helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 19 May 2010 08:51 On Wed, 19 May 2010 06:54:19 +0100, Tony Raven <traven(a)gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: >Tom Crispin wrote: >> >> 1% of 60,000 is 600. > >True. Late night brain fade! The problem here sunshine is that you obviously lack common sense - just like Anchor Lee when he suggested that the number was 3,000 a year. So you suggest that about 6,000 deaths a year or 16 a day are caused by people tripping up on pavements - and you lack the ability to say - hang on a minute - there is something wrong here, there cannot be 16 people dying every day just from simple falls. You could not have found a better way to confirm that you are a fuckwit, if you had tried. -- 2008 DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates Per billion passenger kilometers: Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 541 Pedestrians 382 All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3814 Pedestrians : 1666 (Pedal cyclist casualties up 9% - pedestrians up 2%: Cycling is becoming more dangerous each year when compard to walking as a means of transport)
From: Nick Finnigan on 19 May 2010 12:48 JMS wrote: > On Tue, 18 May 2010 22:43:25 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> > wrote: > >> JMS wrote: >>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 22:08:09 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> That's 2006 I suspect; 2008 is: 3814 vs 1666, 541 vs 382 and 32 vs 36. >>> >>> If so - it certainly looks like cycling cf walking as a form of >>> transport is becoming more dangerous - would you not agree? >> No. > > > Ah yes - the single "no" - so informative. The most appropriate answer for 'would you not agree?'. > No doubt you will now be able to explain how you arrive at that > answer. The data is not reliable enough to support any conclusion. > 2008 DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates Per billion passenger kilometers: > Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 541 Pedestrians 382 > All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3814 Pedestrians : 1666 > (Pedal cyclist casualties up 9% - pedestrians up 2%: Cycling is becoming more dangerous each year when compard to walking as a means of transport) You seem to have neglected the figures for fatalities.
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 19 May 2010 15:13 On Sun, 16 May 2010 18:19:06 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <cg70v590f7d46aa95d02f6f7ipiq87e24q(a)4ax.com>, at 17:36:32 on >Sun, 16 May 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>Feel free to post anything you like from the book regarding people >>wearing cycle helmets taking more risks. >> >>I am sure you can do that. >> >>I promise not to accuse you of being selective. >> >>You see - you are now beginning to confirm my doubts about that book. >>I though there was a slight smell to it when time after time cyclists >>here will say read the book without being willing to give one relevant >>quote concerning cycle helmets. > >I will, but only when I get home and have the book in front of me. Are you not home yet? Or did you look and couldn't find anything to support your view? -- 2008 DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates Per billion passenger kilometers: Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 541 Pedestrians 382 All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3814 Pedestrians : 1666 (Pedal cyclist casualties up 9% - pedestrians up 2%: Cycling is becoming more dangerous each year when compard to walking as a means of transport)
From: Derek C on 21 May 2010 05:24 The BBC program 'Hospital Heros' shown yesterday morning, 20th May, featured a teenage boy who had been thrown over the handlebars of his bike at some speed after the front wheel had jammed for some reason. Although he had suffered some deep cuts to his face, he was found not to have suffered any skull fractures or brain injury. The very experienced hospital consultant put this down to the fact that he had been wearing a cycle helmet. This was shown and was quite badly damaged at the front, so had obviously absorbed a lot of the energy in this involuntary face plant. Derek C
From: Peter Clinch on 21 May 2010 05:39
Derek C wrote: > The very > experienced hospital consultant put this down to the fact that he had > been wearing a cycle helmet. This was shown and was quite badly > damaged at the front, so had obviously absorbed a lot of the energy in > this involuntary face plant. Oh deary me. Hospital consultants, whatever their experience in doing neurosurgery, aren't actually required to have any knowledge of the engineering and physics involved in helmet efficacy. And since lots of folk in the medical profession have been fed the line that helmets stop 85% of brain injury it would be entirely reasonable for him to assume it'd made a huge difference. The above is an anecdote, it's not too hard to find others which contradict it (for instance, Guy Chapman reported two elderly cyclists in Reading head-planting over their bars, and the one without the helmet lived and the other died). Not for the first time, you are grasping at anything which supports your gut feeling while not looking at all dispassionately or carefully at what the problems are with it. The BMAs position paper does the same. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |