Why wouldn't you wear a helmet

[glenn forger]

Nope, try again,

Approximately three-quarters of all head/brain injury sustained by cyclists are the consequence of crashes not involving motorized traffic (n=2,229). For young children (0-5 years old) as many as nine out of ten head/brain injuries are the consequence of bicycle crashes not involving motor vehicles. These are mostly cyclist-only crashes, i.e. crashes without another road user being involved, or crashes into an object.

More to the point, can you back up your claims or not?

 

[glenn forger]

Research the Road Traffic Act and report back...

You are claiming there's something in the RTA that prevents NHS staff and the police from reporting cycling injuries?

 

[glenn forger]

really, seeing as your'e posting random stuff you found on google

It's ROSPA, and I only know it because your argument is the same one used by the pro-speeding mob. It's nonsense:

84% of adult cyclists' injuries involve a motor vehicle:

http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/

Accidents involving child cyclists are often the result of the child playing, doing tricks, riding too fast or losing control. For teenage and adult cyclists, accidents are more likely to involve collisions with motor vehicles, but about 16% of fatal or serious cyclist accidents reported to the police do not involve a collision with another vehicle, but are caused by the rider losing control of their bicycle.

 

[doog]

You are claiming there's something in the RTA that prevents NHS staff and the police from reporting cycling injuries?

Its simply not an 'accident' under the road traffic act unless it involves a mechanically propelled vehicle, so not reportable or recordable by the Police. They will however record life threatening cycle only incidents, dependent on Force.

Ive no idea what the NHS do but Ive visited my GP with cycling related injuries and not once did he ask if I was wearing a helmet. He did however ask how many units of alcohol I consume...probably not as much as him mind

 

[doog]

It's ROSPA, and I only know it because your argument is the same one used by the pro-speeding mob. It's nonsense:

The pro speeding mob ....on a cycling forum,,,,wow . However I dont have an argument you silly boy, im simply rebutting your worthless statistics that are made of cheese. Im waiting for someone to say that cycling makes you live longer and that compulsion will reduce cycling numbers and a whole population will die younger.

 

[glenn forger]

Its simply not an 'accident' under the road traffic act unless it involves a mechanically propelled vehicle, so not reportable or recordable by the Police. They will however record life threatening cycle only incidents, dependent on Force.

Which police force are you claiming only record life threatening injuries to riders?

 

[glenn forger]

I dont have an argument

There I agree.

 

[doog]

Which police force are you claiming only record life threatening injuries to riders?

The majority, its simply a way of assigning a computer generated number to an investigation, once its ascertained no one else was involved and it doesnt involve death its not a police matter...just like a plane crash that doesnt involve death...even if they end up with brain damage, no legs and serious burns.

There I agree.

Nice,but you seem intent on one, however on the subject of the Road Traffic Act you appear to be on a losing wicket....better luck next time.

 

[Mugshot]

and the reason hell do that is to get paid extra.

How so Reg?

 

[ufkacbln]

Nope, try again,

Approximately three-quarters of all head/brain injury sustained by cyclists are the consequence of crashes not involving motorized traffic (n=2,229). For young children (0-5 years old) as many as nine out of ten head/brain injuries are the consequence of bicycle crashes not involving motor vehicles. These are mostly cyclist-only crashes, i.e. crashes without another road user being involved, or crashes into an object.

More to the point, can you back up your claims or not?

Can we just clarify that you are claiming that 90% of head injuries in the 0 - 5 year old age group are related to bicycles?

I want to be absolutely clear on your quoted figures and would love to see the source....please don't tell me you googled the discredited lies from the Headway site and the evidence they gave in the Jersey helmet discussion.

 

[doog]

Wrong...

Wrong...

Go on then...sigh...when did the RTA change and when did Police routinely start recording stats of people falling off bikes ? The majority of Road Traffic accidents are never recorded let alone incidents that fall outside of the RTA .It would be nice for you to back up your one word answers.

In addition my GP has never asked if I was wearing a helmet. I accept that people are saying A&E depts are asking this question and perhaps he should be, however I'd strongly argue that a small amount of data obtained in this fashion proves very little one way or the other.

 

[doog]

Nice try at some straw men Doog... but no lolly.

From someone clutching at straws thats quite prosaic

 

[glenn forger]

I've seen this tactic before. The petrol heads like to make the claim that most cycling injuries don't involve cars, or any motor vehicles at all. They way they do this is to cite all recorded injuries, including to children learning to ride, MTBers, bmx bandits etc etc. it's like including Formula 1 injuries in road injuries to drivers. Laughable. You can see what they're trying to do though, cyclists roam the country looking for things to ride into. Can you see why rubbish drivers would be anxious to lend weight to that myth?

 

[ufkacbln]

I've seen this tactic before. The petrol heads like to make the claim that most cycling injuries don't involve cars, or any motor vehicles at all. They way they do this is to cite all recorded injuries, including to children learning to ride, MTBers, bmx bandits etc etc. it's like including Formula 1 injuries in road injuries to drivers. Laughable. You can see what they're trying to do though, cyclists roam the country looking for things to ride into. Can you see why rubbish drivers would be anxious to lend weight to that myth?

Yet you were quite happy to quote this:

Nope, try again,

Approximately three-quarters of all head/brain injury sustained by cyclists are the consequence of crashes not involving motorized traffic (n=2,229). For young children (0-5 years old) as many as nine out of ten head/brain injuries are the consequence of bicycle crashes not involving motor vehicles. These are mostly cyclist-only crashes, i.e. crashes without another road user being involved, or crashes into an object.

More to the point, can you back up your claims or not?

That is exactly how the statistics were fiddled by Headway.... which is where I presume you got this bizarre figure

Can you confirm the source of your data?

 

[glenn forger]

RTFT. It's doog's link.