Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Nick Finnigan on 18 May 2010 12:37 Mike Clark wrote: > > Scenario 2. Someone cycling on a bicycle when they have a stroke or > cardiac arrest? Again it's most probable that this would also be > reported as a death, or serious injury of a cyclist. No, it is not probable.
From: Mike Clark on 18 May 2010 12:46 In message <hsufp0$ejj$2(a)news.eternal-september.org> you wrote: > Mike Clark wrote: > > > > Scenario 2. Someone cycling on a bicycle when they have a stroke or > > cardiac arrest? Again it's most probable that this would also be > > reported as a death, or serious injury of a cyclist. > > No, it is not probable. > Would you care to explain why? The person would quite likely initially present as a victim of a road traffic accident. They may also have suffered additional injuries as a result of the incident. For example they may have fallen in front of a motor vehicle. The underlying stroke or cardiac problem might only become apparent at a later postmortem, however the police statistics would have been collected prior to this determination. Mike -- o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark <\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, "> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and ` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/
From: Nick Finnigan on 18 May 2010 13:09 Mike Clark wrote: > In message <hsufp0$ejj$2(a)news.eternal-september.org> you wrote: > >> Mike Clark wrote: >>> Scenario 2. Someone cycling on a bicycle when they have a stroke or >>> cardiac arrest? Again it's most probable that this would also be >>> reported as a death, or serious injury of a cyclist. >> No, it is not probable. >> > > Would you care to explain why? Because the number of single-cyclist accidents reported is negligible. The person would quite likely initially > present as a victim of a road traffic accident. Nobody would 'initially present as a victim'. They may also have > suffered additional injuries as a result of the incident. For example > they may have fallen in front of a motor vehicle. As might a pedestrian, but it is not probable. > The underlying stroke or cardiac problem might only become apparent at a > later postmortem, however the police statistics would have been > collected prior to this determination. The police would not be around, except in a negligible number of cases.
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 18 May 2010 14:20 On Mon, 17 May 2010 22:08:09 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> 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. My maths is not very good. Is the only significant change the fact that Pedal Cyclist casualties went up by 9% whereas pedestrian casualties only went up 2% If so - it certainly looks like cycling cf walking as a form of transport is becoming more dangerous - would you not agree?
From: DavidR on 18 May 2010 15:19
"JMS" <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > wrote in message > On Mon, 17 May 2010 22:47:52 +0100, "DavidR" <curedham(a)4bidden.org.uk>> > wrote: >>"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. > > Sorry - or will it make absolutely no difference one way or the other. Well done. It is always frustrating to be given multiple choice surveys which don't provide suitable choices. > Even if you include that - the psycholists will still not answer that > question. I will answer it. Option c) > I wonder why? Perhaps you have forgotten to ask. |