Coultas imprisoned for 4years
budstaff
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm
About as stiff a sentence as you would expect, and the rights and wrongs of
the cyclist jumping the red light have been chewed over here several times,
but I was annoyed to see the old red herring 'was not wearing a helmet'
trotted out again in the BBC news article. Have sent the following to their
editors.
It's a small thing, but I'm becoming increasingly irritated by the standard
insertion of the phrase 'who was not wearing a helmet' into news articles
about cyclists who have been killed or injured, even where it is clear that
wearing a helmet would not and could not have saved them (for instance when
they have been run over by a heavy vehicle, struck by a vehicle travelling
at great speed, or simply not suffered any head injuries).
This has two effects: for some it will invest a helmet with a talismanic
power to protect in all circumstances; more importantly it reinforces the
idea that cyclists who do not wear helmets, which are not compulsory, and
are not designed to prevent life-threatening injuries, are guilty of
contributory negligence when they are not.
Today's story to use this formulaic and lazy phrase, that of the
imprisonment of Kiera Coultas, is unusual in that the cyclist could have
avoided death by stopping for a red light. But the collision itself would
have killed him even if he was wearing a helmet.
Yours truly,
Rob Morley
"budstaff" <budstaffdotusegroupatbtinternetdotcom> says...
they act? I'm not holding my breath.
red....@gmail.com
But, the cyclist is being negligent by not wearing a helmet. If Ms
Collas hadn't been speeding, and had lowered her speed at a junction,
and hadn't been texting - then likely she may have hit the cyclist
with much less force. And, if he's hit his head falling off the bike
after the lesser impact... well. Hopefully the negligence is obvious.
It's great that she's been sent to jail. She killed someone whilst
being careless with a ton of speeding car.
Wouldn't it be great if the cycling community would accept the
benefits of wearing safety equipment including helmets, lights and
reflectives, as well as all road users (cyclists included) accepting
that using a mobile phone to text whilst on the road is incredibly
stupid. Much more constructive than trying to score points of each
other and pointing blameful fingers at the other folks.
Clive George
news:a72b85dd-2f75-4dac...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> Good point. It is a leading phrasing.
>
> But, the cyclist is being negligent by not wearing a helmet.
Ah good, first post from somebody and it's nonsense. Nothing like starting
as you mean to go on.
clive
red....@gmail.com
> <red.si...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Yup, I definitely feel welcomed.
So, is a helmet really useless, then? Is it worse than useless?
Talking purely physically, the idea of something ablative or
destructive to absorb kinetic energy rather than having it hit the
skull directly seems a potentially good idea.
If they're a bad idea - why do many cyclists wear helmets during
sporting events?
As an utter newbie, perhaps you could point me at some scientific
study demonstrating that helmets are worse than useless in cycling
accidents in general? That'd be lovely, thank you.
S
spindrift
Paul Boyd
> So, is a helmet really useless, then? Is it worse than useless?
> Talking purely physically, the idea of something ablative or
> destructive to absorb kinetic energy rather than having it hit the
> skull directly seems a potentially good idea.
A helmet does have some use in preventing injuries from minor bumps and
scrapes. It will not protect against being hit by a car travelling at
any speed, and there is some evidence to suggest that it can in fact
increase the risk of injury. I wear one when riding off-road when I'm
more likely to hit my head on a low branch or come off the bike, for
instance.
> If they're a bad idea - why do many cyclists wear helmets during
> sporting events?
Misguided insurers.
> As an utter newbie, perhaps you could point me at some scientific
> study demonstrating that helmets are worse than useless in cycling
> accidents in general? That'd be lovely, thank you.
Welcome to this group - you would happen to choose the single most
controversial subject to start out on :-)
--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
budstaff
<red....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bcaae32f-8120-499f...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
you'll need to search for the word h**m*t and other variations as it's such
a vexed issue, but I think I can speak on behalf of most that we do not need
another iteration of the full-blown helmet thread.
FWIW, I think it's generally accepted that helmets do not and are not
designed to give full protection under any impact, they very likely may
increase the danger of rotational trauma to the neck or brain, they may
reduce superficial and cosmetic damage, they will make you sweaty in hot
weather, that a helmet that breaks in an accident has not necessarily saved
your life, that they cannot halt a speeding truck, that compulsion to wear
them generally only reduces injuries by reducing cycling, that the young
think them uncool, and most importantly that anyone is free to wear one if
they want to.
Dave
"Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:13sg3g1...@corp.supernews.com...
In what way do you consider the post nonsense.
I appreciate that not everyone will agree with it's contents.
Personally, I beleive that all road users whether driving, riding (motor or
pedal) and pedestrian ALL need to think about the others.
I also do agree that a cyclist who is trying to use a phone or text whilst
riding is not watching where they are going.
If however, the only bit you disagreed with is the bit you quoted re helmets
then you are entitled to your view just as the poster is.
I think in the case in question that a helmet would have been no use and it
is fine saying IF.
If the cyclist had stopped for light,
if cyclist had worn a helmet,
if car had been travelling slower,
if car driver was watching the road rather than phone.
If any one of these had happened then the accident may not have happened or
being as serious. But who can tell - too many ifs and buts.
Dave
Clive George
news:bcaae32f-8120-499f...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 Feb, 13:51, "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> <red.si...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a72b85dd-2f75-4dac...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Good point. It is a leading phrasing.
>>
>> > But, the cyclist is being negligent by not wearing a helmet.
>>
>> Ah good, first post from somebody and it's nonsense. Nothing like
>> starting
>> as you mean to go on.
>>
>> clive
>
> Yup, I definitely feel welcomed.
Yeah, sorry it happens this way. Trouble is you did post on perhaps the most
controversial of all topics. If you read guides to usenet, one common
recommendation you'll see is to lurk for a while and check the archives (now
on google groups) to get an idea of general etiquette etc - and if you'd
done that you'd know the helmet discussion is a fraught one.
> So, is a helmet really useless, then?
On the whole yes.
> Is it worse than useless?
Sometimes - sometimes they're better than useless. On the whole they come
out as pretty much no effect.
> Talking purely physically, the idea of something ablative or
> destructive to absorb kinetic energy rather than having it hit the
> skull directly seems a potentially good idea.
It does, doesn't it. Unfortunately look into it a bit harder and you'll find
out why the "obvious" isn't necessarily so.
> If they're a bad idea - why do many cyclists wear helmets during
> sporting events?
Various reasons, including insurance, the type of riding, pressure from
sponsors, pressure from well-meaning types.
> As an utter newbie, perhaps you could point me at some scientific
> study demonstrating that helmets are worse than useless in cycling
> accidents in general? That'd be lovely, thank you.
I can't do that, since you said "worse than useless" - the best I can claim
is they're useless. I can point you to www.cyclehelmets.org, where you'll
see a lot of useful information.
clive
budstaff
"Rob Morley" <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2232104fe...@news.individual.net...
The story has changed since the OP and the helmet reference has gone.
Breathe again! Wouldn't it be luvverly to think they _had_ taken notice?
Mike Clark
red....@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
> Wouldn't it be great if the cycling community would accept the
> benefits of wearing safety equipment including helmets
As a health professional I tend to believe that judgements ought to be
made on a sound evidence basis. If I want to get a new drug accepted
onto the market I am expected to provide the scientific and clinical
evidence that shows that it works.
I've looked at the published studies on cycle helmets and have yet to be
convinced of their efficacy by that data.
At best cycle helmets seem to provide a small benefit in very restricted
circumstances, and at worse they may even exacerbate some risks and
injuries.
Mike
--
M.R. Clark PhD, Reader in Therapeutic and Molecular Immunology
Cambridge University, Department of Pathology
Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1QP
Tel +44 (0)1223 333705 Web http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/
POHB
wrote:
> The story has changed since the OP and the helmet reference has gone.
> Breathe again! Wouldn't it be luvverly to think they _had_ taken notice
Must be because I wrote to them on the Contact Us form :-)
red....@gmail.com
complex than I previously thought.
I'd be astonished if all the folks I see abroad on Cambridge streets
were making an carefully informed choice about their lack of helmetage
(and lights, and reflectives) though. Can't the government get some
sort of renaissance for cycling proficiency tests (showing my age,
there).
Mike K Smith
> I'd be astonished if all the folks I see abroad on Cambridge streets
> were making an carefully informed choice about their lack of helmetage
> (and lights, and reflectives) though. Can't the government get some
> sort of renaissance for cycling proficiency tests (showing my age,
> there).
It is my belief that cycle training is more likely to yield benefits
in road safety for cyclists than the promotion of helmet wearing is.
A renaissance for cycling proficiency tests is actually in progress,
with an updated name - bikeability.
Take a look here - http://www.bikeability.org.uk/what_is_bikeability__/
Some of the regulars here are accredited instructors (not me though).
Mike
Clive George
news:a00407c4-17f0-4df3...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> I'd be astonished if all the folks I see abroad on Cambridge streets
> were making an carefully informed choice about their lack of helmetage
> (and lights, and reflectives) though.
See other places where there's a lot of cyclists in an urban environment -
Amsterdam is the classic example. For pootly utility cycling, a cycle helmet
gets in the way, and the local papers aren't full of bikers with head
injuries - which suggests that the choice to not wear one is probably
reasonable. The chances of crashing and smacking your head badly are
actually really quite low, so there's not a vast incentive to wear a hat,
even if they did help.
Re the lights/reflectives thing. I always had lights on my bike, even when
riding in Cambridge. However I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that in
fact they're overrated if you're going slowly. I know I don't typically have
problems seeing unlit cyclists while driving there. (as opposed to unlit
ones on the A65 here...).
There is of course the classic wear-a-helmet-but-no-lights rider :-)
cheers,
clive
Mark T
>> starting as you mean to go on.
> In what way do you consider the post nonsense.
I'm not Clive, but the post is indeedy nonsense. The OP has completely
failed to grasp a rather obvious flaw in his contributory negligence
witterings.
Pedestrians are at a similar (arguably greater...) risk of both head
injuries, serious injuries and being killed.
For a lack of helmet to be CN for a cyclist, it would be equally so for a
pedestrian.
This is prolly the reason why insurers always drop claims of CN before it
gets to court - they've done the sums and realised it's a ridiculous claim.
Mark T
> But, the cyclist is being negligent by not wearing a helmet
Pedestrians are at a similar (arguably greater...) risk of both head
injuries, serious injuries and being killed.
For a lack of helmet to be negligent for a cyclist, it would be equally so
for a pedestrian.
This is prolly the reason why insurers always drop claims of contributory
negligence before it gets to court - they've done the sums and realised
it's a ridiculous claim.
Re: your hi-vis/reflectives comment. They are likely to be more benefit to
pedestrians, who tend not to already have reflectors and lights as cyclists
do.
Andy Leighton
> red....@gmail.com said the following on 29/02/2008 14:01:
>
>> sporting events?
>
> Misguided insurers.
Not just that but individual cyclists don't get the choice if they
want to compete. Also money and sport are inextricably linked.
--
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_
Pete
<snip>
>
> FWIW, I think it's generally accepted that helmets do not and are not
> designed to give full protection under any impact, they very likely may
> increase the danger of rotational trauma to the neck or brain, they may
> reduce superficial and cosmetic damage, they will make you sweaty in hot
> weather, that a helmet that breaks in an accident has not necessarily saved
> your life, that they cannot halt a speeding truck, that compulsion to wear
> them generally only reduces injuries by reducing cycling, that the young
> think them uncool, and most importantly that anyone is free to wear one if
> they want to.
>
>
It would be great if this paragraph could be automatically posted
whenever a H**m*t thead threatens to start as an attempt to head it off
at the pass :)
Pete
budstaff
"Pete" <ni...@EGGSANDSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ksWxj.15548$XI....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Ekul Namsob
> Yes, I apologise. My latent helmet ignorance is cured. It's much more
> complex than I previously thought.
Welcome. There's no need to apologise. I suspect that a lot of current
residents of this group shared your opinion once upon a time. I know I
did.
> I'd be astonished if all the folks I see abroad on Cambridge streets
> were making an carefully informed choice about their lack of helmetage
> (and lights, and reflectives) though.
Well, I suspect most drivers, pedestrians, bikers and roller-bladers are
similarly uninformed. People tend to happily follow the status quo. Or
(even worse, sometimes) just to believe whatever headline they see in a
paper.
FWIW, I don't, as a matter of course, wear bright clothing on my bike. I
do, however, have at least the requisite number of reflectors and lights
and I use them.
I take it you're from Cambridge. What sort of cycling is your cup of
tea? I enjoy a good pootle around the Ribble Valley and Forest of
Bowland, generally on my own as I like to have time to think.
Cheers,
Luke
--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
Sir Jeremy
Correct on all points, however you forgot that the cyclist contributed
to his own death by jumping a redlight, although this doesn't excuse
the motorist who equally should not have been texting while driving
Ian Smith
> On 29 Feb, 13:51, "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > <red.si...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > Ah good, first post from somebody and it's nonsense. Nothing like
> > starting as you mean to go on.
>
>
> So, is a helmet really useless, then?
On balance, yes.
> Is it worse than useless?
On balance, yes.
> Talking purely physically, the idea of something ablative or
> destructive to absorb kinetic energy rather than having it hit the
> skull directly seems a potentially good idea.
The idea of something that significantly increases the torsional load
applied to the brain is, however, a very bad idea.
The idea of something that at motor-vehicle-impact speeds increases
the kinetic energy applied to the head is a bad idea.
> If they're a bad idea - why do many cyclists wear helmets during
> sporting events?
Ah yes, the "my car has five-point belts and automatic fire
extinguishers and I always slip into my nomex suit before setting off"
argument.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Rob Morley
"budstaff" <budstaffdotusegroupatbtinternetdotcom> says...
> The story has changed since the OP and the helmet reference has gone.
> Breathe again! Wouldn't it be luvverly to think they _had_ taken notice?
>
It would be quite a result.
Ekul Namsob
> "Rob Morley" <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2232104fe...@news.individual.net...
> > Good points well made - but will they listen, will they hear, and will
> > they act? I'm not holding my breath.
>
> The story has changed since the OP and the helmet reference has gone.
> Breathe again! Wouldn't it be luvverly to think they _had_ taken notice?
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that they had. It is not in the
BBC's interests to unnecessarily alienate its audience.
Sir Jeremy
Why don't you get the BBC to delete any reference to the RLJ and then
you can place 100% blame on the motorist?
Martin Dann
I would remove the words "in hot weather". Apart from that it is excellent.
Rob Morley
09cbaf...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Sir Jeremy
pete...@virgin.net says...
> Why don't you get the BBC to delete any reference to the RLJ and then
> you can place 100% blame on the motorist?
>
It's not speculation that the cyclist jumped the light, that the driver
was distracted by texting or that the faster a car hits someone the more
likely they are to be killed. It is speculation that a cycle helmet
makes a significant difference if someone is hit by a car doing 45mph.
Just zis Guy, you know?
said in <MPG.2232e77a7...@news.individual.net>:
>It's not speculation that the cyclist jumped the light, that the driver
>was distracted by texting or that the faster a car hits someone the more
>likely they are to be killed. It is speculation that a cycle helmet
>makes a significant difference if someone is hit by a car doing 45mph.
Surely by now they are making them from Unobtanium, that infinitely
strong yet light material used in the original TR&T report?.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Simon Brooke
No. The risk of death or serious injury is very slightly increased by
wearing a cycle helmet, not decreased. The risk of minor scrapes and
bruises is decreased. Cycle helmets, on balance, kill more people than
they save (which is not to say they never save anyone).
Simon Brooke
> On 29 Feb, 13:51, "Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> <red.si...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Good point. It is a leading phrasing.
>>> But, the cyclist is being negligent by not wearing a helmet.
>> as you mean to go on.
>>
>
> Yup, I definitely feel welcomed.
>
Yes, really. If you honestly didn't know that, read the science for
yourself.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ is a good place to start.
Simon Brooke
> If however, the only bit you disagreed with is the bit you quoted re helmets
> then you are entitled to your view just as the poster is.
It isn't 'opinion' that cycle helmets do not, over all, reduce injuries.
It's a fact that, over all, they slightly increase serious injuries and
deaths.
Which makes it slightly different.
Rob Morley
you know?
u...@ftc.gov says...
> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 04:38:38 -0000, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com>
> said in <MPG.2232e77a7...@news.individual.net>:
>
> >It's not speculation that the cyclist jumped the light, that the driver
> >was distracted by texting or that the faster a car hits someone the more
> >likely they are to be killed. It is speculation that a cycle helmet
> >makes a significant difference if someone is hit by a car doing 45mph.
>
> Surely by now they are making them from Unobtanium, that infinitely
> strong yet light material used in the original TR&T report?.
>
effectiveness at protecting the brain, otherwise you could just make
them from exotic carbon/titanium/kevlar/ceramic composites and stop
worrying about it.
Ekul Namsob
> On 29 Feb, 20:23, notmyaddress.1.ekulnam...@wronghead.com (Ekul
> Namsob) wrote:
> > budstaff <budstaffdotusegroupatbtinternetdotcom> wrote:
> > > "Rob Morley" <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > >news:MPG.2232104fe...@news.individual.net...
> > > > Good points well made - but will they listen, will they hear, and will
> > > > they act? I'm not holding my breath.
> >
> > > The story has changed since the OP and the helmet reference has gone.
> > > Breathe again! Wouldn't it be luvverly to think they _had_ taken notice?
> >
> > I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that they had. It is not in the
> > BBC's interests to unnecessarily alienate its audience.
> Why don't you get the BBC to delete any reference to the RLJ and then
> you can place 100% blame on the motorist?
Maybe you haven't noticed that the RLJ is relevant to the story.
Tom Crispin
<si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>red....@gmail.com wrote:
>> Good point. It is a leading phrasing.
>>
>> But, the cyclist is being negligent by not wearing a helmet.
>
>No. The risk of death or serious injury is very slightly increased by
>wearing a cycle helmet, not decreased.
Simon, that is at best misleading. There may be any number of
confounding factors which make that appear to be the case - such as
those with less confidence on a bike being more likely to both wear a
helmet and be killed while cycling.
>The risk of minor scrapes and bruises is decreased.
True enough.
>Cycle helmets, on balance, kill more people than
>they save (which is not to say they never save anyone).
Possibly, but not certainly the case, even if you include the falling
numbers of cyclists when helmet use is made compulsory.
It certainly would be fair to say that there is no conclusive evidence
that wearing a helmet for cycling is of overall benefit - and they
certainly do nothing to lessen the chance of an accident.
Adam Lea
"Tom Crispin" <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
news:u8tis358ee6aa8oc5...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 10:28:11 +0000, Simon Brooke
> <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>red....@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Good point. It is a leading phrasing.
>>>
>>> But, the cyclist is being negligent by not wearing a helmet.
>>
>>No. The risk of death or serious injury is very slightly increased by
>>wearing a cycle helmet, not decreased.
>
> Simon, that is at best misleading. There may be any number of
> confounding factors which make that appear to be the case - such as
> those with less confidence on a bike being more likely to both wear a
> helmet and be killed while cycling.
>
I have my doubts that the very slight increase is statistically significant,
but I am willing to be proved wrong.
DavidR
> So, is a helmet really useless, then?
Depends
> Is it worse than useless?
It can be. When your body has taken the main impact and your head gently
slides along the ground, a helmet could dig in and cause neck injury.
> Talking purely physically, the idea of something ablative or
> destructive to absorb kinetic energy rather than having it hit the
> skull directly seems a potentially good idea.
The helmet is designed to cope with a head hitting the ground at 12mph.
That's was the head's potential energy before the fall.
Kinetic energy? Sorry, it's been used up.
The label in your helmet says that it will not protect you from traffic
accidents.
> If they're a bad idea - why do many cyclists wear helmets during
> sporting events?
Politicians find science difficult.
Sir Jeremy
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
It seemed to me that posters here would have also preferred to edit
the RLJ as well as the helmet references so that the cyclist could be
declared "blameless"
Ekul Namsob
> On 1 Mar, 15:21, notmyaddress.1.ekulnam...@wronghead.com (Ekul Namsob)
> wrote:
> > Sir Jeremy <pete.a...@virgin.net> wrote:
> > > Why don't you get the BBC to delete any reference to the RLJ and then
> > > you can place 100% blame on the motorist?
> >
> > Maybe you haven't noticed that the RLJ is relevant to the story.
> It seemed to me that posters here would have also preferred to edit
> the RLJ as well as the helmet references so that the cyclist could be
> declared "blameless"
It seems to me that you may have been reading a different group from the
one I have been reading. Many of the posters have agreed that the
cyclist shared some of the blame and had suffered rather a significant
non-judiciary punishment for the RLJ.
Of course, you could mean by 'posters here' that more than one poster,
and perhaps even fewer than three, would like such edits to be made. If
so, I can't disagree with you as I've almost certainly killfiled those
two loonies.
Sir Jeremy
There are three loonies who spring to mind at once, but I still detect
a willingness in others to condone his action