Pesdetrian is someone on foot, a cyclist is someone on a cycle and a motorist is someone in a car - fairly simple. The records do not break down the type as it does not with cyclists.
As for the use of personal anecdote - you are right, but this is simply a comparison. As always the question is why someone uses this emotive rubbish when discussing cyclits, but it is irrelavant when it comes to the groups that present more often.
The idea was that looking at head injured cyclists is a reasomn to wear a helmet, I still await a reply why looking at the same injuries more frequently does not mean we should take action in thses groups as well?
If you really need the evidence (again then non-cycling head injuries are more common I can back this up with peer reviewed evidence...
Thornhill et al:
Mayer Hillman looked at hospital admissions:
Wardlaw in the BMJ:
Now what more proof do we need that more pedestrians experience more head injuries than cyclists can we explain how these injuries are not wroth considering in the emotive terms posted?
Do they hurt less?
Are they less traumatic for families?
I would welcome an explanation as to how this works
Thanks for that, your evidence is exactly what I expected.
Pedestrian is a catch all word for anyone travelling on foot regardless of age or activivty?
When we look at the break down of accidents then 34% of head injuries were caused by assaults, 43% were caused by falls and 61% involved alcohol. So basically, slips trips and falls and assaults seem to be responsible for the majority of injuries, aggravated by booze. So if you filter out the drunks, the muggings and fights then what does that leave? The majority of accidents are caused by slips trips and falls.
You posted a link on another thread to a story about a young girl who died as a result of a fall on a icy pavement. I assume that you posted this link to somehow justify your belief that there are far more dangerous activities than cycling, but your logic is flawed. With health and safety or risk management of any type there is a hierarchy of control. You look at ways to minimise the risk and you always look at PPE as a last resort. So is it more reasonable to expect councils to maintain pavements and roads during icy periods and maintaining them to safe standard at all times or should they just rely on people wearing seat belts in cars and wearing a helmet while they travel on foot? Unfortunately it's not that easy to fit bikes with airbags or to make all road surfaces bouncy so we use helmets to help absorb and dissipate the energy of an impact.
Looking at hospital admissions, I wonder how many people carry out a journey on foot or by car each day as opposed to the percentage of people who carry out a journey on a cycle? I would imagine that cyclists make up a very small percentage of travellers yet they make up 8.5% of hospital admissions? I personally find that number alarming as it suggests that cyclists are actually more at risk than you would have us believe.
as for the opinion of Wardlaw, I would be interested to know what the definition of a regular cyclist is?
I personally think that the benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks but I do believe that there are risks. I also realise that helmets only offer limited protection in the event of an accident and I also accept that there are other ways to sustain a head injury but I can't understand why intelligent people can become so narrow minded that refuse to accept that helmets have a place in cycling.
If people don't want to wear a helmet then that's their call and I respect their point of view but I can't understand why they would try to deter others from wearing one.......and that's not aimed at you Cunobelin.
