metro article on helmets

[Little yellow Brompton]

The reason I said that was it was just a matter of time and you would be trying to twist what has been said, and including all sorts of "accident" scenarios . I know its hard for you to understand, but its simple really. A slow fall is in my opinion , less likely to be as serious as a very fast fall. Is there a chance you could have a very very fast fall, soon?

I don't think anyone needs to twist your words, you do a fine enough job of humpty dumptying on your own. As for your opinion, it's worthless, as is any other without facts. You have shown that, not only do you not understand the science behind, well , everything, but that you glory in your ignorance and you equate opinion with facts. The worrying thing is, you have a vote.

 

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1774432, member: 45"] Selective response to suit how you want it to be. Read my post properly and you'll see what I mean.[/quote]

An amazingly honest bit of self criticism from you there ;-)

 

[col]

I don't think anyone needs to twist your words, you do a fine enough job of humpty dumptying on your own. As for your opinion, it's worthless, as is any other without facts. You have shown that, not only do you not understand the science behind, well , everything, but that you glory in your ignorance and you equate opinion with facts. The worrying thing is, you have a vote.

My opinion is just that, an opinion. If you dont agree or like it then thats ok too. If you could show me some facts on why you think my understanding on everything science is nil I would be grateful, or was it your opinion? mmmmm And dont worry about the vote either.

 

[col]

German research into pedestrian-cyclist fatal collisions found it was the pedestrian that died because they fell like a bag of spuds, hitting their head with fatal results while the cyclist had tucked, slid and rolled coming off very lightly. So indications are again the opposite of your beliefs.

Have they got figures on pedestrians falling, and cyclists falling on their own, without colliding with each other?

 

[col]

Because, as I see it, there is a serious problem of perception here. Cycling is seen as dangerous to a ludicrous degree whilst the risks in being a pedestrian are completely under the radar and those associated with motoring are written off with a shrug of the shoulders as just one of those things. If we would see cycling as a mainstream transport option this has to change.

Mine was a comparison of which I felt was more dangerous than the other. Not that one is just dangerous.

 

[ufkacbln]

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

Possibly, but this is also the reason why helmets would be more effective for pedestrians due to the lower impact speed. Helmets are only tested at low speeds and at higher speeds become ineffective.

This is partially due to the fact that at a higher speed the compression of the foam is quicker and the deceleration is more rapid. This means that the helmet may absorb the impact, but this is ineffective in preventing movement within the skull. At some point (which will vary) wearing a helmet or not becomes irrelevant to the brain injury.

But back to the original question, the studies tend to look at a cohort, usually hospital admissions and then classify the injury.

For this reason all pedestrians / cyclists / motorists are included whether they were drunk or sober, fast, slow, sensible or stupid.

 

[ufkacbln]

Mine was a comparison of which I felt was more dangerous than the other. Not that one is just dangerous.

This is the issue....

We are (mainly) intelligent and literate cyclists - so we are more informed than most

The pro- helmet propaganda and press coverage mean that the public perception is different from ours and cycling being dangerous is the belief.

Take the recent example where parents were threatened with being reported to Social Services for the crime of allowing their children to cycle to school!

The reasoning was that the school felt it was unsafe and that by allowing the children to do so they were failing in their duty of care as parents!

 

[Red Light]

Have they got figures on pedestrians falling, and cyclists falling on their own, without colliding with each other?

The figures are in RRCGB 2010 and are about 30,000 pedestrians a year are seriously injured falling in the street and something like a couple of thousand cyclists total are seriously injured in the street, most of them from being hit by motor vehicles.

 

[col]

The figures are in RRCGB 2010 and are about 30,000 pedestrians a year are seriously injured falling in the street and something like a couple of thousand cyclists total are seriously injured in the street, most of them from being hit by motor vehicles.

So none for just falling ?

 

[col]

Do you regard walking about the place as dangerous?

What places do you mean?

 

[col]

Possibly, but this is also the reason why helmets would be more effective for pedestrians due to the lower impact speed. Helmets are only tested at low speeds and at higher speeds become ineffective.

This is partially due to the fact that at a higher speed the compression of the foam is quicker and the deceleration is more rapid. This means that the helmet may absorb the impact, but this is ineffective in preventing movement within the skull. At some point (which will vary) wearing a helmet or not becomes irrelevant to the brain injury.

But back to the original question, the studies tend to look at a cohort, usually hospital admissions and then classify the injury.

For this reason all pedestrians / cyclists / motorists are included whether they were drunk or sober, fast, slow, sensible or stupid.

So no good for comparing cyclists to walkers when saying why dont walkers wear helmets too?

 

[caimg]

For this reason all pedestrians / cyclists / motorists are included whether they were drunk or sober, fast, slow, sensible or stupid.

...and for this reason, nobody knows what the stats are for a pedestrian and cyclist matching my description, say? I wonder how many fit, healthy, able-bodied, aware 25 year old pedestrians are in that study. I'm willing to bet that it's not so black and white if we were able to look at detailed demographics of those peds and cyclists. You're far more likely to find a wide spread of at-risk peds than at-risk cyclists (based on their age/physical ability/disabilities etc), no?

If there are detailed insights into these numbers I'd be interested in seeing them to help add to the debate, otherwise it just seems that there are some hardcore people on this forum that are continuously spewing ambiguous statistics for god knows what reason.

 

[col]

Any and all of the places you go.

How do you know the places I go?

 

[caimg]

Before you say anything - I'm aware that a study is fair by plucking randoms of certain groups - but it would answer the question I've had rammed down my throat for 11 pages of why I wear a helmet whilst cycling and not walking if statistically, healthy, smart, sober, young, non-drug taking able-bodied mid-twenties men are safer walking down the road than those stats suggest.

 

[caimg]

That might be a slightly restrictive population for meaningful figures.

And so could it be accepted that if in these studies, there were a large amount of drunken, old, disabled or partially blind people, that actually maybe - just maybe - I might have more of a reason to wear a helmet whilst cycling than walking?