Coultas imprisoned for 4years

In article <[email hidden]>,
"budstaff" <budstaffdotusegroupatbtinternetdotcom> says...

Quoted message said:

For killing a cyclist while driving and texting.

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,

Good points well made - but will they listen, will they hear, and will
they act? I'm not holding my breath.

Good point. It is a leading phrasing.

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.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Clive George said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Good point. It is a leading phrasing.

Quoted message said:

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.

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

Quoted message said:

Clive George said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Good point. It is a leading phrasing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But, the cyclist is being negligent by not wearing a helmet.

Quoted message said:

Ah good, first post from somebody and it's nonsense. Nothing like starting
as you mean to go on.

Quoted message said:

clive

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

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

[email hidden] said the following on 29/02/2008 14:01:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

If they're a bad idea - why do many cyclists wear helmets during
sporting events?

Misguided insurers.

Quoted message said:

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.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

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/

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

Quoted message said:

Clive George said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Good point. It is a leading phrasing.

Quoted message said:

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.

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.

I think you'd probably do better to research past threads on this subject -
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.

"Clive George" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

Quoted message said:

Clive George said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Good point. It is a leading phrasing.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

So, is a helmet really useless, then?

On the whole yes.

Quoted message said:

Is it worse than useless?

Sometimes - sometimes they're better than useless. On the whole they come
out as pretty much no effect.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

"Rob Morley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"budstaff" <budstaffdotusegroupatbtinternetdotcom> says...

Quoted message said:

For killing a cyclist while driving and texting.

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,

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?

In message <[email hidden]>
[email hidden] wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

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/

On 29 Feb, 14:54, "budstaff" <budstaffdotusegroupatbtinternetdotcom>

Quoted message said:

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 :-)

Yes, I apologise. My latent helmet ignorance is cured. It's much more
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).

Quoted message said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ah good, first post from somebody and it's nonsense. Nothing like
starting as you mean to go on.

Quoted message said:

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.

red sight writtificated

Quoted message said:

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.

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

[email hidden] said the following on 29/02/2008 14:01:

Quoted message said:

If they're a bad idea - why do many cyclists wear helmets during
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 => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

budstaff wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

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