A simple question: Do you wear a helmet?

[ufkacbln]

I never understand why cyclists bring pedestriants into the helmet debate.
They have for many a year had a safe ,and seperate route to take away from fast moving cars.
We are the ones usually sandwiched between the two.
To use the pedestrian (helmet) argument kind of makes me think you have lost the debate

Take the above example of refusing a head injured cyclist an ambulance.

Lets make it simple..... two people on the same shared use cycle path,

One is a cyclist who slips on some wet leaves and inures their head - they are negligent because they did not wear a helmet and hence are not entitled to an ambulance

The other is a pedestrian who slips on the same leaves and injures their head..... despite the same equally preventable head injury, this individual is not negligent , and entitled to an ambulance

Spot the hypocrisy?

That is the reason - it shows how weak the pro-helmet argument is.

 

[Licramite]

That's because you're an ignorant and ill-informed knob who doesn't understand risk - and we aren't. Simples!

I was only saying I regard cycling as potentially dangerous, - from the replys others don,t regard it as dangerous - not that it is dangerous or isn,t dangerous - and you haven,t seen me cycling if you did you might think its dangerous too !

 

[mrandmrspoves]

I have to say that despite Licramite simply not getting it.....he is a persistent little blighter and has not been put off by some of the trite and slightly unpleasant comments made. He also has a good sense of humour and is quite self deprecating.....so stop giving the poor fella a hard time.....I like the chap!

 

[Licramite]

You did liken it to properly dangerous activities like parachuting and rock climbing though. This is just bollocks.

statiscly they are really safe. - how many people died this year parachuting or rock climbing in this country - practically nill (as my old instructor used to say - when you hit the ground - your not parachuting then are you)
But they are actually - really safe , unless your a complete numpty - allot safer than cycling through rush hour traffic. -
you arn,t surrounded by homicidal lunatics when parachuting (well you are if your jumping with 2para but thats different) or half way up a mountain.

they are as safe as you can make them, so you take what precautions you can. but I don,t regard them as worse than cycling in traffic

 

[srw]

You don't regard them is the nub of the problem here. This is you subscribing to a myth

The nub of the problem is that licramite doesn't understand the concept of exposure-adjusted statistics.

 

[defy-one]

Take the above example of refusing a head injured cyclist an ambulance.

Lets make it simple..... two people on the same shared use cycle path,

One is a cyclist who slips on some wet leaves and inures their head - they are negligent because they did not wear a helmet and hence are not entitled to an ambulance

The other is a pedestrian who slips on the same leaves and injures their head..... despite the same equally preventable head injury, this individual is not negligent , and entitled to an ambulance

Spot the hypocrisy?

That is the reason - it shows how weak the pro-helmet argument is.

I understand the point your making,but where does it say one sort of injury will be treated and another will not? Surely this is scare mongering?
As for pedestrian injuries .... How many of them are when cars have mounted the pavement, and how many are a result of people trying to use the road,when a vehicle is also in that space?
Like it or not - the majority of our road system is layed out with the motor vehicle in mind.

 

[Dan B]

Like it or not - the majority of our road system is layed out with the motor vehicle in mind.

I rather suspect that the majority of our road system was laid out long before the motor vehicle was in anyone's mind, and the chief difference since those days has been the width of the carriageways and the quality of the surfacing

Motorways excepted, of course, but since neither cyclists or pedestrians are usually permitted on them, they're not really relevant to this point

 

[totallyfixed]

Lycramite, how long have you been an adult fully fledged paid up cyclist? [BTW got to agree with you ref 2 para, as well as thinking they are gods own bloody gift and legends in their own minds]

 

[ufkacbln]

I understand the point your making,but where does it say one sort of injury will be treated and another will not? Surely this is scare mongering?
As for pedestrian injuries .... How many of them are when cars have mounted the pavement, and how many are a result of people trying to use the road,when a vehicle is also in that space?
Like it or not - the majority of our road system is layed out with the motor vehicle in mind.

Previous posts have stated that refusing un-helmeted cyclists treatment would be acceptable. The question is simple .. should un-helmeted pedestrians also be refused treatment?

You will note the lack of an answer

 

[smutchin]

As for pedestrian injuries .... How many of them are when cars have mounted the pavement, and how many are a result of people trying to use the road,when a vehicle is also in that space?

Ok, leaving aside the fact that a number* of pedestrians are killed every year by motor vehicles on the supposedly safe refuge of the footpath, what do you propose as a solution to the problem of pedestrians who are killed by motor vehicles in the carriageway? Should pedestrians not be allowed to cross the road unless they're wearing a helmet?

d.

*I don't have the stats but it's certainly more than the number of pedestrians who are killed by cyclists, which is worth bearing in mind next time anyone complains about pavement cyclists.

 

[smutchin]

Key fact: cyclists and cycling are not the problem.

 

[StuartG]

Key fact: cyclists and cycling are not the problem.

A significant section of this country think they are. That is the problem.

 

[defy-one]

Ok, leaving aside the fact that a number* of pedestrians are killed every year by motor vehicles on the supposedly safe refuge of the footpath, what do you propose as a solution to the problem of pedestrians who are killed by motor vehicles in the carriageway? Should pedestrians not be allowed to cross the road unless they're wearing a helmet?

d.

*I don't have the stats but it's certainly more than the number of pedestrians who are killed by cyclists, which is worth bearing in mind next time anyone complains about pavement cyclists.

There will never be a complete solution to road deaths,all we can do is educate drivers,cyclist and pedestrians on the safest practices we have right now.
Phones and ipods are the biggest killers. All users are too busy looking at them,instead of our roads and pavements

 

[smutchin]

Phones and ipods are the biggest killers.

FFS. Utter balderdash. And you know it.

d.

 

[Licramite]

well if there was a pedestrian down with a head injury and a cyclist without helmet with head injury next to him I know which I would treat first.