Mum warns on cycle helmets after son collides with pedestrian

Dorset Echo: CRASH: Accident between a cyclist and pedestrian on Radipole Lane CRASH: Accident between a cyclist and pedestrian on Radipole Lane

A MUM has warned of the importance of cycle helmets after her son was injured in a collision with a pedestrian.

Cyclist Jordan Moore, 15, collided with a woman thought to be in her 60s outside Radipole Primary School in Weymouth yesterday afternoon.

They were both taken to hospital for treatment to minor injuries. The woman had been knocked unconscious for a short time.

Jordan, who was not wearing a cycling helmet, had some cuts and bruises.

His mum Samantha, of Westham, said: “Parents need to be aware that even at 15 or 16, lots of kids go out without helmets.

“It can happen to anyone; he hit a pedestrian but it could have been a car and been a lot worse.”

She added: “My thoughts are with the poor lady who was injured.”

PC Jamie Heath of Weymouth police added: “This sort of thing really reiterates the importance of wearing a helmet.”

Emergency care practitioner Jay Mercer said two off duty paramedics were cycling past when the incident happened so were quickly on scene.

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:14am Wed 16 Jul 14

burtthebike says...

Surely this story should be about riding and walking sensibly rather than wearing a helmet? With absolutely no details of what happened it is impossible to tell who, if anyone, caused this collision, and it's always better to prevent rather than cure, so why the blinkered focus on helmets?

Even from this very flawed report, it would appear that it would be more beneficial for pedestrians to wear a helmet, since the pedestrian was knocked unconcious but the cyclist wasn't.

Cycle helmets have never been shown to reduce risk to cyclists, rather the contrary in fact, with risk rising with increased helmet wearing.

Check out cyclehelmets.org for the facts.
Surely this story should be about riding and walking sensibly rather than wearing a helmet? With absolutely no details of what happened it is impossible to tell who, if anyone, caused this collision, and it's always better to prevent rather than cure, so why the blinkered focus on helmets? Even from this very flawed report, it would appear that it would be more beneficial for pedestrians to wear a helmet, since the pedestrian was knocked unconcious but the cyclist wasn't. Cycle helmets have never been shown to reduce risk to cyclists, rather the contrary in fact, with risk rising with increased helmet wearing. Check out cyclehelmets.org for the facts. burtthebike
  • Score: 53

11:36am Wed 16 Jul 14

Pastafarian says...

The pedestrian is confirmed as suffering a minor head injury and the cyclist, as far as we can tell, did not. Yet, apparently, the moral of the story is it is the cyclist only that should have been wearing a helmet. Weird. Cycling and plastic hats - it’s a health and safety fetish.

It would be much more interesting and helpful to know why it came to be that a cyclist and pedestrian were in collision and the lessons that can be learnt from that.
The pedestrian is confirmed as suffering a minor head injury and the cyclist, as far as we can tell, did not. Yet, apparently, the moral of the story is it is the cyclist only that should have been wearing a helmet. Weird. Cycling and plastic hats - it’s a health and safety fetish. It would be much more interesting and helpful to know why it came to be that a cyclist and pedestrian were in collision and the lessons that can be learnt from that. Pastafarian
  • Score: 39

11:46am Wed 16 Jul 14

burgerboy says...

This story is nothing to do with her son wearing a cycle helmet.
It sounds more like the mother is trying to play the sympathy vote and get in quick before the compo claim comes in from the old lady that was hit by her son on the bike........
This story is nothing to do with her son wearing a cycle helmet. It sounds more like the mother is trying to play the sympathy vote and get in quick before the compo claim comes in from the old lady that was hit by her son on the bike........ burgerboy
  • Score: 43

1:36pm Wed 16 Jul 14

westbaywonder says...

Teenagers,OAPs, cycles- all three are liabilities.
Teenagers,OAPs, cycles- all three are liabilities. westbaywonder
  • Score: -18

4:44pm Wed 16 Jul 14

NearlyLocal says...

I cannot believe that somebody is advocating that helmets should not be worn!! Crazy. There is no way that my kids would go on their bikes without a helmet on. Tarmac is very hard and unforgiving!
I cannot believe that somebody is advocating that helmets should not be worn!! Crazy. There is no way that my kids would go on their bikes without a helmet on. Tarmac is very hard and unforgiving! NearlyLocal
  • Score: -19

6:16pm Wed 16 Jul 14

JoeyJo says...

NearlyLocal wrote:
I cannot believe that somebody is advocating that helmets should not be worn!! Crazy. There is no way that my kids would go on their bikes without a helmet on. Tarmac is very hard and unforgiving!
No one is saying that helmets should not be worn, but saying that there is no proof that they work which is definitely the case. Therefore helmet wearing is a free choice, or in the case of children the parent's choice.
[quote][p][bold]NearlyLocal[/bold] wrote: I cannot believe that somebody is advocating that helmets should not be worn!! Crazy. There is no way that my kids would go on their bikes without a helmet on. Tarmac is very hard and unforgiving![/p][/quote]No one is saying that helmets should not be worn, but saying that there is no proof that they work which is definitely the case. Therefore helmet wearing is a free choice, or in the case of children the parent's choice. JoeyJo
  • Score: 18

8:19pm Wed 16 Jul 14

dogloverdorset says...

burtthebike wrote:
Surely this story should be about riding and walking sensibly rather than wearing a helmet? With absolutely no details of what happened it is impossible to tell who, if anyone, caused this collision, and it's always better to prevent rather than cure, so why the blinkered focus on helmets?

Even from this very flawed report, it would appear that it would be more beneficial for pedestrians to wear a helmet, since the pedestrian was knocked unconcious but the cyclist wasn't.

Cycle helmets have never been shown to reduce risk to cyclists, rather the contrary in fact, with risk rising with increased helmet wearing.

Check out cyclehelmets.org for the facts.
What nonsense - my bike helmet saved my life , and tragically on the same day as my accident a young man lost his life in an almost identical accident for not wearing a helmet - the air ambulance paramedic confirmed this

I also know of a lady who is now paraplegic as she didn't replace her helmet cycling home from the hairdressers

Helmets should be compulsory, and bikes registered and riders insured for the accidents they cause
[quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: Surely this story should be about riding and walking sensibly rather than wearing a helmet? With absolutely no details of what happened it is impossible to tell who, if anyone, caused this collision, and it's always better to prevent rather than cure, so why the blinkered focus on helmets? Even from this very flawed report, it would appear that it would be more beneficial for pedestrians to wear a helmet, since the pedestrian was knocked unconcious but the cyclist wasn't. Cycle helmets have never been shown to reduce risk to cyclists, rather the contrary in fact, with risk rising with increased helmet wearing. Check out cyclehelmets.org for the facts.[/p][/quote]What nonsense - my bike helmet saved my life , and tragically on the same day as my accident a young man lost his life in an almost identical accident for not wearing a helmet - the air ambulance paramedic confirmed this I also know of a lady who is now paraplegic as she didn't replace her helmet cycling home from the hairdressers Helmets should be compulsory, and bikes registered and riders insured for the accidents they cause dogloverdorset
  • Score: -16

8:32pm Wed 16 Jul 14

ksmain says...

dogloverdorset wrote:
burtthebike wrote:
Surely this story should be about riding and walking sensibly rather than wearing a helmet? With absolutely no details of what happened it is impossible to tell who, if anyone, caused this collision, and it's always better to prevent rather than cure, so why the blinkered focus on helmets?

Even from this very flawed report, it would appear that it would be more beneficial for pedestrians to wear a helmet, since the pedestrian was knocked unconcious but the cyclist wasn't.

Cycle helmets have never been shown to reduce risk to cyclists, rather the contrary in fact, with risk rising with increased helmet wearing.

Check out cyclehelmets.org for the facts.
What nonsense - my bike helmet saved my life , and tragically on the same day as my accident a young man lost his life in an almost identical accident for not wearing a helmet - the air ambulance paramedic confirmed this

I also know of a lady who is now paraplegic as she didn't replace her helmet cycling home from the hairdressers

Helmets should be compulsory, and bikes registered and riders insured for the accidents they cause
I agree totally - they should be made compulsory and cyclists without them should get fined on the spot..

At the weekend I passed a woman on her bike at the Westham traffic lights - she was not wearing her helmet but had it dangling from her handlebar on the side facing the road traffic. I thought then that she was stupid not to wear it - and also that there was little point in her having it with her unless she was going to wear it. If you were that woman - take heed.
[quote][p][bold]dogloverdorset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burtthebike[/bold] wrote: Surely this story should be about riding and walking sensibly rather than wearing a helmet? With absolutely no details of what happened it is impossible to tell who, if anyone, caused this collision, and it's always better to prevent rather than cure, so why the blinkered focus on helmets? Even from this very flawed report, it would appear that it would be more beneficial for pedestrians to wear a helmet, since the pedestrian was knocked unconcious but the cyclist wasn't. Cycle helmets have never been shown to reduce risk to cyclists, rather the contrary in fact, with risk rising with increased helmet wearing. Check out cyclehelmets.org for the facts.[/p][/quote]What nonsense - my bike helmet saved my life , and tragically on the same day as my accident a young man lost his life in an almost identical accident for not wearing a helmet - the air ambulance paramedic confirmed this I also know of a lady who is now paraplegic as she didn't replace her helmet cycling home from the hairdressers Helmets should be compulsory, and bikes registered and riders insured for the accidents they cause[/p][/quote]I agree totally - they should be made compulsory and cyclists without them should get fined on the spot.. At the weekend I passed a woman on her bike at the Westham traffic lights - she was not wearing her helmet but had it dangling from her handlebar on the side facing the road traffic. I thought then that she was stupid not to wear it - and also that there was little point in her having it with her unless she was going to wear it. If you were that woman - take heed. ksmain
  • Score: -15

11:18pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Harpya Orkinus says...

I have never taken very kindly to our corrupticians in parliament - supposedly our SERVANTS (!) - forever seeking to tell us what to do in this 'wrap 'em up in cotton wool' society. Thanks to THEM, we are living progressively more and more boring, humdrum lives, because things we'd like to continue doing have been banned. Cycling has always been about FREEDOM - and the feeling of refreshingly cool wind through one's hair is part of that concept. Also, I have yet to see a cycle helmet that doesn't make the wearer look a complete DIMMOCK !! The helmet I wear, somewhat reluctantly, on my cruiser, doesn't feature that idiotic-looking fore-and-aft projection that designers of cycle helmets appear to find so essential - so why should cyclists be expected to look stupid ??
I have never taken very kindly to our corrupticians in parliament - supposedly our SERVANTS (!) - forever seeking to tell us what to do in this 'wrap 'em up in cotton wool' society. Thanks to THEM, we are living progressively more and more boring, humdrum lives, because things we'd like to continue doing have been banned. Cycling has always been about FREEDOM - and the feeling of refreshingly cool wind through one's hair is part of that concept. Also, I have yet to see a cycle helmet that doesn't make the wearer look a complete DIMMOCK !! The helmet I wear, somewhat reluctantly, on my cruiser, doesn't feature that idiotic-looking fore-and-aft projection that designers of cycle helmets appear to find so essential - so why should cyclists be expected to look stupid ?? Harpya Orkinus
  • Score: 6

7:27am Thu 17 Jul 14

Rocksalt says...

JoeyJo wrote:
NearlyLocal wrote:
I cannot believe that somebody is advocating that helmets should not be worn!! Crazy. There is no way that my kids would go on their bikes without a helmet on. Tarmac is very hard and unforgiving!
No one is saying that helmets should not be worn, but saying that there is no proof that they work which is definitely the case. Therefore helmet wearing is a free choice, or in the case of children the parent's choice.
If a child is riding in a play area,a helmet will almost certainly be of benefit. The benefits are far less clear when people are riding on the road. Yes,if yoiu fall off a helmet will help. But there is evidence to suggest that you are more likely to fall off and/or be hit by a car of you are wearing a helmet.
[quote][p][bold]JoeyJo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NearlyLocal[/bold] wrote: I cannot believe that somebody is advocating that helmets should not be worn!! Crazy. There is no way that my kids would go on their bikes without a helmet on. Tarmac is very hard and unforgiving![/p][/quote]No one is saying that helmets should not be worn, but saying that there is no proof that they work which is definitely the case. Therefore helmet wearing is a free choice, or in the case of children the parent's choice.[/p][/quote]If a child is riding in a play area,a helmet will almost certainly be of benefit. The benefits are far less clear when people are riding on the road. Yes,if yoiu fall off a helmet will help. But there is evidence to suggest that you are more likely to fall off and/or be hit by a car of you are wearing a helmet. Rocksalt
  • Score: 5

8:04am Thu 17 Jul 14

burtthebike says...

NearlyLocal wrote:
I cannot believe that somebody is advocating that helmets should not be worn!! Crazy. There is no way that my kids would go on their bikes without a helmet on. Tarmac is very hard and unforgiving!
Why not take a look at the evidence? cyclehelmets.org

You might be interested to know that children have been strangled by their helmet straps, but there is no proven case of a helmet saving a life.

By all means wear one if you want, but the evidence is that you might as well carry a lucky rabbit's foot.

Helmet promotion and laws have two effects: fewer cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets, there is no reduction in risk to cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]NearlyLocal[/bold] wrote: I cannot believe that somebody is advocating that helmets should not be worn!! Crazy. There is no way that my kids would go on their bikes without a helmet on. Tarmac is very hard and unforgiving![/p][/quote]Why not take a look at the evidence? cyclehelmets.org You might be interested to know that children have been strangled by their helmet straps, but there is no proven case of a helmet saving a life. By all means wear one if you want, but the evidence is that you might as well carry a lucky rabbit's foot. Helmet promotion and laws have two effects: fewer cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets, there is no reduction in risk to cyclists. burtthebike
  • Score: 14

8:15am Thu 17 Jul 14

Pastafarian says...

It's not that some of us think that cycle helmets can't offer some level of safety protection, but then the same could be said of pedestrian helmets (you might trip!) or swimming armbands (after all, people drown every year), high-vis vests when crossing the road or a safety rope when waking down stairs.

What makes us nervous is that every time there's an incident involving a cyclist, however minor or mundane, it gets used as an excuse for people to criticise those who are 'foolish' enough not to be wearing a helmet (which, by the way, are only designed to prevent scrapes and mild concussion - a more forceful blow and they tend to ineffectively fall apart) and go on about banning cycling all together unless they're worn.

The fact is that you're at no more risk from head injuries whilst cycling than you are doing many other everyday activities - activities for which if you asked your friend, "Where's your helmet?", they would look at you like you were insane.

Yet cyclists seem to get singled-out for special treatment. Is it perhaps that we're a minority and therefore easier to pick on?
It's not that some of us think that cycle helmets can't offer some level of safety protection, but then the same could be said of pedestrian helmets (you might trip!) or swimming armbands (after all, people drown every year), high-vis vests when crossing the road or a safety rope when waking down stairs. What makes us nervous is that every time there's an incident involving a cyclist, however minor or mundane, it gets used as an excuse for people to criticise those who are 'foolish' enough not to be wearing a helmet (which, by the way, are only designed to prevent scrapes and mild concussion - a more forceful blow and they tend to ineffectively fall apart) and go on about banning cycling all together unless they're worn. The fact is that you're at no more risk from head injuries whilst cycling than you are doing many other everyday activities - activities for which if you asked your friend, "Where's your helmet?", they would look at you like you were insane. Yet cyclists seem to get singled-out for special treatment. Is it perhaps that we're a minority and therefore easier to pick on? Pastafarian
  • Score: 20
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree