Can not wearing a cyling helmet cause death?



On 16 May 2006 05:18:45 -0700,
David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Andy Leighton wrote:
>> I'm one of those people who doesn't deal with heat very well
>> at all but am OK in the cold. Even in English summers I suffer.

>
> Move to Scotland then ;-)


It is something I may consider. It has many benefits - such as real
snow in the winter and easy access to nice hills (for walking not
cycling - I'm from the Fens and I haven't ever had to cycle up a hill).

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
 
On 16 May 2006 01:24:26 -0700 someone who may be "spindrift"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Nottingham City Coroners Office.
>50 Carrington Street, Nottingham, NG1 7FG
>Tel: 0115 941 2322
>
>
>Email: [email protected]



Here is a copy of my e-mail to them, which steals what others have
said, but adds a local shooting in an effort to make them think.

==================================================================

I am extremely concerned by the reported comments of one of your
staff, a Mr Gotheridge. Is the report an accurate version of his
comments?

http://www.hucknalltoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=743&ArticleID=1499298

"Assistant deputy coroner Martin Gotheridge said the cause of death
was a severe head-injury caused by Mr Ross not wearing a helmet."

If they are an accurate version of Mr Gotheridge's comments then it
is clear that he is not up to his job. It should be clear to anyone
that the head injury was caused by the crash. Perhaps he should be
given some more training.


I note from
http://www.hucknalltoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=743&ArticleID=1287142
that Mr Gotheridge did not claim that a head injury to Mr
Houldsworth was caused by him not wearing a helmet. Perhaps you
could explain why Mr Gotheridge did not do so?


Marian Bates was shot in the chest in her shop in Arnold. Does Mr
Gotheridge think that the cause of her death was a severe chest
injury caused by her not wearing a "bulletproof" vest? A yes or no
answer will do.


I look forward to your response to all the points I have raised.

==================================================================




--
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
 
Andy Leighton wrote:

> It is something I may consider. It has many benefits - such as real
> snow in the winter


ummmm... ;-/

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
The coroners office in Nottingham seem a bit disorganised,
[email protected] doesn't exist, despite them giving it
out as a contact!

Use [email protected]

Maybe there was a feeling by Mr Gotheridge that he had to seem
pro-active so he made these lofty pronouncements in order to appear
safety-conscious, which is why it is strange he didn't mention the
dangers of driving into cyclists without looking.
 
Paul Boyd wrote:
>
> Generally, H&S rules state that the person causing the risk should
> ensure that those at risk should be protected. It seems that where cars
> and bikes are concerned, the legal profesion seems to take the opposite
> view.
>


Just had a brilliant thought. All this helmet nonsense could be
dispensed with if cars were covered in an inch of polystyrene all over
instead.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> Just had a brilliant thought. All this helmet nonsense could be
> dispensed with if cars were covered in an inch of polystyrene all over
> instead.


Particularly over the windscreen; it wouldn't affect most drivers'
driving in the least.

R.
 
On 16 May 2006 06:30:56 -0700 someone who may be "spindrift"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Maybe there was a feeling by Mr Gotheridge that he had to seem
>pro-active


Maybe, though I try not to be a mind-reader. Instead I go by what
people do.

>so he made these lofty pronouncements in order to appear
>safety-conscious, which is why it is strange he didn't mention the
>dangers of driving into cyclists without looking.


Which goes to show that there may not be much between his ears.

Coroners are noted for their nutty ideas and pronouncements. It is
long past time that the system was revised. Fortunately in this
country we don't have them, though that does not mean things are
much better.


--
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
 
Richard said the following on 16/05/2006 16:12:

> Particularly over the windscreen; it wouldn't affect most drivers'
> driving in the least.


Especially in winter, when a lot of them clear a patch of ice on the
windscreen about the size of a penny, then drive off!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
Andy Leighton wrote:
> On 16 May 2006 05:18:45 -0700,
> David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Andy Leighton wrote:
> >> I'm one of those people who doesn't deal with heat very well
> >> at all but am OK in the cold. Even in English summers I suffer.

> >
> > Move to Scotland then ;-)

>
> It is something I may consider. It has many benefits - such as real
> snow in the winter and easy access to nice hills (for walking not
> cycling - I'm from the Fens and I haven't ever had to cycle up a hill).


Can I, perhaps, interest you in some nice property in the Canadian
Rockies?
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
 
in message <[email protected]>, Roger
('[email protected]') wrote:

> BTW, my 2 cents on cycle helmets:
>
> I think they significally reduce risks to the rider,


Then you are absolutely, certainly wrong. Why you are wrong is a matter
of debate, but that you are wrong is not. Helmets very slightly increase
the risk of death or serious injury, although they do protect against
minor bruises and abrasion.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If Python is executable pseudocode,
;; then Perl is executable line noise
-- seen on Slashdot.
 
in message <[email protected]>, Roger
('[email protected]') wrote:

> He is quite correct there. The evidence clearly showed that this was a
> low speed collision (independent of whose fault), and yet it is
> possible to recieve a fatal blow to the head.


An eye witness stated that the cyclist was thrown into the air. It takes
a substantial amount of energy to heft a human body into the air, and
that energy came from somewhere. Ergo, (some of) the evidence suggests
that it was not a low speed collision. Mind you, the witness could be
lying, exaggerating or just wrong.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Wise man with foot in mouth use opportunity to clean toes.
;; the Worlock
 
>Just had a brilliant thought. All this helmet nonsense could be
>dispensed with if cars were covered in an inch of polystyrene all over
>instead


No cycle helmets are designed for low speed impacts so cars should have
at least a foot of foam :)

BigRab
 
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>> Given that so many coroners seem preoccupied with non-mandatory cycle
>> 'safety' equipment, has anyone ever seen a coroners report where a car
>> driver has been killed though the fault of another driver, and the
>> coroner on learning that the driver was in a car with a low ENCAP
>> rating, or one which was not fitted with airbags said something like;
>> 'This case illustrates the dangers of driving in anything other than an
>> ENCAP 5 star rated vehicle fitted with all-round airbags'? I bet
>> not...


> Errm, more like:


> The landrover plowed into the mini at 80mph and killed all the
> occupants. This was caused by the occupants of the mini using a car
> that is too small.


How about "Idiots keep driving into me, that's why I've switched to
a big SUV."?

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
Roger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Your inference, your implication. The coroner cannot uniquivicolly
> blame the driver as the cause of the accident as there is evidence that
> the cyclist may have been in part to blame. It would be very incorrect
> of him to implicate the driver superficially, as that would make the
> driver implicated in a manslaughter charge.

Yes it would, wouldn't it?

Wouldn't want a driver who wasn't watching where she was going to actually be
held accountable
 

Similar threads