[Closed] Death. It's all our fault, apparently.

That could be an innocent enough comment. More cyclists = more deaths, simple maths.

so you think if more people travel by bicyle the number of injuries on bicycles wont increase?

I assume if we all start taking heroin this wont affect the death due to heroin figure?

The second half of his quote [ the bit you strangely omitted] would seem to be an important caveat to his view that the cyclist is the blame

BBC transport correspondent Richard Westcott said the cycling figures might be due to more people travelling by bicycle, mainly in London.

It would lead to further calls for road designers to focus more on cycling safety, our correspondent added.

That could be an innocent enough comment. More cyclists = more deaths, simple maths.

This. Durrr. 1 accident per 100 rides, double the riders = double the accidents!

Or maybe its a trend like the mid-life motorcyclists - take up riding fast bikes in traffic having just passed their test. London might be full of bike riders of not competent to be safe on the road on anything but a 3 speed Pashley.

RedTop Headline *C2W Scheme mathamatically proven to be responsible for increase death toll on London Streets*

Might help if everyone stopped believing the 'I'm safer without a helmet' stupidity.

I eagerly opened this, thinking Woppit was after a theological argument. How disappointing. 😐

Might help if everyone stopped believing the 'I'm safer without a helmet' stupidity.

Might help if people stated praying.

However, I've seen no evidence to support either claim. Have you?

Might help if everyone stopped believing the 'I'm safer without a helmet' stupidity

Trolltastic 🙄

As a percentage of the number of riders it's probably fallen. Every death on the road is one too many; and pretty much all of them are down to human error 🙁

However, I've seen no evidence to support either claim. Have you?

I seem to recall that was the same argument against seatbelt wearing.

Evidence you say? When I was a kid and came off my bike at speed I ended up in hospital with a fractured skull and when I did the same as an adult (similar crash) I ended up with a broken helmet and just a headache.

When I was a kid and came off my bike at speed I ended up in hospital with a fractured skull and when I did the same as an adult (similar crash) I ended up with a broken helmet and just a headache.

What is that evidence of, other than that you tend to land on your head when you fall of a bike?

If its the rise in cycling in London to blame then is it also Boris' fault too? 😈

Interesting that there is an opinion in the report that the wet weather may have reduced the number of cycling miles on the road. Meanwhile, here on STW it would appear that everyone was turning to tarmac miles [i]because[/i] of the wet weather.

What is that evidence of

That you are incapable of deducting a simple conclusion from available data?

Or perhaps unwilling to leap to unwarranted conclusions on the basis of useless, unreliable data?

When I was a kid and came off my bike at speed I ended up in hospital with a fractured skull and when I did the same as an adult (similar crash) I ended up with a broken helmet and just a headache.

The only times I've concussed myself I've been wearing a helmet. Never landed on my head when I haven't been wearing one. Clear evidence that it's safer not to wear a helmet. 😀

You used the data to leap to a conclusion about how they crash so a bit late to object to the data set 😉

Why not do a practical test?

Find a wall hit it hard with your head
Place a helmet on your head hit head against wall again

Repeat as many times as you need [ reversing the order as well] to see what conclusion you would like to draw on helmets and force absorption 😉

Personally I think they are unlikely to save lives but it is pretty obvious they reduce the injury you crash and fairly easy to prove

FWIW I am not pro compulsion

Find a wall hit it hard with your head
Place a helmet on your head hit head against wall again

Not wishing to pre-judge the resultant data [what, on STW?!?], it may be better to start the other way round.

edlong - Member

That you are incapable of deducting a simple conclusion from available data?

Or perhaps unwilling to leap to unwarranted conclusions on the basis of useless, unreliable data?

Useless and unreliable? - take that back Sir. Only my missus gets too call me useless and unreliable. 😡

AS IM 6 FOOT 3, i tend to bang my head on low hung branches, doorways, and train doors, so for me helmet compulsion is a good thing.

AND HELMET WEARING IS COMPULSORY ON MOST BUILDING AND ENGINERING SITES.

Are you saying taller people should wear helmets on trains? 😯

Every single time a have crashed my bike as an adult I was wearing helmet. Every single time I crashed as a child I was not wearing a helmet. None of the accidents resulted in my death or disablement therefore all children should be compelled to wear helmets and adults banned in order to prevent accidents rather than lazily mitigate the results...
I am unequivocal living proof...

Wearing a skid lid is no guarantee of survival, but it helps even if only a little.

interestingly - to bring us vaguely back on topic and avoid another pointless helmet debate - casualty rates (per number of cyclists) should FALL when there are more cyclists on the road: http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaign/safety-in-numbers

i thought this was going to be about listening to mp3 players too loud 😕

AS IM 6 FOOT 3, i tend to bang my head on low hung branches, doorways, and train doors, so for me helmet compulsion is a good thing.

It'll just get worse as you suddenly have another inch and a half added to your lankiness.

avoid another pointless helmet debate

Right, you along with Bearnecessities are off my crimbo card list

casualty rates (per number of cyclists) should FALL when there are more cyclists on the road:

1000 cyclist and 10 accident per thousand = 10 accident
3000 cyclist and 4 accidents per thousand + 12 accidents

same thing with miles cycled if that increases and the rate of accident per mile increases.
I assume this is is the same for an individual as the more times you cycle the more likely it is that you crash cycling [statistically]

project - Member
AS IM 6 FOOT 3, i tend to bang my head on low hung branches, doorways, and train doors, so for me helmet compulsion is a good thing.

I don't think you are helping in the pointless helmet debate (wot I started), I'm 6'3" and this doesn't happen to me - you are just clumsy. An accident in motion. Have you considered becoming a recluse? My only advice is to check your life insurance is upto date.

I was pointing out by wearing a helmet due to my height i hit things quite often with a helmet on or off.

If you want to wear a helmet do so if you dont, dont wear one.

so easy.

What a pointless post and equally pointless replies.

Damn, where's TJ when you need him?

project - Member
AS IM 6 FOOT 3, i tend to bang my head on low hung branches, doorways, and train doors, so for me helmet compulsion is a good thing.

That would suggest that your feakish overly tall frame is not suited to the current environment and that natural selection will render you extinct as we normal sized people can move around free of cranial damage in the world as it exists today. Clever chap this Darwin fella. 😀

I quite agree and nods head.

Find a wall hit it hard with your head
Place a helmet on your head hit head against wall again
Repeat as many times as you need [ reversing the order as well] to see what conclusion you would like to draw on helmets and force absorption

This gets rolled out every Great Helmet Debate.

Yes, it is true that if you go around deliberately head-butting walls then you should probably wear a helmet. You won't die without it mind you, but you'll save yourself a headache.

Trouble is that self-congratulatory thought-experiment doesn't actually address ANY of the arguments that helmet-agnostics put forward, such as: greater danger due to risk compensation (by cyclist and motorists); ineffective in a REAL motor crash; possible increase in rotational injuries; reduced numbers cycling; victim-blaming; etc

Personally I think they are unlikely to save lives but it is pretty obvious they reduce the injury you crash and fairly easy to prove

Though actually it isn't, as several conflicting studies have shown.

Even good old Ben Goldacre said:
"“The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits – which seem too modest to capture.."
http://road.cc/content/news/85306-top-scientists-cycle-helmets-debate-will-go-and-and

You won't die without it mind you, but you'll save yourself a headache

greater danger due to risk compensation (by cyclist and motorists)

; ineffective in a REAL motor crash;

possible increase in rotational injuries;

reduced numbers cycling;

victim-blaming; etc

That is just idiotic whether helmeted or not IMHO

 

I don't wear a helmet for the daily commute - it gives me terrible "helmet hair" and I can't walk around all day looking like that... 😯 🙂

Eventually, death is 100% fatal.

its impossible for me to get 'helmet hair' for two reasons:
1, i dont wear a helmet
2, i dont have hair