Mulger bill wrote:And yet they still haven't followed the (self appointed) world leaders in cycling safety after how many years? Now why do you think that might be? Maybe it's because they WANT all cyclists to be killed off ASAP, thereby making the world a much better place. [/tic]
That's quite a leap. Not sure what the point of this post is...
il padrone wrote:No call for the slanging and aspersions.
I actually had to look up aspersions. I'm probably not as well schooled as you. Aspersions: a disparaging or malicious remark; slanderous accusation. All I said is that your comments cause you to come across to me, as arrogant. If that's malicious or slanderous, sorry. I didn't think you were so sensitive.
Worryingly, the researchers also found children who were involved in a collision were much more likely to be unhelmeted. Children aged 12 years or less comprised 19% of all those who weren’t wearing a helmet at the time of their accident but just 7% of those who were.
This pattern was similar for those aged 13-19 years. Teenagers made up 35% of all those who weren’t wearing a helmet when they collided with a motor vehicle but 11% of those who were.
The study does not say that this is a representation of helmet use amongst teenagers and children.
Since it’s about accidents involving motor vehicles, this research can’t tell us if children and teenagers are more inclined to cycle without a helmet. However it shows non-helmet wearers in this age group are significantly over-represented in accidents.
By the power of MS calculator, I've determined that there were 221 head injuries amongst children and teenagers between 2001 and 2009.
The odds of sustaining a ‘moderate’ head injury in a collision are 1.9 times greater if the cyclist doesn’t wear a helmet.
However the odds of suffering a head injury classified as ‘serious’ are 2.6 times greater if the rider’s unhelmeted. In the case of a ‘severe’ head injury they’re 3.9 times greater.
When the researchers broke head injuries down by type, the estimated odds of suffering a ‘serious’ or ‘severe’ skull fracture if no helmet is worn is 4.6 times greater.
Now I agree with the anti-MHLs (heaven forbid!) that the ideal would be to have excellent cycling infrastructure, and excellent attitudes towards cyclists and cycling (road sharing) and I'm not criticising you for fantasising this ideal. But in the absence of this infrastructure and motorist attitude, don't you think it would be a good idea for children to be wearing helmets when riding bikes? il padrone, how many children's head injuries are acceptable to you?