From: Nick Finnigan on
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
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
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
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
"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.