Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: bugbear on 21 May 2010 12:01
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:27:58 +0100, Brian Morrison <bdm(a)fenrir.org.uk>
>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 04:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
>> Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>> They should however protect your skull
>>> in many other more minor types of accident, such as the one I recently
>> And yet there will be other minor types of accident where the
>> intervention of the helmet will lead to greater injury because in those
>> particular cases the geometry and dynamics of the impact happen to
>> produce greater rotational forces to the neck and upper spine.
> Yes of course it will.
> Perhaps you could point us to some research where this has been proven
I think it follows from Newton's laws of motion.
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 21 May 2010 12:40
On Fri, 21 May 2010 16:57:08 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7--ct(a)cam.ac.uk>
It does not matter one jot in what you see as other problems with
We are talking about cyclist only accident figures vs pedestrian only
It is obvious (to those who want to see) that a cyclist is more likely
to have an accident and to suffer injury than a pedestrians is -
where not other vehicles are involved.
You have claimed that the stats data for cyclists is distorted cf
pedestrians. You have not explained why.
Feel free to explain why more cyclists should suffer cardiac arrests
than pedestrians and hence contribute to the STATS19 data when
Perhaps you are saying that cyclists are more unhealthy - or more
likely to have cardiac problems - is that it?
Feel free to explain why there should be more people of a greater age
cycling - and hence having a heart attack - than there will be
pedestrians of same age group having heart attack.
(It is pretty obvious to me that there will be many, many older
pedestrians than there will be cyclists; but perhaps it is not obvious
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 compared to walking as a means of transport)
From: pk on 21 May 2010 12:40
"Brian Morrison" <bdm(a)fenrir.org.uk> wrote in message
> I doubt I can, I'm simply pointing out that there will be circumstances
> where bad things happen when the helmet is not required to prevent a
> blunt trauma type head injury but causes another potentially fatal
> injury. I have no statistics, simply the knowledge that life is not so
> simplistic as to say that a helmet is always a benefit in a bike crash.
it is at best disingenuous to posit the idea of potential damage negating
benefits if all you have is supposition and theory.
From: Brian Morrison on 21 May 2010 12:54
On Fri, 21 May 2010 17:40:39 +0100
"pk" <pgk2(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> "Brian Morrison" <bdm(a)fenrir.org.uk> wrote in message
> > I doubt I can, I'm simply pointing out that there will be
> > circumstances where bad things happen when the helmet is not
> > required to prevent a blunt trauma type head injury but causes
> > another potentially fatal injury. I have no statistics, simply the
> > knowledge that life is not so simplistic as to say that a helmet is
> > always a benefit in a bike crash.
> it is at best disingenuous to posit the idea of potential damage
> negating benefits if all you have is supposition and theory.
Fine. I don't really care either way. It's up to the individual to
decide what they wish to wear when cycling.
From: Adrian on 21 May 2010 12:56
Brian Morrison <bdm(a)fenrir.org.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:
> Fine. I don't really care either way. It's up to the individual to
> decide what they wish to wear when cycling.