Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[GrumpyGregry]

Only when in danger of running into the back of a car.

overtake 'em. See Reigate Hill and Carter Bar.

 

[screenman]

GC you have not answered the question at all. I will not be upset by your answers, I would just like to understand your reasoning.

To help here is my bit,

Helmets are tested to a minimum not a maximum as far as I can find out.

You might ride everywhere at 25mph which I very much doubt, but when you fall off as you say you do the speed at which your head may hit the ground can be hugely different, for many reasons.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

GC you have not answered the question at all. I will not be upset by your answers, I would just like to understand your reasoning.

I have answered the question in the manner of my choosing. If my reasoning is beyond your understanding I'm sure the fault lies with me.

 

[dellzeqq]

C'mon Linford... where's your evidence to back up your claim that "Sorry, but you are more than 30 times more likely to sustain a serious head injury cycling than driving."?

You must have some substantive peer reviewed evidence to back up such a claim...

ooh....let's pick this one apart.

- you're asking for serious evidence
- you're presuming that the person you're asking knows what 'peer reviewed' means
- you're presuming that he divide or multiply by 30

time for a rethink, Gregster!

 

[dellzeqq]

Not cheeky, he made a statement I asked a question.

Please enlighten me how you know for sure and certain that he would have been worse off.

no, it is bloody cheeky. It's an impertinence. It's a piece of juvenile crap off the back of a mental fagpacket. It's a sneering, uppity, tendentious crack at somebody who came off at speed, and has thought deeply about what that crash could have meant to him and his family. You're not so much out of line as off the scale.

And I was there. Had he been wearing a helmet the burn mark left by the rotating cap would have been replaced by a twist of the neck.

 

[dellzeqq]

Are you suggesting that someone who falls off whilst travelling at 25mph will hit the ground at substantially less than 25mph?

reverse gravity? We were in Buckinghamshire, after all.......

 

[GrumpyGregry]

GC you have not answered the question at all. I will not be upset by your answers, I would just like to understand your reasoning.

To help here is my bit,

Helmets are tested to a minimum not a maximum as far as I can find out.

You might ride everywhere at 25mph which I very much doubt, but when you fall off as you say you do the speed at which your head may hit the ground can be hugely different, for many reasons.

Helmets which pass EN1780 fail Snell 90A which suggests very little performance headroom, the maximum level of performance is only just above the minimum. A consequence of the design constraints you see.

I don't ride everywhere at 25mph. Though my gps suggests I was going at 32mph (downhill) when I lost it on my last off.

Nor do I crash on road very often. (twice since '05) When I do crash on road, and note I'm saying crash not fall off, I'm usually well out of control and travelling well in excess of 25mph, the two are probably linked, and it normally results in a trip to A&E and extensive inpatient treatment and lengthy outpatient after care. I've not crashed thus far and experienced the joy of a nice controlled deceleration such that cranium hits tarmac at a nice slow speed but who knows maybe one day. Clearly I need to work on my skillz.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I know that Greg is angelic - but I don't think even he can defy the laws of physics.

It takes one to know one, or so I am told.

 

[MarkF]

Your invincible attitude is one of someone who has not experienced a serious RTA first hand at speed. The resulting pain is a good focus for thought about the value of protection.

That is where you are wrong, and paradoxically , why I now no longer use safety gear, unless forced to.

Like many, I went up the cc ladder, I obtained more expensive bikes and more protective gear, I had many near misses and 2 bad accidents, the last leaving me in hospital for 6 weeks, I was wearing full leathers with armour, good helmet, boots and gloves. Good, but I began to wonder if they were part of the problem, I simply wasn't scared of crashing, yes, I did feel invincible. I stopped wearing leathers, armour, even boots and immediately felt vulnerable (not invincible) and haven't had a crash since, I am on intense high alert, this works for me..

 

[screenman]

Rated or tested is that the same?

Dellzeqq, you cannot be sure of that statement no more than somebody can say a helmet saved their life.

It is possible but unlikely that head would hit the ground faster than the speed the accident occurred at it is far more likely to be a lot slower, however I am sure there may be a possibility that it could under very rare circumstance happen.

 

[screenman]

Hold on Adrian, you are completely and utterly wrong about me. Whilst I would also like to thank you for answering Users question.

For now I am off for a ride, enough time wasted in here today.

 

[ufkacbln]

The website clearly states that it was caused by a fall from a motorcycle. You would not see this form of injury if he were wearing a helmet - at least he didn't suffer

More bizarre assumptions - you know absolutely nothing about this accident and are continuing to make statements that you can neither confirm nor prove...

The website states nothing. There is a caption, but can you prove that this was not a pedestrian hit by a motorcycle?

Sorry, but you are more than 30 times more likely to sustain a serious head injury cycling than driving. I think that this level of disparity warrants closer attention. Cyclists are being let down by lack of compulsion.
This argument could easily be applied to speed limits for cyclists - there aren't any at the moment, but any fall from speed increases risk.

I can hit over 40mph going into a 30 limit on a cycle on one of the roads into my town (even with my clunker). The law is not just there for my safety, but for the others there as well who may not see or hear me coming.

Now you might find the notion unpalettable, but that doesn't mean it is without merit. I do feel your bias colours your perspective on these things.....

Yet these figures are not reflected in hospital admissions... how do you explain that?

Why are there more drivers and car passengers admitted than cyclists?

It comes back to the point you are continuing to avoid because it shows a real level of hypocrisy.

It matters not how many miles you travel- a helmet will only come into play when you have an accident.

As I asked you repeatedly - a car driver and a cyclist have a similar head injury. Why do you feel that the cyclist should have prevented the injury, but not the motorist?

 

[ufkacbln]

DFT state 31 million cars in the UK
CTC state there are 2.9 million bicycles in the UK

Cunobelin stated there are 3 times as many head injuries in cars as on cycles, but there are more than 10 times as many car drivers as cyclists

Do the maths, and see if you can come back with a figure which biases it in the way you want to see it....

Again you are wrong..... you really should read what was said.

Tere are three times as many car occupants admitted to hospital with head injuries. Three times as many drivers have their lives (and their families lives) blighted by head injury.

That is the reality you continue to avoid.

 

[ufkacbln]

That did not answer either of my questions.

Not from your level of expertise could you tell us in your own words what the tests tell us, does it tell us the minimum or maximum levels of protection each and every helmet offers.

Did you ever manage to find the date of the Tredici quote?

 

[Linford]

Again you are wrong..... you really should read what was said.

Tere are three times as many car occupants admitted to hospital with head injuries. Three times as many drivers have their lives (and their families lives) blighted by head injury.

That is the reality you continue to avoid.

78km are driven in car journeys for each single kilometer cycled in the UK . 835 people were killed in cars as opposed to 107 on cycles in 2011 (65% of the car deaths would have been preventable had they been using seat belts). 75% of the cyclists were killed through a head injury.

And if all of those miles driven were instead cycled, you'd have how many people in hospital as a result ?