Pedestrians are at greater risk of head injury PER TIME SPENT DOING THAT ACTIVITY

My walk to work takes me about 40 minutes and I can ride there in 15. Nobody has ever suggested that I wear a helmet for walking to work.

IIRC, cycling is twice as dangerous per km as driving. I ride 3 miles to work and share an office with two guys who drive 7.5 and 15.5 miles to work. They’re both more likely than I am to be killed on their way to work.

Pedestrians are at greater risk of head injury PER TIME SPENT DOING THAT ACTIVITY (capitals used for the hard of understanding). It is you that fails to understand the statistics.

My point about statistics exactly. It doesn’t matter if it’s by km walk or time spend walking. The massive number of pedestrians is going to make comparison irrelevant.

My point about statistics exactly. It doesn’t matter if it’s by km walk or time spend walking. The massive number of pedestrians is going to make comparison irrelevant.

I think you might need to read up on your stats juan.

most off the people have no idea how statistics works.

So good of you to provide the proof for that statement, Juan 😆

Well you lot really makes me laugh
I’ll give you a clear example.
Let say there is 1000 207 stolen every year in britain.
Let say there is 20 porshe cayenne stolen every year in britain.

which one got the most probability of getting stolen?

Is it on a conveyor belt?

just answer the question mike…
now consider there is 10 000 207 per year in britain and 60 porshe cayenne.
Would you compare the probability of having one stolen with respect to the other then?

Oh Dear! Make it stop!

If you workout the probability per car-minute…

Just for Juan, I’d like to requote the bit of that government report that I quoted earlier:

The way in which the debate has been conducted is unhelpful to those wishing to make a balanced judgement on the issue.

See mike my point you cant just compare it.

EDIT D’ooh didn’t see your last post on that I agree.

Which bit of “Pedestrians are at greater risk of head injury PER TIME SPENT DOING THAT ACTIVITY” don’t you understand, juan?

See mike my point you cant just compare it.

You really can. Why do you think the casualty rates are given per minute or per km, rather than using the absolute figures? So that a comparison can be made, perhaps?

(BTW. Unless car thieves have really bad taste and/or small penises, they’d not nick a Cayenne.)

Oh for heaven’s sake juan, you’re completely out of your tree on this one. 🙂

207 – 10,000, of which 1,000 stolen.

Cayenne – 60, of which 20 stolen.

In a given year, 10% of 207s stolen. 33% of Cayennes stolen. The probability of a given stolen car being a Cayenne is 1 in 51 or thereabouts.

However, more 207s are stolen than are Cayennes, by a very long way.

more peugeots are stolen, but the porsche is more likely to be stolen.

what’s your point?

The probability of a given stolen car being a Cayenne is 1 in 51 or thereabouts.

See above 🙂

more peugeots are stolen, but the porsche is more likely to be stolen

Whereas with the cyclist/pedestrian issue:

more pedestrians are killed and a pedestrian is more likely to be killed.

Indeed. 🙂

Aracer once again it doesn’t matter as the number will be hugely different. Even if ti’s per time spend on your bike. It actually biased it more as you spend more time on your feet then on your bike. It’s like comparing the injuries per kms doesn’t make any sense either. But I am not going to keep on fighting about that…

Juan – you just plain fail to understand! It has nothing to do with the number of people doing each activity, only per amount of time spent. If you can’t get it from that explanation i think there is little hope of you ever being able to grasp it.

One last try (!). Say only 1000 people cycle but one million walk (for example). To compare you only look at head injuries per hour (or any other unit of time) per individual. So total number of injuries isn’t discussed, only the number per hour (well, million hours would get a more sensible number).

it doesn’t matter as the number will be hugely different.

The number of what? You really seem to be having a comprehension problem here.

Tell you what, does this help: Les piétons avez un plus grand risque de blessure à la tête PAR TEMPS PASSÉ FAISANT CETTE ACTIVITÉ

juan… if you think the per time or per km statistics are fundamently wrong, how exactly would you state the figures so that you could compare them?

I really would be interested to see a comparison of the injury risks involved in skiing and cycling, on whatever basis anyone has figures. Purely from observation of my colleagues, skiing appears to be a very dangerous sport. 🙂

There is now a considerable amount of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets have been found to be effective at reducing head, brain and upper facial injury in bicyclists. Such health gains are apparent for all ages, though particularly for child populations

From the Dept of transport report
Do as you wish it is your head and your own risk of internal damage.

Do as you wish

The problem is if we’re not allowed to do as we wish. Pro-helmet, vehemently anti-compulsion.

It’s also not about individuals, but about the whole of society.

errr…..

No Helmet on a bike, board, car, walking, = head injury = death = natural selection.

For one extra death, there’s one less drain on resources/healthcare/roads.

There’s too many of us anyway, the trails are crowded, the roads are crowded.

Anyone who thinks people should not have the choice is a nanny state numpty.

I hate extremists…. they should all hang.

Now, i’m taking shelter behind this pile of broken helmets i’ve accumulated.

Just read this page, it sums up the argument quite nicely..

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/bicyclehelmetsreviewofeffect4726?page=13#a1058

Section 9: Conclusions
What relevance does the evidence reviewed have for bicycle helmet promotion in Britain?

Unwin (1996), when considering the context of the British legislative system, has put forward four criteria which must be met before bicycle helmet wearing is enforced. These criteria are:

(1) There must be a high level of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets are effective in reducing the rate of head injury to bicyclists.

(2) The benefits to society and others of mandatory bicycle helmets must be convincingly demonstrated, mandatory bicycle helmets cannot be justified simply to protect individual adult bicyclists.

(3) There must be widespread agreement, ideally by a large majority, that the potential benefits of compulsory bicycle helmets outweigh the infringement of personal liberty and other disbenefits.

(4) There must be good evidence to suggest that compulsory helmet wearing would not make the public health benefits of increased levels of bicycling significantly harder to obtain.

Simple test

Put a helmet on

Get a mate to hit you on the head with a hammer

Take the helmet off

Get a mate to hit you on the head with a hammer

What one do you prefer?

superb argument BB

ok… here goes.

OUCH

I can confirm that it hurts a bit even with a helmet on.

I’ll now try without a helmet.
ready….

How about this Bob? Tell your mate not to hit you with a hammer. Does it matter whether you’re wearing a helmet if he isn’t hitting you with the hammer?

The debating style of a four-year-old is a wonderful thing. 😉

I see your point, BB. Next time I go out hammer fighting I’ll make sure I wear a helmet.

The debating style of a four-year-old is a wonderful thing.

I thought I’d bring it down to your level 😉

So, what if it is shown, as some studies appear to suggest, that for some accidents a helmet would have made an injury worse, would people still be so vehmently pro-compulsion?

…
f*eck
………
I’m now feeling very dizzy, and there’s claret everywhere.
The ambulance is just out the front, so i’ll be off.
Thanks for some quality debating, and practical tests everyone.

mikey74 – Member

I was being sarcastic! 🙄

To come back to an earlier point

I always wear a helmet whilst cycling as you are more at the mercy of others (cars etc) than i feel when i’m snowboarding.

On the contrary, I reckon a helmet is far more useful snowboarding – at least if you’re doing the sort of learning how to jump thing where I’ve bashed my head really hard when catching an edge. Of course I wasn’t wearing a helmet, but they were far from commonplace back then and I hadn’t even thought of the idea. If I went again now I’d certainly wear one.

Aye, debates on five live always consist solely of helmets. What were they talking about?

I went skiing for the first time this year and wore a helmet because I thought it would be safer.
Seeing almost every other skiier and boarder not wearing one reminded me of the good old days of mountain biking when almost no-one wore one.
Time to buy shares in skiing helmet companies I think.