helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Roland Perry on 12 Apr 2010 14:45 In message <a0c18cbc-4612-4910-86e5-14ba4a81c8db(a)i37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, at 09:11:15 on Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> remarked: >> >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. > >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? The arithmetic I could work out, thanks very much. What I can't see is why the arithmetic leads to the conclusion that "[other] serious head injuries would be significantly reduced". -- Roland Perry
From: nmm1 on 12 Apr 2010 14:56 In article <IjfzzDHCp2wLFAlX(a)perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message ><a0c18cbc-4612-4910-86e5-14ba4a81c8db(a)i37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, at >09:11:15 on Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> >remarked: >>> >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. >> >>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? > >The arithmetic I could work out, thanks very much. What I can't see is >why the arithmetic leads to the conclusion that "[other] serious head >injuries would be significantly reduced". That's because you're a heretic. According to him, it's Holy Dogma, and may be used as a premise, argument or conclusion, as necessary. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
From: Derek C on 12 Apr 2010 15:00 On 12 Apr, 19:45, Roland Perry <rol...(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > In message > <a0c18cbc-4612-4910-86e5-14ba4a81c...(a)i37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, at > 09:11:15 on Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> > remarked: > > >> >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. > > >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? > > The arithmetic I could work out, thanks very much. What I can't see is > why the arithmetic leads to the conclusion that "[other] serious head > injuries would be significantly reduced". > -- So wearing padded protection on your head won't reduce head injuries? Not very likely is it? Derek C
From: Roland Perry on 12 Apr 2010 15:12 In message <fd225ab5-d2c9-4c6a-82ed-82eaf83a7800(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, at 12:00:25 on Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> remarked: >> The arithmetic I could work out, thanks very much. What I can't see is >> why the arithmetic leads to the conclusion that "[other] serious head >> injuries would be significantly reduced". > >So wearing padded protection on your head won't reduce head injuries? >Not very likely is it? I agree, a toy helmet such as most cyclists wear isn't going to be much use for the majority of impacts that could be classified as "liable to cause serious head injuries". They may reduce some cases of "severe bruising" to "less severe bruising", but that's not the injuries referred to. -- Roland Perry
From: Derek C on 12 Apr 2010 15:24
On 12 Apr, 20:12, Roland Perry <rol...(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > In message > <fd225ab5-d2c9-4c6a-82ed-82eaf83a7...(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, at > 12:00:25 on Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> > remarked: > > >> The arithmetic I could work out, thanks very much. What I can't see is > >> why the arithmetic leads to the conclusion that "[other] serious head > >> injuries would be significantly reduced". > > >So wearing padded protection on your head won't reduce head injuries? > >Not very likely is it? > > I agree, a toy helmet such as most cyclists wear isn't going to be much > use for the majority of impacts that could be classified as "liable to > cause serious head injuries". > > They may reduce some cases of "severe bruising" to "less severe > bruising", but that's not the injuries referred to. > -- > Roland Perry I think you are underestimating the protection offered by cycle helmets. They are not "toys" but properly tested items of safety equipment. Derek C |