Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[Linford]

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

And a driver is far less likely to have a serious head injury for the amount of km they travel .

There might be 8 times the deaths in cars on the road to cyclists, but then the cars are travelling 78 times as far as cycles

OK, not 30 times () but still many times more.

 

[screenman]

C, it was in the July 12th 2012 edition of Cycling Weekly, in a write up on Race Medics.

 

[Linford]

Ooh an 11 plus question. Is the correct answer very many fewer without the troublesome cars

How many fewer ?

 

[ufkacbln]

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 ?

... and if the cyclists travelled the same distance as aircraft fly, ants crawl, swallows migrate, the average hamster runs in its wheel, or any other measure yo u would care to use to avoid the reality that there are;

Still three times as many motorists than cyclists, being admitted at the present time no matter how you try and avoid it!

Stop avoiding the question, lets try again.....

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?

 

[Linford]

Loads, in fact most.

Can you be a bit more specific ?

 

[Linford]

... and if the cyclists travelled the same distance as aircraft fly, ants crawl, swallows migrate, the average hamster runs in its wheel, or any other measure yo u would care to use to avoid the reality that there are;

Still three times as many motorists than cyclists, being admitted at the present time no matter how you try and avoid it!

Unless you have missed some of the earlier debate, there are 31 million cars registered in the UK, as opposed to 3 million regular cyclists - that is 10 times, not 3, and that is not including the multiple occupancy of many cars on many a journey....

 

[dellzeqq]

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.

you are so foolish. If you're travelling at speed then your head hits the tarmac a glancing blow and either slides or bounces. When I hit the ground travelling at 22mph I went down sideways with a bang, my shoulder hitting the ground first and my head, pivoting vertically, bounced, causing the helmet to split, which is all to the good. An advertisement for helmets if ever there was one. Greg's head, travelling at a faster horizontal rate, and meeting the ground at the same time as his shoulder, slid, and his cap swivelled around his head and scored a deep line in to his scalp and forehead. Had he been wearing a helmet the helmet would have rotated, and the strap of the helmet would have taken his head with it. Cue neck damage.

Now..........it's easy to theorise about this stuff from the security of your own sofa, but, it's disrespectful, dishonest and downright stupid to theorise when competent eyewitness accounts and that of the crashee tell you what's happened.

 

[ufkacbln]

Unless you have missed some of the earlier debate, there are 31 million cars registered in the UK, as opposed to 3 million regular cyclists - that is 10 times, not 3, and that is not including the multiple occupancy of many cars on many a journey....

You really need to start reading the posts.........

There are also 14.7 million goldfish in the UK, 1.1 million rabbits and 0.86 million hamsters. These facts are as relevant to my statement as your obscure and bizarre misquotation

All your obfuscation still does not change the fact you are in denial about, for every cyclist being admitted to Hospital with a head injury there will be three motorists..... simples.

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?

 

[Linford]

You really need to start reading the posts.........

There are also 14.7 million goldfish in the UK, 1.1 million rabbits and 0.86 million hamsters. These facts are as relevant to my statement as your obscure and bizarre misquotation

All your obfuscation still does not change the fact you are in denial about, for every cyclist being admitted to Hospital with a head injury there will be three motorists..... simples.

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?

The number of cyclists on the road is a tenth of the number of motorists, you are bound to get more accident with motorists because of this simple fact. What you are avoiding is the point that many more cyclists as a ratio get seriously injured in comparison with people in cars. People use cars because they are convenient and comfortable. The occupants are also substantially better protected when they use their seat belts than 2 wheeled users.

I guess you are going to argue the toss on that one as well......

 

[screenman]

My crash helmet is far more likely to slide than my skin or a cloth cap is.

So where and when was the last cycling helmet company sued for making a product that caused rotational injuries.

If a racing cyclist incurred an injury due to wearing a helmet he could and would sue the UCI has it happened yet?

 

[Linford]

The question is where are the calls for compulsory helmets to protect these vulnerable people?

What you really don't like is being told what to do. Stay away from motorbikes, they'd make you wear a lid....

 

[dellzeqq]

My crash helmet is far more likely to slide than my skin or a cloth cap is.

So where and when was the last cycling helmet company sued for making a product that caused rotational injuries.

If a racing cyclist incurred an injury due to wearing a helmet he could and would sue the UCI has it happened yet?

Round, ball, like objects slide on smooth surfaces. Objects with protrusions, nooks and crannies do not slide on rough surfaces. But, then, on the internet, everything is smooth and round....

do you ride a bike?

 

[screenman]

D, I would say judging by the amount of time you spend on here that I may ride one more than you. I have been cycling 50 years, nowadays due to advanced arthritis I only do about 100 miles per week. We are a cycling family, my daughter in law being the current vets MTB champion, and 2 of my 3 boys race.

I quite agree that nooks and crannies can snag, if there is something to snag on, road surfaces tend to be reasonable smooth.

Now could you answer my second 2 questions, well of course not as it has not yet happened.

 

[Linford]

No the argument is that the risks of acquiring a head injury driving, cycling, or walking are very low. Depending on how you measure, time, distance the risks are ball park comparable. There is however a disproportionate bias that sees cycling as dangerous and needing helmet compulsion. This is bad for cycling and bad for societies health.
Pull motorists into the frame so that we have more people on the side of anti compulsion.
OK?

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.

Cycling is by and large a solitary activity. Nothing wrong with that. Cycling is fun (when not into a headwind up a hill in the peeing rain), but both have their place on the roads.

The safer cycling is seen to be, the more will partake in it. better protection will do that.

The general non cycling public don't see it the same way as you do sorry!

 

[Biglad82]

A never ending discussion, I had a heated discussion /near punch up with a good mate for saying " I wear one because I want to, and feel safer for it, you do what you want it's your life but your mam could do with one the next time I f*** her brains out" it even raised a smile from his dad...