Firstly your message has not displayed properly for me viz the bit I have seen until I have pressed the reply button finishes at .....requiring admission to a GDH. As you can see the URL you provided is not shown. (edit: OK so it does not display on my iPad but does on a PC)
I suggest you contact your local Apple store, I am also using an IPad without any of these issues!
In the event I had located the article anyway. Five hospitals in GLASGOW that city so renowned for sobriety!!
Or Newcastle, Edinburgh, Manchester, Exeter Portsmouth, Southampton or any other major city or town... entirely a red herring. Alcohol consumption is nor limited to Glasgow. Note the first line of the quotation. The findings are validated (and validate) similar findings in other studies. Nice try, but simply doesn't wash
More importantly you 'forgot' to mention it excludes under 14 year olds.
TWISTED!!!!
You really are desperate with that one!
I "forgot" nothing - in fact if you read the post I accented the word ALL in the first line... i also gave a reference for the paper!
Care to explain why the fourteen year old is important to you?
Both incidents occur across the full age range in the study and as I pointed out the great strength of Thornhiill's work is that it does include all head injuries in these groups.
The intent of the post and paper is absolutely clear ALL head injuries are included and 61% of them were alcohol related - simples. Cyclists were insufficient in numbers to deserve a mention.
As I have said I do see excessive alcohol consumption as a problem. Clearly so does the government who have legislation in place to deal with it, enabling those who are drunk in a public place to be arrested to prevent, inter alia*, them harming themselves. *sorry no italics on this thing!!
Total avoidance as pointed out above. Alcohol impairment and injury occurs well below excessive levels . The question you are avoiding is simple:
A head injury occurs
It costs money to treat
You state that you object to paying for cyclist's head injuries if a helmet is not worn
You are desperately avoiding saying whether you object to paying for head injuries where alcohol is related and no helmet is worn
And finally your thoughts on the highway code if any?
Regards
As for my thoughts on the Highway code.... it is an enabling document in British Law and as such is a guide. If it states that you "must" carry out a particular act and then quotes a law including section then it is a legal requirement to do so.
For instance rule 124
124
You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle (see the table above). The presence of street lights generally means that there is a 30 mph (48 km/h) speed limit unless otherwise specified.
[Law RTRA sects 81, 86, 89 & sch 6]
The requirement to do so though is from the established law and not the Highway Code
Other sections use the word "should". These are guidance only and have no standing in law or otherwise. The only contribution is that it can be used to establish whether a road user is acting in a way that could be expected of a reasonable and competent driver.
125
The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous. You should always reduce your speed when:
- the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends
- sharing the road with pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, particularly children, and motorcyclists
- weather conditions make it safer to do so
- driving at night as it is more difficult to see other road users
You could not be prosecuted for any of these acts in rule 125 on the authority of the Highway Code
Anything else you wish to know
