Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[Linford]

Does that figure include passengers?

It must also be pointed out that many of those 75% of cyclists killed by a head injury also had other fatal injuries - a helmet, even were it effective (and there's rather little evidence for meaningful protection) wouldn't have saved them.

Passengers ? yes it does....Source

The head injuries they received would have been fatal in their own right (you can't mend a damaged brain)...... Source

 

[Linford]

Back to goldfish hamsters etc?
I quite enjoy watching your squirming around and avoiding the point that there are simply three times as many drivers admitted to casualty than cyclists.

Why can you not understand that tis is reality?

You can waffle, squirm, avoid as much as you like, but it won't change reality.
Once again....


You are still avoiding the question, but I suspect we all know why.

1. Two people are admitted to A and E
2. They have similarly serious head injuries
3. One is a cyclist
4. One is a Motorist

Q1. Does one hurt less than the other?
Q2. Is one less traumatic than the other?
Q3. Is the effect on the family less for one than the other?

What excuse are you going to use next?

I'm not squirming at all. Just laughing at your refusal to accept any other view.

See the stats on seat belt use - all death on the roads is bad - and most fatal accidents are as a result of not bothering to use them.

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adv...rsafetycrash-worthiness/seat-belt-advice.aspx

Likewise using a cycle hat is of little use if they don't fit, and the strap isn't done up!

 

[Octet]

Personally I think if someone wants to wear a helmet then there is nothing wrong with it, and I shall always wear one but then that is a personal preference and shouldn't be enforced upon others.
Interesting to note, experts are now looking at the Wood Peckers skull for helmet design, instead of a rigid design that cracks they are developing helmets containing a spongy material, and another being an 'airbag collar' which deploys reducing the impact.

This is an interesting article in case you want to read it:
http://cyclehelmets.org/1012.html

 

[Red Light]

Yes, that's why places like the US with its high level of helmet use are so much better and safer to ride bikes in than Holland

Not forgetting how many more of the population cycle in the USA than the Netherlands

 

[Red Light]

Not everybody is healthy enough to cycle though. When you have a family outing and one of them is not fit or able to go on a cycle, none go. That is where a car scores.

The average occupancy of a car is just a tad over one indicating that the vast majority of the time a car is carrying one person, not a family outing. And the Dutch seem to manage family outings without a car quite well too.

 

[Red Light]

Does that figure include passengers?

It must also be pointed out that many of those 75% of cyclists killed by a head injury also had other fatal injuries - a helmet, even were it effective (and there's rather little evidence for meaningful protection) wouldn't have saved them.

There is only one study that has been done into this and (from memory) of 19 cyclists registered as killed due to head injuries all but three had other fatal injuries so would not have survived anyway. Of the remaining three who died of head injuries alone, two of them were the only two of the 19 who had been wearing a helmet. A rather poor TRL report estimated that even if a helmet worked well, only 10-15% would have been saved by a helmet.

 

[Red Light]

Actually, the source you cite (a RoSPA information leaflet - so not a peer reviewed article) doesn't say that.

What is does say is "Hospital data shows that over 40% of cyclists, and 45% of child cyclists, suffer head injuries." Those head injuries range from "fatal skull fracture and brain damage to minor concussion and cuts".

Even in the fatal cases it mentions that over 70% of them had moderate or serious head injuries - it doesn't say that those head injuries were the cause of death. As we know from the cases in London, in the majority of fatalities head injuries are not the cause of death.

And the source for RoSPA's data... the discredited TRL report of 2009.




2/10 for producing evidence Linf. You really must try harder.

For cyclists the percentage of hospital admissions for head injuries is 38%. For pedestrians it is 48% for comparison. (2007 figures)

 

[Octet]

Problem with head injuries is you can hit your head going at 'speed' on a bicycle and be fine but you can fall over backwards and be killed instantly.

 

[Red Light]

Problem with head injuries is you can hit your head going at 'speed' on a bicycle and be fine but you can fall over backwards and be killed instantly.

There was a German study looking at the consequences of cyclists hitting pedestrians and killing them. The cyclists typically slid and rolled with few injuries. The pedestrians tended to fall over backwards, hit the back of their heads on the ground and died from the head injury alone. There have also been a couple of high profile assaults recently, one in a supermarket queue, where somebody hit someone and they fell over backwards with the same result.

 

[Red Light]

Thank God for helmets then

Yes, they should make pedestrians wear them. If just one life...........

 

[Linford]

The average occupancy of a car is just a tad over one indicating that the vast majority of the time a car is carrying one person, not a family outing. And the Dutch seem to manage family outings without a car quite well too.

I have no interest in any Dutch study. It will never be replicated here, so totally irrelevant.

 

[Linford]

Are you saying that, in an instance where a person has a head injury and one or more other injuries, any of which would be fatal, this shows that a helmet would have been beneficial?

Most injuries are surviveable if treatment is available within the first hour - a brain injury is something else though.

Your head might not have anything in it which you might consider of value Adrian, but thankfully most other people see things differently about their own, and nearest and dearest.

 

[Red Light]

I have no interest in any Dutch study. It will never be replicated here, so totally irrelevant.

The study is British so is totally relevant to here. The Dutch was an addendum comment to indicate that not only are cars not used very much for family outings, but that its quite possible to have family outings without a car.

 

[Linford]

10-15% would have been saved by a helmet.

Cunobelin - take note

 

[Red Light]

Most injuries are surviveable if treatment is available within the first hour - a brain injury is something else though.

Your head might not have anything in it which you might consider of value Adrian, but thankfully most other people see things differently about their own, and nearest and dearest.

So you wear a helmet to protect yourself against the most likely causes of you getting a traumatic brain injury? Would love to see some photos of you driving and walking in your helmets. Or do you not value the contents of your head or care about your nearest and dearest when doing those activities?