metro article on helmets

[benb]

I was musing over this question myself.

I wonder if it is because as a pedestrian, most of the risk of being injured can be mitigated by not being stupid, i.e. following the Green Cross Code like we were told in the 70s, looking extra carefully when wearing headphones etc. etc. Whereas when cycling there is a greater proportion of the risk that can't or can only partially be mitigated. Cars clipping you, pulling out into you, unexpected slippery roads and all the other unavoidable causes of offs. That at least is my (probably post hoc) reasoning, and it is nothing to do with helmets looking cool on cyclists, but not on pedestrians.

But the risk is virtually identical, so that can't be true, so it must go back to risk perception: cycling seems like it should be more dangerous than being a pedestrian. And that's probably partly to do with the fact that there are so many people wearing helmets: "cycling must be dangerous, just look at the protective equipment people wear to do it"

 

[ufkacbln]

Dear All,

You make your case as you wish to. I'll make mine my way.

Doctors Manitoba, the provincial medical association, has told the government that bike helmet laws reduce the number of head injuries that require hospitalization by as much as 45 per cent.​

Rondeau knows that first-hand. He was involved in a collision with a vehicle last year while out riding his bike.​

"I went sideways and hit my head and cracked my helmet. I know that if I was not wearing a helmet, I would have had a serious brain injury," he said.​

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120318/manitoba-consider-bike-helmet-law-120318/#ixzz1pY8Z7igs

Regards

TyT :~)

As with previous threads you are misquoting and "puffing" something that has no evidence whatsoever.

THis is exactly that a "puff" with no substantiation. At no point is the source for this "45%" figure ever quoted by the group, or any research to substantiate it.

I suppose that we shouldn't have expected anything else from someone who lacks either the common courtesy or simple manners to answer the questions that their own posts raised.

Mind you I must thank you for this.......... as others said, the refusal to discuss your own ravings speaks volumes, and places your contributions entirely in context

 

[caimg]

But the risk is virtually identical, so that can't be true, so it must go back to risk perception: cycling seems like it should be more dangerous than being a pedestrian. And that's probably partly to do with the fact that there are so many people wearing helmets: "cycling must be dangerous, just look at the protective equipment people wear to do it"

Does the peds vs cyclists injuries take into account percentages, assuming that there are a greater amount of peds around than cyclists? Or are there just numbers?

I tried to make the same point about uncontrollable events...I'm willing to bet that there are a fair share of irresponsible peds among the stats as it is.

I've never had a problem as a pedestrian, not even close. I've never felt threatened as a pedestrian by a car. I look both ways when I cross the road and if I'm not crossing the road I stay away from the road. On a bike, I've had close passes from cars, vans, motorbikes, squeezed at pinch points etc and been FAR closer to having a problem. I have only ever been close to adding to the cyclist stat, not a ped stat. I believe that everybody on here would say the same thing, I don't think that's even up for debate, and because of that - being closer to problems as a cyclist than a ped on a regular basis - I seek to protect myself. If you just step away from the stats for a min you'll understand that.

 

[Svendo]

But the risk is virtually identical, so that can't be true, so it must go back to risk perception: cycling seems like it should be more dangerous than being a pedestrian. And that's probably partly to do with the fact that there are so many people wearing helmets: "cycling must be dangerous, just look at the protective equipment people wear to do it"

The risk being identical overall is for everyone. It's possible for an individual's risk to be quite different, if say they are very careful crossing the road, but regularly land on their head whilst cycling. That the overall risk is identical doesn't mean that when walking it's not avoidable, it could be there are a lot of careless pedestrians. My personal statistics, which are more relevant to me are that in 40 years I've not be injured crossing the road, but have had 4 decent bike crashes, and several other offs. Most were essentially not avoidable by me.
Bear in mind I'm only discussing whether I should wear a helmet when walking about, not anyone else.

I never leave home without my foil cap though, gotta stop the CIA mind probes you know!

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Not really... brace yourself for a bit of anecdata folks.

A neck data, surely!

Getting knocked off by an ambulance and injured by your helmet has got to be your most unlucky day ever!

 

[ufkacbln]

I was musing over this question myself.

I wonder if it is because as a pedestrian, most of the risk of being injured can be mitigated by not being stupid, i.e. following the Green Cross Code like we were told in the 70s, looking extra carefully when wearing headphones etc. etc. Whereas when cycling there is a greater proportion of the risk that can't or can only partially be mitigated. Cars clipping you, pulling out into you, unexpected slippery roads and all the other unavoidable causes of offs. That at least is my (probably post hoc) reasoning, and it is nothing to do with helmets looking cool on cyclists, but not on pedestrians.

This is why the cohort or other studies that look at accidents are important.

It is a snapshot of the present situation, with all the flaws, stupidities, mistakes, errors and mishaps that occur everyday.

 

[ufkacbln]

Does the peds vs cyclists injuries take into account percentages, assuming that there are a greater amount of peds around than cyclists? Or are there just numbers?

I tried to make the same point about uncontrollable events...I'm willing to bet that there are a fair share of irresponsible peds among the stats as it is.

I've never had a problem as a pedestrian, not even close. I've never felt threatened as a pedestrian by a car. I look both ways when I cross the road and if I'm not crossing the road I stay away from the road. On a bike, I've had close passes from cars, vans, motorbikes, squeezed at pinch points etc and been FAR closer to having a problem. I have only ever been close to adding to the cyclist stat, not a ped stat. I believe that everybody on here would say the same thing, I don't think that's even up for debate, and because of that - being closer to problems as a cyclist than a ped on a regular basis - I seek to protect myself. If you just step away from the stats for a min you'll understand that.

Unrelated and unrealistic. The risks are different. You could argue that because escalators are a pedestrian only risk, or stairs, or tripping over a loose cable?

The fact that is being missed is that if a cyclist and a pedestrian leave the same place and arrive at a destination, the risk (from whatever intervention, unique to that group or not) is similar.

In fact ,if you just step away from the stats for a minute you'll understand that.

 

[Cycloslalomeur]

Does the peds vs cyclists injuries take into account percentages, assuming that there are a greater amount of peds around than cyclists? Or are there just numbers?

I tried to make the same point about uncontrollable events...I'm willing to bet that there are a fair share of irresponsible peds among the stats as it is.

I've never had a problem as a pedestrian, not even close. I've never felt threatened as a pedestrian by a car. I look both ways when I cross the road and if I'm not crossing the road I stay away from the road. On a bike, I've had close passes from cars, vans, motorbikes, squeezed at pinch points etc and been FAR closer to having a problem. I have only ever been close to adding to the cyclist stat, not a ped stat. I believe that everybody on here would say the same thing, I don't think that's even up for debate, and because of that - being closer to problems as a cyclist than a ped on a regular basis - I seek to protect myself. If you just step away from the stats for a min you'll understand that.

Once again you are describing your own perception of risk, not actual risk. If you "step away from the stats" you're back to burning women at the stake because you believe it is the right thing to do.

 

[caimg]

Unrelated and unrealistic. The risks are different. You could argue that because escalators are a pedestrian only risk, or stairs, or tripping over a loose cable?

The fact that is being missed is that if a cyclist and a pedestrian leave the same place and arrive at a destination, the risk (from whatever intervention, unique to that group or not) is similar.

In fact ,if you just step away from the stats for a minute you'll understand that.

Please tell me how what I said is unrelated or irrelevant to the topic of cyclists / helmets / ped debate. I'm pretty sure I stayed on topic!

I said this earlier in the thread - I don't reckon my head is much at threat of tripping over a loose cable. I may at worst twist something or fracture an arm or crack a rib but I'm not too likely to land on my head. Pedestrian only risks don't seem to threaten much in the way of head injuries in my experience, and I have never felt like my head is at threat as a ped.

So far in this thread fear-inducing ped threats have included tripping over a paving stone and walking into stationary objects. If a ped has an injury from the latter then they're just a stupid ped

I have had no experience, as a responsible ped who respects the dangers road users pose to me (and is aware of the mighty perils of stationary objects and paving slabs), of anything close to a ped injury let alone to my head. As a responsible cyclist who respects the dangers road users pose to me I have been far closer to an incident which may or may not have included a head injury. Ergo, I wear a helmet.

 

[Norm]

Does the peds vs cyclists injuries take into account percentages, assuming that there are a greater amount of peds around than cyclists? Or are there just numbers?

I tried to make the same point about uncontrollable events...I'm willing to bet that there are a fair share of irresponsible peds among the stats as it is.

Now, I believe that I addressed those points with my post yesterday.

It's not opposition to helmets, however it may look, because I reckon many of those who you feel are opposing you do wear helmets. It's trying to break through the illusory protective blanket that people place around cyclists who are wearing helmets.

Think about it, studies from hospital admissions show that cycling and walking are both risky for head injuries. Now, whilst the specifics of the stats can be discussed (is it measured per hour or per mile travelled and does it include old people etc) the point is not that they are exactly the same, or that one is slightly higher than the other, even if the difference is a magnitude of three or four, the point is that they are close enough to be considered broadly similar.

Yet we have this perception that cycling is dangerous and we have a whole industry built up around a perceived need to spend money on a bit of polystyrene to prevent us drinking through a straw when everyone laughs at suggestions that pedestrians should wear anything.

I guess I could phrase that another way. If you could be convinced that walking and cycling were equally as risky, then would that make you look anew at your perception of the risks cyclists face or the risks that walkers face? Would that make you more likely to wear a helmet when walking or less likely to wear a helmet when cycling?

If you could answer the two questions at the end, that would be appreciated, as I don't think that the answer people would assume on you would be flattering.

I've never had a problem as a pedestrian, not even close. I've never felt threatened as a pedestrian by a car. I look both ways when I cross the road and if I'm not crossing the road I stay away from the road. On a bike, I've had close passes from cars, vans, motorbikes, squeezed at pinch points etc and been FAR closer to having a problem. I have only ever been close to adding to the cyclist stat, not a ped stat. I believe that everybody on here would say the same thing, I don't think that's even up for debate, and because of that - being closer to problems as a cyclist than a ped on a regular basis - I seek to protect myself. If you just step away from the stats for a min you'll understand that.

I said this earlier in the thread - I don't reckon my head is much at threat of tripping over a loose cable. I may at worst twist something or fracture an arm or crack a rib but I'm not too likely to land on my head. Pedestrian only risks don't seem to threaten much in the way of head injuries in my experience, and I have never felt like my head is at threat as a ped.

These are complete and perfect illustrations of the dangers of perceptions.

You may think that you have never had a problem, or even come close to a problem, but the danger as a pedestrian is not solely from vehicles. (And, as an aside, the chance of a helmet doing much for a cyclist when in collision with a vehicle is vanishingly small anyway)

Danger could be from slips, trips & falls, from walking into a door that someone opens on you etc. Every footstep you are likely to be just a few mm of uneven pavement from a fall but you don't recognise that as a risk. The risks are there, though, the statistics prove that and, if anything, the fact that you don't see them makes the risk even higher.

How, if you would be so kind, if you could be convinced that walking and cycling were equally as risky, because they are, then would that make you look anew at your perception of the risks cyclists face or the risks that walkers face? Would that make you more likely to wear a helmet when walking or less likely to wear a helmet when cycling?

 

[caimg]

Once again you are describing your own perception of risk, not actual risk. If you "step away from the stats" you're back to burning women at the stake because you believe it is the right thing to do.

Okay so tell me your perception of risk - do you feel as safe on the road as a cyclist as you do as a ped? As an aside, are you a Londoner?

 

[benb]

@caimg, how safe you feel when doing the two activities is irrelevant.
The simple fact is that you are equally at risk of head injury as a pedestrian as you are as a cyclist.

 

[Cycloslalomeur]

Okay so tell me your perception of risk - do you feel as safe on the road as a cyclist as you do as a ped? As an aside, are you a Londoner?

As I and others have tried to point out, perception is irrelevant.

I lived in London for years, now based in Brussels.

 

[ufkacbln]

Please tell me how what I said is unrelated or irrelevant to the topic of cyclists / helmets / ped debate. I'm pretty sure I stayed on topic!

You are taking specific cycling / road related issues and stating that pedestrians are safer because they don't have the same problems. The risks are different, but over all the chances of the event happening is similar.

That is what is irrelevant and unrelated... it is entirely a personal opinion... and unfounded.

There is something of a flaw in this whole theory

I said this earlier in the thread - I don't reckon my head is much at threat of tripping over a loose cable. I may at worst twist something or fracture an arm or crack a rib but I'm not too likely to land on my head. Pedestrian only risks don't seem to threaten much in the way of head injuries in my experience, and I have never felt like my head is at threat as a ped.

If for a moment we accepted this "theory" and that there are few or no risks to pedestrians from head injury, how do we explain all the ones requiring hospital admission?

Are these imaginary?

How do they occur, if there are few risks and no threats?

So far in this thread fear-inducing ped threats have included tripping over a paving stone and walking into stationary objects. If a ped has an injury from the latter then they're just a stupid ped

Both occur for a number of reasons, and paving stones are a real threat to the blind, disabled and elderly. Of course if having a disability is stupid?

I have had no experience, as a responsible ped who respects the dangers road users pose to me (and is aware of the mighty perils of stationary objects and paving slabs), of anything close to a ped injury let alone to my head. As a responsible cyclist who respects the dangers road users pose to me I have been far closer to an incident which may or may not have included a head injury. Ergo, I wear a helmet.

Again why are you excluding all except on-road risks for pedestrians?

It's a bit like saying that as no cyclists were killed on Motorways last year there is no danger from traffic!

It is also apparent that you have not taken in the original article either!

If I understand this correctly - You have decided that low level impacts where helmets are effective are not sufficient reason to wear a helmet, yet the threat from other road users where the helmet is far less effective and unlikely to offer significant protection you use one!

Surely not the most logical argument?

 

[snorri]

Pedestrians are at greater risk than cyclists from loose slates sliding off roofs.