- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@yorkpress
Follow us on Twitter
- Find us on Facebook
The Press, York
Like us on Facebook
‘Appalled’ by bike helmet views (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
‘Appalled’ by bike helmet views
11:20am Saturday 14th July 2012 in Letters
I WAS appalled to read the comments of a so-called cycling campaigner, Paul Hepworth, regarding the wearing of cycle helmets.
He advocates that the wearing of a cycle helmet only offers limited protection to one part of the body.
What chance do parents have of convincing their children to wear this most essential safeguard when Mr Hepworth states a helmet is as much use as an eggshell?
Should helmets have been available a few years ago a dear relative would not have lost her life from a cycling accident which resulted in head injuries.
T Hopcutt, Tedder Road, Askham Lane, York.
Comments(38)
Silver
says...
12:26pm Sat 14 Jul 12
PMarsham
says...
1:37pm Sat 14 Jul 12
.uk/campaigns/views/
cycle-helmets" a more rational judgement could be made. As Mr Hepworth pointed out the protection offered is very limited and there is some evidence to show falls and injuries may be more likely when wearing a helmet. The main reason for not making the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory however is that there is clear evidence that this would significantly reduce the number of cyclists on the road and thus make the roads a more dangerous place for cyclists. The wearing of a cycling helmet is and should remain a personal decision.
Buzz Light-year
says...
2:16pm Sat 14 Jul 12
ColdAsChristmas wrote:Please tell us this is parody!
Totally agree with the letter writer but then what about cyclists riding around our streets naked in a blaze of publicity on a Saturday afternoon? What sort of safety message does that send out?
You simply can't be that dim, surely to god?
The naked aspect of the event is to highlight the vulnerability of cyclists.
That's what sort of safety message it sends out.
mickrick
says...
2:30pm Sat 14 Jul 12
am yisrael chai wrote:You need help mate, a check up from the neck up is well in order.
I haven't read the whole comment that you allude to, but your paraphrasing of what he said makes what he said sound very reasonable. Cycle helmets do offer limited protection. And it is to only one part of the body.
These are empirical facts. You getting you panties in a wad over it is as retarded as chastising someone for stating that tides are caused by the moon because your kid refuses not to go in his inflatable dingy just before low tide.
Or maybe it isn't.
Say, uh, is anyone else getting a Netflix advert for the movie Drive on this article/letter? Such a great movie. Ryan Gosling is so dreamy. I'm not gay, but - ****.
bolero
says...
2:37pm Sat 14 Jul 12
PMarsham
says...
3:25pm Sat 14 Jul 12
bolero wrote:Please read the info on the CTC website before making ill informed judgements. Sorry the link I gave above was incomplete. Try http://beta.ctc.org.
I agree entirely with T.Hopcutt and if Paul (peddling) Hepworth ever had any credibility at all then surely he has lost it. To argue against a coroner's findings and recommendations just defies common sense and is plain arrogant to say the least. We know in future that any comments or supposed advice he gives can be totally ignored. Safety helmets have saved the lives of countless numbers of cyclists and surely are a must. We know that safety devices of any description do not always save lives; depending upon the circumstances; but far better be safe than sorry. In this instance a life could possibly have been saved and the trauma and distress brought to a distraught family, prevented.
uk/campaigns/views/c
ycle-helmets
bolero
says...
5:00pm Sat 14 Jul 12
PMarsham wrote:I suggest you pass ypur comments to Mr Coverdale the coroner on the day of the inquest into this tragedy. He said,"highlights the necessity of wearing a helmet when cycling", and said, " the outcome could have been different if Mr Brian had been wearing a helmet on that day". Need I say more? The only one being judgemental is PH. I respect the coroner's comments who would no doubt be basing his findings on evidence presented to him in relation to the case in question and find no reason to refute his judgement.
bolero wrote: I agree entirely with T.Hopcutt and if Paul (peddling) Hepworth ever had any credibility at all then surely he has lost it. To argue against a coroner's findings and recommendations just defies common sense and is plain arrogant to say the least. We know in future that any comments or supposed advice he gives can be totally ignored. Safety helmets have saved the lives of countless numbers of cyclists and surely are a must. We know that safety devices of any description do not always save lives; depending upon the circumstances; but far better be safe than sorry. In this instance a life could possibly have been saved and the trauma and distress brought to a distraught family, prevented.Please read the info on the CTC website before making ill informed judgements. Sorry the link I gave above was incomplete. Try http://beta.ctc.org. uk/campaigns/views/c ycle-helmets
ColdAsChristmas
says...
8:52pm Sat 14 Jul 12
PKH
says...
9:48pm Sat 14 Jul 12
PMarsham wrote:If the CTC are correct WHY do professional cyclists e.g. Tour de France wear them? Why do paramedics on programmes such as Helicopter Heroes reckon that the wearing of a cycle helmet has saved lives? I'm sorry but the CTC seem to me to be like the dinosaur organisations who in the past that argued seatbelts would not save lives and that motorcycle helmets would not save lives both of which have now been proved DO save lives.
bolero wrote:Please read the info on the CTC website before making ill informed judgements. Sorry the link I gave above was incomplete. Try http://beta.ctc.org.
I agree entirely with T.Hopcutt and if Paul (peddling) Hepworth ever had any credibility at all then surely he has lost it. To argue against a coroner's findings and recommendations just defies common sense and is plain arrogant to say the least. We know in future that any comments or supposed advice he gives can be totally ignored. Safety helmets have saved the lives of countless numbers of cyclists and surely are a must. We know that safety devices of any description do not always save lives; depending upon the circumstances; but far better be safe than sorry. In this instance a life could possibly have been saved and the trauma and distress brought to a distraught family, prevented.
uk/campaigns/views/c
ycle-helmets
PKH
says...
9:51pm Sat 14 Jul 12
Buzz Light-year
says...
10:01pm Sat 14 Jul 12
ColdAsChristmas wrote:Yes absolutely.
Buzz, using your dim logic then maybe motorcyclists should ride around helmet-less to illustrate their vulnerability?
If they do it on a pre-arranged date at a pre-arranged time, en masse, slowly, escorted by police, on a set route which is pre-planned to make sure it's safe, with lots of publicity to get the message across, no more than say once a year and for a very short period of time.
I think that would be very effective in getting a message of vulnerability across to all but the most hateful and stupid. Perhaps more effective than the naked cycle ride as less people seem to hate bikers than they do cyclists.
Really ColdAs, I've seen many of your posts, it's obvious you're not stupid. So you're prejudiced. Shame really, I was starting to pay your climate postings some attention, who's to say that drum you usually bang isn't as skewed by the same blind bias?
You do yourself a disservice.
am yisrael chai
says...
9:28am Sun 15 Jul 12
Mr Udigawa
says...
9:47am Sun 15 Jul 12
PMarsham
says...
12:25pm Sun 15 Jul 12
bolero wrote:I accept that in this instance a helmet may have helped but we are talking about a sweeping statement implying that the wearing of a helmet should be compulsory. There is significant evidence against the wearing of a helmet as well as in favour so the decision whether to wear one needs to be left for the individual to decide.
PMarsham wrote:I suggest you pass ypur comments to Mr Coverdale the coroner on the day of the inquest into this tragedy. He said,"highlight
bolero wrote: I agree entirely with T.Hopcutt and if Paul (peddling) Hepworth ever had any credibility at all then surely he has lost it. To argue against a coroner's findings and recommendations just defies common sense and is plain arrogant to say the least. We know in future that any comments or supposed advice he gives can be totally ignored. Safety helmets have saved the lives of countless numbers of cyclists and surely are a must. We know that safety devices of any description do not always save lives; depending upon the circumstances; but far better be safe than sorry. In this instance a life could possibly have been saved and the trauma and distress brought to a distraught family, prevented.Please read the info on the CTC website before making ill informed judgements. Sorry the link I gave above was incomplete. Try http://beta.ctc.org. uk/campaigns/views/c ycle-helmets
s the necessity of wearing a helmet when cycling", and said, " the outcome could have been different if Mr Brian had been wearing a helmet on that day". Need I say more? The only one being judgemental is PH. I respect the coroner's comments who would no doubt be basing his findings on evidence presented to him in relation to the case in question and find no reason to refute his judgement.
bolero
says...
12:54pm Sun 15 Jul 12
Buzz Light-year
says...
1:29pm Sun 15 Jul 12
Excepting the letter above which describes a personal tragedy, how much here is based on personal feeling towards Paul?
As far as "the message put across goes against the best advice and guidance and is a poor example to set other cyclists " well how many nurses and doctors smoke tobacco?
Sillybillies
says...
3:08pm Sun 15 Jul 12
However common sense prevailed, the laws were passed and countless lives saved, and this what should happen with cycle helmets. Get the law on the statute book ASAP.
Even AndyD
says...
5:24pm Sun 15 Jul 12
It does only cover one part of the anatomy, the one part that if it is badly broken, cannot be repaired.
TheTruthHurts
says...
12:02pm Mon 16 Jul 12
Mr Udigawa wrote:Paul, why not just come on using one of your other usernames.... ie one with your name in it.
It's not very often I agree with Spellcheck but the day cycling helmets become compulsory is the day my bike gets chucked in the Ouse.
Mr Udigawa
says...
12:46pm Mon 16 Jul 12
TheTruthHurts wrote:I feel befouled.
Mr Udigawa wrote: It's not very often I agree with Spellcheck but the day cycling helmets become compulsory is the day my bike gets chucked in the Ouse.Paul, why not just come on using one of your other usernames.... ie one with your name in it.
YSTClinguist
says...
2:03pm Mon 16 Jul 12
Even AndyD wrote:Most MTB helmets are designed to break apart upon impact, therefore lessening the speed between skull and hard object, and lessening the chance of the skull being cracked. Helmets can also lower the chance of internal brain injury as the impact speed is reduced. They are not a lifesaver device that works in all instances.
I have a friend who was knocked off his cycle in Leeds. He wore a helmet which was virtually cracked in two and was told in no uncertain terms by the attending paramedics that it had saved his life.
It does only cover one part of the anatomy, the one part that if it is badly broken, cannot be repaired.
They need replacing after heavy/sharp impacts, and every year or so, not just when they've been broken in an accident. Oil inside them can render them useless.
This unfortunate back and forth on safety I believe goes back to Australian compulsory helmet wearing, where the average rider started taking more risks when they were wearing helmets, feeling indestructible because they were told the helmet would save them, full stop. Unfortunately they then started to get into more high speed and more dangerous incidents, which resulted in a different type of death and massively increased injuries (other than head)
The majority of competent cyclists can make the decision whether to wear a helmet or not themselves. There are actually times when people have fallen and they've not struck their head, where with a helmet on their profile would have been larger, and may have led to brain injuries caused by impact, or rotational forces.
I've seen many riders in York with ill fitting helmets. If you don't do the straps up properly then if you are impacted, and then hit the ground, the chances are that the helmet will unseat before you hit the ground and you will be unprotected. I've also seen riders helmets with oil inside them, that prevents the helmet breaking up properly in the event of accident.
The best way to prevent injury to cyclists in York is for compulsory cycle proficiency training for all, a change in our roadcraft culture, drivers driving as required by their licenses and more traffic police out prosecuting all highway code breaches until our community sorts itself out.
TheTruthHurts
says...
2:48pm Mon 16 Jul 12
Mr Udigawa wrote:That sounds like something Paul would say
TheTruthHurts wrote:I feel befouled.
Mr Udigawa wrote: It's not very often I agree with Spellcheck but the day cycling helmets become compulsory is the day my bike gets chucked in the Ouse.Paul, why not just come on using one of your other usernames.... ie one with your name in it.
Mr Udigawa
says...
3:11pm Mon 16 Jul 12
Sillybillies
says...
3:37pm Mon 16 Jul 12
He's been well sussed on a cycle forum
Some quotes -
1. If its the same person I'm thinking of, he's probably too busy shooting his mouth off (and often shooting himself in the foot at the same time) in the local rag.
2. I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestions and something needs to be done quickly to stem the decline in the event. Unfortunately the current chairman has proved himself to be totally intransigent to the suggestions of others. Since they took the idiotic decision to change the name, just to save the secretary having to field a few phone calls, something he is paid to do, they have stuck to their own ways. I believe it was Einstein that said; “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result”. That is exactly what the organisers of the York Rally are doing.
Buzz Light-year
says...
3:51pm Mon 16 Jul 12
Excellent.
burtthebike
says...
1:30pm Tue 17 Jul 12
The myth of helmet effectiveness is just that, a myth, brought about by 30 years of bad science and a media which prints speculation as facts e.g. "helmet saved my life" stories.
Nowhere with a helmet law or massive rise in helmet wearing after propaganda campaigns can show any reduction in risk to cyclists. There are only two proven effects of helmet laws and propaganda: a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for the helmet manufacturers, there is no safety benefit. In fact, there is research showing an increase in risk with helmet wearing.
It is not unusual for a coroner to suggest that a helmet might have saved someone's life, but it's quite clear that they haven't examined the evidence on the subject, so their statements are just opinion masquerading as fact.
Check out a few facts at cyclehelmets.org instead of the helmet promoters fairy tales.
Jemima Puddleduck
says...
3:52pm Tue 17 Jul 12
They do save lives.
Parents encourage their children to wear helmets by wearing helmets themselves. Lead by example and all that malarky ;0)
even if you do feel you look like a complete dweeb. Rather a life dweeb than a dead dweeb.
Jemima Puddleduck
says...
3:53pm Tue 17 Jul 12
yorkandproud
says...
6:51pm Tue 17 Jul 12
Jemima Puddleduck wrote:Isn't a "dweeb" a type of nerd. To be honest Jemima, I don't even give anyone in a bike helmet a second look. Why would you feel like a nerd. Youv'e got some strange, strange ideas love.
My cousin would be dead after coming off his bike and landing on his head, but for the helmet. He suffered some other permanent injuries but he is alive and back on his bike, needless to say, wearing a helmet.
They do save lives.
Parents encourage their children to wear helmets by wearing helmets themselves. Lead by example and all that malarky ;0)
even if you do feel you look like a complete dweeb. Rather a life dweeb than a dead dweeb.
Wanderer in Canada
says...
7:25pm Tue 17 Jul 12
The situation here is no better than in York as cyclists and other road users are not sharing the road as they should but at least the law is slightly more sensible by encouraging the youngsters to get into a habit of protection (helmet wearing) before allowing them the choice to not wear them. At the same time the argument they would feel safer wearing one and ride too fast is probably tempered by their speed limitations on the footpaths until they migrate to the roads, one assumes, when they reach adulthood. Although I fear most of them just join the others, behind the wheel of another oversized monster scaring the cyclist onto the designated MTB trials. Perhaps York can improve on this by marrying the better cycling facilities already in place with improved integration of kids onto the local roads, all wearing the appropriate protection.
Wanderer in Canada
says...
7:26pm Tue 17 Jul 12
I am a late bloomer when it comes to wearing a helmet, having started only about 10 years ago (of my 40 something in total). My childhood and early adult years were spent cycling all over York when there seemed to be a higher volume of cyclists on the roads I frequented (e.g. carriage works on Holgate road). I felt safe without a helmet back then (naivety I guess).
Oncebitten
says...
2:11pm Wed 18 Jul 12
So at no point in time can a cyclist, hit the kerb, have faulty brakes, swerve or slip in wet weather, without the help of a motorised vehicle?? Or indeed cycle into a stationary vehicle (I have done this).
So car V cyclist argument aside…back to the issue, it is quite obvious to me that a cycle helmet is going to help if someone is sadly injured while on cycle. Some of us are old enough to remember not wearing seat belts, motor cycle helmet’s etc, when it becomes the “norm” to do so no longer will a debate happen.
On a personal level, I think they look a bit geeky (remember 50’s & 60’s specs?) and serious efforts need to make them safe & fashionable then all will be happy to wear them.
I know its the same comment...but its the same arguement!!!!
Yorkborneinbse
says...
10:32pm Wed 18 Jul 12
kitkatbar
says...
12:19pm Thu 19 Jul 12
Perhaps paper-mache copies of THE PRESS chewed by some of the previous respondents to this situation would still provide adequate protection.
Joe Brown kept his marbles intact by this simple method until he realised that the laws of physics accelerated falling stones in the Alps to a higher velocity than on Stanage Edge. So Joe Brown designed and manufactured excellent climbing helmets.
Now on to more serious discussion. Having been laughed at, ridiculed and made to feel like a silly little boy by characters who persistently publish their own ' CYCLING TESTAMENTS ' in order to keep their profiles highlighted to an endearing audience, I choose to ignore their ridicule and continued to wear my old faithful Joe Brown climbing helmet, because there were not any cycling helmets to be purchased around this era.
On turning a sharp corner on my bike in the Groves after there had been a shower of rain, my front wheel skidded on a greasy manhole cover in the road. I found myself catapulted sideways, in a heap on the road. Two or three people dashed to my aid. They were really concerned because apparently my head had been observed to have actually bounced on the tarmac surface. A sideways bash to the cranium is quite dangerous. I had felt no impact at all. Thank you Joe Brown for designing such an effective piece of safety equipment.
SO NUTS to the likes of the WE ARE THE PEDAL AND WILL **** YOU BRIGADE if you don't follow our gently BUT persistent guidance...
If you come to Slovakia and you don't have a helmet on your cranium while cycling the police will take great delight in fining the cyclist. Come on PEDALING Paul come and try to argue your free rights to the LAW here.”
yorkshirelad
says...
6:02pm Thu 19 Jul 12
What always amazes me is people who get worked up about cycle helmets often care very little about dangerous driving, speed limits, drink driving, poor quality cycle lanes...all of which are far more of a threat to human life.
To many people it's completely obvious but here's an interesting thing...
Apparently a greater public health benefit could be gained by a law to make all pedestrians and all car drivers wear helmets. After all...what's the problem ....it's just a polystyrene helmet!
Strangely after consideration of that idea people start to realise that it's not quite as clear cut!
PinzaC55
says...
12:25pm Fri 20 Jul 12
YSTClinguist
says...
1:11pm Fri 20 Jul 12
@kitkatbar What were you doing riding over a metal, slippery object in the road when it was wet? I can only presume you failed to notice the obstacle in good time to avoid it. All bikers, pedal or petroleum powered know it's suicidal to ride over wet manhole plates.
@PinzaC55 The primary purpose of a helmet is to reduce deaths due to fractured skulls. They can reduce the chances of, and the severity of brain injury, if used correctly. I believe your understanding of helmet science is inadequate here as they do not simply 'protect the brain' . I can personally attest to this fact.
ColdAsChristmas says...
12:19pm Sat 14 Jul 12