Ny Cykel

The guy had no helmet, riding against traffic, on and off the side walk. The only reason I didn't pass him as I stopped at the lights.
Finaly he was east bound in the gutter going against traffic, a car comming from the north turned right on to the lane he was riding in, the driver was looking for traffic comming from the east and did not even look west, and for about a second I saw the car try to avoid the bike and bang, he went down.
I think he busted a leg and his head was all bloody.

I remember when I first started commuting, the old timers said, ride with the traffic, they were right.
After today I clearly see why.

and "WEAR A HELMET!" They all said.

sbhikes

Let that be a lesson to whoever doesn't know better already.

jeff-o

I hate to say it, but it was really his own darned fault...

AlmostTrick

You can say it was the bicyclists fault, but an attentive motorist with proper training is able to avoid even these kinds of accidents. I find it highly unlikely that I could ever allow my car to hit a cyclist, ped, or even another vehicle no matter what kind of crazy stuff they were doing. Too many drivers today are not trained properly and not attentive enough. But then again I only have more than 20 years of driving with no accidents (or tickets) so what do I know.

EnigManiac

Would a helmet have made the moron ride on the road with traffic instead of against it, prevented him from going off and on the sidewalk? No. The guy was in an accident because he was riiding unpredictably, putting himself where he both should not have been and where the motorist didn't expect him to be. He was reckless and dangerous. And the motorist should have ensured it was safe to turn before he/she began to turn. The motorist was negligent and inattentive. They are both at fault and a helmet or lack of a helmet had nothing to do with anything. Preaching propaganda when it isn't the issue is mere grandstanding.

slowandsteady

His lack of helmet may very well have had to do with his bloody head.

ghettocruiser

Even as a constant wearer of helmets, I have to say, this guys lack of a helmet sounds like the absolute least of his mistakes.


But to play the devil's advocate, what was his speed? If he was going near a walking pace, I'd argue also that the motorist should have seen him as one would see a pedestrian.... if they had actually looked.

kf5nd

29 years here! accident-free cage driving!

Keith99

Why should he look? Really why look again after looking once? Pedestrians are not an issue, they are on the sidewalk. The driver has to be concerend with the legal cross traffic and also legal U turns. Add checking for all illegal and unsafe things a cyclist can do and he could never make the turn. (The cyclist could come off the side walk in hte same direction he was in hte street and also from behind the driver, both on the street and sidewalk. If a driver checked all those he has to go back to the first two again. Heck I guess he should also check for a cyclist blowing the red also.

EnigManiac

His helmetless head striking the ground had everything to do with his bloody head, no argument. But his reckless actions and dangerous behaviour had everything to do with being knocked to the ground. Being helmetless is neither a crime nor a contributing factor as to why the collision occured, but the OP touted unfounded propaganda as the lesson to be learned. Really, the OP should have stated 'RIDE ON THE ROAD IN A PREDICTABLE AND SAFE FASHION.' Why focus on a mitigating factor of the injuries suffered as a result of the stupid conduct rather than the stupid conduct itself? That was the issue.

Blue Order

No, wearing a helmet would likely have protected him from the head injuries he suffered in the collision.

Nice try at misdirection though.

EDIT: Ah, I see your point below....


I don't think anybody is suggesting wearing a helmet INSTEAD OF riding/driving safely.

Still misdirection.

John E

40 here

I firmly believe being an avid cyclist and jogger/pedestrian makes me a better motorist.

slowandsteady

Agreed. And to those trying to skew the discussion towards the bogus either or of wearing a helmet or riding safely, nice try. No one is going to dispute this guy's actions were the direct cause of the acccident. Wearing a helmet would possibly have prevented his head injuries. But clearly riding his bike on the right side of the road and following all of the laws would have prevented the accident altogether.

webist

Some, nonetheless will attempt via tortured, circuitous logic to bring the blame on the vehicle operator no matter the truth. They have contributory negligence in Turkey too. If you (as a foreigner) weren't there, the accident couldn't have happened.

The remarks about clean and long driving records also reflects the fact that no one hit you either!

AlmostTrick

Or that some of us refuse to LET someone hit us. I often read on these forums about how a cyclist riding properly can avoid most accidents, even the ones caused by motorists making stupid mistakes, and I think most would agree with this. Well it's the same thing for the operator of any vehicle!

EnigManiac

It's not misdirection at all. The OP made a bold, capitalized point that the lesson to be learned from the incident was to wear a helmet. I addressed that point. The reason the accident happened had nothing to do with whether the moron cyclist wore a helmet or not, so why did the OP attempt to use reckless, dangerous riding as a reason to promote helmet use?

Incidentally, I am not anti-helmet. I don't wear one myself although I have tried to. I simply find them uncomfortable and intrusive. I wouldn't allow my son to ride without one, however (it's law and he had one incident four years ago when he was eight) I haven't had an accident in 25 years because I ride responsibly, predictably, at a reasonable speed and being both alert and perceptive enough to avoid being hit or hitting.

Stv

Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!

You are so wrong pal.

The cyclists fault lies in the fact that a helmet "may" have lessened his injuries.

The fact that he was helmetless and was hit by an inattentive motorist is NOT the fault of the cyclist.

You are one of us and you are perpetuating the myth that cyclists are unworthy of sharing the roadway and deserve whatever malicious violence the motoring public inflicts upon us.

Blue Order

Well, not really. He added that as an afterthought. The lesson to be learned from the old-timers was to ride with traffic. And wear a helmet [capitalized].

I agree with you, however the head injuries would likely be far less than they were had the cyclist been wearing a helmet. I don't see anything wrong with making that observation. His post certainly didn't strike me as arguing that anything other than a head injury could have been prevented by wearing a helmet.

See my post in the "bees" thread in the General Cycling sub-forum.