Do you wear a helmet on your commute?

[benb]

its probably due to the reduced risk

You really don't understand the evidence, do you?

 

[ufkacbln]

its probably due to the reduced risk

The two risks are similar, in fact WArdlaw inthe BMJ suggests that walking is slightly more dangerous!
What we need to ask is :

Are you trying to reduce the severity of ahead injury when it actually happens?

 

[ufkacbln]

You really don't understand the evidence, do you?

He is on record that he doesn't "do evidence"

 

[ufkacbln]

Charming...

I was trying to be objective and point out that were you to approach this from a H&S perspective, you would come to this conclusion. Not least because the point of H&S is mostly to protect people from their own idiocy...

Had you actually read my post, i then went on to say you can do as you please, its your life and is of no concern to me.

Clearly objective discussion is not possible on this thread.

When the Post Office tried to make helmets compulsory the HSE refused to play and stated unequivocally that Cycle Helmets were not classified as PPE ond that they would not support the compulsion.

lso to point out that the hierarchy would put PPE as the last consideration with training, improving the road environment, etc first
Helmets would be a last resort if all else failed, not the first as in the case of cycle helmets

 

[david k]

You really don't understand the evidence, do you?

i understand what evidence has been brought up here, yes.

You seem to take issue with people who have a different view to you

 

[david k]

Good morning

The two risks are similar, in fact WArdlaw inthe BMJ suggests that walking is slightly more dangerous!

Having read the evidence that was shown to me here over a year ago and presuming it to be accurate for the sake of this discussion, it said walking per mile was more likely to lead to a head injury but walking for an hour was less likely. Considering that people commute further on a bicycle than they do walking its not actually accurate to simply say walking is more dangerous, its misleading. As a risk assessment factors in duration it would view walking as less dangerous. However I'm happy to accept both points of view

What we need to ask is :
Are you trying to reduce the severity of ahead injury when it actually happens?

No I wasnt asking that. I just gave my opinion on the dangers of walking compared with cycling in response to RL's claim that walking is more dangerous, all in the interests of balance

 

[david k]

He is on record that he doesn't "do evidence"

Cunobelin

This is not entirely true is it?

Further misrepresentation of my views and not helpful at all to the discussion

 

[Peter Armstrong]

I did this morning and im very proud, im so sensible.

 

[Red Light]

Considering that people commute further on a bicycle than they do walking its not actually accurate to simply say walking is more dangerous, its misleading.

As far as I know people live in the same place whether they are walking or cycling and work in the same place. Therefore the commuting distance is the same whether they walk or cycle. Of course you may keep your bike in a second home further down the road so the distance for you to cycle to work is further but I suspect you would be in an extreme minority in that.

 

[srw]

I was trying to be objective and point out that were you to approach this from a H&S perspective, you would come to this conclusion. Not least because the point of H&S is mostly to protect people from their own idiocy...

And I was being objective and pointing out that if you were to approach this from the statistical perspective you claimed to have come you would come to quite a different conclusion. And that it's no surprise to me that an H&S specialist doesn't understand risk or statistics.

The main purpose of H&S is to encourage health and safety by analysing risk - the clue's in the name. But clueless numpties have a habit of turning risk analysis into either slavish adherence to regulation (which usually results in considerably worse risk protection), or into "common sense" (which usually results in considerably worse risk protection).

Clearly objective discussion is not possible on this thread.

Why do you suppose helmet threads have their own special little corner of hell?

 

[Red Light]

Read this..... http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ it will change your life..

As others have said, david k doesn't do evidence.

 

[benb]

i understand what evidence has been brought up here, yes.

You seem to take issue with people who have a different view to you

Absolutely not. I have no problem with people who disagree with me (just as well!)
I do have a problem with people who try to claim effects that the evidence doesn't support.

 

[benb]

[QUOTE 1999733, member: 45"]No.

We have evidence which suggests that some activities undertaken by a person while labelled as a pedestrian carry a higher risk than some activities undertaken by a person while labelled as a cyclist. And vice versa.

To suggest that walking is more dangerous than cycling is deceptive and incorrect.

It's this kind of statement which sets us up against those who we want to work with, and it doesn't help.[/quote]

So at least you agree that both activities are very unlikely to result in a head injury.

Interestingly almost no-one is suggesting helmets only for "high risk" cyclists, but helmets for all. And no-one is suggesting helmets for "high risk" pedestrians either. So there is still a large portion of hypocrisy in people's positions.

 

[david k]

As far as I know people live in the same place whether they are walking or cycling and work in the same place. Therefore the commuting distance is the same whether they walk or cycle. Of course you may keep your bike in a second home further down the road so the distance for you to cycle to work is further but I suspect you would be in an extreme minority in that.

Obviously, however their choice of walking or cycling will be affected by that distance and therefore, those cycling are likely to be the ones travelling further.

 

[david k]

Absolutely not. I have no problem with people who disagree with me (just as well!)
I do have a problem with people who try to claim effects that the evidence doesn't support.

therefore you have no issue with me, unless you falsely accuse me of claiming something i havnt