Cycling UK Forum

Bananaman wrote:

Kennedy showed that if all cyclists admitted to a particular group of hospitals had worn helmets the 14 lives would have been saved in 15 years.

However if this is aplied to pedeatrians then 174 lives would have been saved in the same time.

What exactly does this tell me, other than people tend to walk a lot more than cycle?

It tells you that there are more admissions - and that therefore more lives will be saved.

If there are 10 cyclists and 1 head injury, and 100 pedestrians and one head injury then you can say that the "Risk" of that accident happening is less.....

However if you look at the admissions you are looking at the number that have actually happened.

This is a solid statement - more lives would be saved with pedestrian helmets than with cycle helmets.

You have to be careful with "risk" as it will alter. For instance stairs feature strongly in pedestrian accidents but not in cyclist accidents (apart form one recent exception)

So if we looked at falls on stairs - the risk to pedestrians is far higher than for cyclists.

I work in an environment where we see the effects of what has happened - this is the real cost - if a helmet helps in cyclists it will help with pedestrians - if it saves more pedestrians then there is a rasonable argumentthat pedestrians should wear helmets.

As one "esteemed mathematician" pointed out - Cyclists kill more people per year than vehicles!

iaincullen wrote:The point is I don't like wearing any helmet. I think the risk of me having an accident where a cycle helmet would help is low enough I am prepared to take it.

Ditto. That's absolutely how I feel. In fact I came off my bike yesterday as it happens. First fall on the road for god knows how long. I jarred my wrists a little and one knee, but my head never went near the tarmac.

Tony S

Last time I had a nasty prang was just before I'd given up on helmets so I was wearing one. And I did hit my head... but taking it on the chin, the helmet did me no good whatsoever...

Not long after that I abandoned them, after almost a decade spent wearing one on every trip. No regrets. But I felt really exposed at first, really in danger. Time has come to show me that was just psychological. I didn't used to be sacred before I had one, and once I got used to it again I wasn't scared any more. It demonstrated to me that my primary safety was about how I rode, not what I wore. The literature tells me that if it goes wrong I'm not actually worse off, and I've read quite a lot of it in considerable detail.

Pete.

Most injuries seem to be shoulder related so why not insist on padded jerseys, the sort that American footballers wear. It would save the NHS a fortune.

Lawrie9 wrote:Most injuries seem to be shoulder related so why not insist on padded jerseys, the sort that American footballers wear. It would save the NHS a fortune.

I got knocked of my bike (it was a motorbike) at low speed by some idiot who changed lanes suddenly without looking.
Over three years later I still have problems with my shoulder, nothing worse than ligament injuries.

I'd suggest a jumpsuit, inflated in a similar way to an airbag with collision detectors built in. At the first sign of trouble it suddenly inflates and you become a large inflated starfish - protected on all sides.
Fill it with helium and you could float safely over the scene of the accident.

Cunobelin wrote:It tells you that there are more admissions - and that therefore more lives will be saved.

So the fact that more pedestrians are admitted to hospital than boaters, negates the need to wear life jackets? Or the fact that there are less skydivers admitted to hospital negates the need for a back up chute??

Or perhaps because cancer is a V. large killer, we shouldnt worry about safety at work?

Bananaman wrote:So the fact that more pedestrians are admitted to hospital than boaters, negates the need to wear life jackets?

Funny you should say that ... more people drown each year in cars that do from boats. Maybe lifejackets should be recommended for cars!

Bananaman, you're missing the point. Nobody is saying cyclists are immune to problems because other folk have them... but spin the perspective around. Pedestrians do not use helmets, even though they suffer from head injuries at least as much as cyclists. Pedestrians do not use helmets, even though sailors wear life jackets, and so on. Why don't they wear them, when they suffer so many head injuries? because the risk is low enough, and the faff is great enough, that it just isn't worth it. Exactly the same appleis to (non sportive, road) cycling.

There is no need to be more worried about head injuries on a bike than as a pedestrian. That is not to say nobody is ever injured. How much do you worry about head injury a s a pedestrian? Do you wear a helmet? given the risks are on the same order, the same thinking is in order on a bike. The reason it typically isn't, I would suggest, is not because cycling is more dangerous, but because it is incorrectly perceived to be more dangerous.

If you're worried about brain injury in relatively low risk environments then wear your helmet on the stairs. If you don't think that's worth it, then why not, and why is it worth it on the bike despite a similar risk level?

Pete.

Bananaman wrote:the fact that more pedestrians are admitted to hospital than boaters, negates the need to wear life jackets?
the fact that there are less skydivers admitted to hospital negates the need for a back up chute??

if one day when parachuting becomes a normal everyday activity that one might undertake on their way to t'chip oil, and saves a lot of fuel and pollution when compared to using a motor car - i might be tempted to agree with you.

in the mean time, anything that makes cycling a chore to prepare for rather than just jumping on and zipping off will discourage its participation.

incidentally, there are many people happily cruising around the canals at 4mph without life jackets.

hubgearfreak wrote:

Bananaman wrote:the fact that more pedestrians are admitted to hospital than boaters, negates the need to wear life jackets?
the fact that there are less skydivers admitted to hospital negates the need for a back up chute??

if one day when parachuting becomes a normal everyday activity that one might undertake on their way to t'chip oil, and saves a lot of fuel and pollution when compared to using a motor car - i might be tempted to agree with you.

in the mean time, anything that makes cycling a chore to prepare for rather than just jumping on and zipping off will discourage its participation.

incidentally, there are many people happily cruising around the canals at 4mph without life jackets.

Or helmets

cranky wrote:Or helmets

or sun cream. but not so many without a beer

I've hit my head loads of time while sailing.

Actually the lifejacket theory is a rather good one!

Given that less miles are "swum" than cycled, and that less time is spent in the water on cycles, the "exposure" is less.

Yet more people drown each year than suffer head injuries on cycles.

This would suggest even if "risk" is used as a measure there is more reason for compulsory life jackets than helmets!!!!!

Cunobelin wrote:This would suggest even if "risk" is used as a measure there is more reason for compulsory life jackets than helmets!!!!!

you're skating on thin ice there, old boy. thats no reason because people on canals can decide for themselves and for their own kids. to suggest anything else is the start of a slippery slope.

obviously on a slippery slope above thin ice, you may wish to have a helmet and lifejacket. and a box if you're being bowled at on a sticky wicket.

hubgearfreak wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:This would suggest even if "risk" is used as a measure there is more reason for compulsory life jackets than helmets!!!!!

you're skating on thin ice there, old boy. thats no reason because people on canals can decide for themselves and for their own kids. to suggest anything else is the start of a slippery slope.

obviously on a slippery slope above thin ice, you may wish to have a helmet and lifejacket. and a box if you're being bowled at on a sticky wicket.

Sir - are you sugestingthat I am out of my depth..........................................


















......and hence in need of a lifejacket?