This is quite interesting. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/pdf/pedestrians.pdf
It was a straight question, thanks for the straight answer.Something tells me that, if you were genuinely interested, you'd have done some digging yourself. As you have not, I treat your suggestion that health professionals can not distinguish between a sports injury and a pedestrian injury with (imho - a fairly healthy degree of) ridicule.
But ... I'm open to persuasion. Show me evidence that health professionals treat and record injury on a rugby field as a "pedestrian" injury, and I will happily review my judgement of your contribution.
I don't think I am the authority on questions involving peds, and never claimed to be.
I don't know the answers to those questions off the top of my head (haha!), but I'll see if I can find out.
This is quite interesting. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/pdf/pedestrians.pdf
I really should not need to dig. I thought you'd have this sort of info at your fingertips.
There are some interesting points in there. Exposure time being one that caught my eye. As far as I understand it the comparison between Peds and cyclists has been made in these threads in kilometres travelled. I have pointed out before the time factor , unfortunately other than gaz nobody could grasp the difference including the usual suspects on this thread. Now I wonder why that could be ? Could it be that it would actualy indicate that cycling would be potentialy more hazardous than travelling by foot ?
There is only one discipline in either activity that I partake in where there is a cutoff that warrants the use of a helmet. Car use and accident rate are reffered to in the link ben provided above. You really need to get over this car thing Adrian not all head injurys are caused by cars certainly not in peds.1810169 said:So, assuming that cycling is more hazardous than walking, how do you quantify the cut offs that say whether or not the activity warrants helmet wearing? Where do you fit car use in your scale?
Or could it be that you haven't thought fully about the actual data in the report. Can you see the vital bit of information you missed?
1810204 said:Head injuries suffered by car occupants. Are they sufficiently numerous and/or severe to justify helmet wearing?
y1810215 said:I'm not answering questions.
How unlike you to answer a question with another question Go on I'm all ears. Meanwhile you of all people should have the answer to my original questions
You've already got the two parts of the puzzle - all you need to do is join them together to get the answer that you are missing.
Yes, I could answer your questions within the confines of what data is available, but I'm waiting to see how much you actually know yourself first.
Oh its a game ! Silly me. If I knew I wouldn't be asking would I ?
The thing is for people to make an informed descision they need to be informed of the facts, thats all the facts, not just the ones you choose to reveal.