Helmet poll
Comments
-
I voted yes
However sometimes I don't, popping to the shops or riding slowly with the kids.0 -
Thebigbee wrote:Personally I think the stats should be based on the TDF. A race which has been going since 1903 - nearly 100 years.
How many deaths - 11
Just over 1 death every 10 years - and how long were cyclists riding this tour without wearing helmets?
Says it all really doesn't it?!!!
Are you sure about this? I can only find 4. And one of these, Adolphe Helière, drowned whilst swimming off the French Riviera on a rest day!0 -
[quote="
Tell you what - instead of being a ridiculous hypochondriac why don't you point us in the direction of information that conclusively proves that helmets save lives?
There are a lot of angry people like you that state the obvious. Unfortunately you all seem unable to present any evidence that wearing a helmet conclusively saves lives.
I have presented the facts. In nearly 100 years of TDF racing. Which consists of hundreds of racers doing THOUSANDS of miles. The stats say that there has been just over 1 death every 10 YEARS!
And for almost 90 of those 100 years no one, or very few, wore a helmet.
What does that tell most sensible people?
The majority of deaths in RTAs are not solely as a result of head injuries alone.
Please present some evidence before spouting off.
I have presented my evidence. Just over 1 death every 10 years in the toughest cycle race on the planet. When people are averaging over 25MPH over hundreds of miles.
Common sense - something that is severely lacking in this cuontry!![/quote]
Last time I checked TDF is raced on CLOSED roads....dont get any traffic issues.....well not unless these some French t*tt in a camera car that is :shock:
common sense surely dictates you do what you can to protect yourself ?...end of !0 -
Be careful what you wish for.
Let's pretend I'm an underhand backbench MP, out to make my mark on society. I create an account on here, kick off another helmet debate and sit back to watch the vitriol and bile come piling in, all aimed at cyclists who don't concur with the hat argument.
And that's my justification for my private members bill to make the wearing of crash hats mandatory, evidenced by the overwhelming support on a decent cyclists forum where world+dog (minus yours truly + one or two others) vehemently argues the case for donning a hat. It becomes a compulsive argument where those in the front line are all queuing up to harangue and discredit anyone who tries to oppose the mainstream view and that not supporting the wearing of a hat is a sure sign of mental illness, poor parenting skills, and a complete inability to assimilate scientific fact as proven by those who post their views on here.
The common recurring theme on helmet debates is "I wear one, but I wouldn't like to see it made compulsory." How you gonna back track from the strident views that you post in support of helmet wearing, when some johny-come-lately MP uses this sort of thread as evidence that helmets must be compulsory; after all, virtually everyone with an opinion supports the idea?
Either you want it to be law, or you don't. Where do you stand eh? When it comes to it, do you want the wearing of cycle helmets to be mandatory? Easy question. Yes or no? Your call. I know where I stand.0 -
CiB wrote:Be careful what you wish for.
Let's pretend I'm an underhand backbench MP, out to make my mark on society. I create an account on here, kick off another helmet debate and sit back to watch the vitriol and bile come piling in, all aimed at cyclists who don't concur with the hat argument.
And that's my justification for my private members bill to make the wearing of crash hats mandatory, evidenced by the overwhelming support on a decent cyclists forum where world+dog (minus yours truly + one or two others) vehemently argues the case for donning a hat. It becomes a compulsive argument where those in the front line are all queuing up to harangue and discredit anyone who tries to oppose the mainstream view and that not supporting the wearing of a hat is a sure sign of mental illness, poor parenting skills, and a complete inability to assimilate scientific fact as proven by those who post their views on here.
The common recurring theme on helmet debates is "I wear one, but I wouldn't like to see it made compulsory." How you gonna back track from the strident views that you post in support of helmet wearing, when some johny-come-lately MP uses this sort of thread as evidence that helmets must be compulsory; after all, virtually everyone with an opinion supports the idea?
Either you want it to be law, or you don't. Where do you stand eh? When it comes to it, do you want the wearing of cycle helmets to be mandatory? Easy question. Yes or no? Your call. I know where I stand.
The thing is, CiB, it takes two sides to argue about helmets. Blaming the Pro brigade (the vast majority judging by the results of this particular poll) seems a little unfair. It seems to be a vocal minority that hold up the Anti end of helmet debate. There wouldn't be these threads if there weren't two sides to the argument. Rather than criticise the need for helmets or their effectiveness, the Anti side of the debate would be better off focusing on the choice discussion where you will find huge amounts of support. You are fighting the wrong battle from my point of view and alienating the very people who would support you should your scenario above play out.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
CiB wrote:Be careful what you wish for.
Let's pretend I'm an underhand backbench MP, out to make my mark on society. I create an account on here, kick off another helmet debate and sit back to watch the vitriol and bile come piling in, all aimed at cyclists who don't concur with the hat argument.
And that's my justification for my private members bill to make the wearing of crash hats mandatory, evidenced by the overwhelming support on a decent cyclists forum where world+dog (minus yours truly + one or two others) vehemently argues the case for donning a hat. It becomes a compulsive argument where those in the front line are all queuing up to harangue and discredit anyone who tries to oppose the mainstream view and that not supporting the wearing of a hat is a sure sign of mental illness, poor parenting skills, and a complete inability to assimilate scientific fact as proven by those who post their views on here.
The common recurring theme on helmet debates is "I wear one, but I wouldn't like to see it made compulsory." How you gonna back track from the strident views that you post in support of helmet wearing, when some johny-come-lately MP uses this sort of thread as evidence that helmets must be compulsory; after all, virtually everyone with an opinion supports the idea?
Either you want it to be law, or you don't. Where do you stand eh? When it comes to it, do you want the wearing of cycle helmets to be mandatory? Easy question. Yes or no? Your call. I know where I stand.
I think you're being a bit paranoid here (the wee small hours can do that eh? eh? ). While it's possible that some idiot MP might propose such a bill, I really don't think they're going to use this thread as evidence!
But as for the old helmet compulsion chestnut, you won't find a lot of people here in support of it: has anyone actually supported it in this thread? Most of us are a bit smarter than you seem to think, and are aware of the downsides to helmet compulsion while still thinking that helmets are a good idea.
BTW I have smacked my head on the kerb very hard a couple of times, on two separate occasions, both involuntarily. I cannot offer any suggestions on what my injuries would have been without a helmet, but I find it hard to believe (as some posters really are suggesting) that they might have been less.0 -
Cycling on the road - always
Cycling on my MTB in a forest - always
Cycling on my MTB on a canal - probably not.0 -
I started wearing a helmet because my OH got very upset about me not wearing one, and my pride - I thought I'd look like an idiot - seemed less important. Now I've got used to it, and it's no big deal. It might save my life someday, or it might make the difference between serious or minor injuries, but even it it didn't, and I fell off my bike, hit my head and died, at least I wouldn't leave my family thinking, "If only she'd worn a helmet, she might still be with us." And where would I put my sunglasses when I take them off at the end of a ride, if I didn't have my helmet (hanging from the handlebars by this time) to put them in?
I live in a country that does have helmet laws, albeit rather weird ones. At least 95% - an estimate because I haven't counted - of cyclists wear a helmet, and you see a lot more cyclists on the roads than I've seen anywhere in the UK, so being required by law to wear a helmet doesn't seem to affect people's quality of life or put them off cycling at all.
(By the way, I have no interest one way or the other in whether helmet wearing becomes compulsory in the UK. I don't care if it does, and equally don't care if it doesn't.)0 -
fwiw we've a member of our family in hospital right now in a coma with life changing injuries after a severe head on collision with a car. The surgeon has said the helmet saved his life. But despite this i'm inclined to agree with CIB, it depends on where you are cycling. In france i cycled without a helmet on very quiet country roads with very courteous drivers. Where I live I wouldnt even risk a 2 minute ride to the shops.
Its a case of you know your area, your limitations and risks so ride accordingly imo.The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
Thebigbee wrote:I have presented the facts. In nearly 100 years of TDF racing. Which consists of hundreds of racers doing THOUSANDS of miles. The stats say that there has been just over 1 death every 10 YEARS!
And for almost 90 of those 100 years no one, or very few, wore a helmet.
What does that tell most sensible people?
The majority of deaths in RTAs are not solely as a result of head injuries alone.
Please present some evidence before spouting off.
I have presented my evidence. Just over 1 death every 10 years in the toughest cycle race on the planet. When people are averaging over 25MPH over hundreds of miles.
Common sense - something that is severely lacking in this cuontry!!
Why are you so fixated with such an irrelevant comparison? The TDF is not the sort of cycling most of us are experiencing. Apart from obvious things like the near certainty of immediate medical attention, you talk about evidence but one lumped statistic isn't really evidence.
Lets see, if the TDF averaged (based on this year) 3400km and there are roughly 200 riders. That gives us 700,000 km ridden. Therefore if we have one death in the TDF every 10 years, that equates to 1 death every 7 million km or 0.14 deaths per million km.
According to this paper - http://cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdf (which may be good or not; it was the first I found) there average 34 deaths per billion km in the UK. If the use of billion is as 1000 million, then 34 in 1000 million is 0.034 deaths per million km. That puts the TDF at 4 times more dangerous than normal riding.
That's actually evidence of sorts (rather than one innappropriate statistic) but, sadly not very relevant evidence. A quote from the linked reference says "Most bicycle journeys are quite short; one quarter is of less than a mile, while the mean distance is 2.4 miles". So not actually very useful to compare this data with the tour unless the stages are rather shorter than I recall! The data is probably not even very useful as a measure of the safety of my riding as most of my trips are getting on for ten times longer than the quoted mean. If the data were plotted, the enthusiastic cyclist would be something of an outlier in the distribution riding both much faster and much further than the mean with a consequently different risk. But certainly far closer to the mean than the TDF rider.Faster than a tent.......0 -
I am genuinly not settled on where I stand re compulsion.
On the one hand I do believe in choice - but on the other - having worked as a physio on neuro rehab, spinal and head injury units - the cost in human misery and NHS resources caused by head injuries is so enormous and extends to so many people I do wonder if any individual has the right to expose so many others to that experience? By injury here I mean non-fatal - indeed, speaking purely for myself, having seen so many head injuries, I have only ever seen one case where I personally would not rather have been dead than left alive in that state.
Also re the head in the lion's cage analogy - I understand better that it seems the logic is the risk is small, I don't want to wear on so I don't (to paraphrase). The only thing I wonder when I read that is that risk assessment is always considered as the product of the consequence of the event and the probability of the event occuring. Yes it may be low porbability but the consequence of even a minor head injury is so devastating (the brain is so fragile and the skull limited) that the risk is high even though probability may be low.
Also apologies for misspelling I stand corrected ( where is the spell check on this forum?)0 -
At mo wearing helmet is a choice. Which is great. Those that want to can. Those that don't cannot. Simple. No need for helmet wearers to berate the folly of non wearers. No need for naked headers to deride their helmeted brethen. 0
-
Pros have, in my opinion, more reason to wear helmets than the average person. One of the main reasons they crash is because of touching wheels which, with 200 guys in a pack travelling at high speeds, is much more likely to happen to them than it is to us, despite better handling skills.
And judging from the fact that they were, until a few years ago, allowed to remove their helmets for the last climb, I assume that many of them wouldn't wear helmets if they had the choice.0 -
holker wrote:At mo wearing helmet is a choice. Which is great. Those that want to can. Those that don't cannot. Simple. No need for helmet wearers to berate the folly of non wearers. No need for naked headers to deride their helmeted brethen.
WHS^^^^
I don't understand why so many people have to try and foist their opinion about helmet usage on those of us that make an informed, adult choice not to wear one. :?:0 -
Today's helmets are so light and well vented that you barely know your wearing one anyway. As long as cyclists understand that wearing a helmet doesn't mean you can take risks you wouldn't take without wearing one then even if they save one life per year it's a benefit surely?Ridley Orion0
-
Do you advocate the wearing of helmets in cars? In the shower?Wacky Racer wrote:Today's helmets are so light and well vented that you barely know your wearing one anyway. As long as cyclists understand that wearing a helmet doesn't mean you can take risks you wouldn't take without wearing one then even if they save one life per year it's a benefit surely?
If not, why not, since if they save one life per year, it's a benefit surely?0 -
merak wrote:
Do you advocate the wearing of helmets in cars? In the shower?Wacky Racer wrote:Today's helmets are so light and well vented that you barely know your wearing one anyway. As long as cyclists understand that wearing a helmet doesn't mean you can take risks you wouldn't take without wearing one then even if they save one life per year it's a benefit surely?
If not, why not, since if they save one life per year, it's a benefit surely?
That is a pretty immature response to a valid opinion. If your opinion differs so be it, you are entitled to wear a turd on your head if it makes you feel better!
I get sick of the ridiculous anti argument that just derides those whose opinion is different to theirs, it's my head and I feel better protecting it as best as I can, just as you are entitled to do as you wish.Ridley Orion0 -
Of course you are entitled to protect your head as you see fit and I would absolutely defend your right to do so. Nor did I say or imply otherwise. But how is it deriding you and how is it immature to explore how your logic in support of helmet wearing applies to bikes and not cars or showers? Why does saving one life a year on bikes justify helmet wearing while saving one life a year in showers or cars does not?Wacky Racer wrote:merak wrote:
Do you advocate the wearing of helmets in cars? In the shower?Wacky Racer wrote:Today's helmets are so light and well vented that you barely know your wearing one anyway. As long as cyclists understand that wearing a helmet doesn't mean you can take risks you wouldn't take without wearing one then even if they save one life per year it's a benefit surely?
If not, why not, since if they save one life per year, it's a benefit surely?
That is a pretty immature response to a valid opinion. If your opinion differs so be it, you are entitled to wear a turd on your head if it makes you feel better!
I get sick of the ridiculous anti argument that just derides those whose opinion is different to theirs, it's my head and I feel better protecting it as best as I can, just as you are entitled to do as you wish.0 -
Merak, think about what is practical and ask yourself what you couldn't do in the shower with a crash hat? In a car you have a ton of steel around you.
On the other hand, on a cycle you have zero protection, nor do you wish to wash your hair on it.
Perhaps your alternative places to wear a helmet were just mischevious, but bottom line is they are hardly comparible.Ridley Orion0 -
So you didn't really mean "even if they save one life per year it's a benefit surely?". A significant number of serious Traumatic Brain Injuries are caused by falls in the domestic environment.Wacky Racer wrote:Merak, think about what is practical and ask yourself what you couldn't do in the shower with a crash hat?
And yet in 2010 of 24,510 killed or seriously injured road casualties in the UK, 10,951 were sitting in a ton or more of steel. Motor vehicle occupants are a substantial proportion of the patients admiited to UK hospitals with Traumatic Brain Injuries. The statistics are clear that the wearing of hard shell helmets by motor vehicle occupants would reduce moderate to severe TBIs in RTAs by thousands, way more than the one life per year.In a car you have a ton of steel around you.
Well pedestrians are in the same boat. In 2010, nearly four times as many pedestrians were killed as cyclists (405 v 111), so why not helmets for pedestrians?On the other hand, on a cycle you have zero protection, nor do you wish to wash your hair on it.
Not mischievous as you can see above. The thing is that while I absolutely respect those who choose to wear helmets (I could hardly do otherwise as I am quite often one of them), the arguments that people use to justify the "always wear a helmet" lobby, are special pleading because they are not prepared to follow their logic in cases where the statistical risks are similar but the social convention is different.Perhaps your alternative places to wear a helmet were just mischevious, but bottom line is they are hardly comparible.0 -
merak wrote:the statistical risks are similar but the social convention is different.
How can you know that the statistical risks are similar? If 80+% of riders are wearing helmets, how can you compare the risks of car drivers, pedestrians and cyclists?
As for absolute numbers, you can't begin to compare pedestrians with cyclists - for starters there are just so many more but throw into that mix the huge range of abilities of pedestrians (from toddlers to geriatrics) that typically don't exist in the cycling population, the conditions (not many cyclists in bad snow and ice - the high risk situations for pedestrians) etc etc. It's an absolute nonsense to suggest they are comparable and just a red herring. Even if you just compared the anecdotal "data" - how many of the population on this forum who have hit their heads (helmeted or not) cycling compared to the same population who have hit their heads as pedestrians? Hmm I wonder....ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
I always wear a helmet because -
(1) It's setting a good example to a three-year-old who is more likely to land on his head than I am
(2) I'll take any measures, no matter how small, to ensure that he doesn't have to return the spoon-feeding favours any time soon
(3) I use my brain for work, so this is just one of a range of things I do to look after it. As an example, getting a tree surgeon in rather than doing the job myself is another . . .
Maybe if I had more hair left I'd enjoy feeling the wind in it . . .Specialized Roubaix Elite 2015
XM-057 rigid 29er0 -
Maybe if I had more hair left I'd enjoy feeling the wind in it . . .
C'mon - surely a non wearer is going to point out the risk to us wearers from the consequence of helmet head interface friction evidenced by Giraffoto chilled head ... ?0 -
Your fallacy is called begging the question - ie assuming the conclusion (that cycle helmets prevent large numbers of deaths and serious injury amongst cyclists) in the premises. The data simply doesn't support that as a conclusion or as a premise. In the period 1994 - 1998, before the great take-up of helmet wearing, the ratio of cyclists killed to slightly injured was 1 in 111. In 2010 it was 1 in 129 - a slight but hardly radical improvement. And the comparison for pedestrians in the same period was 1 in 35 in 1994-1998 compared with 1 in 50 in 2010, a much bigger improvement in survivability of accidents. Whatever is causing the improvement between the mid-90s and 2010, it sure as hell doesn't seem to be increases in helmet wearing.meanredspider wrote:How can you know that the statistical risks are similar? If 80+% of riders are wearing helmets, how can you compare the risks of car drivers, pedestrians and cyclists?
.This is called special pleading. The data shows that the risks are comparable, but you don't like that conclusion, so you find all sorts of ways to ignore the data. So let's look at what you claim here. Numbers - in 2004, 16% (about 1 in 6) of adults claimed that cycling was an important form of transport for them personally. Let's assume that 100% of adults are pedestrians. If you are a cyclist and a pedestrian, the data says that the likelihood of death or serious injury in any given year is comparable for the two activities (not identical, but not an order of magnitude different). The same is true of travelling a car (if you are a cyclist and a car user the probability of being killed carrying out the two activities is similar: ~ 1 in 6 adults ride bikes but 8 times more car occupants are killed than cyclists in 2010). With regard to your age argument, three times as many pedestrians are killed compared with cyclists in the 18-59 age group (214 v 72 in 2010), so that doesn't make a vast difference to the arguments. Then you argue that pedestrians face high risk situations that cyclists don't - but that is precisely the point, that you are as likely to suffer a serious or fatal injury as a pedestrian as you are as a cyclist in any given year: why don't you advocate helmet wearing for pedestrians in at least those high risk situations?As for absolute numbers, you can't begin to compare pedestrians with cyclists - for starters there are just so many more but throw into that mix the huge range of abilities of pedestrians (from toddlers to geriatrics) that typically don't exist in the cycling population, the conditions (not many cyclists in bad snow and ice - the high risk situations for pedestrians) etc etc
. What is absolute nonsense is the question begging and special pleading that you are indulging in.It's an absolute nonsense to suggest they are comparable and just a red herring
So, are you saying that the DoT statistics for RTA deaths are wrong? Anecdotal "data" is useless - and this where I came in. The claims by helmet missionaries that we see over and over again in the frequncy that we see them that but for their helmets they would be dead is self-delusion - otherwise there would have been carnage amongst cyclists pre-helmets which just did not occur.Even if you just compared the anecdotal "data" - how many of the population on this forum who have hit their heads (helmeted or not) cycling compared to the same population who have hit their heads as pedestrians? Hmm I wonder....
As for anecdotes - I have been concussed three times in my life - once on my bike, once as a car occupant, and once when painting a window at ground level: and what does that prove? Nothing.0 -
merak wrote:Then you argue that pedestrians face high risk situations that cyclists don't - but that is precisely the point, that you are as likely to suffer a serious or fatal injury as a pedestrian as you are as a cyclist in any given year: why don't you advocate helmet wearing for pedestrians in at least those high risk situations?
You can almost entirely mitigate injury risks as a pedestrian. You can's as a cyclist. My only accident involving someone else has been a collision with a pedestrian (so equal chance of pedestrian or cycle injury on that sample of one). However, the accident was entirely caused by the pedestrian running into the road without looking. I couldn't have stopped that accident happening - the pedestrian could.
I have lived 44 years without having any accident as a pedestrian yet I have hurt myself several times in the last 3 years as a cyclist despite being careful. If you pay attention to your surroundings, you are far less likely to suffer injury as a pedestrian than as a cyclist. The argument that cycling is no more dangerous than walking is, frankly, ludicrous. For me, that makes helmet wearing common sense but I can understand why others choose not to. But pretending that cycling is of equivalent risk to walking does no favours to the non-helmet wearing argument.Faster than a tent.......0 -
https://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehe ... sandfacts/
http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/pract ... ffect.htmlSanta Cruz Blur XC
Nicolai Helius FR
Planet X Carbon RED0 -
More anecdotes.Rolf F wrote:merak wrote:Then you argue that pedestrians face high risk situations that cyclists don't - but that is precisely the point, that you are as likely to suffer a serious or fatal injury as a pedestrian as you are as a cyclist in any given year: why don't you advocate helmet wearing for pedestrians in at least those high risk situations?
You can almost entirely mitigate injury risks as a pedestrian. You can's as a cyclist. My only accident involving someone else has been a collision with a pedestrian (so equal chance of pedestrian or cycle injury on that sample of one). However, the accident was entirely caused by the pedestrian running into the road without looking. I couldn't have stopped that accident happening - the pedestrian could.
Anecdote.I have lived 44 years without having any accident as a pedestrian yet I have hurt myself several times in the last 3 years as a cyclist despite being careful.
And your evidence for that is what?If you pay attention to your surroundings, you are far less likely to suffer injury as a pedestrian than as a cyclist.
And yet four times more pedestrians died on the roads in 2010 than cyclists. So why is it ludicrous? Because you "feel" that it is?The argument that cycling is no more dangerous than walking is, frankly, ludicrous.
Not pretending but pointing out the facts as provided by DoT statistics.For me, that makes helmet wearing common sense but I can understand why others choose not to. But pretending that cycling is of equivalent risk to walking does no favours to the non-helmet wearing argument.
Oh - and I am not making an argument against helmet wearing but against the missionary zeal of the pro-helmet faction.0 -
merak wrote:
Your fallacy is called begging the question - ie assuming the conclusion (that cycle helmets prevent large numbers of deaths and serious injury amongst cyclists) in the premises. The data simply doesn't support that as a conclusion or as a premise. In the period 1994 - 1998, before the great take-up of helmet wearing, the ratio of cyclists killed to slightly injured was 1 in 111. In 2010 it was 1 in 129 - a slight but hardly radical improvement. And the comparison for pedestrians in the same period was 1 in 35 in 1994-1998 compared with 1 in 50 in 2010, a much bigger improvement in survivability of accidents. Whatever is causing the improvement between the mid-90s and 2010, it sure as hell doesn't seem to be increases in helmet wearing.meanredspider wrote:How can you know that the statistical risks are similar? If 80+% of riders are wearing helmets, how can you compare the risks of car drivers, pedestrians and cyclists?
.This is called special pleading. The data shows that the risks are comparable, but you don't like that conclusion, so you find all sorts of ways to ignore the data. So let's look at what you claim here. Numbers - in 2004, 16% (about 1 in 6) of adults claimed that cycling was an important form of transport for them personally. Let's assume that 100% of adults are pedestrians. If you are a cyclist and a pedestrian, the data says that the likelihood of death or serious injury in any given year is comparable for the two activities (not identical, but not an order of magnitude different). The same is true of travelling a car (if you are a cyclist and a car user the probability of being killed carrying out the two activities is similar: ~ 1 in 6 adults ride bikes but 8 times more car occupants are killed than cyclists in 2010). With regard to your age argument, three times as many pedestrians are killed compared with cyclists in the 18-59 age group (214 v 72 in 2010), so that doesn't make a vast difference to the arguments. Then you argue that pedestrians face high risk situations that cyclists don't - but that is precisely the point, that you are as likely to suffer a serious or fatal injury as a pedestrian as you are as a cyclist in any given year: why don't you advocate helmet wearing for pedestrians in at least those high risk situations?As for absolute numbers, you can't begin to compare pedestrians with cyclists - for starters there are just so many more but throw into that mix the huge range of abilities of pedestrians (from toddlers to geriatrics) that typically don't exist in the cycling population, the conditions (not many cyclists in bad snow and ice - the high risk situations for pedestrians) etc etc
. What is absolute nonsense is the question begging and special pleading that you are indulging in.It's an absolute nonsense to suggest they are comparable and just a red herring
So, are you saying that the DoT statistics for RTA deaths are wrong? Anecdotal "data" is useless - and this where I came in. The claims by helmet missionaries that we see over and over again in the frequncy that we see them that but for their helmets they would be dead is self-delusion - otherwise there would have been carnage amongst cyclists pre-helmets which just did not occur.Even if you just compared the anecdotal "data" - how many of the population on this forum who have hit their heads (helmeted or not) cycling compared to the same population who have hit their heads as pedestrians? Hmm I wonder....
As for anecdotes - I have been concussed three times in my life - once on my bike, once as a car occupant, and once when painting a window at ground level: and what does that prove? Nothing.
The decrease you quote is something approaching 20%. I'd say a near 20% decrease is pretty significant. But what would I know, I only earn a living dealing with risk related to medical devices. If our products killed 20% more patients, I think you'd say that was significant.
The pedestrian decrease will almost certainly be related to improved car design.
As for the data you refer to - I'd love you to explain how you think it begins to be comparable. I'm not even sure where the "slight" injury data comes from. I've fallen off my bike loads of time and sustained loads of minor injuries - where are they measured?
The quality of the cycling data you refer to isn't worth the pixels it wastes. Until better data is collected (which it won't be in my lifetime), neither side of the argument can refer to the stats. It's the reason this debate goes on - there's no good data to prove things either wayROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
And yet in 2010 of 24,510 killed or seriously injured road casualties in the UK, 10,951 were sitting in a ton or more of steel. Motor vehicle occupants are a substantial proportion of the patients admiited to UK hospitals with Traumatic Brain Injuries. The statistics are clear that the wearing of hard shell helmets by motor vehicle occupants would reduce moderate to severe TBIs in RTAs by thousands, way more than the one life per year.Well pedestrians are in the same boat. In 2010, nearly four times as many pedestrians were killed as cyclists (405 v 111), so why not helmets for pedestrians?
Merak - Can't be bothered to answer the rest, but these particular comments stand out like a sore thumb!!
These figures come from how many cyclists on the road? How many cars on the road? How many pedestrians?
You are just arguing for the sake of it. I'll hazard a guess that more blackbirds died by being hit by cars than penguins did, perhaps that could be because there are considerably more of one than another. Of your list of three I'd suggest (as you well know) that cyclists are in the minority!
Any fool could see the point I was making, but just for you I'll simplify things - What is the disadvantage of wearing a cycling helmet?Ridley Orion0 -
Always0
