Pedestrian Injuries - Clarification

[JMS]

Once upon-a-time a hospital (Kings College) decided to look at
pedestrian injuries caused by falls on uneven pavements.

In a 90 day period data were collected on 100 patients with injuries
attributed to tripping on uneven pavements.

The majority of injuries in the study were of a minor nature. One of
these patients had a broken leg - and died post operatively. The
research does not state whether this single death was directly
attributed to the fall.

Given that there were 100 people treated over 90 days- this permitted
the authors to surmise that they *may* see 400 people as a result of
such falls in a year.

This in turn leads them to surmise that with extrapolation to a
national level there *may* be upwards of 60,000 "similar" cases.

The research does not give the ages of the people in the research -
however a number were certainly over sixty

That is all true - and it all happened twenty years ago.


The fairy story is, not what is stated above, but how some people eg
Tony Raven misrepresent this "research" (even allowing for his factor
of ten error)

"A study of admissions to Kings College Hospital in London estimates
in excess of 60,000 hospital attendances nationwide a year from trips
and falls on uneven pavements with a 1% mortality rate. So about
6,000 deaths a year or 16 a day."


Clarification:

They certainly came no-where near suggesting that there would be 6000
deaths a year nationwide. They mentioned no figure.

They did not even state whether the single death which they observed
was caused by the fall. (The patient was being treated fore a broken
leg)

[Paul Bird]

<snip>

[John Wright]

On 10/06/2010 18:55, JMS wrote:
>
> Once upon-a-time a hospital (Kings College) decided to look at
> pedestrian injuries caused by falls on uneven pavements.
>
> In a 90 day period data were collected on 100 patients with injuries
> attributed to tripping on uneven pavements.
>
> The majority of injuries in the study were of a minor nature. One of
> these patients had a broken leg - and died post operatively. The
> research does not state whether this single death was directly
> attributed to the fall.
>
> Given that there were 100 people treated over 90 days- this permitted
> the authors to surmise that they *may* see 400 people as a result of
> such falls in a year.
>
> This in turn leads them to surmise that with extrapolation to a
> national level there *may* be upwards of 60,000 "similar" cases.
>
> The research does not give the ages of the people in the research -
> however a number were certainly over sixty
>
> That is all true - and it all happened twenty years ago.

I got a severe injury (which troubles me to this day on occasion) caused
by an uneven pavement when I was only 21. Shows it can happen even to
young people. This was in Worksop.


--
John Wright

Use your imagination Marvin!

Life's bad enough as it is - why invent any more of it.

[JMS]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:30:51 +0100, Paul Bird
> wrote:

><snip>



Hello Dicky - may I call you that?


I wonder why you did what you did - did you think your post would
become part of the thread which I started?

Could you explain why you did not like me clarifying what Raven had
corrupted?




Psycholist perhaps:

Noun - Psycholist
Pronunciation Key : psy·cho·list.
Origin: based on the outbursts of a rabid Psycholist called Guy
Chapman

A cyclist who is one of a small group who frequent the news group
uk.rec.cycling they have invented their own "language" to justify
their views:

Examples:
1) "cycle helmet" - they would rather pretend that such devices
do not exist; they will try and overcome their problem by using the
alternative "h*l*et" - or just "h" for short; "lids", and other
alternatives may also be used.
2) "all pedestrians should be required to wear helmets" is a
common attempt to ridicule suggestions that cyclists should wear
helmets.
3) They cannot bring themselves to use the word: "facility" in
the context of a "cycling facility". Whatever the facility - they
must try and ridicule it as they will not be able to fully comprehend
the benefits as seen for all road users. This is achieved by using
the alternative "farcility".
4) "Cager" is used provocatively instead of the word "motorist",
in the hope that it irritates motorists; it doesn't - it makes them
laugh at the psycholist's inadequacies.
5) "Magic paint" - only used by the most inflicted psycholists.
Used to describe signage to cyclist on pavements. Origin unknown.
6) The word "troll" is in common usage in Usenet. However, the
psycholists have adopted it for their own use to apply to anyone who
disagrees with their ingrained and irrational views. This enables
them to say "ignore him - he is a troll" when faced with facts which
are too unpalatable for the psycholist to contemplate - never mind
discuss in a sensible fashion.
7) BSO : a bicycle shaped object. If someone's bicycle is not
top of the range, costing at least £500 with disc brakes, and at least
73 LEDs at the front and 67 when viewed from the rear, then it cannot
be called a bicycle. Anything bought from Halfrauds (sic) must be a
BSO.
8) "Peloton" - a rabble of psycholists who think they are above
the law.
9) Whenever they hear of a cyclist being killed in an accident -
they are obliged to say things like "My thoughts are with his/her
family" when they have had no dealings with them whatsoever. This is
commonly called a wankcry.

Not everyone who frequents the group URC is a "psycholist".
Psycholists are not very bright in general and are obliged to
demonstrate that they lack common sense; they are very good at this.

A common pseudonym for a "psycholist" is "****wit".

--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.

The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)

[pk]

"JMS" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:30:51 +0100, Paul Bird
> > wrote:
>
>><snip>
>
>
>
> Hello Dicky - may I call you that?
>
>
> I wonder why you did what you did - did you think your post would
> become part of the thread which I started?
>
> Could you explain why you did not like me clarifying what Raven had
> corrupted?
>


I was interested in your clarification - which was consistent with the
selective and deliberate misquoting that has plagued urc for years.

But: Could you pleas give a reference to the work or source of your info,
I'd like to check it for myself

Ta

pk

[JMS]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 22:58:42 +0100, "pk" > wrote:

<snip>


>But: Could you pleas give a reference to the work or source of your info,
>I'd like to check it for myself
>
>Ta
>
>pk


Sorry - I should have done that:

http://emj.bmj.com/content/8/4/263.abstract


You can register for free - and then download the full PDF.




--

"wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being
involved in an accident."

That august body The CTC

(They've already had a slap for lying by the ASA)

[pk]

"JMS" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 22:58:42 +0100, "pk" > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>But: Could you pleas give a reference to the work or source of your info,
>>I'd like to check it for myself
>>
>>Ta
>>
>>pk
>
>
> Sorry - I should have done that:
>
> http://emj.bmj.com/content/8/4/263.abstract


thank you, I'll have a look

pk

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Paul Bird wrote:
> <snip>

Cyclinglish translated to English; Troll; Someone who has made a point I
can't answer.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Kev Bishop]

"JMS" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:30:51 +0100, Paul Bird
> > wrote:
>
>><snip>
>
>
>
> Hello Dicky - may I call you that?
>
>
> I wonder why you did what you did - did you think your post would
> become part of the thread which I started?
>
> Could you explain why you did not like me clarifying what Raven had
> corrupted?
>
Paul Bird is known to accuse anyone not following the pro-cyclist in any
situation mantra as a troll, don't worry about it, it says far more about
his ability to comprehend a discussion than the attributes of those he so
tars.

[David[_11_]]

a/ What's this got to do with cycling?
b/ Are you this boring in real life?
c/ Do you actually have a life?

[pk]

"David" > wrote in message
...
> a/ What's this got to do with cycling?
> b/ Are you this boring in real life?
> c/ Do you actually have a life?
>



Pedestrian injury statistics are very relevant to cycling as the argument is
often put that walking is more dangerous than cycling. If there is evidence
that some cycling proponents/anti-helmeteers have deliberately distorted
pedestrian information they quote here, then doubt is cast on all their
arguments

pk

[Clive D. W. Feather]

In message >, JMS
> wrote:
>"A study of admissions to Kings College Hospital in London estimates
>in excess of 60,000 hospital attendances nationwide a year from trips
>and falls on uneven pavements with a 1% mortality rate. So about
>6,000 deaths a year or 16 a day."

1% of 60,000 per annum is 600 per annum or about 1.6 per day.

Of course, until you know whether or not
>the single death which they observed
>was caused by the fall
you can't say whether that "1% mortality" is even correct, either.

Plus, of course, at such small numbers the 1% has a huge margin for
error. If the rate was actually 3% there would be a probability of 15%
that there would only be one death; similarly, if it was actually 0.3%
there would be a 22% probability of one death (and a 3.7% chance of more
than one).

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home: >
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: >

[pk]

"Clive D. W. Feather" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, JMS
> > wrote:
>>"A study of admissions to Kings College Hospital in London estimates
>>in excess of 60,000 hospital attendances nationwide a year from trips
>>and falls on uneven pavements with a 1% mortality rate. So about
>>6,000 deaths a year or 16 a day."
>
> 1% of 60,000 per annum is 600 per annum or about 1.6 per day.
>
> Of course, until you know whether or not
>>the single death which they observed
>>was caused by the fall
> you can't say whether that "1% mortality" is even correct, either.


the 1% (1 patient ie a rounded %) died post - operatively having "sustained
a fractured neck of the femur requiring fixation"...... I interpret that as
being most likely an elderly person not up the operation.

The paper also notes the "several roads in close proximity to the hospital
were identified but this may be a reflection of easy access to prompt
treatment rather than an identification of a dangerous area" ie fall over
outside a hospital and pop in to get the cut dressed fall over close to
home,go home to clean up. the data are not representative, no attempt is
made to deal with that issue in the data used when extrapolating nationally

btw the paper was not on pedestrian safety, but "injuries due to falls as a
result of uneven pavements"

pk

[Mr. Benn[_3_]]

"Paul Bird" > wrote in message
...
> <snip>

Go and play with your tricycle Paul, there's a good boy.