Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
Again, you are using apples to make statements about oranges and are clueless that you are doing it.
I'm agnostic on this issue and generally stay out of these discussions but I wish you would stop writing this over and over. It is perfectly legitimate to ask: Why has society deemed it appropriate / necessary / mandatory to wear a helmet while cycling but not while walking, driving, running, descending staircases, etc, etc...)? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
rBOB wrote:
I have a few pictures of my LIGHT PURPLE Earth Cycles Sunset Lowracer [TM] that I could post, but no convenient place to post them. Good advice from others on the photos. If you don't want to open new accounts, the easiest way to post the odd photo or two on the web (IMO) is http://tinypic.com/ You don't need to register or do anything special--just upload it from your desktop. also, imageshack.us is an excellent free image hosting service. -- Michael J. Klein & Asian Castings Consortium Yangmei Jen (Hukou), Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings Mozilla Thunderbird |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
rBOB wrote:
It is perfectly legitimate to ask: Why has society deemed it appropriate / necessary / mandatory to wear a helmet while cycling but not while walking, driving, running, descending staircases, etc, etc...)? Possible answers: We're moving much slower while walking We have seatbelts and airbags for driving We also moving slower runnning then biking We have banisters to hold onto while descending staircases The U.S. is a safety consious country when it comes to personal activities. Right or wrong, helments are the safety item of choice for any activity involving moving at a speed greater then running (roller skating, skateboards, skiiing, etc..). It's an easy sell. Rich |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay in response but the weather is so great
I have been out riding. I am sorry if I upset you so much, I suspect you must be quite young to be so naive. You don't seem to get the point that when a helmet works the accident is not major and is not reported. For your information in our country Health care is so expensive that most people seldom go to ER. In fact belive it or not the fellow that broke his leg in two places not only did not go to the ER but finished the ride another 40 miles on the broken leg (he had no insurance). It was only days later when he could not walk that a friend and xray tech snuck him into a clinic after hours and xrayed the leg. The man who landed on his head was taken in an ambulance, I seriously doubt if anyone at the hospital took any data. I am 62 years old and have a wife and 34 year old son, together we have been to the ER 7 times and 2 of those were for the pregnancy and two for appendix. Where I live if you call an ambulance you get a bill for $462.00 and we are less than 2 miles from the hospital. In my opinion as a retired engineer the medical industry has the poorest form of statistical data of anyone. For example my Mom got a mitral valve replacement aprox. 20 years ago, she was one of the first to get a valve made from the muscle of a pig. Her doctor took me aside and said, he was sorry they had to use that valve because they could not get the mechanical model to fit. He said no way she would live 7 years. She went back to the Dr 18 months later it was fine, 5 years later the Dr wanted her to come back in for more tests, she refused because it was to far and she had no transportation, the Dr sent an ambulance to the house and did the tests. Sounds great huh, but 17 years after the valve replacement she died, from other causes, I called the Dr and asked if he wanted the heart to examine, he said no he had written his paper and was no longer interested. I talk to cancer patients often they say that the Dr's are only interested in what happens for 5 years after that they don't seem to care. As for your comments about pedestrian injuries/ deaths in the UK, I believe you, I have been to London several times you drive on the wrong side of the road and even have written on the curbs LOOK RIGHT trying to warn the rest of the world that the crazy Brits are coming from the wrong side.haha That ought to keep you going for a week. I am going out and enjoy another perfect day. Happy Trails Butch |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
Lest anyone think Peter is a lone voice...
Butch wrote: Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay in response but the weather is so great I have been out riding. I am sorry if I upset you so much, I suspect you must be quite young to be so naive. You don't seem to get the point that when a helmet works the accident is not major and is not reported. Which should mean, if they work, that reported injury rates go down as more people wear them. Whereas what we find is that the trend for cyclists is the same as for pedestrians regardless of changes in cyclists' helmet-wearing rate. For your information in our country Health care is so expensive that most people seldom go to ER. Luckily Peter is quoting UK stats, where people go to Casualty (ER) for any injury they haven't got a plaster to fit. Among other things, these stats show walking and cycling to be about equally hazardous, and to vary the same way over time - despite cycle helmet wearing rates increasing from 0 to about half of cyclists in the last 20 years. One of the reasons people perceive cycling to be dangerous is the relentless propaganda saying it is, from those promoting helmets. Wear a helmet, if you wish, to prevent those small injuries you're not going to go to the ER for. But forget about it saving your life. Colin McKenzie -- The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
Tony Raven wrote:
In the US, in 1991 18% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 568,000 cyclist accidents requiring hospital treatment. 12% were head injuries. By 2000, 30% of cyclists wore helmets. There were 627,160 cyclist accidents. 12% were head injuries. So whatever all those extra helmets were doing they were not reducing head injuries. In the UK the proportion of female under-16 cyclists wearing helmets is double that of males. The proportion female under 16 cyclists suffering head injuries is virtually identical to that of males. So whatever all those extra helmets are doing for the girls, they are not protecting them from head injuries. The country with the lowest head injury rate for cyclists is Holland. They also have the lowest helmet wearing rate in the developed world at 0.1%. Curiously the USA is the reverse with six times the death rate per km cycled and a 38% helmet wearing rate. In Australia where helmets are mandatory and enforced, one state has repealed the helmet law. That state now has the highest cycling rate and lowest head injury rate in Australia. Very interesting information, and I'd like to read more. Can you post links to the studies or web sites where you got them? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
Rich wrote:
rBOB wrote: It is perfectly legitimate to ask: Why has society deemed it appropriate / necessary / mandatory to wear a helmet while cycling but not while walking, driving, running, descending staircases, etc, etc...)? Possible answers: We're moving much slower while walking We have seatbelts and airbags for driving We also moving slower runnning then biking We have banisters to hold onto while descending staircases The U.S. is a safety consious country when it comes to personal activities. Right or wrong, helments are the safety item of choice for any activity involving moving at a speed greater then running (roller skating, skateboards, skiiing, etc..). It's an easy sell. Which is curious seeing as cycling helmets are not designed or certified for speeds higher than running. If your assertion was right then the manufacturers would surely be designing for and claiming protection for higher than running speeds but they don't. In addition to which the risk of head injuries from trips, falls etc while walking is just the same as the risk of head injuries while cycling. Since many many more people walk and more often, why are they not the primary target for helmets? Cycling is a very safe activity compared to all the other risks people take in their daily lives but for some reason people want to portray it as so uniquely dangerous that it requires special protective equipment. And guess what? The number one reason people give for not cycling is its dangerous. I wonder where they got that idea from? -- Tony "I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't" Anon |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:25:02 +0000, Colin McKenzie
wrote: Lest anyone think Peter is a lone voice... Butch wrote: Hi Peter, Sorry for the delay in response but the weather is so great I have been out riding. I am sorry if I upset you so much, I suspect you must be quite young to be so naive. You don't seem to get the point that when a helmet works the accident is not major and is not reported. Which should mean, if they work, that reported injury rates go down as more people wear them. Whereas what we find is that the trend for cyclists is the same as for pedestrians regardless of changes in cyclists' helmet-wearing rate. For your information in our country Health care is so expensive that most people seldom go to ER. Luckily Peter is quoting UK stats, where people go to Casualty (ER) for any injury they haven't got a plaster to fit. Among other things, these stats show walking and cycling to be about equally hazardous, and to vary the same way over time - despite cycle helmet wearing rates increasing from 0 to about half of cyclists in the last 20 years. One of the reasons people perceive cycling to be dangerous is the relentless propaganda saying it is, from those promoting helmets. Wear a helmet, if you wish, to prevent those small injuries you're not going to go to the ER for. But forget about it saving your life. It is worth noting that Holland has a high proportion of its population using bikes, a very low proportion of its cyclists wearing helmets and a low head injury rate among cyclists. http://home.comcast.net/~steveheadley1/biketowork.jpg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|