Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[Linford]

+1 on the front.
Can't help but wonder what gearing could possibly suit both halves of the partnership. Perhaps a nice sensible triple up front, combined with an 11-11-11-11-11-11-11-11-11-12-13 cassette on the back (13 is the bailout gear on Jens Voigt's tandem).
And as for the bike....

Forgive me for saying this but the nose to arse proximity between the riders would make the one on the back desperate to avoid any hills and stomping on any tall gears - and sharing curry's the night before.

 

[ufkacbln]

You mean go and look for some stats which fit your assertions better than someone who disagrees with them ?

Red Light recited some info about women getting more head injuries despite being a minority as far as cyclists go (without a source) in response to something which smeggers put to him......

You are obviously so conversant with the argument against adequate head protection, you must have the sources of you information readily to hand.

..or follow your example and just lie?

 

[Linford]

..or follow your example and just lie?

What have you been eating tonight Cunobelin ?

Ah, I know....

 

[dellzeqq]

this is one of those times when an ignore list can make one feel.................less dirty

 

[Wobblers]

You mean go and look for some stats which fit your assertions better than someone who disagrees with them ?

Red Light recited some info about women getting more head injuries despite being a minority as far as cyclists go (without a source) in response to something which smeggers put to him......

You are obviously so conversant with the argument against adequate head protection, you must have the sources of you information readily to hand.

Pot kettle black?

He quoted Hewson as his source. And you didn't read his comment properly either - he said that females were as likely to suffer a head injury despite being twice as likely to wear a helmet than males.

If you'd typed "rodgers 1988" into google you'd have found the right data.

1 out of ten, there Linford. And that's being generous.

We're still waiting for you to come up with some peer reviewed evidence to back your statements up. And really, just because you're unaware of the science or statistics doesn't mean you need to go all huffy, now. Like I've said, the best way to understand is to go and make the effort to get those papers and read them. It's entirely down to you.

 

[ufkacbln]

What have you been eating tonight Cunobelin ?

Ah, I know....

Love children,but could never eat a whole one, I am afraid.

 

[Linford]

Pot kettle black?

He quoted Hewson as his source. And you didn't read his comment properly either - he said that females were as likely to suffer a head injury despite being twice as likely to wear a helmet than males.

If you'd typed "rodgers 1988" into google you'd have found the right data.

1 out of ten, there Linford. And that's being generous.

We're still waiting for you to come up with some peer reviewed evidence to back your statements up. And really, just because you're unaware of the science or statistics doesn't mean you need to go all huffy, now. Like I've said, the best way to understand is to go and make the effort to get those papers and read them. It's entirely down to you.

Didi it also say that they were many times more likely to ride up the inside of a large vehicle turning left also ?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

[benb]

Linf, I noticed you chose to ignore my direct question earlier, so allow me to put it another way.

Earlier, you said

proving that Head protection saves serious head injuries is a self defeating argument because an accident in which the lid has worked 100% will never get reported in the stats for head injuries

While that's true, as far as it goes, the evidence doesn't support it.
If helmets offered significant protection against head injuries, then non-helmetted cyclists would be over-represented in hospital data for head injuries. That is, if the proportion of helmetless cyclists was 40%, you would expect more than 40% of cyclists admitted for a head injury to have not worn a helmet.

Furthermore, in areas where they have brought in compulsion, the % helmet wearing has increased, but the % head injuries has not decreased.

So, either helmets do not significantly protect against head injuries, or cyclists who wear them are involved in more collisions causing a head injury.

I look forward to your reply.

 

[dellzeqq]

I look forward to your reply.

you're on your Jack Jones there.......

 

[ianrauk]

This is the 1000'th reply in this thread.

Helmet's schmelmet's pelmets..

 

[benb]

Would you main elaborating on this stat for me please?.....

"That is, if the proportion of helmetless cyclists was 40%, you would expect more than 40% of cyclists admitted for a head injury to have not worn a helmet."

If helmets were effective at reducing head injuries (well, ones serious enough to warrant a hospital admission) then the proportion of hospital admissions for helmeted cyclists would be less than the proportion of helmeted cyclists in the cycling population.

 

[benb]

Genuinely sorry if this has come up already (wood for the trees job innit), but are those stats actually logged?

Also surely the bold bit is evidence of helmet success in itself? As we said, back in the day of this thread, you cant prove a negative.

That's why you need to compare the proportion of helmeted cyclists against the proportion of helmeted cyclists admitted with a head injury. If helmets are effective, then the % admitted will be less than the % in the cycling population.

And yes, I'm pretty sure these stats are logged, but I'm sure RL will know for sure, as he is the stats king.

 

[benb]

No, what we are left with is no evidence that helmets are effective at reducing head injuries.

 

[benb]

We'll have to agree to differ.

Having looked and try to empathise with the counter argument insofar as is possible, Im going to keep my lid on thanks and if compulsion were a referendum, Id be ticking the yes box.

Where's the evidence then?

I completly defend your right to wear a helmet if you want to.
But can't you see that compulsion would be a disaster for all cyclists?

 

[srw]

My evidence, is your lack of evidence.

And no, pleading will not strengthen your argument.

Smeggers, ben's evidence is your lack of evidence. And pleading doesn't strengthen your argument.

Which is more or less what I said about 700 posts ago.