Your Oxford
Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting 'OXFORD NEWS' to 80360 or email »
'Make cyclists wear helmets'
8:00am Friday 23rd March 2007
Comments (44)
A cyclist whose life was saved by his helmet when he crashed head first into a car wants them to be made compulsory.
Oliver Adams, 33, was cycling towards the centre of Oxford, in Banbury Road, on March 15, when he and a car turning right into Belbroughton Road collided.
The force of the collision knocked him across the road and into the side of a Mercedes driven by Dr Sandeep Jayawant, a neurologist at Oxford Children's Hospital.
Mr Adams, of Rectory Road, East Oxford, who is studying at Oxford Brookes University to be an osteopath, was concussed in the accident and still suffers headaches and slight memory loss.
But he is convinced the blue Trek cycle helmet, which was cracked in the smash, saved his life.
He added: "This helmet has saved my life. I bought it for about £30 or £40 from a shop in Market Street and I would advise everyone else to do the same.
"It's a bizarre coincidence that I crashed into a neurologist but not everyone will be lucky enough to collide with someone who is an expert on head injuries.
"I would like to see new legislation making the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory. They do it in some countries, so I'm sure it could work here."
Mr Adams said his Marin bike was a write-off following the crash and he is trying to claim the estimated £500 replacement cost on his house insurance.
His girlfriend Elizabeth Mathew, a 33-year-old historical bibliographer at Oxford University, had been very shaken by his accident - and now always wears a helmet when cycling.
Dr Jayawant, 42, said Mr Adams left a helmet-shaped dent in the side of his car. He added: "If he had not been wearing a cycle helmet the impact would have left him with a skull fracture and brain haemorrhage.
"In my job, I see all sorts of injuries, and children who have not been wearing their helmets while cycling definitely suffer worse injuries."
Pc Tom Coyne, of Oxford police, who attended the accident, said: "Without the helmet, the corner of the car door would have gone straight into his skull."
James Styring, a spokesman for cycling group Cyclox, said children should be encouraged to wear cycle helmets but he would not back legislation to make them compulsory.
"The emphasis should be on cyclists getting more training," he said.
"Most helmets are only designed to withstand impacts of up to 20mph."
Your Say YourOxford Mail
roly, says...
9:27pm Thu 22 Mar 07
1. Why should a driver pay for an accident if it isnt his fault.
2. I can appreciate that Mr Adams was saved by a helmet but making them compulsory is a step too far. If I cycle I accept the risks and dont wear one. It is my choice and my choice alone.
Rob, Oxford says...
10:33pm Thu 22 Mar 07
Not everyone shares Mr Adams' childlike religious faith in these novelty hats. For a more balanced view of the subject with pointers to some actual research, see http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
Frank, Ox says...
12:56am Fri 23 Mar 07
If the car turned right into the path of an oncoming cyclist then it can hardly have been the cyclist's fault.
Kevin, says...
7:58am Fri 23 Mar 07
Stephanie, says...
8:27am Fri 23 Mar 07
I was quite seriously injured, but my compensation was reduced because the injury would not have been nearly so bad if I had been wearing a helmet. This is something the anti-helmet brigade need to take on board: in law you may not be to blame for the accident, but you are to blame for your head injuries.
I didn't think that lightning would strike twice, but was put under pressure from other people to wear a helmet after that, even though I loathed the idea. A couple of years later I skidded on ice, landing on my head and shoulder. I broke my collarbone but my head was uninjured.
So I would recommend that everyone wears a cycle helmet. You don't have to like it: I loathe mine. But they really do work.
Anon, Oxford says...
8:29am Fri 23 Mar 07
PS. Honorable mention to the small number of cyclists who follow the highway code, don't act like morons and treat other road users and pedestrians with the respect they deserve.
Antony, Oxford says...
8:46am Fri 23 Mar 07
PS. Honorable mention to the small number of cyclists who follow the highway code, don't act like morons and treat other road users and pedestrians with the respect they deserve
THANK YOU! I get so fed up with seeing the same old anti-cyclist rhetoric spill out, time and time again. It's so refreshing to see SOMEONE airing a more balanced view. Yes, there are plenty of idiots, they wind me up too. But some of us do indeed obey all the rules of the road. I wait at lights, I don't jump queues, I am lit up like a Christmas tree at dusk and I have third party insurance, via the CTC.
I can't wait for the cycle-helmets-don't-work argument to fizzle out, it's so dull. Maybe the stats say they don't help, but frankly I'd rather take the risk that they do. I love my 'novely hat', anyway. It's got go-faster stripes.
Natalie Thorne, Witney says...
9:08am Fri 23 Mar 07
Rebecca, oxford says...
11:37am Fri 23 Mar 07
That is absolute rubbish because if I am driving, and I hit a cyclist, even if it's the cyclist's fault, and he/she dies because they weren't wearing a cycle helmet, does that mean that I won't feel guilty for the rest of my life, and can just say to myself "well it was his/her fault, they should have been wearing a helmet".
So you may look a bit stupid, but really, when it might save your life, even only a small chance of it, surely it's worth just putting that cycle helmet on?
P, Oxford says...
2:36pm Fri 23 Mar 07
Fed up with nannies, On my bike says...
3:10pm Fri 23 Mar 07
Kat, Carterton says...
4:07pm Fri 23 Mar 07
sas, Oxford says...
4:39pm Fri 23 Mar 07
Making helmets compulsory may reduce the severity of injuries for anyone involved in an accident, but it also has a general deterrent effect on the numbers of people cycling. In places where helmets have been made compulsory the numbers of cyclists have gone down.
Tim, Oxford says...
4:44pm Fri 23 Mar 07
Stephanie, says...
5:27pm Fri 23 Mar 07
I wish that the wearing of helmets had been compulsory before I had my accident.
You are not allowed to sell a bike without a bell now (but the purchaser is allowed to take the bell off as soon as they get it home); why not a similar law with helmets?
M Jones, says...
6:31pm Fri 23 Mar 07
What a silly straw man argument. Where did you get the "every" from in the above? I know cyclists in both groups with both views; but most think it should be a matter of choice.
"why not a similar law with helmets?"
Yup, a great idea if you want to discourage people from cycling. They made helmets compulsory in Australia- result: fewer head injuries, but even fewer cyclists.
jerry, Oxford says...
7:11pm Fri 23 Mar 07
quoteIt's funny, isn't it, how every cyclist who has been in an accident says you should wear a helmet, while every cyclist who hasn't says it is a lot of tosh.
quote
Um. No, don't tell me: Helmets cause accidents? A blow to the head causes you to ignore the facts? People dim enough to believe the helmet advertising also fall off their bikes a lot?
Go on, enlighten us.
Henry Strivens, Oxford says...
7:44pm Fri 23 Mar 07
As with most aspects of life, there are those that do things by the book (a minority), those that do most, or about 1/2 of things by the book (the majority), and those that do very little by the book (another minority, but they tend to be the ones that are publicised, leading to a disproportionate measure). This applies to both car drivers, and cyclists, and a large number of other things besides.
No one group can generalise another, as it is almost always not true, does not help, and is generally pointless.
With regards to the accident itself, there are often blind-spots to be taken into consideration, where the driver has not seen the cyclist, and the cyclist is un-aware of this, or even a momentary lack of concentration, which we all do, so there's no point in shouting 'OUTRAGEOUS' about that one.
All I can say on the matter is that it was clearly an accident, which happens all the time, to all sorts of people.
On the subject of the cyclist, I would be most interested to know how fast he was going, as with a £500 Marin, and £40 helmet (normal bikes are £100-200, helmets are £15-25), both of which i do have and use, I cruise at 25mph, sometimes faster if I have a wide cycle lane at hand, and this could only have added to the confusion, as the last thing a car espects is a 30mph bike, possibly leading to the driver believing it to be safe to turn when it wasn't. (and yes, the driver is meant to judge the speed of the bike, but this is extra-ordinarily hard to do, due to the small size and odd shape of a bike, especially when in a mirror).
Childish bickering has no place here, and most likely no place anywhere else, unless you happen to find yourself in a school playground, and I would recommend that you make relative points, so as not to make sifting through the rubbish too arduous!
hans blix, germany says...
8:26pm Fri 23 Mar 07
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm
C, says...
8:51pm Fri 23 Mar 07
sas wrote:To be fair, aren't these the sort of people you want to deter from cycling? The sort of cyclists who view helmets as an optional inconvenience are most likely the very same ones who have the same views as regards stopping at red lights and not cycling on pavements. Without that lot making a nuisance of themselves, the roads (and pavements) would become a safer place overnight, not to mention the increased social standing of cyclists as a group.
Quick summary of studies into wearing cycle helmets:
Making helmets compulsory may reduce the severity of injuries for anyone involved in an accident, but it also has a general deterrent effect on the numbers of people cycling. In places where helmets have been made compulsory the numbers of cyclists have gone down.
Jonathan, says...
9:45pm Fri 23 Mar 07
Put these two effects together and overall there is no reason to believe that compulsory cycle helmets would help in the slightest. But we don't need to speculate: the experiment has been done in other countries and it doesn't work.
Frank, Oxford says...
9:54pm Fri 23 Mar 07
anon, says...
12:44am Sat 24 Mar 07
Most of you would say,well,it may save your life! But in my individual opinion,i would stand a better chance of having a better life going out on my bike WITHOUT a helmet,because,by being made to wear one i definately wouldn't go out on my bike at all,meaning my excercise would decrease dramatically.Ive more chance of having a better life without having to wear a helmet than with one.As the chances of me having an accident is far less.PLEASE dont make helmets compulsory-Not everyone is confident enough to wear one! ! I,m a bit **** at the mo but i know what im trying to say..
raaaaaaaagh!!!!!!!!!!, oxford says...
1:25am Sat 24 Mar 07
sas wrote:Exactly-Totally agree so i'm not the only one then!
Quick summary of studies into wearing cycle helmets: Making helmets compulsory may reduce the severity of injuries for anyone involved in an accident, but it also has a general deterrent effect on the numbers of people cycling. In places where helmets have been made compulsory the numbers of cyclists have gone down.
anon, says...
1:39am Sat 24 Mar 07
Tim wrote:good good good! Sorry im just a bit WORRIED that my cycling hobby will be over if this compulsory rubbish comes into force! And for you people out there who ride a bike and dont think twice what you look like having to wear a helmet,then good for you! When i had a moped i was more than happy to wear a crash helmet as it covered my whole face,but a cycle helmet? NO! I enjoy my cycling,dont ruin it.If i have an accident then thats my own tough luck.
What a load of anecdotal tosh - the only way you can say wearing a helmet saved this chap's life is if we now smash his head against an identical car without him wearing a helmet, and see what happens. And I'll volunteer to be the person to do it, if he doesn't get off his soap box mighty quick! I've cycled in Oxford every day for the last ten years, have never worn a helmet and have never once wished I was wearing one. All the evidence suggests that making helmets compulsory discourages people from cycling and thereby reduces their life expectancy (and no doubt increases pollution). As for the person who suggested this might have been the cyclist's fault, if he was travelling south on Banbury Road, and the car was turning right into Belbroughton Road, it must have been travelling north and therefore must have been at fault for turning across the cyclist's path.
anon, says...
1:52am Sat 24 Mar 07
Frank wrote:couldn't of put it better myself!
Compulsory pedestrian helmets would help prevent injury even more than cycle helmets according to accident statistics, so go on, make them compulsory - noone allowed out without a helmet anymore. Brave new world!
D Williams, Abingdon says...
6:33am Sat 24 Mar 07
Helmets at £25 - £40 are only tested (by the manufacturer) to the most basic of tests(EN1078).
If helmets are to be worn, why are we wasting time wearing an inferior product?
As a matter of priority we need to introduce a far higher minimum standard with independent testing such as the Snell Foundation ones before going any further.
Stephanie, says...
8:19am Sat 24 Mar 07
I would have been on the other side too if I hadn't had an accident while not wearing a helmet. Going cycling without a helmet is like walking in bare feet and and getting hurt by sharp shards of glass: the ensuing accident may be the fault of the person who dropped the glass/ran into you, but you are responsible for the extent of your injuries.
This argument is a no-brainer really -- literally and figuratively.
graham, Witney says...
9:28am Sat 24 Mar 07
O, Oxford says...
9:50am Sat 24 Mar 07
I don't have 'child-like religious faith i novelty hats' but in this case it's most likely serious injury was prevented by the helmet.
Decision to prosecute hasn't been taken as far as i know (what would that achieve anyway?)
Compulsory helmet legislation is perhaps too draconian though on the other hand ask a neurologist about the effects of even a low-speed trauma to the head which is unprotected and ask the police emergency services and NHS staff about the cost of dealing with a minor incident as compared to a fatal/serious one.
Henry-is there such a thing as a 'normal' price for a bike/helmet? I'm only quoting the figures supplied by the bike shop.
o, Oxford says...
10:11am Sat 24 Mar 07
is very interesting.
of course when i was quoted as saying "this helmet saved my life" i was merely repeating Police and medical opinion. Even if helmets offer 'limited' protection against scalp lacerations then perhaps it is worth considering wearing one?
Clearly the misconceptions need addressing concerning beliefs that helmets will protect in all collisions at all speeds.
Rob, Oxford says...
11:53am Sat 24 Mar 07
o wrote:O: Thanks for what seems, ironically, to be one of the only civil and coherent of the pro-helmet replies. Of course it's worth considering wearing a helmet, but that's a long way from advocating compulsion, which was what the article implied you said - apologies if you were misrepresented, it wouldn't be the first time.
Rob-http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
is very interesting.
of course when i was quoted as saying \"this helmet saved my life\" i was merely repeating Police and medical opinion. Even if helmets offer \'limited\' protection against scalp lacerations then perhaps it is worth considering wearing one?
Clearly the misconceptions need addressing concerning beliefs that helmets will protect in all collisions at all speeds.
Police and medical opinion, on this subject, seems worth treating with a pinch of salt since it doesn't appear to be backed up by any facts. At a population level, I haven't seen a shred of credible evidence that helmets increase safety. Indeed, it seems overwhelmingly likely that they may exacerbate at least as many injuries as they mitigate and may well prove a sufficient distraction so as to contribute to causing many collisions that might otherwise have been avoided.
I am not 'anti-helmet', but I am against compulsion. On the strength of current evidence the only thing that compulsion would achieve (apart from increased profits for helmet manufacturers) is a reduction in cycling, and for the cyclist there is safety in numbers.
Tony, oxford says...
10:34pm Sat 24 Mar 07
o, Oxford says...
10:36pm Sat 24 Mar 07
It is a complicated issue and cyclists need to be able to make an informed decision.
A large number of cyclists in Oxford not only do not wear helmets but do not stop at red lights,cycle on the pavements and cycle irresponsibly which unfortunately antagonises motorists and probably contributes to the accident statistics.
A combination of training for cyclists (and motorists),education, incentive schemes (cheap or free safety equipment)and spot fines for irresponsible cycling would be an appropriate strategy?
Gus, says...
6:45am Sun 25 Mar 07
I was quite seriously injured, but my compensation was reduced because the injury would not have been nearly so bad if I had been wearing a helmet.
I find this quite disturbing as there is no legislation directing a cyclist to wear a helmet so there should be no legal argument to reduce this claim. It is almost the equivalent of arguing that injuries would have been avoided if you weren't there!
Personally, I do not wear a cycle helmet. The design of these causes me to question their protection levels - I see many cyclists wearing helmets on top of woolly hats further reducing the protection levels. Although I do not wear a helmet, I do have lights when required, stop at the requisite traffic signals and do not ride on footpaths (cycling on footpaths by adults / teenagers is pathetic).
O, Oxford says...
10:07am Sun 25 Mar 07
Richard Fairhurst, Charlbury says...
1:49pm Sun 25 Mar 07
I wasn't wearing a helmet. I broke my jaw and several front teeth. The (excellent) staff at the Cumbria Infirmary said that broken jaws were the most common cycling injuries they saw.
A cycling helmet would have made absolutely no difference. Only a motorbike helmet would. If you argue for compulsory cycling helmets, then you should expect them to offer maximum protection - which means jaw as well as head. How many people do you think would go out for a health-giving, leisurely weekend cycle if they were forced to wear such a helmet?
Me, I'll continue doing what I've always done: wear a cycling helmet in London (where you're more likely to get mashed by a car or bus), but no helmet where I live, in the countryside. The day that urban cycling rules are imposed on everyone in the countryside will be a sad day indeed.
M Jones, says...
6:18pm Sun 25 Mar 07
I wear a helmet for my commute on busy roads; however that is my choice and I would not seek to impose it on others. Nor do I wear a helmet every time I ride, for example I don't usually when popping to the shops on quiet residential streets, or when using largely traffic-free routes such as the river path and the Sustrans network. The idea that some people would like to make it a criminal offence for me to that is quite astonishing.
PETE CROSS, Wakefield says...
7:44pm Fri 30 Mar 07
That is what will happen here.
So you have to look at the wider picture.
In other words, a few fatal head injuries may be prevented by forcing all cyclists to wear helmets but if many people are put off cycling by having to wear head protection this could lead to many more deaths through encouraging a sedentary lifestyle.
Also what about pedestrians and car drivers? Let us force them to wear halmets as well. They die from head injuries as well.
Why pick on cyclists?
Everbody should wear a helmet, even in their own house. Have you not ever bumped your head ?
Richard Burton, says...
10:29pm Thu 13 Dec 07
If you had your compensation reduced because you weren't wearing a helmet, you should get some decent lawyers. This has been tried on by the insurance companies many times in this country, and every time it's come up, the insurance companies back down. Why? because they know that cycle helmets are useless at preventing serious injury or death.
Nowhere that has introduced a cycle helmet law has been able to demonstrate a reduction in risk to cyclists.
Richard Burton, says...
10:36pm Thu 13 Dec 07
Antony wrote:"I can't wait for the cycle-helmets-don't-
PS. Honorable mention to the small number of cyclists who follow the highway code, don\'t act like morons and treat other road users and pedestrians with the respect they deserveTHANK YOU! I get so fed up with seeing the same old anti-cyclist rhetoric spill out, time and time again. It\'s so refreshing to see SOMEONE airing a more balanced view. Yes, there are plenty of idiots, they wind me up too. But some of us do indeed obey all the rules of the road. I wait at lights, I don\'t jump queues, I am lit up like a Christmas tree at dusk and I have third party insurance, via the CTC. I can\'t wait for the cycle-helmets-don\'t-work argument to fizzle out, it\'s so dull. Maybe the stats say they don\'t help, but frankly I\'d rather take the risk that they do. I love my \'novely hat\', anyway. It\'s got go-faster stripes.
work argument to fizzle out, it's so dull. Maybe the stats say they don't help, but frankly I'd rather take the risk that they do."
Bad news. The argument that cycle helmets are ineffective isn't going to fizzle out, for the very good reason that they aren't effective. Nowehere that has brought in a helmet law has been able to demonstrate any reduction in risk to cyclists. You're faith in their magic powers in the face of the evidence is touching, but maybe you're just the gullible type.
"I love my 'novely hat', anyway. It's got go-faster stripes."
Probably the only reason to wear them - fashion. Just like bull bars, which lots of people claimed, similarly erroneously, that they would save their life, helmets will become unfashionable.
I love my 'novely hat', anyway. It's got go-faster stripes.
Richard Burton, says...
10:43pm Thu 13 Dec 07
Kat wrote:"If the cyclist chooses not to wear a helmet they should be forced to pay the medical expenses incurred too!"
Drivers are forced by the law to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Cyclists should be forced by the law to wear cycle helmets for their own protection. It may be the cyclists decision not to wear a helmet, but, as Rebecca says, that does have an impact on other people, including the paramedics that have to scrape the cyclist off the road, the doctors who have to try and patch them back together, etc.. If the cyclist chooses not to wear a helmet they should be forced to pay the medical expenses incurred too!
Since the benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers by at least 20 to 1, should cyclists be given a redund for all the money they save the NHS?
At the risk of becomming boring, cycle helmets don't save lives. All the reliable, long term, whole population studies show this clearly. All the evidence that show they do has been peer reviewed and found to be highly suspect.
Why don't you read the evidence? Start at www.cyclehelmets.org
Richard Burton, says...
10:46pm Thu 13 Dec 07
Stephanie wrote:I've had lots of accidents, most without a helmet. According to all the helmet promoters, I should be dead. How did all the generations before ours manage to survive if they rode bicycles but didn't wear helmets?
It\'s funny, isn\'t it, how every cyclist who has been in an accident says you should wear a helmet, while every cyclist who hasn\'t says it is a lot of tosh. Which group do you think it makes sense to trust? I wish that the wearing of helmets had been compulsory before I had my accident. You are not allowed to sell a bike without a bell now (but the purchaser is allowed to take the bell off as soon as they get it home); why not a similar law with helmets?
Which group do you think it makes sense to trust? the group promoting something that all the reliable evidence says doesn't work, and would make millions for the manufacturers, or the group who point to the reliable evidence that these things just don't work?
Oliver Adams and Dr Sandeep Jayawant in his car
In this section
- BREAKING NEWS: Fox & Hounds pub torched in 'arson' attack
- County crime figures show fall in offences
- Jools died in style, say parents
- Disabled upset by loss of Oxford parking spaces
- Pensioners welcome improved Oxford hospitals bus link
- Teenager loses brave fight against cancer
- County opposition picks cabinet
- A40 to shut for vital A34 viaduct work
- Pre-school is in need of help
- ‘Use it or lose it’ warning over cafe
Sponsored Links
UK Debt Help and Advice | IVA help and advice | The truth about IVAs | Stay with Prague Hotels | Visit Spain with Barcelona Hotels
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Andy, Oxford says...
9:18pm Thu 22 Mar 07