Skiing vs cycling

[Linford]

Is it groundhog night on BBC4?

MAYBE BUT NO MORE THAN OTHER SIMILARLY RISKY FORMS OF LOCOMOTION.

And all of them have devices to mitigate when on the highway...with the exception of horseriders over the age of 14

 

[Linford]

He's simply avoiding the obvious answer again.... as demonstrated here:



Lets actually try and answer a question this time?

You have clearly stated that there are some motorcycle activities where you do not wear a helmet .... is this actually the case?

When moving the motorcycle 20ft at walking pace around a car park, I always make sure I use a thudguard when the lid isn't on.

 

[Linford]

Do they? What is that for pedestrians?

We have already done that. You weren't paying attention...go back a couple of pages and read it again.

 

[Linford]

Sorry, I can only read stuff that is there, not the imaginings of your brane.

If you choose to turn a blind eye, then I can't help you...sorry !

 

[Linford]

Once again, cyclists, pedestrians, car occupants all acquire head injuries in the normal run of events. Why promote protection for one group but not the others?

You forgot motorcyclists who are required by law to wear crash helmets, as well as horseriders under the age of 14...car drivers already have to wear seat belts by law, have collapsible steering columns, be surrounded by air bags side impact bars and crumple zones (oh, and not drink and drive either with sufficient deterrents which are rigourously applied unlike cyclists)...pedestrians don't need protection by and large when they have their eyes open and are not infirm...Pedestrians are not by law required to mix it up in urban area's with motor vehicles when on the carriageways which are looking to impose punishment passes either....did I recall my episode yesterday when a supposed CTC member tried to put me on the pavement...or were all you found of value was the fact I had perched my lid on for the posed pic and not bothering to do the strap up properly as I was stood still on a dead end road in the arse end of nowhere....good to see you getting the priorities right

 

[Linford]

And once again you ignore the simple fact that pedestrians end up in A&E with head injuries for reasons that are nothing to do with mixing it with traffic or infirmity.

No, they also get hammered and fall over their feet...Do you feel it sensible to wear head protection whilst cycling drunk ?

 

[Linford]

I don't cycle drunk.

It was a metaphorical question

 

[Linford]

Introduced by you as yet another deviation. Alcohol is not a necessary alternative to infirmity for pedestrians to acquire head injuries. Healthy, fit, unimpaired people manage it without being hit by cars. Are you ever going to meet the question head on?

Alcohol is a factor in a 1/3rd of pedestrian injuries/fatalities in road accidents...give or take a few percent...this seems consistent the world over.
It is not a deviation. It is a significant factor which you cannot ignore.

Recent research suggests a link between pedestrian casualties and the consumption of alcohol. The Scottish Office commissioned research to investigate the relationship between pedestrian casualties and alcohol consumption in Scotland. The study involved the collection of data by hospital staff on all road accident casualties attending Accident and Emergency departments in 5 large Scottish hospitals in 1996/97. In total 1,115 casualty records were collected of which 145 were pedestrian casualties.
Main Findings

• Of all road traffic casualties, 9% had evidence of alcohol consumption. This rises markedly amongst pedestrians where nearly a third (31%) of all pedestrian casualties had consumed alcohol.
• When drink is a factor in a pedestrian accident, male pedestrians are more likely to be involved than female pedestrians, with 87% of pedestrian casualties who have consumed alcohol being male.
• Whilst there is a greater likelihood of being involved in an accident as a pedestrian if under 30, alcohol does not appear to be a contributing factor.
• Pedestrians in the 40-49 age group show an increased risk of being involved in an accident if alcohol is involved.
• Of all casualties, there was a greater likelihood of being admitted to hospital if alcohol was involved.
• A greater level of admissions to hospitals was evident amongst pedestrians who had been drinking, being more than twice as likely to be admitted than those who had not been drinking.
• Where alcohol was a factor, pedestrian casualties were more likely in the evening and early hours of the morning with Saturdays being a peak time for alcohol related casualties.
• http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/1998/12/3acc031b-dfcf-4a7c-9e11-89a0cc7528ae

 

[Fab Foodie]

Some of us feel it is important that others here understand that cycling is not risk free and it will cease to be a great pastime/mode for them if they get seriously injured doing it...because they took the advice of people spouting with their own agenda and ditched the lid.

Gordon Bennet Linford....
Cycling is not risk free, nobody said it was. What has been stated, nay demonstrated is that it's very low risk, equivalent say to walking. Can we agree that's the case? Nobody tells us we should wear a helmet for walking do they, but they do for cycling. Why do they do that? If we agree the risk is the same, then why do you wear a helmet for one activity and not the other that's equally risky?

Then ....

Add into the mix the fact that cycle helmets have limited efficacy .....So, you end up in a position of advocating wearing something that does very little to protect you when doing an activity that has a very very low risk of causing you harm but has the effect of making others think it's more dangerous than it really is. Thanks.

(Oh and that's just the short version).

 

[Linford]

I am taking that as a no then. You appear intent on deviating from the issue at every opportunity rather than provide a simple straight answer to a simple question.

Here is the numbers you are looking for...from the Netherlands

More cyclists on average died in single vehicle accidents than pedestrians who died from falls which didn't involve either cyclists or vehicles. Note how the numbers rise significantly when other vehicles are involved where cyclists are concerned when comparing numbers.

SOURCE

 

[Linford]

I see nothing much has changed in here while I've been away - surprise surprise. I wonder how long this farce will be allowed to continue?

Nothing to add to the debate ?...toodle pip then

 

[mcshroom]

Nothing to add to the debate ?...toodle pip then

You appear to still be here Linf.

 

[Linford]

I am not looking for any numbers, just an answer to a simple question which FF has summarised for you clearly just up there.

Ah, you aren't looking for any numbers now I've provided ones which blow your 'cycling and walking are no more risky than each other' assertion totally out of the water...and with numbers sourced from the mecca of cycling no less

 

[mcshroom]

But you haven't, despite your desperation to believe that you have.

 

[Linford]

You are not capable of debate Linford. That's why you got removed from the debating forum.

You mean so you could pick on someone else who had a different opinion than your clique as you have been ?
They walked away because they didn't like the way you behaved, so you followed me here instead as you just couldn't help yourself. I've got very little to say to you as all you do is troll..now why not find someone else to hassle...how many different ways do you need to be asked ?