helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Alan Braggins on 17 May 2010 16:55 In article <85dikuF1lqU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Peter Clinch wrote: >Tom Crispin wrote: >> On Mon, 17 May 2010 10:03:20 +0100, Peter Clinch >> <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >>> Tom Crispin wrote: >>> >>>> Oh... I know the point you are making. >>> You still show a remarkable lack of understanding about it though. >> >> Apart from being flamebait, there's nothing of substance to it. > >That you think there's nothing of substance belies your lack of >understanding. There is something to it, as others have grasped. >That you either can't or won't doesn't mean there's nothing there. You missed the possibility that he knows pefectly well there's something there, and is just waving flamebait himself. Either way, the cam.* local relevence of the wrestling has worn off. Followups set.
From: Nick Finnigan on 17 May 2010 17:08 JMS wrote: > > Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion > passenger kilometers: > > Killed or seriously injured: > Pedal Cyclists : 527 > Pedestrians 371 > > All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 > Pedestrians : 1631 That's 2006 I suspect; 2008 is: 3814 vs 1666, 541 vs 382 and 32 vs 36. http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/suppletablesfactsheets/pedalcyclist2008.pdf > Do your brats wear cycle helmets? I have no brats who wear pedal cycle helmets.
From: Tony Raven on 17 May 2010 17:19 Nick Finnigan wrote: > JMS wrote: >> >> Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion >> passenger kilometers: >> >> Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians >> 371 >> >> All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631 > > That's 2006 I suspect; 2008 is: 3814 vs 1666, 541 vs 382 and 32 vs > 36. > > http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/suppletablesfactsheets/pedalcyclist2008.pdf > Its also apples and oranges. The figures are deaths or serious injuries from single vehicle accidents so all cyclist accidents are included (the bicycle being the vehicle) whereas only those pedestrian deaths and serious injuries that involved a vehicle are included. So that leaves out all the deaths and serious injuries from pedestrians falling or tripping over on their own. There are no official figures for how many that is but based on legal claims against councils for trips and falls on uneven pavements one can estimate the pedestrian numbers should probably be doubled. -- Tony " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell
From: DavidR on 17 May 2010 17:47 "JMS" <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > wrote > > Simple question for you: > > Do you think that a cycle helmet is more likely to reduce the risk of > injury in a cycle accident than it will increase the risk of injury? A biased question. There is a third option.
From: Nick Finnigan on 17 May 2010 19:02
Tony Raven wrote: > Nick Finnigan wrote: >> JMS wrote: >>> >>> Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion >>> passenger kilometers: >>> >>> Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians >>> 371 >>> >>> All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631 >> >> That's 2006 I suspect; 2008 is: 3814 vs 1666, 541 vs 382 and 32 vs >> 36. >> >> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/suppletablesfactsheets/pedalcyclist2008.pdf >> >> > > Its also apples and oranges. The figures are deaths or serious injuries > from single vehicle accidents so all cyclist accidents are included (the No. > bicycle being the vehicle) whereas only those pedestrian deaths and > serious injuries that involved a vehicle are included. There were no cyclists deaths reported were only the cyclist was involved. 0.1% of SI accidents were cyclist only. |