metro article on helmets

[Red Light]

Why should I ? I'm not supplying the statements, and if by rubbishing it you mean asking uncomfortable questions. Well thats the nature of the beast, when you start making sweeping statements.

No you are asking others to supply them so you can rubbish them. So why not go out and find answers yourself? Then you can be satisfied there are no uncomfortable questions that need to be asked and they will contain no sweeping statements. Is it that you are unable to supply the answers yourself or are you just too lazy and want someone else to spoon feed you?

Have you worked out the missing bit from earlier yet?

 

[ufkacbln]

My position is simple...... informed choice as opposed to unfounded blind faith

 

[Red Light]

My position is simple...... informed choice as opposed to unfounded blind faith

You realise that makes you a raving anti-helmet loony don't you?

 

[ufkacbln]

How complx an answer do you want?

The common figures are derived from the WHO International Classification of Diseases. This classifies a whole range of identifiers.

Simply pedestrians are classified along with the type of accident in the identifiers

2012 ICD-10-CM Code V09.09

Pedestrian injured in nontraffic accident involving other motor vehicles

Applicable To Pedestrian injured in nontraffic accident by special vehicle

2012 ICD-10-CM Code V00.02XA

Pedestrian on foot injured in collision with skateboarder, initial encounter

Abbreviated Form Pedestrian on foot injured in collision w skateboarder, init

Sports injuries would not be included as they have a separate category, so searching pedestrian injuries would exclude sports, again for example:

2012 ICD-10-CM Code W18.01XD

Striking against sports equipment with subsequent fall, subsequent encounter

Abbreviated Form Striking against sports equipment w subsequent fall, subs

2012 ICD-10-CM Code W21.89XA

Striking against or struck by other sports equipment, initial encounter

Abbreviated Form Striking against or struck by oth sports equipment, init

2012 ICD-10-CM Code W21.89XD

Striking against or struck by other sports equipment, subsequent encounter

Abbreviated Form Striking against or struck by oth sports equipment, subs

From there it is down to the data requested.

 

[ufkacbln]

.. I should have said that it gets more complex still

If you search all pedestrians on foot impacting with skateboarders you then have to classify what is a head injury:

Again a quick sample of classifications:

2012 ICD-10-CM Code S09.90

Unspecified injury of head

Applicable To Head injury NOS Type 1 Excludes brain injury NOS (S06.9-) head injury NOS with loss of consciousness (S06.9-) intracranial injury NOS (S06.9-) Injury - see also specified injury type T14.90 brow S09.90 forehead S09.90 gum S09.90 head S09.90 mastoid region S09.90 occipital(region) (scalp) S09.90 parietal(region

2012 ICD-10-CM Code S00

Superficial injury of head

Type 1 Excludes diffuse cerebral contusion (S06.2-) focal cerebral contusion (S06.3-) injury of eye and orbit (S05.-) open wound of head (S01.-)

2012 ICD-10-CM Code S00.80

Unspecified superficial injury of other part of head

Injury - see also specified injury type T14.90 superficial NEC T14.8 head S00.90 specified site NEC S00.80

 

[Red Light]

How complx an answer do you want?

No answer can be complex enough to answer LD's questions. There will always be some other hypothetical sub-group of the population* that renders the overall statistics invalid in his mind. BTDTGTTS. Or the nonsense suggestion that pedestrians might include rock climbers (easy to check in a couple of minutes on Google but LD doesn't do evidence). Meanwhile he still hasn't spotted the massive flaw in his suggestion that the figures indicate cycling is more dangerous than walking (Post #646).

* already flagged in this sub-thread by LD in Post #635, this time as a group of vulnerable pedestrians who suffer repeat injuries.

 

[ufkacbln]

Rock Climbing has it's own section:

Y93.3Activities involving climbing, rappelling and jumping off

Y93.31Activity, mountain climbing, rock climbing and wall climbing

Y93.32Activity, rappelling

Y93.33Activity, BASE jumping

Y93.34Activity, bungee jumping

Y93.35Activity, hang gliding

Y93.39Activity, other involving climbing, rappelling and jumping off

 

[ufkacbln]

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.[/quote]

Of course this is an interesting point.

Should any cyclist undertaking "sport" be excluded from the figures as well?

If a cyclist is in a race, or training then they are partaking in a sporting activity in the same way as a pedestrian would be if they were playing rugby, football or dancing?

.. and yes there is a code for dancing!

2012 ICD-9-CM Code E005

Activities involving dancing and other rhythmic movement

2012 ICD-9-CM Code E005.9

[convert to ICD-10-CM]
Other activity involving dancing and other rhythmic movements

2012 ICD-10-CM Code Y93.4

Activities involving dancing and other rhythmic movement

Type 1 Excludes activity, martial arts (Y93.75)

2012 ICD-10-CM Code Y93.49

Activity, other involving dancing and other rhythmic movements

 

[ufkacbln]

Well since if any of us produce any facts that are not in favour of helmets, you will accuse us of being selective, I am simply suggesting that you produce them yourself so all those people get the unredacted facts that they need to make their informed decisions.

The question as to whether sports injuries should be included is interesting.

If we exclude rugby players and other sporting activities from the pedestrian injury cohort, then surely we should do the same for cyclists?

Mountain biking on a technical fast down hill is generally accepted as more "dangerous" than cycling to the shops, but is essentially a sporting activity. Equally racing or training is a sporting activity.

Excluding sporting activity would seriously reduce the number of head injuries reported in both pedestrians and cyclists, but to have a fair comparison, surely we need to exclude or include sporting activity in both cohorts?

 

[Red Light]

The question as to whether sports injuries should be included is interesting.

If we exclude rugby players and other sporting activities from the pedestrian injury cohort, then surely we should do the same for cyclists?

Mountain biking on a technical fast down hill is generally accepted as more "dangerous" than cycling to the shops, but is essentially a sporting activity. Equally racing or training is a sporting activity.

Excluding sporting activity would seriously reduce the number of head injuries reported in both pedestrians and cyclists, but to have a fair comparison, surely we need to exclude or include sporting activity in both cohorts?

Accidental sports injuries will be included in the injury figures if they are on the open public highway - e.g. the death of a time trialling cyclist will be in the official statistics. However there is very little rugby or rock climbing on the public highway AFAIK and the number of sporting deaths of e.g. cyclists is a percent or so of the total so not going to change the conclusions much.

But I assume we are talking about the safety of commuter cycling and therefore other sports like mountain biking, orienteering, rock climbing etc are outwith the remit of this discussion.

 

[lukesdad]

The question as to whether sports injuries should be included is interesting.

If we exclude rugby players and other sporting activities from the pedestrian injury cohort, then surely we should do the same for cyclists?

Mountain biking on a technical fast down hill is generally accepted as more "dangerous" than cycling to the shops, but is essentially a sporting activity. Equally racing or training is a sporting activity.

Excluding sporting activity would seriously reduce the number of head injuries reported in both pedestrians and cyclists, but to have a fair comparison, surely we need to exclude or include sporting activity in both cohorts?

Thank you Cunobelin. ( The rock climbing as I am sure you appreciate was a little humour hence the smiley).

 

[benb]

Can we take a step back and conclude that:
-If we measure by distance, cycling is (a bit) safer
-If we measure by time, walking is (a bit) safer

Therefore the risk must be broadly similar. That has always been my position: that the risk of injury on a bicycle is broadly similar to the risk as a pedestrian. So why are cyclists singled out for helmets?

There is no logically consistent argument for cycle helmets that does not apply equally to helmets for pedestrians.

 

[benb]

... This seems to be a reoccuring factor in most helmet debate threads, that is of course untill you start to ridicule some poor misfortunate who stumbles in, unaware of the ambush awaiting.

I think that's unfair. No-one, as far as I can see, has ridiculed a person unless they have shown themselves utterly incapable or unwilling to consider the evidence. I assume you're referring to TyT. We all gave him the benefit of the doubt, massively, and only resorted to ridicule when it was obvious that he wasn't interested in a proper discussion, but just wanted to troll us.

 

[lukesdad]

Can we take a step back and conclude that:
-If we measure by distance, cycling is (a bit) safer
-If we measure by time, walking is (a bit) safer

Therefore the risk must be broadly similar. That has always been my position: that the risk of injury on a bicycle is broadly similar to the risk as a pedestrian. So why are cyclists singled out for helmets?

There is no logically consistent argument for cycle helmets that does not apply equally to helmets for pedestrians.

Punishment ?

 

[lukesdad]

I think that's unfair. No-one, as far as I can see, has ridiculed a person unless they have shown themselves utterly incapable or unwilling to consider the evidence. I assume you're referring to TyT. We all gave him the benefit of the doubt, massively, and only resorted to ridicule when it was obvious that he wasn't interested in a proper discussion, but just wanted to troll us.

Ben if it was an isolated case I'd tend to agree, but if you take a look back through the history of these debates its not is it ?