Warning after road accident leaves rider injured

Steve Lewis, who is recovering after his bike accident

Steve Lewis, who is recovering after his bike accident

First published in News by

CYCLIST Steve Lewis is reminding people to take care on the roads after an accident left him with difficulties feeding himself.

The 52-year-old from Gorse Hill suffers with fibromyalgia which means he spends a lot of time on his own at home, and when he does go out he travels on his electric bicycle.

But last Saturday Steve was knocked from his bike along Cricklade Road after a woman suddenly opened a car door.

Steve said: “It was raining and I was cycling along Cricklade Road towards Penhill. I had just turned out of Beatrice Street and I was by the old police station and a woman opened her car door right in front of me, so I went straight into the open door.

“Next thing I knew I opened my eyes and I was in the middle of the road, staring at the sky.

“At the time I just thought I had hit the door but now I think I must have gone right over it and my handlebars because they are all twisted now.”

The woman pulled Steve and his bike to the side of the road and they both waited for an ambulance.

He said: “I was feeling a bit dazed and I knew my right hand was bleeding but I thought I was OK.

“I didn’t really want much of a fuss. It didn’t seem too bad at the time and I think it was just that British thing of not wanting any trouble.

“I was more worried about how I was going to get the bike home again.”

But as the afternoon progressed the pain in Steve’s arm got worse, and eventually he called NHS Direct who advised him to go to the Walk-In Centre in Carfax Street.

Steve said: “I went to the walk-in centre at about 7pm. It was empty so I thought I would be seen pretty quickly, but I ended up waiting for an hour and a half. They just told me I would have to go to A&E.”

But Steve had to wait several more hours before he was seen, and doctors said that he had a small fracture in his arm. He was put in a cast and took a taxi back home just after midnight.

Since then Steve has struggled to look after himself with just the one hand.

He said: “I live on my own and I have fibromyalgia which means I am jet lagged all the time, and now I don’t have the use of one of my arms, so I can’t eat a yoghurt or hold a pen or a mouse or lift any feeding implement to feed myself that needs the other hand to hold something else.”

Because of his ordeal Steve is now urging other cyclists to wear a helmet, and for those who are involved in an accident to make sure they take the other person’s details.

He said:” I am definitely going to wear a helmet in future, no matter how silly other people say it looks.

“It’s also told me that if you have a traffic incident you should always swap details, even if you feel OK at the time.”

Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:23am Thu 12 Jun 14

BCDR99 says...

I don't like the faith that is put in a 15 quid piece of expanded polystyrene. no pieces of academic work have proved that helmets save lives. Yes, it "makes sense" and is "obvious" but it just isn't the case. It's not the same clear cut case that seat belts in cars are.

The primary message with regards to cycling safety needs to that EVERYONE needs to look out for everyone else while using the roads.

If people were getting shot would we urge people to wear bullet proof vests all the time? No we wouldn't. We would address the shootings.

Everyone: Drive, walk, cycle, scoot safely.
I don't like the faith that is put in a 15 quid piece of expanded polystyrene. no pieces of academic work have proved that helmets save lives. Yes, it "makes sense" and is "obvious" but it just isn't the case. It's not the same clear cut case that seat belts in cars are. The primary message with regards to cycling safety needs to that EVERYONE needs to look out for everyone else while using the roads. If people were getting shot would we urge people to wear bullet proof vests all the time? No we wouldn't. We would address the shootings. Everyone: Drive, walk, cycle, scoot safely. BCDR99
  • Score: 8

10:33am Thu 12 Jun 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

BCDR99 wrote:
I don't like the faith that is put in a 15 quid piece of expanded polystyrene. no pieces of academic work have proved that helmets save lives. Yes, it "makes sense" and is "obvious" but it just isn't the case. It's not the same clear cut case that seat belts in cars are.

The primary message with regards to cycling safety needs to that EVERYONE needs to look out for everyone else while using the roads.

If people were getting shot would we urge people to wear bullet proof vests all the time? No we wouldn't. We would address the shootings.

Everyone: Drive, walk, cycle, scoot safely.
http://www.brake.org
.uk/info-resources/i
nfo-research/road-sa
fety-factsheets/15-f
acts-a-resources/fac
ts/478-why-cycle-hel
mets-save-lives
[quote][p][bold]BCDR99[/bold] wrote: I don't like the faith that is put in a 15 quid piece of expanded polystyrene. no pieces of academic work have proved that helmets save lives. Yes, it "makes sense" and is "obvious" but it just isn't the case. It's not the same clear cut case that seat belts in cars are. The primary message with regards to cycling safety needs to that EVERYONE needs to look out for everyone else while using the roads. If people were getting shot would we urge people to wear bullet proof vests all the time? No we wouldn't. We would address the shootings. Everyone: Drive, walk, cycle, scoot safely.[/p][/quote]http://www.brake.org .uk/info-resources/i nfo-research/road-sa fety-factsheets/15-f acts-a-resources/fac ts/478-why-cycle-hel mets-save-lives The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: -2

10:39am Thu 12 Jun 14

Former Kingsdownman says...

You make a very good point about too much faith being put into a cycle helmet and as you say the key is for all road users to understand and respect each other.
However I have written off 3 cycle helmets, one when I clipped a curb and hit the pavement, one when I had a mechanical issue and flipped over the bars and a third when standing on a pavement and was hit by a car with my head hitting the windscreen. In all 3 cases I had a high end helmet that was well fitted and do not want to think what head injury I may have had if I had not been wearing one.
At the end of the day it is all about choice but a good helmet from a reputable manufacturer that is fitted correctly can only be a good thing in helping to mitigate the impact should something unexpected happen. They will not though turn you invincible.
You make a very good point about too much faith being put into a cycle helmet and as you say the key is for all road users to understand and respect each other. However I have written off 3 cycle helmets, one when I clipped a curb and hit the pavement, one when I had a mechanical issue and flipped over the bars and a third when standing on a pavement and was hit by a car with my head hitting the windscreen. In all 3 cases I had a high end helmet that was well fitted and do not want to think what head injury I may have had if I had not been wearing one. At the end of the day it is all about choice but a good helmet from a reputable manufacturer that is fitted correctly can only be a good thing in helping to mitigate the impact should something unexpected happen. They will not though turn you invincible. Former Kingsdownman
  • Score: 8

10:45am Thu 12 Jun 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

I do not understand how wearing a helmet would have protected his broken arm?!?
Anyway, it should be the Law for cyclist to wear a helmet, HiVi vest and to have working lights (front and back) or be fined/ have points on their license.
I do not understand how wearing a helmet would have protected his broken arm?!? Anyway, it should be the Law for cyclist to wear a helmet, HiVi vest and to have working lights (front and back) or be fined/ have points on their license. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -12

10:49am Thu 12 Jun 14

BCDR99 says...

From the article "many studies from around the world have shown that if you wear one, the risks you face when cycling are a lot lower."

No, they haven't. That statement is entirely incorrect. A cycle helmet is designed to withstand a fall from 2 metres at 20km/h on to a rounded object such as a kerbstone. That is a tiny proportion of the accidents that a cyclist is likely to encounter.

For the record, I wear one. They are not the primary solution to the safety of cyclists. They're not even in the top 5. The USA has the highest percentage of cyclists that wear helmets in the world and pretty much the highest fatality rates among cyclists.
The Netherlands has the lowest level of cycle helmet wearing and one of the lowest fatality rates. Because they have addressed the real issues, like providing proper facilities for cycling, changing road layouts, changing priorities at junctions and changing the way in which roads are used to help people leave their cars at home and cycle safely.

Brake also state that the BMA support compulsory helmet use. That is not strictly true. They published a paper 10 years ago stating that. But many of their members have undermined that argument.

Brake also state that many countries have successfully introduced compulsory cycle helmet wearing. Again, untrue. The law may have been passed but cycling rates have dropped in those countries. And the BMA themselves know that increased physical activity leads to better public health. Cycling is a key part of that.
From the article "many studies from around the world have shown that if you wear one, the risks you face when cycling are a lot lower." No, they haven't. That statement is entirely incorrect. A cycle helmet is designed to withstand a fall from 2 metres at 20km/h on to a rounded object such as a kerbstone. That is a tiny proportion of the accidents that a cyclist is likely to encounter. For the record, I wear one. They are not the primary solution to the safety of cyclists. They're not even in the top 5. The USA has the highest percentage of cyclists that wear helmets in the world and pretty much the highest fatality rates among cyclists. The Netherlands has the lowest level of cycle helmet wearing and one of the lowest fatality rates. Because they have addressed the real issues, like providing proper facilities for cycling, changing road layouts, changing priorities at junctions and changing the way in which roads are used to help people leave their cars at home and cycle safely. Brake also state that the BMA support compulsory helmet use. That is not strictly true. They published a paper 10 years ago stating that. But many of their members have undermined that argument. Brake also state that many countries have successfully introduced compulsory cycle helmet wearing. Again, untrue. The law may have been passed but cycling rates have dropped in those countries. And the BMA themselves know that increased physical activity leads to better public health. Cycling is a key part of that. BCDR99
  • Score: 11

10:59am Thu 12 Jun 14

CocoaClown says...

I know of a child who fell off their bike, just like kids do. She bumped her head on the curb and after a cry etc the parents thought she was fine and they got on with their day. Later that day she was rushed to hospital with a bleed on the brain and needed emergency surgery. For this reason alone my children and us as parents will always wear a helmet.

My other half has been knocked off his bike twice (both times by cars; one of which didn't give way at a roundabout and another who didn't stop at a crossing) and has come off another time. The crossing one the cars continued to drive around him in the road just missing his head. If he didn't have a helmet on I dred to think what may have happened.

As adults it's up to the individual to decide whether they want to wear one however I think it's irresponsible for parents not to make their child wear a helmet. To say you are not going to wear one as they make you look silly is ridiculous. So you'd rather risk your life than your looks? In some countries they are law so everybody wears then and therefore no one looks 'silly' as you put it.
I know of a child who fell off their bike, just like kids do. She bumped her head on the curb and after a cry etc the parents thought she was fine and they got on with their day. Later that day she was rushed to hospital with a bleed on the brain and needed emergency surgery. For this reason alone my children and us as parents will always wear a helmet. My other half has been knocked off his bike twice (both times by cars; one of which didn't give way at a roundabout and another who didn't stop at a crossing) and has come off another time. The crossing one the cars continued to drive around him in the road just missing his head. If he didn't have a helmet on I dred to think what may have happened. As adults it's up to the individual to decide whether they want to wear one however I think it's irresponsible for parents not to make their child wear a helmet. To say you are not going to wear one as they make you look silly is ridiculous. So you'd rather risk your life than your looks? In some countries they are law so everybody wears then and therefore no one looks 'silly' as you put it. CocoaClown
  • Score: 0

11:03am Thu 12 Jun 14

nobody says...

He should not be riding in the door zone, basic cycle training makes it clear how dangerous it is.
It's a shame some drivers do not realise why cyclist to do not ride too close to parked cars and vent their anger by tailgating.
He should not be riding in the door zone, basic cycle training makes it clear how dangerous it is. It's a shame some drivers do not realise why cyclist to do not ride too close to parked cars and vent their anger by tailgating. nobody
  • Score: 6

11:05am Thu 12 Jun 14

BCDR99 says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
I do not understand how wearing a helmet would have protected his broken arm?!?
Anyway, it should be the Law for cyclist to wear a helmet, HiVi vest and to have working lights (front and back) or be fined/ have points on their license.
What licence is that then? I don't need a licence to ride a bike. If you mean my driving licence that I've had for 25 years with no points on, then what do you do to a cyclist that doesn't obey your rules and doesn't have a driving licence.

Why should it be law to wear a helmet? What analysis and population information are you basing this one?
When should a cyclist have to wear a helmet? All the time? Kids cycling to the playground? Riding on a cycle path? Playing out in the cul-de-sac?
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: I do not understand how wearing a helmet would have protected his broken arm?!? Anyway, it should be the Law for cyclist to wear a helmet, HiVi vest and to have working lights (front and back) or be fined/ have points on their license.[/p][/quote]What licence is that then? I don't need a licence to ride a bike. If you mean my driving licence that I've had for 25 years with no points on, then what do you do to a cyclist that doesn't obey your rules and doesn't have a driving licence. Why should it be law to wear a helmet? What analysis and population information are you basing this one? When should a cyclist have to wear a helmet? All the time? Kids cycling to the playground? Riding on a cycle path? Playing out in the cul-de-sac? BCDR99
  • Score: 5

11:07am Thu 12 Jun 14

nobody says...

CocoaClown wrote:
I know of a child who fell off their bike, just like kids do. She bumped her head on the curb and after a cry etc the parents thought she was fine and they got on with their day. Later that day she was rushed to hospital with a bleed on the brain and needed emergency surgery. For this reason alone my children and us as parents will always wear a helmet.

My other half has been knocked off his bike twice (both times by cars; one of which didn't give way at a roundabout and another who didn't stop at a crossing) and has come off another time. The crossing one the cars continued to drive around him in the road just missing his head. If he didn't have a helmet on I dred to think what may have happened.

As adults it's up to the individual to decide whether they want to wear one however I think it's irresponsible for parents not to make their child wear a helmet. To say you are not going to wear one as they make you look silly is ridiculous. So you'd rather risk your life than your looks? In some countries they are law so everybody wears then and therefore no one looks 'silly' as you put it.
Making kids wear a helmet just reinforces the idea that cycling is more dangerous than walking.
Far better to make you kid wear sun hat.
[quote][p][bold]CocoaClown[/bold] wrote: I know of a child who fell off their bike, just like kids do. She bumped her head on the curb and after a cry etc the parents thought she was fine and they got on with their day. Later that day she was rushed to hospital with a bleed on the brain and needed emergency surgery. For this reason alone my children and us as parents will always wear a helmet. My other half has been knocked off his bike twice (both times by cars; one of which didn't give way at a roundabout and another who didn't stop at a crossing) and has come off another time. The crossing one the cars continued to drive around him in the road just missing his head. If he didn't have a helmet on I dred to think what may have happened. As adults it's up to the individual to decide whether they want to wear one however I think it's irresponsible for parents not to make their child wear a helmet. To say you are not going to wear one as they make you look silly is ridiculous. So you'd rather risk your life than your looks? In some countries they are law so everybody wears then and therefore no one looks 'silly' as you put it.[/p][/quote]Making kids wear a helmet just reinforces the idea that cycling is more dangerous than walking. Far better to make you kid wear sun hat. nobody
  • Score: -11

11:11am Thu 12 Jun 14

BCDR99 says...

CocoaClown wrote:
I know of a child who fell off their bike, just like kids do. She bumped her head on the curb and after a cry etc the parents thought she was fine and they got on with their day. Later that day she was rushed to hospital with a bleed on the brain and needed emergency surgery. For this reason alone my children and us as parents will always wear a helmet.

My other half has been knocked off his bike twice (both times by cars; one of which didn't give way at a roundabout and another who didn't stop at a crossing) and has come off another time. The crossing one the cars continued to drive around him in the road just missing his head. If he didn't have a helmet on I dred to think what may have happened.

As adults it's up to the individual to decide whether they want to wear one however I think it's irresponsible for parents not to make their child wear a helmet. To say you are not going to wear one as they make you look silly is ridiculous. So you'd rather risk your life than your looks? In some countries they are law so everybody wears then and therefore no one looks 'silly' as you put it.
See the point above about the Netherlands. Helmets are WAY down the list of things that we, as a nation, should be doing to improve the safety of cyclists.

As in your example. Why on earth is the solution to drivers driving around a prone human being immediately after an accident to make sure the injured party is wearing a helmet? What a sad state of affairs that no-one stopped to help an injured person and just carried on with their own journeys.
[quote][p][bold]CocoaClown[/bold] wrote: I know of a child who fell off their bike, just like kids do. She bumped her head on the curb and after a cry etc the parents thought she was fine and they got on with their day. Later that day she was rushed to hospital with a bleed on the brain and needed emergency surgery. For this reason alone my children and us as parents will always wear a helmet. My other half has been knocked off his bike twice (both times by cars; one of which didn't give way at a roundabout and another who didn't stop at a crossing) and has come off another time. The crossing one the cars continued to drive around him in the road just missing his head. If he didn't have a helmet on I dred to think what may have happened. As adults it's up to the individual to decide whether they want to wear one however I think it's irresponsible for parents not to make their child wear a helmet. To say you are not going to wear one as they make you look silly is ridiculous. So you'd rather risk your life than your looks? In some countries they are law so everybody wears then and therefore no one looks 'silly' as you put it.[/p][/quote]See the point above about the Netherlands. Helmets are WAY down the list of things that we, as a nation, should be doing to improve the safety of cyclists. As in your example. Why on earth is the solution to drivers driving around a prone human being immediately after an accident to make sure the injured party is wearing a helmet? What a sad state of affairs that no-one stopped to help an injured person and just carried on with their own journeys. BCDR99
  • Score: 4

11:14am Thu 12 Jun 14

BCDR99 says...

"nobody" makes a good point there. Actual, real statistics from the Office for National Statistics and Department of Transport show that you are as likely to be killed or seriously injured walking a mile as a pedestrian as you are cycling a mile. Do we hear hi-viz and helmets for pedestrians, anyone? A fine and points on their licence for pedestrians just wandering down the street in nothing but jeans and a T-shirt?
"nobody" makes a good point there. Actual, real statistics from the Office for National Statistics and Department of Transport show that you are as likely to be killed or seriously injured walking a mile as a pedestrian as you are cycling a mile. Do we hear hi-viz and helmets for pedestrians, anyone? A fine and points on their licence for pedestrians just wandering down the street in nothing but jeans and a T-shirt? BCDR99
  • Score: 8

11:21am Thu 12 Jun 14

Davey Gravey says...

The fault has to lie with the car owner. Checking over her shoulder before opening the door on a road like that should be common sense surely?
I think insurance and helmets for cyclists should be mandatory too.
The fault has to lie with the car owner. Checking over her shoulder before opening the door on a road like that should be common sense surely? I think insurance and helmets for cyclists should be mandatory too. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -4

11:22am Thu 12 Jun 14

Hmmmf says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
BCDR99 wrote:
I don't like the faith that is put in a 15 quid piece of expanded polystyrene. no pieces of academic work have proved that helmets save lives. Yes, it "makes sense" and is "obvious" but it just isn't the case. It's not the same clear cut case that seat belts in cars are.

The primary message with regards to cycling safety needs to that EVERYONE needs to look out for everyone else while using the roads.

If people were getting shot would we urge people to wear bullet proof vests all the time? No we wouldn't. We would address the shootings.

Everyone: Drive, walk, cycle, scoot safely.
http://www.brake.org

.uk/info-resources/i

nfo-research/road-sa

fety-factsheets/15-f

acts-a-resources/fac

ts/478-why-cycle-hel

mets-save-lives
http://cyclehelmets.
org/
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BCDR99[/bold] wrote: I don't like the faith that is put in a 15 quid piece of expanded polystyrene. no pieces of academic work have proved that helmets save lives. Yes, it "makes sense" and is "obvious" but it just isn't the case. It's not the same clear cut case that seat belts in cars are. The primary message with regards to cycling safety needs to that EVERYONE needs to look out for everyone else while using the roads. If people were getting shot would we urge people to wear bullet proof vests all the time? No we wouldn't. We would address the shootings. Everyone: Drive, walk, cycle, scoot safely.[/p][/quote]http://www.brake.org .uk/info-resources/i nfo-research/road-sa fety-factsheets/15-f acts-a-resources/fac ts/478-why-cycle-hel mets-save-lives[/p][/quote]http://cyclehelmets. org/ Hmmmf
  • Score: -2

11:36am Thu 12 Jun 14

BCDR99 says...

I am fully aware of both Brake's and Cyclehelmet.org's stance on cycle helmets. My belief is that they are being very selective with some pieces of research that have been widely critiqued and countered. Brake are a single issue charity founded out of a single tragic accident and now the management there want to see everyone wrapped in cotton wool all of the time. Cyclehelmet.org are pro legal intervention on the issue, so they do not list the reams of research that show mandatory helmet use decreases cycle use and has a negative impact on public health. Neither do they refer to the analysis done from many countries that show the many, many other things that must be done to improve cycle safety before even considering mandatory helmet use.

As I said, I wear one on my cycle to work. Not because I think it is going to save my life. Purely because it gives my wife (a false, in my opinion) peace of mind.

http://www.chapmance
ntral.co.uk/wiki/cyc
le_helmet_debate/
I am fully aware of both Brake's and Cyclehelmet.org's stance on cycle helmets. My belief is that they are being very selective with some pieces of research that have been widely critiqued and countered. Brake are a single issue charity founded out of a single tragic accident and now the management there want to see everyone wrapped in cotton wool all of the time. Cyclehelmet.org are pro legal intervention on the issue, so they do not list the reams of research that show mandatory helmet use decreases cycle use and has a negative impact on public health. Neither do they refer to the analysis done from many countries that show the many, many other things that must be done to improve cycle safety before even considering mandatory helmet use. As I said, I wear one on my cycle to work. Not because I think it is going to save my life. Purely because it gives my wife (a false, in my opinion) peace of mind. http://www.chapmance ntral.co.uk/wiki/cyc le_helmet_debate/ BCDR99
  • Score: -1

1:33pm Thu 12 Jun 14

SaneSwindoner says...

So this was a standard accident and he had to wait like everyone else for standard treatment, for a minor injury?

Throwing fibromyalgia into the story is an attempt to garner sympathy or martyrdom in a non-story.

Before I get hacked to bits I live with aggressive Multiple Sclerosis and endure needles in my spine, daily injections and worse. Guess what, I work full-time and live as normal a life as I can without courting a pity-party, I despise sympathy-seekers...

Pull you pants up and man-up!
So this was a standard accident and he had to wait like everyone else for standard treatment, for a minor injury? Throwing fibromyalgia into the story is an attempt to garner sympathy or martyrdom in a non-story. Before I get hacked to bits I live with aggressive Multiple Sclerosis and endure needles in my spine, daily injections and worse. Guess what, I work full-time and live as normal a life as I can without courting a pity-party, I despise sympathy-seekers... Pull you pants up and man-up! SaneSwindoner
  • Score: -2

1:49pm Thu 12 Jun 14

nobody says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
The fault has to lie with the car owner. Checking over her shoulder before opening the door on a road like that should be common sense surely?
I think insurance and helmets for cyclists should be mandatory too.
People should be taught to open the car door with opposite hand, as they do in Holland, there by automatically looking behind.
Insurance is a wise idea but personal choice, most cyclists I know have third party insurance due to their membership of a cycling organisation.
Helmets should never be mandatory, you're more likely to suffer head injury whilst in a car but no-one ever suggests making car occupants don a polystyrene hat.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: The fault has to lie with the car owner. Checking over her shoulder before opening the door on a road like that should be common sense surely? I think insurance and helmets for cyclists should be mandatory too.[/p][/quote]People should be taught to open the car door with opposite hand, as they do in Holland, there by automatically looking behind. Insurance is a wise idea but personal choice, most cyclists I know have third party insurance due to their membership of a cycling organisation. Helmets should never be mandatory, you're more likely to suffer head injury whilst in a car but no-one ever suggests making car occupants don a polystyrene hat. nobody
  • Score: 4

2:28pm Thu 12 Jun 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

BCDR99 wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
I do not understand how wearing a helmet would have protected his broken arm?!?
Anyway, it should be the Law for cyclist to wear a helmet, HiVi vest and to have working lights (front and back) or be fined/ have points on their license.
What licence is that then? I don't need a licence to ride a bike. If you mean my driving licence that I've had for 25 years with no points on, then what do you do to a cyclist that doesn't obey your rules and doesn't have a driving licence.

Why should it be law to wear a helmet? What analysis and population information are you basing this one?
When should a cyclist have to wear a helmet? All the time? Kids cycling to the playground? Riding on a cycle path? Playing out in the cul-de-sac?
Being a cyclist is not a license to do away with road safety and traffic regulations.
Education from an early age would go a long way to increase safety awareness and improve behaviour on the road later on.
1-Helmets for all (anywhere)
2- lights / HiVi (being able to see and be seen)
3-Cycling test/license to use public roads
4-yearly test by authorized experts to check the safety and road worthiness of bikes
[quote][p][bold]BCDR99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: I do not understand how wearing a helmet would have protected his broken arm?!? Anyway, it should be the Law for cyclist to wear a helmet, HiVi vest and to have working lights (front and back) or be fined/ have points on their license.[/p][/quote]What licence is that then? I don't need a licence to ride a bike. If you mean my driving licence that I've had for 25 years with no points on, then what do you do to a cyclist that doesn't obey your rules and doesn't have a driving licence. Why should it be law to wear a helmet? What analysis and population information are you basing this one? When should a cyclist have to wear a helmet? All the time? Kids cycling to the playground? Riding on a cycle path? Playing out in the cul-de-sac?[/p][/quote]Being a cyclist is not a license to do away with road safety and traffic regulations. Education from an early age would go a long way to increase safety awareness and improve behaviour on the road later on. 1-Helmets for all (anywhere) 2- lights / HiVi (being able to see and be seen) 3-Cycling test/license to use public roads 4-yearly test by authorized experts to check the safety and road worthiness of bikes A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -2

2:31pm Thu 12 Jun 14

Davey Gravey says...

nobody wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
The fault has to lie with the car owner. Checking over her shoulder before opening the door on a road like that should be common sense surely?
I think insurance and helmets for cyclists should be mandatory too.
People should be taught to open the car door with opposite hand, as they do in Holland, there by automatically looking behind.
Insurance is a wise idea but personal choice, most cyclists I know have third party insurance due to their membership of a cycling organisation.
Helmets should never be mandatory, you're more likely to suffer head injury whilst in a car but no-one ever suggests making car occupants don a polystyrene hat.
I like the Holland idea.
Personally think any vehicle on the road should be insured but that's just my view.
Helmets save lives so I think everyone should have to wear them. Of course they should be rigorously tested and approved ones.
At least in a car you have some sort of protection. On a bike you do not have that. Interesting statistic though.
[quote][p][bold]nobody[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: The fault has to lie with the car owner. Checking over her shoulder before opening the door on a road like that should be common sense surely? I think insurance and helmets for cyclists should be mandatory too.[/p][/quote]People should be taught to open the car door with opposite hand, as they do in Holland, there by automatically looking behind. Insurance is a wise idea but personal choice, most cyclists I know have third party insurance due to their membership of a cycling organisation. Helmets should never be mandatory, you're more likely to suffer head injury whilst in a car but no-one ever suggests making car occupants don a polystyrene hat.[/p][/quote]I like the Holland idea. Personally think any vehicle on the road should be insured but that's just my view. Helmets save lives so I think everyone should have to wear them. Of course they should be rigorously tested and approved ones. At least in a car you have some sort of protection. On a bike you do not have that. Interesting statistic though. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -1

2:40pm Thu 12 Jun 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

BCDR99 wrote:
I don't like the faith that is put in a 15 quid piece of expanded polystyrene. no pieces of academic work have proved that helmets save lives. Yes, it "makes sense" and is "obvious" but it just isn't the case. It's not the same clear cut case that seat belts in cars are.

The primary message with regards to cycling safety needs to that EVERYONE needs to look out for everyone else while using the roads.

If people were getting shot would we urge people to wear bullet proof vests all the time? No we wouldn't. We would address the shootings.

Everyone: Drive, walk, cycle, scoot safely.
I go skiing and it is compulsory for children to wear a helmet, I wear one too.
Considering the speed and the environment in which cyclists find themselves, it is obvious to me that helmets should be compulsory just like it is when on the slopes skiing / boarding.
[quote][p][bold]BCDR99[/bold] wrote: I don't like the faith that is put in a 15 quid piece of expanded polystyrene. no pieces of academic work have proved that helmets save lives. Yes, it "makes sense" and is "obvious" but it just isn't the case. It's not the same clear cut case that seat belts in cars are. The primary message with regards to cycling safety needs to that EVERYONE needs to look out for everyone else while using the roads. If people were getting shot would we urge people to wear bullet proof vests all the time? No we wouldn't. We would address the shootings. Everyone: Drive, walk, cycle, scoot safely.[/p][/quote]I go skiing and it is compulsory for children to wear a helmet, I wear one too. Considering the speed and the environment in which cyclists find themselves, it is obvious to me that helmets should be compulsory just like it is when on the slopes skiing / boarding. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 3

3:10pm Thu 12 Jun 14

nobody says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
BCDR99 wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
I do not understand how wearing a helmet would have protected his broken arm?!?
Anyway, it should be the Law for cyclist to wear a helmet, HiVi vest and to have working lights (front and back) or be fined/ have points on their license.
What licence is that then? I don't need a licence to ride a bike. If you mean my driving licence that I've had for 25 years with no points on, then what do you do to a cyclist that doesn't obey your rules and doesn't have a driving licence.

Why should it be law to wear a helmet? What analysis and population information are you basing this one?
When should a cyclist have to wear a helmet? All the time? Kids cycling to the playground? Riding on a cycle path? Playing out in the cul-de-sac?
Being a cyclist is not a license to do away with road safety and traffic regulations.
Education from an early age would go a long way to increase safety awareness and improve behaviour on the road later on.
1-Helmets for all (anywhere)
2- lights / HiVi (being able to see and be seen)
3-Cycling test/license to use public roads
4-yearly test by authorized experts to check the safety and road worthiness of bikes
Yes great idea, force more people off bikes and back into cars, that will help with congestion on our roads and poisons emissions in the air.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BCDR99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: I do not understand how wearing a helmet would have protected his broken arm?!? Anyway, it should be the Law for cyclist to wear a helmet, HiVi vest and to have working lights (front and back) or be fined/ have points on their license.[/p][/quote]What licence is that then? I don't need a licence to ride a bike. If you mean my driving licence that I've had for 25 years with no points on, then what do you do to a cyclist that doesn't obey your rules and doesn't have a driving licence. Why should it be law to wear a helmet? What analysis and population information are you basing this one? When should a cyclist have to wear a helmet? All the time? Kids cycling to the playground? Riding on a cycle path? Playing out in the cul-de-sac?[/p][/quote]Being a cyclist is not a license to do away with road safety and traffic regulations. Education from an early age would go a long way to increase safety awareness and improve behaviour on the road later on. 1-Helmets for all (anywhere) 2- lights / HiVi (being able to see and be seen) 3-Cycling test/license to use public roads 4-yearly test by authorized experts to check the safety and road worthiness of bikes[/p][/quote]Yes great idea, force more people off bikes and back into cars, that will help with congestion on our roads and poisons emissions in the air. nobody
  • Score: -1

3:15pm Thu 12 Jun 14

nobody says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
nobody wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
The fault has to lie with the car owner. Checking over her shoulder before opening the door on a road like that should be common sense surely?
I think insurance and helmets for cyclists should be mandatory too.
People should be taught to open the car door with opposite hand, as they do in Holland, there by automatically looking behind.
Insurance is a wise idea but personal choice, most cyclists I know have third party insurance due to their membership of a cycling organisation.
Helmets should never be mandatory, you're more likely to suffer head injury whilst in a car but no-one ever suggests making car occupants don a polystyrene hat.
I like the Holland idea.
Personally think any vehicle on the road should be insured but that's just my view.
Helmets save lives so I think everyone should have to wear them. Of course they should be rigorously tested and approved ones.
At least in a car you have some sort of protection. On a bike you do not have that. Interesting statistic though.
Helmets are rigorously tested and approved, by that I mean they have all the right stickers on them.
Helmets are only designed to give protection at speeds less than 12mph and only impacting on the road surface.
Not only that many cyclists I see do not wear their helmet correctly there by nullifying the limited safety benefits they offer.
As stated before as a car occupant you are more likely yo suffer serious or fatal head injuries in a car, even with all it's safety features.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nobody[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: The fault has to lie with the car owner. Checking over her shoulder before opening the door on a road like that should be common sense surely? I think insurance and helmets for cyclists should be mandatory too.[/p][/quote]People should be taught to open the car door with opposite hand, as they do in Holland, there by automatically looking behind. Insurance is a wise idea but personal choice, most cyclists I know have third party insurance due to their membership of a cycling organisation. Helmets should never be mandatory, you're more likely to suffer head injury whilst in a car but no-one ever suggests making car occupants don a polystyrene hat.[/p][/quote]I like the Holland idea. Personally think any vehicle on the road should be insured but that's just my view. Helmets save lives so I think everyone should have to wear them. Of course they should be rigorously tested and approved ones. At least in a car you have some sort of protection. On a bike you do not have that. Interesting statistic though.[/p][/quote]Helmets are rigorously tested and approved, by that I mean they have all the right stickers on them. Helmets are only designed to give protection at speeds less than 12mph and only impacting on the road surface. Not only that many cyclists I see do not wear their helmet correctly there by nullifying the limited safety benefits they offer. As stated before as a car occupant you are more likely yo suffer serious or fatal head injuries in a car, even with all it's safety features. nobody
  • Score: -1

3:15pm Thu 12 Jun 14

BCDR99 says...

Being a cyclist is not a license to do away with road safety and traffic regulations.
Education from an early age would go a long way to increase safety awareness and improve behaviour on the road later on.
1-Helmets for all (anywhere)
2- lights / HiVi (being able to see and be seen)
3-Cycling test/license to use public roads
4-yearly test by authorized experts to check the safety and road worthiness of bikes

I didn't say it was. Most cyclists have a driving licence already though. Your point 3 has some validity. But again - what roads? can't a child ride around the cul-de-sac? What about cycling to school if that takes them on a road for a few yards? If you're going to mandate licencing, then we'll have to build a much, much better cycle network so that people can still ride a bike.

Point 1 has no basis in fact. It isn't the same argument as "Wear a seat belt and it will save your life." Brake say that most people that have an accident on a bike hit their heads. That just isn't true. The most common injuries when falling off a bike are as follows (in order) 1: None, 2: cuts and bruises, 3: broken arm/collarbone 4: head/face injuries.

Point 2. Reflectors are already the law and lights after dark are already the law. Now, if only the police would get out and enforce ALL laws we could do something about that as well, couldn't we?
Also, the Institute of Advanced Motorists (and many other bodies like CTC, British Cycling) advocate riding about a metre from the kerb so that you are in the traffic and more visible. If in daylight, someone can't see a cyclist they're not paying enough attention.
If hi-vis were mandatory and more people start to cycle, the benefit of hi-vis disappears. The whole point is that it stands out from the background. With more of it around, it doesn't stand out.

4. Why? Are there lots of stats around showing that unroadworthy bikes are causing accidents? I don't think so. Again, it's not the same as cars with bald tyres or defective brakes or exhausts that are pumping out fumes beyond the legal limit.
Being a cyclist is not a license to do away with road safety and traffic regulations. Education from an early age would go a long way to increase safety awareness and improve behaviour on the road later on. 1-Helmets for all (anywhere) 2- lights / HiVi (being able to see and be seen) 3-Cycling test/license to use public roads 4-yearly test by authorized experts to check the safety and road worthiness of bikes I didn't say it was. Most cyclists have a driving licence already though. Your point 3 has some validity. But again - what roads? can't a child ride around the cul-de-sac? What about cycling to school if that takes them on a road for a few yards? If you're going to mandate licencing, then we'll have to build a much, much better cycle network so that people can still ride a bike. Point 1 has no basis in fact. It isn't the same argument as "Wear a seat belt and it will save your life." Brake say that most people that have an accident on a bike hit their heads. That just isn't true. The most common injuries when falling off a bike are as follows (in order) 1: None, 2: cuts and bruises, 3: broken arm/collarbone 4: head/face injuries. Point 2. Reflectors are already the law and lights after dark are already the law. Now, if only the police would get out and enforce ALL laws we could do something about that as well, couldn't we? Also, the Institute of Advanced Motorists (and many other bodies like CTC, British Cycling) advocate riding about a metre from the kerb so that you are in the traffic and more visible. If in daylight, someone can't see a cyclist they're not paying enough attention. If hi-vis were mandatory and more people start to cycle, the benefit of hi-vis disappears. The whole point is that it stands out from the background. With more of it around, it doesn't stand out. 4. Why? Are there lots of stats around showing that unroadworthy bikes are causing accidents? I don't think so. Again, it's not the same as cars with bald tyres or defective brakes or exhausts that are pumping out fumes beyond the legal limit. BCDR99
  • Score: -2

3:20pm Thu 12 Jun 14

BCDR99 says...

The trouble is, too many people just say "well, it's obvious you should wear a helmet isn't it?" without actually looking at the overall statistics about accidents, what kills cyclists, when a helmet is effective, the benefits of cycling without a helmet as opposed to not cycling if you have to wear one.
The biggest single cause of cyclist deaths is trucks turning left on cyclists. A piece of polystyrene on your bonce isn't going to save you from 30 tonnes of metal driving over you.

Over 1000 people a year are killed in this country alone by falling down stairs. Isn't it "obvious" that we should all wear helmets to walk up and down the stairs from that statistic? Or just ban the building of multi-storey homes and only allow bungalows?
The trouble is, too many people just say "well, it's obvious you should wear a helmet isn't it?" without actually looking at the overall statistics about accidents, what kills cyclists, when a helmet is effective, the benefits of cycling without a helmet as opposed to not cycling if you have to wear one. The biggest single cause of cyclist deaths is trucks turning left on cyclists. A piece of polystyrene on your bonce isn't going to save you from 30 tonnes of metal driving over you. Over 1000 people a year are killed in this country alone by falling down stairs. Isn't it "obvious" that we should all wear helmets to walk up and down the stairs from that statistic? Or just ban the building of multi-storey homes and only allow bungalows? BCDR99
  • Score: 0

4:26pm Thu 12 Jun 14

Hmmmf says...

BCDR99 wrote:
Cyclehelmet.org are pro legal intervention on the issue, so they do not list the reams of research that show mandatory helmet use decreases cycle use and has a negative impact on public health. Neither do they refer to the analysis done from many countries that show the many, many other things that must be done to improve cycle safety before even considering mandatory helmet use.

Are you serious? Have you even looked at cyclehelmets.org? They are probably the single most objective anti-helmet website on the www, loaded with research dispelling the myths of helmet-safety and full of articles showing how legistlation achieves nothing but a decrease in cycling!

It would help your argument if you'd taken the time to look at the link I posted which was to balance out and to refute with research the brake link Always Grumnpy had posted!
[quote][p][bold]BCDR99[/bold] wrote: Cyclehelmet.org are pro legal intervention on the issue, so they do not list the reams of research that show mandatory helmet use decreases cycle use and has a negative impact on public health. Neither do they refer to the analysis done from many countries that show the many, many other things that must be done to improve cycle safety before even considering mandatory helmet use.[/quote] Are you serious? Have you even looked at cyclehelmets.org? They are probably the single most objective anti-helmet website on the www, loaded with research dispelling the myths of helmet-safety and full of articles showing how legistlation achieves nothing but a decrease in cycling! It would help your argument if you'd taken the time to look at the link I posted which was to balance out and to refute with research the brake link Always Grumnpy had posted! Hmmmf
  • Score: 0

4:57pm Thu 12 Jun 14

BCDR99 says...

Hmmmf wrote:
BCDR99 wrote:
Cyclehelmet.org are pro legal intervention on the issue, so they do not list the reams of research that show mandatory helmet use decreases cycle use and has a negative impact on public health. Neither do they refer to the analysis done from many countries that show the many, many other things that must be done to improve cycle safety before even considering mandatory helmet use.

Are you serious? Have you even looked at cyclehelmets.org? They are probably the single most objective anti-helmet website on the www, loaded with research dispelling the myths of helmet-safety and full of articles showing how legistlation achieves nothing but a decrease in cycling!

It would help your argument if you'd taken the time to look at the link I posted which was to balance out and to refute with research the brake link Always Grumnpy had posted!
Ooops, sorry. Was thinking of some other organisation whose name escapes me at the moment.
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BCDR99[/bold] wrote: Cyclehelmet.org are pro legal intervention on the issue, so they do not list the reams of research that show mandatory helmet use decreases cycle use and has a negative impact on public health. Neither do they refer to the analysis done from many countries that show the many, many other things that must be done to improve cycle safety before even considering mandatory helmet use.[/quote] Are you serious? Have you even looked at cyclehelmets.org? They are probably the single most objective anti-helmet website on the www, loaded with research dispelling the myths of helmet-safety and full of articles showing how legistlation achieves nothing but a decrease in cycling! It would help your argument if you'd taken the time to look at the link I posted which was to balance out and to refute with research the brake link Always Grumnpy had posted![/p][/quote]Ooops, sorry. Was thinking of some other organisation whose name escapes me at the moment. BCDR99
  • Score: 0

10:35pm Thu 12 Jun 14

MrAngry says...

Breathing in car exhaust fumes can't be good for cyclists either.

Don't forget your helmet, lights, hi-vis, face mask, gloves, steel toe cap boots, padded Michelin man suit, sun screen and lots of fresh water.
Breathing in car exhaust fumes can't be good for cyclists either. Don't forget your helmet, lights, hi-vis, face mask, gloves, steel toe cap boots, padded Michelin man suit, sun screen and lots of fresh water. MrAngry
  • Score: 1

10:22am Fri 13 Jun 14

NorthernWarrior says...

I recently got back into occasional cycle for exercise and going to work, but refuse to wear a helmet:
1. They make you look like a dork.
2. They reduce situational awareness.
3. As noted not going to stop a lorry squishing you like a marshmallow (or a van driver ignoring a red light by B&Q and splashing you over their windscreen).
4. They're not going to protect against the hazards on Swindon's poorly maintained cycle paths, including the acclaimed Western Flyer which is rough as hell in places and increasingly requires you to dodge overhanging foliage.
5. The lycra and helmeted brigade seem to think it makes them invulnerable - not wearing a helmet actually makes you think about personal safety as you move along.
6. Not going to move dog walkers or joggers (replete with personal stereo) from blundering in your path no matter how much you slow down, ring the bell or shout a warning.
And finally, 7. They make you look like a dork.
I recently got back into occasional cycle for exercise and going to work, but refuse to wear a helmet: 1. They make you look like a dork. 2. They reduce situational awareness. 3. As noted not going to stop a lorry squishing you like a marshmallow (or a van driver ignoring a red light by B&Q and splashing you over their windscreen). 4. They're not going to protect against the hazards on Swindon's poorly maintained cycle paths, including the acclaimed Western Flyer which is rough as hell in places and increasingly requires you to dodge overhanging foliage. 5. The lycra and helmeted brigade seem to think it makes them invulnerable - not wearing a helmet actually makes you think about personal safety as you move along. 6. Not going to move dog walkers or joggers (replete with personal stereo) from blundering in your path no matter how much you slow down, ring the bell or shout a warning. And finally, 7. They make you look like a dork. NorthernWarrior
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree