Common sense

[icowden]

View attachment 494252

The first two paragraphs of the article quoted are:-

A helmet obligation for motorists and pedestrians could protect more lives: For every cyclist killed come 1.5 pedestrians and 4.5 motorists with fatal head injuries. A helmet is not constitutional and fights symptoms. Instead of discussing helmets, we should eliminate causes: reduce impact speeds, build safer bike paths or, for example, check the driving behavior of motor vehicle drivers more regularly.

The recent studies on the effect of helmet duty come to positive results: putting on a helmet helps, no question. But is not one-sided just looking at cyclists? And forget the causes?

Of course the quote in the above graphic is deliberately taken out of context. The quote is the third paragraph discussing high speed collisions. The following paragraph reads:

But the same study also reveals causes: The severity and frequency of serious injuries and deaths clearly depends on the impact speed. 98.8% of these accidents occur at impact speeds of less than 22 km / h. The serious accidents, as with the most seriously injured and killed, on the other hand show differences of 30-50 km / h between motor vehicle and cyclist in the median mean value.

The article agrees with the sentiment that more needs to be done regarding reducing speeds, rules compliance and safe cycling infrastructure. It does not support the argument posited in that graphic. Misquoting to support an unproven point is reductive and pointless. See Brexit for further details....