is at the
front of the body facing forwards and protected by the shoulders
sideways, and a person falling forwards like a toppling tree has
to stop the whole weight of the body with his arms, and not just
the head. Even there, the vast majority of people who trip
forward do NOT bash their faces, because that is not how they
fall. And what the movement of a head relative to a constrained
body has to do with cycling is beyond me.

You still haven't posted the weight and dimensions of your bag
of sand, though you say that you weighed it.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Peter Clinch]

On 13/05/2013 21:56, Toom Tabard wrote:
<snip>

> I used the example simply as an indication of the gross weight, density and the
> considerable momentum which is generated by the head which makes reaction and
> avoidance of it hitting the ground rather difficult. It largely acts as a
> simple unit entity in that regard. Despite theories about instinctive reaction,
> rolling etc, it's a substantial momentum at one end of the body and it's
> difficult to stop it hitting the ground, even when you fall forward and can
> stick your arms out. Hence all the bashed faces on people who trip. It's also
> exemplified in the injury which can occur to spine,
> neck and brain when the body stops or is restrained but the head can move
> freely, as in the result of many crash test scenarios, and the need for airbags
> in addition to body restraint.

Yet, as Nick pointed out yesterday, the real-world evidence that this
creates more of a problem for cyclists than pedestrians is lacking.

And as you pointed out yourself, it's entirely possible for this problem
to affect pedestrians, yet they realise it's rare enough and generally
non-fatal enough not to bother with PPE.

Take this chap as an example of the sort of person who's far more likely
to fall off his bike than an adult not engaged in something like
technical MTB or trick riding...
http://rethinkingchildhood.com/2012/10/02/child-learn-ride-bike/
And as well as being more prone to falling he'll probably have
proportionately more problem keeping his head up.

This experience is an entirely normal thing in NL, and in this case the
much vaunted Dutch infrastructure will be absolutely no help at all
(which will also be the case for many simple falls from a bike for
adults, which don't involve other vehicles, or only other bikes). It
/was/ an entirely normal thing in the UK when I was growing up, before
practical helmets were available and when many more children than today
seemed to get about by (rather grotty) bike. If it were the case that
falling cyclists were far more likely to hit their heads then anyone as
old as me would have known a litany of head injuries amongst their peers
from cycle crashes... and yet there's no clear evidence it was ever a
particularly big problem. And the Dutch government are not crying out
for children to wear helmets to learn because falling from bikes is
particularly more productive of head injuries than it is for e.g.
toddlers learning to walk, and their adults don't seem to be especially
prone to the sort of injury that has been suggested is more likely to
happen to falling cyclists than pedestrians (odd, when there are so many
of them).

The assertion has been that cyclists are significantly more at risk of
hitting their heads than pedestrians so benefit more from PPE. I have
yet to see any meaningful evidence that that assertion holds much water.

Last time I hit my head falling off a bike was about 10 years ago, when
I still wore a helmet. I took it on the chin, so it didn't do me any
good... All the falls since have been sideways low speed, and I've
never hit my head. Had I been wearing a helmet I might have hit it
gently (increased size and weight), and I'm pretty sure that had that
happened I'd have been telling everyone (and been assured in turn by
everyone) that it was a good job I'd been wearing a helmet. And that in
turn would have added to their aura of sensibility for everyone involved.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <6f9892fe-d95d-4137...@googlegroups.com>

Toom Tabard <toomtab...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 13 May 2013 17:31:52 UTC+1, mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>
> >
> > It doesn't take much knowledge or observation to realise that a bag
> > about the size of a head filled with sand, so as to be about the weight
> > of a head, is not a very good physical model of an actual head.
> >
> >
> > The head does not have a uniform average density and form, but rather
> > instead it has within it a brain, within a fluid, that is retained
> > within a skull which in turn is surrounded by flesh. In a fall the brain
> > can move within the fluid, the skin can compress and tear, and it
> > can also can move relative to the skull. The physical forces of
> > angular and linear acceleration acting on the head in a fall will be
> > nothing like those acting on a bag of sand when dropped.
> >
> >
>
> I used the example simply as an indication of the gross weight,
> density

But it's not an indication of the density of a real head, because a real
head doesn't have a uniform density.

> and the considerable momentum which is generated by the head which
> makes reaction and avoidance of it hitting the ground rather
> difficult.

Again because the brain and cerebral fluid can move within the skull
they can experience a different momentum to the skull, unlike your bag
full of sand.

> It largely acts as a simple unit entity in that regard. Despite
> theories about instinctive reaction, rolling etc, it's a substantial
> momentum at one end of the body and it's difficult to stop it hitting
> the ground, even when you fall forward and can stick your arms out.
> Hence all the bashed faces on people who trip.

You're making a good argument for helmets when walking.

However having experienced many a fall whilst skiing at speed I can say
that the outcome is very different to a simple trip or fall whilst
walking. When skiing I usually end up losing speed gradually after
rolling or sliding, whereas when I trip whilst walking it's a more
direct and sudden halt.

> It's also exemplified in the injury which can occur to spine, neck and
> brain when the body stops or is restrained but the head can move
> freely, as in the result of many crash test scenarios, and the need
> for airbags in addition to body restraint.

Whereas in a fall whilst skiing or cycling your whole body including
your head is able to tumble together.

>
> What you describe accounts for the complex injuries, rather than
> whether the head actually strikes the ground or some other object
>
> Toom
>

It both accounts for the mechanism of complex injuries but it also
demonstrates how the head has evolved a structure to offer protection to
the brain in the event of blows and falls. During our evolutionary past
we've probably needed to climb trees, chase after prey, or away from
predators and also to stand and fight. The head has evolved a structure
so as to offer us some degree of protection for the brain in those
activities.

[Tom Gardner]

mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In message <6f9892fe-d95d-4137...@googlegroups.com>
> Toom Tabard <toomtab...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> and the considerable momentum which is generated by the head which
>> makes reaction and avoidance of it hitting the ground rather
>> difficult.
>
> Again because the brain and cerebral fluid can move within the skull
> they can experience a different momentum to the skull, unlike your bag
> full of sand.

Anybody that has held a brain realises bits of it will move
independently of other bits and the skull.

> However having experienced many a fall whilst skiing at speed I can say
> that the outcome is very different to a simple trip or fall whilst
> walking. When skiing I usually end up losing speed gradually after
> rolling or sliding, whereas when I trip whilst walking it's a more
> direct and sudden halt.

Yes indeed, but I've also watched someone die after a 100yard
slide, when the hit a water cannon. I'll never forget the sound
of the "crump"

>> It's also exemplified in the injury which can occur to spine, neck and
>> brain when the body stops or is restrained but the head can move
>> freely, as in the result of many crash test scenarios, and the need
>> for airbags in addition to body restraint.
>
> Whereas in a fall whilst skiing or cycling your whole body including
> your head is able to tumble together.

Unless the skis are still attached, as both I and my daughter
know to our cost.

> It both accounts for the mechanism of complex injuries but it also
> demonstrates how the head has evolved a structure to offer protection to
> the brain in the event of blows and falls. During our evolutionary past
> we've probably needed to climb trees, chase after prey, or away from
> predators and also to stand and fight. The head has evolved a structure
> so as to offer us some degree of protection for the brain in those
> activities.

I'm not aware of any evolutionary changes after we started
travelling at more than running speed.

But none of that affects the basic validity of your points,
nor whether or not helmets are A Good Thing w.r.t. safety
or other considerations.

[Toom Tabard]

On Tuesday, 14 May 2013 13:19:17 UTC+1, mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

> >
>
>
>
> It both accounts for the mechanism of complex injuries but it also
> demonstrates how the head has evolved a structure to offer protection to
> the brain in the event of blows and falls. During our evolutionary past
> we've probably needed to climb trees, chase after prey, or away from
> predators and also to stand and fight. The head has evolved a structure
> so as to offer us some degree of protection for the brain in those
> activities.
>
>

Have you considered that that gives a survival advantage because the momentum
of the weight in the head tends to make it difficult to react quickly, roll and
stop it hitting things? And the associated intelligence capability for survival
enables us to augment this by inventing and in some cases, using, helmets.

Toom

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <c1b676df-e7a6-4fe4...@googlegroups.com>

What I've considered is that the concept of having a brain surrounded by
fluid within a more rigid skull has passed the tests of time as giving a
reasonable probability of survival in order to procreate the species

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgSc-jtO5iE

[almo...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:14:13 PM UTC+1, Dr Zoidberg wrote:

> > 5yrs without driving is not a punishment at all.
>
>
>
> That depends entirely on your lifestyle and job.
>
> For some people it would be a very minor inconvenience - for others it could
>
> be devastating.
>
I think you're being too free with the word "devastating". He may have to change his job or move house. Or get the bus to work. Er, that's not devastating. The relatives of people killed suddenly are the ones who are devastated.
>
> I do think it's not an adequate punishment for a second offence of this sort
>
> though.
>
Agree.
>
>

[Danny Colyer]

Quite a few years ago (late 90s IIRC) I read several stories about an
inventor having developed an artificial skin for motorcycle helmets, for
precisely this reason. He was trying to find a manufacturer to take it
into production.

A few minutes rummaging on Google finds that it, or something very
similar, seems to have gone into production in 2010 as SuperSkin helmets:
http://www.examiner.com/article/superskin-helmet-touted-as-lifesaver

<http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/Products/productsresults/Helmets/2009/December/DEC0209-LAZER-SUPERSKIN-HELMETS/>

http://www.phillipshelmets.com/


--
Danny Colyer
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down. This should be every boy's
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson

[Peter Clinch]

So back to the previous point, of why /doesn't/ that apply to, say,
falling down stairs or walking on slippery pavements (which gets people
injured on a routine basis), while it does apply to cycling?

You have still not demonstrated that cycling is particularly productive
of falls or that those falls are particularly productive of head
injuries, or at least not beyond plucking the suggestion from the air
and asserting it to be the case. So why treat it differently with
respect to PPE?

[Toom Tabard]

On Tuesday, 14 May 2013 10:06:55 UTC+1, nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

>
> I think that you will find that Mike knows quite a lot about that.
> The person who is quoting personal theories unsupported by either
> appropriate physics and physiology or statistical evidence is you.
>

But I wasn't aware he had a monopoly in this area. What is your evidence
that it rivals mine?

The issues are those of fairly basic physics, mechanics, materials science
physiology, statistics, logic and reason.

I'm quite happy to leave my arguments and statements to be judged against others
on that basis. The question is why this disturbs you and others?

Toom