metro article on helmets

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 1774097, member: 45"]It depends what you're comparing. If it's the drunk pedestrian who falls off a park bench and gets a bleed on his brain because of his drinking, then he's at more risk than your model cyclist. But then, the RLJing nutter trying to emulate the NY courier vids is more at risk than the suited gentleman walking to the paper shop.[/quote]

Absolutely...

This is why the wider population needs to be looked at, and choice is important

If you have undertaken training, have experience, are aware of your surroundings and have a well maintained bike with lights then you have mitigated your risk far more than just wearing a helmet.

I have a cub parent who is a driving instructor and objects to one of the cubs cycling to the meetings without a helmet... and wants us to do something about it.

His son wore a helmet, yet his son's bike had one brake that was locked, and the other had no cable, there were no lights, one soft tyre and one where the canvas was showing. The chain was rusty and the rear wheel missing one of the tensioners.

The cub who wasn't wearing a helmet had a well maintained bike, with exposure lights, and parents who were keen cyclists.


I know which one I consider to be in need of advice!

 

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1774097, member: 45"]But then, the RLJing nutter trying to emulate the NY courier vids is more at risk than the suited gentleman walking to the paper shop.[/quote]

Your evidence for that is?

RLJing is a very low risk activity - <2% of cyclist ksi in London IIRC despite >18% participation in the activity. And as we have already covered walking to the paper shop has a much higher ksi rate than cycling there.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Red Light]

I have issues with this, I dont think they are of roughly equal risk, anywhere near actually.

You may not think it but do you have any evidential support for your position which runs contrary to the published evidence (unless you are saying, although I doubt it, that walking is much more dangerous than cycling)?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1774024, member: 45"]You're painting a very different picture to how it is, and it's not helpful. Encouraging people to be more aware of their behaviour and adjusting it accordingly is not extremely difficult.

Your anti-helmet view is interesting. It's almost as if you don't want them to be effective, so you'll argue against anything which may make them more so than they are. It doesn't lend itself to a balanced understanding.[/quote]

So explain to me how you change ingrained subconscious cyclist and driver behaviours that they will mostly deny? My picture may not be helpful but it is realistic and more helpful than pretending these things can be easily solved when they can't.

My view is not anti-helmet. It is one of informing the debate of the evidence. We get the usual problem though that you having asked for the evidence and my providing it you now complain that it doesn't support your beliefs so is unhelpful and/or wrong and I am a heretic for providing it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

I have issues with this, I dont think they are of roughly equal risk, anywhere near actually.

You have evidence, that walking is more dangerous per Km than cycling? Your source?

 

[col]

You may not think it but do you have any evidential support for your position which runs contrary to the published evidence (unless you are saying, although I doubt it, that walking is much more dangerous than cycling)?

I just think cycling is more dangerous than walking. You cant slide off at speed when walking, your taveling at least twice as fast as walking, probably a lot more,Impacting the ground at 10,15,20 odd mph is more dangerous than tripping over while walking. There are loads of reasons in my opinion why cycling is more dangerous than walking. Just seems obvious to me really.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[col]

You have evidence, that walking is more dangerous per Km than cycling? Your source?

I never said walking was more dangerous?

 

[col]

[QUOTE 1774097, member: 45"]It depends what you're comparing. If it's the drunk pedestrian who falls off a park bench and gets a bleed on his brain because of his drinking, then he's at more risk than your model cyclist. But then, the RLJing nutter trying to emulate the NY courier vids is more at risk than the suited gentleman walking to the paper shop.[/quote]
In genearal really, cyclists move quicker than walkers, so if anything goes wrong its more dangerous. Just how it looks to me.

 

[col]

Because?

As Iv mentioned in my other posts, cycling is faster, and speed brings more dangers i feel.

 

[Red Light]

I never said walking was more dangerous?

So what is your evidence it is less dangerous then?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[col]

So what is your evidence it is less dangerous then?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Iv said in my other posts, its just my opinion.

 

[Red Light]

In genearal really, cyclists move quicker than walkers, so if anything goes wrong its more dangerous. Just how it looks to me.

But police accident data and hospital admissions data shows its much more dangerous walking than cycling per km and that a much higher proportion of pedestrian injuries are head injuries than for cyclists.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[col]

This is the core issue that needs to be addressed

Why? It seems that way just taking in the difference in speed, never mind mechanical failure, mixing with tons of steel on a daily basis ect. I dont understand your post here?

 

[Red Light]

Iv said in my other posts, its just my opinion.

So you are not allowing yourself to be confused with those annoying little things called facts then?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[col]

So you are not allowing yourself to be confused with those annoying little things called facts then?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

If I was going to fall over, Id rather do it walking than cycling at 15 mph. Again just my opinion.