Mick F wrote:Sounds lie a nice day out.
http://wiki.worldnakedbikeride.org/inde ... le=Bristol
I won't be wearing a helmet, but I might wear my shoes to clip in to my pedals.
Will it be on your Chopper? Please post some Selfies!
Al
"Don't forget to wear a helmet"
Re: "Don't forget to wear a helmet"
Will it be on your Chopper? Please post some Selfies!
Al
Reuse, recycle, thus do your bit to save the planet.... Get stuff at auctions, Dump, Charity Shops, Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, Car Boots. Choose an Old House, and a Banger ..... And cycle as often as you can......
Re: "Don't forget to wear a helmet"
The utility cyclist wrote:irc wrote:The utility cyclist wrote:Obviously ignoring the fact that more than 3000 children die from head trauma in the UK and only 6 children died on bikes in total, none of which were proven to be prevented by the wearing of (if they weren't already) cycle helmets.
Any source for that 3000 claim? Seems far too high to me. A google suggests an annual UK head trauma death rate for children of 5.3 per 100,000. Which would need a child population of around 60 million to get to 3000.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/210 ... t=Abstract
If I've misinterpreted the data please correct.
"In the UK, 50,000 children a year are admitted to hospital with head injuries (about 10% of all childhood hospital admissions) (Reed et al 2005), and mortality has risen from 6% in 1990-1993 to around 7% in 2002-2005 (Bayreuther et al 2009). Data from the TARN registry (2014) show that in children aged under 16 years with severe head injury mortality was recorded at 6.1% (n=952)."
https://rcni.com/emergency-nurse/eviden ... dren-59896
http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice ... s-figures/
The Office of National Statistics say that there were 195 accidental deaths of children or young people in England and Wales in 2014.
The single cause with the highest number of avoidable deaths in children and young people was accidental injuries (195 deaths; 14% of all avoidable deaths in this age group)
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... esofdeath/
Which seems about right to me. The accidental deaths of children are news stories and they are few and far between.
Re: "Don't forget to wear a helmet"
The problem is often that the references are obscure and sought for effect rather than accuracy.
Headway made some outlandish claims (now removed) which I challenged.
It turned out that it was an article in a Dental Magazine
From Headway's reply:
The actual paper stated that :
Headway simply quoted the figure for ALL cycle accidents and implied that they are all serious head injuries!
When you actually look at the figures in the paper 100,000 becomes - 150!
Of course 150 accidents in ALL cyclists will be even less if you just count children, and even less still if you look at non- vehicular accidents, probably as few as 20 or 30
As always, if f the "evidence" is so strong - why lie like this
What is even more ironic was that the paper was actually about facial injuries and how facial protection should be increased ( .... full face helmets?), and whether Dentists had a role in increasing this protection
Headway made some outlandish claims (now removed) which I challenged.
It turned out that it was an article in a Dental Magazine
From Headway's reply:
The statistic relating to the 90,000 on-road and 100,000 off-road
accidents comes from the following reference: Bicycle Helmets 1 - Does
the dental profession have a role in promoting their use? Chapman HR,
Curran ALM. British Dental Journal 2004;196(9):555-560.
The actual paper stated that :
EPIDEMIOLOGY OF HEAD INJURY AFTER BICYCLE ACCIDENTS
Across all ages in the UK it is estimated that there are 90,000 road-
related and 100,000 off-road cycling accidents per year. Of these
accidents, 100,000 (53%) involved children under 16, suggesting
that children are at greater risk of injury during cycling than adults.
In the UK, there were between 127 and 203 cycling fatalities
per year between 1996 and 2002, of which 70–80% were
caused by traumatic brain injury (TBI).The most recent Gov-
ernment death and serious injury figures2 are summarised in
Table 1. In children under 16, two-thirds of cycle-related deaths
occur in road traffic accidents (RTAs) with the remaining third
occurring whilst the child is cycling off road. The majority of
injuries, however, occur when children are cycling off road3–6
and, of these, traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the most likely to
have long-term consequences.
Headway simply quoted the figure for ALL cycle accidents and implied that they are all serious head injuries!
When you actually look at the figures in the paper 100,000 becomes - 150!
Of course 150 accidents in ALL cyclists will be even less if you just count children, and even less still if you look at non- vehicular accidents, probably as few as 20 or 30
As always, if f the "evidence" is so strong - why lie like this
What is even more ironic was that the paper was actually about facial injuries and how facial protection should be increased ( .... full face helmets?), and whether Dentists had a role in increasing this protection
Re: "Don't forget to wear a helmet"
Sold the Chopper (sadly).al_yrpal wrote:Mick F wrote:Sounds lie a nice day out.
http://wiki.worldnakedbikeride.org/inde ... le=Bristol
I won't be wearing a helmet, but I might wear my shoes to clip in to my pedals.
Will it be on your Chopper? Please post some Selfies!
Al
If I do the ride, it'll be on the Moulton .................... and if there are any selfies, they'll not be close-ups!
Mick F. Cornwall
Re: "Don't forget to wear a helmet"
Seems like it would be one event to wear a helmet, just to emphasize the idea of vulnerability...
Re: "Don't forget to wear a helmet"
Ruadh495 wrote:Seems like it would be one event to wear a helmet, just to emphasize the idea of vulnerability...
Or not to wear helmet and show that cycling is a perfectly normal activity?
Far ore in keeping with the ride's aims
Less is more. WNBR strips the complexities from modern transport to a simplified message of cycling. For the vast majority of most peoples' transport needs, cycles are the right vehicle for the right job. "You don't need a wheelbarrow to carry a pea".
The unabashed vehicle of the revolution. By cycling naked we declare our confidence in the beauty and individuality of our bodies and the bicycles's place as a catalyst for change in the future of sustainability, transport, community and recreation.
"Unless we change direction, we are likely to end up where we are heading."
Re: "Don't forget to wear a helmet"
If as the statistics say, it is just as dangerous walking as cycling (per mile travelled), why to cyclists take off their helmet when getting off the bike?
PS: My LED lamp was advertised as a walking light, suitable for using on a cycle.
PS: My LED lamp was advertised as a walking light, suitable for using on a cycle.
Re: "Don't forget to wear a helmet"
The common trick used by both Headway, BHIT and others is to quote large numbers and imply they are all cyclists
When Headway did this, I asked for the references, and reluctantly was led to a paper in a Dental Journal
When you actually look at the figures in the original paper this is a gross and deliberate misrepresentation of both the figures and the context
When this was queried the reply was that:
The actual paper stated that :
They have simply quoted the figure for ALL cycle accidents and implied that they are all serious head injuries!
When you actually look at the figures in the paper 100,000 becomes - 150!
Of course 150 accidents in ALL cyclists will be even less if you just count children, and even less still if you look at non- vehicular accidents, probably as few as 20 or 30
If the "evidence" is so strong - why lie like this
What is worrying is that they are still misrepresenting figures in the same way.
On the Current homepage they are still quoting total casualty numbers and implying that they are head injuries and will be prevented by helmets
When Headway did this, I asked for the references, and reluctantly was led to a paper in a Dental Journal
t is estimated that 90,000 on-road and 100,000 off-road cycling accidents occur every year in the UK, of which a disproportionate number involve children under 16.
Child cyclists in the UK deserve the same protection as those in countries such as USA, Canada and Australia which have introduced compulsory helmet laws for children.
Headway - the brain injury association along with other national charities and the British Medical Association, believe that cycle helmets can save lives and prevent lifelong disability.
When you actually look at the figures in the original paper this is a gross and deliberate misrepresentation of both the figures and the context
When this was queried the reply was that:
The statistic relating to the 90,000 on-road and 100,000 off-road
accidents comes from the following reference: Bicycle Helmets 1 - Does
the dental profession have a role in promoting their use? Chapman HR,
Curran ALM. British Dental Journal 2004;196(9):555-560.
The actual paper stated that :
EPIDEMIOLOGY OF HEAD INJURY AFTER BICYCLE ACCIDENTS
Across all ages in the UK it is estimated that there are 90,000 road-
related and 100,000 off-road cycling accidents per year. Of these
accidents, 100,000 (53%) involved children under 16, suggesting
that children are at greater risk of injury during cycling than adults.
In the UK, there were between 127 and 203 cycling fatalities
per year between 1996 and 2002, of which 70–80% were
caused by traumatic brain injury (TBI).The most recent Gov-
ernment death and serious injury figures2 are summarised in
Table 1. In children under 16, two-thirds of cycle-related deaths
occur in road traffic accidents (RTAs) with the remaining third
occurring whilst the child is cycling off road. The majority of
injuries, however, occur when children are cycling off road3–6
and, of these, traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the most likely to
have long-term consequences.
They have simply quoted the figure for ALL cycle accidents and implied that they are all serious head injuries!
When you actually look at the figures in the paper 100,000 becomes - 150!
Of course 150 accidents in ALL cyclists will be even less if you just count children, and even less still if you look at non- vehicular accidents, probably as few as 20 or 30
If the "evidence" is so strong - why lie like this
What is worrying is that they are still misrepresenting figures in the same way.
On the Current homepage they are still quoting total casualty numbers and implying that they are head injuries and will be prevented by helmets
Re: "Don't forget to wear a helmet"
Are 70-80% of cycling fatalities really caused by traumatic brain injury? That seems high.
Re: "Don't forget to wear a helmet"
If it is true and I dont see why not, it will include a very large fraction of people who sustained other injuries that would have killed them if the head injury hadnt.
Yma o Hyd
Re: "Don't forget to wear a helmet"
meic wrote:If it is true and I dont see why not, it will include a very large fraction of people who sustained other injuries that would have killed them if the head injury hadnt.
The other big issue is the hypocritical bias to cycle injuries. No-one looks at any other group with the same detail as there is no lobby with an agenda to shift the blame
Lets for one minute accept some of the biased and incorrect statistics that this is an issue and there is a real need to prevent these head injuries by helmet wearing
Then take a step back and visit reality
Cohort studies of hospital admissions show that cycling is a very low factor when it comes to head injuries
Thornhill et al studied ALL hospital admissions for head injuries and came uo with a set of figures confirmed by other studies
he most common causes of injury were falls (43%) or assaults (34%); alcohol was often involved (61%), and a quarter reported treatment for a previous head injury.
Then we have to ask the question why a charity is dedicating its efforts in a minority group and ignoring the groups at greater risk
The reality is that cycling related head injuries are a small and insignificant group when it comes to looking at head injuries.
Why are these charities and radio programmes not asking the simple question....
"Don't forget your helmet when you have a glass of wine"
A campaign that would prevent and lessen far more head injuries than the hypocritical, unevidenced and factually invalid fascination with cyclists
Re: "Don't forget to wear a helmet"
When I had "off" in 2008, I was badly hurt on my left thigh and my left arm. Mrs Mick F got me to the local hospital where they patched me up.
The nurse asked lots of questions as she was treating me, and input the info into the computer. One question she asked was, "Were you wearing a helmet?". I nearly bit her head off, but Mrs Mick F held me back and told me not to get into an argument. Yes, I was wearing a helmet, but my head got nowhere near the road and neither did my shoulders!
The Helmet Question shouldn't have been asked at all.
What concerns me, is that the data collected from me regarding my accident would have recorded that I was a helmet wearer, when it was a totally irrelevant and pointless fact.
The nurse asked lots of questions as she was treating me, and input the info into the computer. One question she asked was, "Were you wearing a helmet?". I nearly bit her head off, but Mrs Mick F held me back and told me not to get into an argument. Yes, I was wearing a helmet, but my head got nowhere near the road and neither did my shoulders!
The Helmet Question shouldn't have been asked at all.
What concerns me, is that the data collected from me regarding my accident would have recorded that I was a helmet wearer, when it was a totally irrelevant and pointless fact.
Mick F. Cornwall
Re: "Don't forget to wear a helmet"
when it was a totally irrelevant and pointless fact.
Possibly not totally.
If some number cruncher is trying to calculate how wearing a helmet correlates to having more or less accidents in general than a none wearer.
In order to cancel out that irritating anomaly thrown up by other number crunchers that helmets statistically did help to prevent injury to areas like arms and legs!
Yma o Hyd
Re: "Don't forget to wear a helmet"
Cunobelin wrote:meic wrote:If it is true and I dont see why not, it will include a very large fraction of people who sustained other injuries that would have killed them if the head injury hadnt.
The other big issue is the hypocritical bias to cycle injuries. No-one looks at any other group with the same detail as there is no lobby with an agenda to shift the blame
Lets for one minute accept some of the biased and incorrect statistics that this is an issue and there is a real need to prevent these head injuries by helmet wearing
Then take a step back and visit reality
Cohort studies of hospital admissions show that cycling is a very low factor when it comes to head injuries
Indeed - a few years ago I was given a huge file of hospital admissions data - Guy Chapman from uk.rec.cycling had obtained it from the NHS - and did some analysis on it. Of all head injuries in children under 16 that required hospital treatment, cycling was a factor in around 7% of cases. As you say, why are the helmeteers focussing their efforts on such a small minority of cases?
Re: "Don't forget to wear a helmet"
Some folk say that having an accident on a bike is more likely if you are wearing a helmet.meic wrote:when it was a totally irrelevant and pointless fact.
Possibly not totally.
If some number cruncher is trying to calculate how wearing a helmet correlates to having more or less accidents in general than a none wearer.
In order to cancel out that irritating anomaly thrown up by other number crunchers that helmets statistically did help to prevent injury to areas like arms and legs!
Could it be, that those folk, would put my accident down to the fact that I was wearing a helmet, and had I not been wearing a helmet, I wouldn't have had the accident in the first place?
The wearing of a helmet has no bearing whatsoever on hitting a pothole hidden by deep shade and a wet road. Had I banged my head, we could all have a good discussion about it ................ but I didn't.
Mick F. Cornwall