Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation

On Mon, 17 May 2010 21:34:09 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

Derek C wrote:

Arguments used by the anti-helmet faction:

Who /are/ these "anti helmet" faction?

1) Cycling is so safe that there is no need to wear a helmet!

No it isn't. Only 2% of journeys in the UK are made by bicycle and are
probably not very long, but cyclists make up 9% of the reported killed
and seriously injured in road accidents. Some other cyclists (e.g.
Doug) are always complaining about how vulnerable they are. The
accident rate per kilometre travelled must be greater than for most
other means of transport.

Actually the accident rate per unit distance is quite close (though
IIRC a little less) than that for walking. The production of
serious head injuries is pretty similar for walking.

Absolute Rubbish

Do you really believe that if you tell lies often enough they become
fact?


Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion
passenger kilometers:

Killed or seriously injured:
Pedal Cyclists : 527
Pedestrians 371

All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494
Pedestrians : 1631

Do your brats wear cycle helmets?

I cannot understand why you will not answer that question.

--
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)

In article , Peter Clinch wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 10:03:20 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:

Oh... I know the point you are making.
You still show a remarkable lack of understanding about it though.

Apart from being flamebait, there's nothing of substance to it.

That you think there's nothing of substance belies your lack of
understanding. There is something to it, as others have grasped.
That you either can't or won't doesn't mean there's nothing there.

You missed the possibility that he knows pefectly well there's something
there, and is just waving flamebait himself. Either way, the cam.* local
relevence of the wrestling has worn off. Followups set.

JMS wrote:

Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion
passenger kilometers:

Killed or seriously injured:
Pedal Cyclists : 527
Pedestrians 371

All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494
Pedestrians : 1631

That's 2006 I suspect; 2008 is: 3814 vs 1666, 541 vs 382 and 32 vs 36.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics...yclist2008.pdf

Do your brats wear cycle helmets?

I have no brats who wear pedal cycle helmets.

Nick Finnigan wrote:
JMS wrote:

Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion
passenger kilometers:

Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians
371

All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631

That's 2006 I suspect; 2008 is: 3814 vs 1666, 541 vs 382 and 32 vs
36.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics...yclist2008.pdf


Its also apples and oranges. The figures are deaths or serious injuries
from single vehicle accidents so all cyclist accidents are included (the
bicycle being the vehicle) whereas only those pedestrian deaths and
serious injuries that involved a vehicle are included.

So that leaves out all the deaths and serious injuries from pedestrians
falling or tripping over on their own. There are no official figures
for how many that is but based on legal claims against councils for
trips and falls on uneven pavements one can estimate the pedestrian
numbers should probably be doubled.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

"JMS" wrote

Simple question for you:

Do you think that a cycle helmet is more likely to reduce the risk of
injury in a cycle accident than it will increase the risk of injury?

A biased question. There is a third option.

Tony Raven wrote:
Nick Finnigan wrote:
JMS wrote:

Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion
passenger kilometers:

Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians
371

All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631

That's 2006 I suspect; 2008 is: 3814 vs 1666, 541 vs 382 and 32 vs
36.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics...yclist2008.pdf



Its also apples and oranges. The figures are deaths or serious injuries
from single vehicle accidents so all cyclist accidents are included (the

No.

bicycle being the vehicle) whereas only those pedestrian deaths and
serious injuries that involved a vehicle are included.

There were no cyclists deaths reported were only the cyclist was involved.
0.1% of SI accidents were cyclist only.

Nick Finnigan wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:


Its also apples and oranges. The figures are deaths or serious
injuries from single vehicle accidents so all cyclist accidents are
included (the

No.

bicycle being the vehicle) whereas only those pedestrian deaths and
serious injuries that involved a vehicle are included.

There were no cyclists deaths reported were only the cyclist was
involved. 0.1% of SI accidents were cyclist only.

The pdf you linked to is part of Road Casualties Great Britain 2008. If
you read the Notes thereof they say:

"The statistics refer to personal injury accidents on public roads
(including footways) which become known to the police within 30 days."

and in the Definitions, accidents are defined as:

"Accident: Involves personal injury occurring on the public highway
(including footways) in which at least one road vehicle or a vehicle in
collision with a pedestrian is involved and which becomes known to the
police within 30 days of its occurrence."

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics...gbar/rrcgb2008

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

In message
JMS wrote:

On Mon, 17 May 2010 14:54:27 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:
[snip]

Precisely it's not that all people modify their behaviour to the
same extent or even in the same direction, and within a population
the average change might be small.

But it is also quite clear that some people modify their behaviour
in a radical way i.e. by making a decision that the risks of cycling
are only made acceptable by wearing a helmet.


I am sure that there must be much scientific research in to this
matter.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.


Do you perhaps know of any which shows that cyclists take more risks
when wearing a helmet?

Actually I know from my own personal experience that I risk compensate.
I alter my personal behaviour to risk by adopting compensating
precautions. Whilst I know that many of the precautions that I take are
not adequate to provide complete protection I am still aware that the
taking of those precautions makes me more comfortable with my actions.

I'm also well aware that not everybody reacts in the same way that I do
to risk. Risks that I deem acceptable I know others do not, whereas I
also know of risks that I deem unacceptable that others think are
acceptable. So whilst some of you out there claim that your personal
attitude to risk is completely unaffected by the precautions that you
take to mitigate that risk, what matters to me is that I know that I do
modify my personal attitude to risk.

So it doesn't matter that some of you say that you don't risk
compensate since I know that I do risk compensate, therefor I know that
risk compensation exists.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
" || _`\,_ |__\ \ | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/

On Mon, 17 May 2010 22:08:09 +0100, Nick Finnigan
wrote:

snip ref latest figure - thanks?


Do your brats wear cycle helmets?

I have no brats who wear pedal cycle helmets.



And if you had not snipped off the references - you would see that I
was actually replying to Clinch.


He is always on about his brats progressing with their cycling - but
he just refuses to answer the question as to whether they wear
helmets.

I wonder why?

I guess he wouldn't want to let us know that he is endangering them so
much by getting to wear them every time they go out on their bikes.

--
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)

On Mon, 17 May 2010 22:19:34 +0100, Tony Raven
wrote:

snip



Its also apples and oranges. The figures are deaths or serious injuries
from single vehicle accidents so all cyclist accidents are included (the
bicycle being the vehicle) whereas only those pedestrian deaths and
serious injuries that involved a vehicle are included.

So that leaves out all the deaths and serious injuries from pedestrians
falling or tripping over on their own.



Yes - you are absolutely spot on.

I wonder what that figure is?

Anchor Lee reckons that there are actually 3,000 pedestrians per year
*killed* - just from tripping on the pavement - unfortunately he
cannot find the source of his data :-)

So add in serious injuries and you must be looking at 10,000 per
year.

So more than 25 pedestrians killed or seriously injured *every day*
just because they tripped up on the footpath - and no vehicle was
involved.

I am surprised such things don't make the newspapers.

On the other hand - it could perhaps be a very small number.

What do you think?