UK and Europe · Public discussion

A case for pedestrian helmets?

Started by David Hansen · · Last activity · 34 posts · 949 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
21 August 2007
Last activity
25 August 2007
Original author
David Hansen
Posts
34
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
949
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 34
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. The sad story on
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6956249.stm is another
    example of a pedestrian suffering head injuries.

    "A two-month-old boy died when a car mounted the pavement and struck
    his pushchair.

    "The accident happened in Willesden Green, north-west London, on
    Monday evening.

    "The baby suffered head injuries and died in hospital. His
    32-year-old mother was also hurt in the collision and suffered minor
    injuries."

    I wonder if the usual suspects will be rushing to the mass media
    using this as an example of the "need" for pedestrian helmets, with
    slogans like, "if just one life is saved" and, "think of the
    children"?

    I also note that the mass media didn't see fit to mention whether
    the victim was wearing a helmet or not.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh
    I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

  2. The press already absolving the driver:

    Baby boy killed as car ploughs into pushchair after 'brakes failed'
    21.08.07

    A baby boy was killed after a car mounted the pavement and crashed
    into his pushchair - after its brakes failed.

    The two-month-old baby was being pushed along a street in Willesden
    Green, north London, by his mother when the car careered into them.

    The silver Ford Fiesta mounted the pavement at a junction and then
    travelled 35 yards before colliding with the pushchair.

    Police are investigating whether the accident could have been caused
    by the driver's jeans being caught on the brake pedal.

    The 62-year-old male driver, from Harrow, voluntarily attended Kilburn
    Police Station, where he was interviewed.

    Inspector Andy Nelson, of the collision investigation unit, said: "He
    alleged that the collision was due to brake failure.

    "My unit are currently investigating all the circumstances surrounding
    this tragic incident."

    He said the mother, a 32-year-old local woman, and her husband, who
    have no other children, were "extremely distressed" by what had
    happened.

    Not all relatives have been informed yet.

    He went on: "They are extremely distressed and it is very early in the
    proceedings."

    Mr Nelson said the car had mounted the footway at a junction 35 yards
    from the scene of the crash. The baby suffered serious head injuries
    in the accident.

    On whether the man was saying his jeans had caught in the brake pedal,
    the inspector said: "That is one of a number of things we are
    investigating."

    He said the man had been released after the interview, and did not
    face any further action at this stage, though he could do at some
    point.

    The inspector declined to give an estimate of the speed at which the
    car was travelling.

    The driver was questioned by police and released. He stopped at the
    scene and was breath tested by police but not arrested. The breath
    test was negative.

    Scotland Yard said officers were called to Park Avenue after the
    collision at 6.10pm last night.

    The child suffered multiple injuries and was taken to the Royal Free
    Hospital where he received emergency treatment but was pronounced dead
    at 7pm.

    Tony Singh, 40, a property developer, who lives across the road with
    wife Govinder, 35, said: "We heard the noise, and I rang for an
    ambulance.

    "I was speaking to the paramedics on my mobile phone and they told me
    to go to the baby, and that an ambulance was on the way.

    "The baby was still, then gave a hiccup, and the paramedics told me to
    pinch him to get a reaction.

    "He screamed a little, and then the mother was pinching him too, then
    the ambulance arrived.

    "Although he had blood on his head, I was hoping so much that he would
    be all right, and it was so sad when the police officers doing door-to-
    door inquiries told me later in the evening that he had died.

    "I have my own 13-month-old child, Jasmine, and had picked her up from
    nursery earlier.

    "If the traffic had been a bit heavier, and we were 20 minutes later,
    it could have been us." Bus driver Andrew Luwum, 44, saw the aftermath
    of the accident.

    "The car had knocked down the wall, the mother was screaming and the
    driver was still there.

    "This road is very safe, I've lived here 12 years and I've never known
    anything like this.

    "I have my own 19-month-old daughter, Precious, and it makes you very
    aware of what can happen."

    A post mortem examination will take place in due course, with an
    inquest to follow. The identity of the child has not yet been
    released.

    Sergeant Malcolm Cumberlidge said officers were investigating various
    possible causes of the incident - including the condition of the car
    and the way it was being driven.

    He said: "What we know so far is that the vehicle mounted the footpath
    and struck the child in the pushchair who later died.

    "The mother was injured but subsequently released from hospital.

    "At this early stage we are investigating why this has happened and
    have various possibilities."

    Police asked any witnesses to call the collision investigation unit at
    Alperton on 020 8998 5319.

  3. "David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    The sad story on
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6956249.stm is another
    example of a pedestrian suffering head injuries.

    "A two-month-old boy died when a car mounted the pavement and struck
    his pushchair.

    I hardly think this is a fit story to make cheap anti-helmet jibes out of,
    whatever your views on helmet wearing.

    Just my opinion.
    Bill

  4. "spindrift" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    The press already absolving the driver:

    The silver Ford Fiesta mounted the pavement at a junction and then
    travelled 35 yards before colliding with the pushchair.

    I'd have thought he'd have hit a few cyclists first, driving that far on the
    pavement

  5. spindrift said the following on 21/08/2007 14:29:

    Quoted message said:

    The press already absolving the driver:

    Baby boy killed as car ploughs into pushchair after 'brakes failed'

    Presumably he had steering failure as well.

    --
    Paul Boyd
    http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

  6. Bill said:

    I hardly think this is a fit story to make cheap anti-helmet jibes out of,
    whatever your views on helmet wearing.

    It's not a cheap jibe against helmets, it's a serious point against the
    numpties who are trying to force them on us despite no proven track
    record of it helping, whether deliberately or by assimiliating what has
    become a standard feature of cycle accident reporting.
    Had the incident involved a cyclist you could reasonably bet a fair
    wedge of cash that the absence of a helmet /would/ be reported and
    commented on, and quite possibly a case made for everyone having to wear
    them.

    In other words, it is a simple illustration of double standards in
    reporting, which needs to be flagged up as it's a Bad Thing. Sadly the
    case that the helmet compulsionists are all too eager to wave shrouds
    to push their cause, so this is simply reversing their own methods
    against them. They thought of it first...

    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 [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

  7. Bill said:

    "David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    The sad story on
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6956249.stm is another
    example of a pedestrian suffering head injuries.

    "A two-month-old boy died when a car mounted the pavement and struck
    his pushchair.


    I hardly think this is a fit story to make cheap anti-helmet jibes out
    of, whatever your views on helmet wearing.

    But you do think its OK for people to make similar "wasn't wearing a
    helmet" jibes when cyclists are killed or injured? Because that's what
    they do all the time.

    --
    Tony

    " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
    Bertrand Russell

  8. Bill said:

    "David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    The sad story on
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6956249.stm is another
    example of a pedestrian suffering head injuries.

    "A two-month-old boy died when a car mounted the pavement and struck
    his pushchair.

    I hardly think this is a fit story to make cheap anti-helmet jibes out of,
    whatever your views on helmet wearing.

    I have to agree.

    I also have to agree that the media making pro-helmet
    jibes whenever a cyclist not wearing a helmet is killed is
    also out of order.

    Martin.

  9. Peter Clinch said:


    It's not a cheap jibe against helmets, it's a serious point against the
    numpties who are trying to force them on us despite no proven track
    record of it helping, whether deliberately or by assimiliating what has
    become a standard feature of cycle accident reporting.

    That is a sign that the "hearts and minds" argument has been lost. The
    popular press, and probably most of their consumers, have accepted the
    message that cycle helmets are good, and even that it amounts to "asking
    for it" if one isn't worn.

    Quoted message said:

    Had the incident involved a cyclist you could reasonably bet a fair
    wedge of cash that the absence of a helmet /would/ be reported and
    commented on, and quite possibly a case made for everyone having to wear
    them.

    Certainly.

    Quoted message said:

    In other words, it is a simple illustration of double standards in
    reporting, which needs to be flagged up as it's a Bad Thing.

    It's not that simple though, they haven't been told that helmets will
    improve pedestrian safety, or rather it hasn't been rammed down their
    throats.

    Quoted message said:

    Sadly the
    case that the helmet compulsionists are all too eager to wave shrouds
    to push their cause, so this is simply reversing their own methods
    against them. They thought of it first...

    We know that road safety policy is driven by anecdote or supposition,
    rather than based on evidence of what is best for road users.

    Think! Car seat belts, car child restraints, cycle helmets, speed limits.

    --
    Matt B

  10. On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:36:35 +0100 someone who may be "Bill"
    <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:

    I hardly think this is a fit story to make cheap anti-helmet jibes out of,

    There is no anti-helmet jibe in what I typed, cheap or not.

    What I did do was point out the hypocrisy of cycle helmet compulsion
    lobbyists, who will jump on any cyclist death/injury to call for
    helmets but will not do the same with pedestrian deaths/injuries.

    There are perhaps two explanations:

    1) they think that there are a lot of pedestrians and, like any
    other bully, they don't want to take on too hard a target. They will
    only pick on a group they consider small enough to pick on.

    2) they are too stupid to realise that their arguments can be
    applied to other groups.

    I can't think of a third explanation, but if anyone else can they
    should proffer it.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh
    I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

  11. Quoted message said:

    I can't think of a third explanation, but if anyone else can they
    should proffer it.

    (3) They thing cycling is terribly dangerous, and walking terribly safe.

    --
    Mark T

  12. "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Bill said:

    "David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    The sad story on
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6956249.stm is another
    example of a pedestrian suffering head injuries.

    "A two-month-old boy died when a car mounted the pavement and struck
    his pushchair.


    I hardly think this is a fit story to make cheap anti-helmet jibes out
    of, whatever your views on helmet wearing.

    But you do think its OK for people to make similar "wasn't wearing a
    helmet" jibes when cyclists are killed or injured? Because that's what
    they do all the time.

    The point being "two wrongs don't make a right".

  13. "Adam Lea" <[email hidden]>typed

    Quoted message said:

    "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Bill said:

    "David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...
    > The sad story on
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6956249.stm is another
    > example of a pedestrian suffering head injuries.
    >
    > "A two-month-old boy died when a car mounted the pavement and struck
    > his pushchair.
    >
    >
    I hardly think this is a fit story to make cheap anti-helmet jibes out
    of, whatever your views on helmet wearing.

    But you do think its OK for people to make similar "wasn't wearing a
    helmet" jibes when cyclists are killed or injured? Because that's what
    they do all the time.

    Quoted message said:

    The point being "two wrongs don't make a right".

    Sad fact about this tragic case is that there's a 20mph speed limit on
    this road, enforced with speed humps.

    A pregnant Brent Cyclist who lives nearby has asked the council for
    traffic calming on her street. She has been told there have been
    insufficient serious crashes to justify her request.

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
    Edgware.

  14. On 21 Aug 2007 20:17:02 GMT someone who may be Mark T
    <pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
    wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I can't think of a third explanation, but if anyone else can they
    should proffer it.

    (3) They thing cycling is terribly dangerous, and walking terribly safe.

    I suppose they might be that deluded.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh
    I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

  15. Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    (3) They thing cycling is terribly dangerous, and walking terribly safe.

    I suppose they might be that deluded.

    The vast majority are. Even some members of my local cycling campaign
    think it's certain death to go out without hi vis clothing, the twits.

    --
    Mark T

  16. Mark T said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    (3) They thing cycling is terribly dangerous, and walking terribly
    safe.

    I suppose they might be that deluded.

    The vast majority are. Even some members of my local cycling campaign
    think it's certain death to go out without hi vis clothing, the twits.

    Even Mr Maclaren of this parish is convinced there is a 50% chance of
    being crippled in a bike accident.

    --
    Tony

    " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
    Bertrand Russell

  17. Helen Deborah Vecht said:

    "Adam Lea" <[email hidden]>typed

    Quoted message said:

    "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:36:35 +0100, Bill wrote:

    > "David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    > news:[email hidden]...
    >> The sad story on
    >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6956249.stm is another
    >> example of a pedestrian suffering head injuries.
    >>
    >> "A two-month-old boy died when a car mounted the pavement and struck
    >> his pushchair.
    >>
    >>
    > I hardly think this is a fit story to make cheap anti-helmet jibes out
    > of, whatever your views on helmet wearing.
    >
    But you do think its OK for people to make similar "wasn't wearing a
    helmet" jibes when cyclists are killed or injured? Because that's what
    they do all the time.

    Quoted message said:

    The point being "two wrongs don't make a right".

    Sad fact about this tragic case is that there's a 20mph speed limit on
    this road, enforced with speed humps.

    Are they, do you think, likely to feature as having "contributed" to the
    tragic event?

    Quoted message said:

    A pregnant Brent Cyclist who lives nearby has asked the council for
    traffic calming on her street.

    Perhaps she hasn't thought it through properly, and has, possibly, been
    influenced by some of the misinformation peddled by those who favour
    this type of approach. The truth is that, particularly if the street is
    used by buses or commercial vehicles, that they make life a misery for
    residents - with added pollution, and particularly extra noise,
    especially at night, with many people living near them unable to bear
    having their windows open, or indeed able to sleep, with the constant
    noise of engines revving, and gear changing, and rattling and banging
    each time a vehicle passes.

    Quoted message said:

    She has been told there have been
    insufficient serious crashes to justify her request.

    Lol. The lengths that they will go to to ensure that the inevitable
    regression will bolster their claims that such devices work and are good
    for us.

    --
    Matt B

  18. Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com>typed

    Quoted message said:
    Helen Deborah Vecht said:

    "Adam Lea" <[email hidden]>typed

    Sad fact about this tragic case is that there's a 20mph speed limit on
    this road, enforced with speed humps.

    Quoted message said:

    Are they, do you think, likely to feature as having "contributed" to the
    tragic event?

    Possibly. My theory (purely speculative, of course) is that the driver
    may have been accelerating after crossing a hump and lost control as a
    result. I would not be surprised if no fault is found with the brakes,
    but time will tell.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    A pregnant Brent Cyclist who lives nearby has asked the council for
    traffic calming on her street.

    Quoted message said:

    Perhaps she hasn't thought it through properly, and has, possibly, been
    influenced by some of the misinformation peddled by those who favour
    this type of approach. The truth is that, particularly if the street is
    used by buses or commercial vehicles,

    Neither the crash site nor the friend's street are bus routes. I don't
    think commercial vehicles should be on them either.

    Quoted message said:

    that they make life a misery for
    residents - with added pollution, and particularly extra noise,
    especially at night, with many people living near them unable to bear
    having their windows open, or indeed able to sleep, with the constant
    noise of engines revving, and gear changing, and rattling and banging
    each time a vehicle passes.

    Actually, I live on a bus route at the other end of Brent. Vehicles over
    7.5 tons are prohibited. It is not traffic calmed but is noisy at night
    because:

    - speeding vehicles emit MORE engine noise
    - emergency vehicle sirens blast at any time
    - boom-box cars pass. I suspect they night use other routes if forced to
    proceed slowly as it's not macho to move slowly.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    She has been told there have been
    insufficient serious crashes to justify her request.

    Quoted message said:

    Lol. The lengths that they will go to to ensure that the inevitable
    regression will bolster their claims that such devices work and are good
    for us.

    One bereaved family is fighting for them in their area
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6958703.stm

    The fact is that a pedestrian hit at 20mph has a good chance of survival
    but at 40mph has a poor chance. Since motorists do not all obey signs,
    traffic calming is needed to remind them. I wish it weren't needed but
    the sad truth it that it is.

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
    Edgware.

  19. "spindrift" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    The press already absolving the driver:

    Baby boy killed as car ploughs into pushchair after 'brakes failed'
    21.08.07

    A baby boy was killed after a car mounted the pavement and crashed
    into his pushchair - after its brakes failed.

    Interesting that his pushchair was not "in collision with" the car.

  20. "Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote

    Quoted message said:


    Perhaps she hasn't thought it through properly, and has, possibly, been
    influenced by some of the misinformation peddled by those who favour this
    type of approach. The truth is that, particularly if the street is used
    by buses or commercial vehicles, that they make life a misery for
    residents - with added pollution, and particularly extra noise, especially
    at night, with many people living near them unable to bear having their
    windows open, or indeed able to sleep, with the constant noise of engines
    revving, and gear changing, and rattling and banging each time a vehicle
    passes.

    The simple thing would be for drivers to accept that there are limits to how
    fast they can drive on such roads and humps would not be needed.

    And by the way, humps were on my road before I moved and I would not have
    moved to this house if there had been no humps - I know what it was like
    before they went in. A survey made when they resurfaced it a while ago in
    the interval before putting the humps back made a good reminder about their
    purpose.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.