helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: soup on 12 Apr 2010 10:51 On 12/04/2010 14:42, Derek C wrote: > and a cycling proficiency certificate) BTW. I've got one of them. Basically anybody in the class who could keep the bike upright (you didn't even need a bike you could borrow one)whilst going in and out some cones and could stop when the chappy held his hand up got one (I seem to remember a chap testing us; it may well have been a female, was a l o n g time ago). Wouldn't assume any proficiency just because someone has one.
From: john wright on 12 Apr 2010 10:58 On 12/04/2010 15:51, soup wrote: > On 12/04/2010 14:42, Derek C wrote: >> and a cycling proficiency certificate) BTW. > > I've got one of them. Basically anybody in the class who could keep > the bike upright (you didn't even need a bike you could borrow > one)whilst going in and out some cones and could stop when the chappy > held his hand up got one (I seem to > remember a chap testing us; it may well have been a female, was a l o n > g time ago). > Wouldn't assume any proficiency just because someone has one. Even though that's what it's called. -- John Wright Use your imagination Marvin! Life's bad enough as it is - why invent any more of it.
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 12 Apr 2010 11:18 On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:21:51 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message ><37f5cde3-d86f-4c10-af4c-e84f5a288d1f(a)w42g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, at >05:05:33 on Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> >remarked: >>> � The only accident you told us about is one where your face struck the >>> kerb injuring your teeth and your jaw, so I take it the type of helmet >>> you wear is the kind that covers your teeth and jaw. >> >>At the time I was 10 years old, back in the 1950's, and I don't >>remember there being such things as cycle helmets available then. It >>is quite possible that if I had being wearing a helmet, it would have >>hit the kerb stone first and reduced or prevented my injuries. > >Or it could have acted as a lever and twisted your head, causing a >significant neck injury. Do you have any figures for such accidents - or are they just hypothetical. Can you point to perhaps a couple of accidents where wearing a cycle helmet was deemed to have done more harm than good? -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
From: Derek C on 12 Apr 2010 11:43 On 12 Apr, 15:51, soup <1...(a)2invalid.com> wrote: > On 12/04/2010 14:42, Derek C wrote: > > > and a cycling proficiency certificate) BTW. > > I've got one of them. Basically anybody in the class who could keep > the bike upright (you didn't even need a bike you could borrow > one)whilst going in and out some cones and could stop when the chappy > held his hand up got one (I seem to > remember a chap testing us; it may well have been a female, was a l o n > g time ago). > Wouldn't assume any proficiency just because someone has one. From memory, because I also took mine a long time ago, we had to cycle fairly slowly through a coned obstacle course without wobbling or falling off (because riding slowly is more difficult than riding fast), to demonstrate an emergency stop, to demonstrate that we we could do the hand signals, and to correctly answer some questions on the Highway Code. From what I have witnessed in the Greater London Area, I doubt that a fair percentage of modern cyclists would be capable of doing any of these things! Perhaps the reason for all the red light jumping is because they can't stop! Derek C
From: Derek C on 12 Apr 2010 12:11
On 12 Apr, 15:41, Roland Perry <rol...(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > In message > <182ba031-610d-4671-8199-071d8ef59...(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, at > 07:16:23 on Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> > remarked: > > >> But none of that helps the statistics. If almost all the 2% of cyclists > >> suffering neck injuries were wearing helmets, that would surely indicate > >> a problem? > >> -- > >If you have a head on collision with an HGV, you are quite likely to > >suffer a neck injury, whether or not you are wearing a helmet, or > >whether or not you also fracture your skull! > > Do they "tick boxes" for multiple forms of injury in the stats? > > >Even if neck injuries where suffered only by the 50% of cyclists who > >wear helmets, that would still only be 4% and equally/more serious head > >injuries would be significantly reduced. > > I can't see how you deduce that. > -- > Roland Perry Don't you understand simple arithmetic Roland? If 2% of cycling casualties suffer neck injuries, that is 2 in every 100. If all the neck injuries were entirely due to wearing helmets (which I doubt) and 50% of cyclists wear helmets, then the neck injury rate would increase to 2 in 50, which is 4%. Is that simple enough for you? Derek C |