Coroner says cyclist who died in New Forest crash “could have survived” if she had worn a helmet

Spats Bellini wrote:

Strange that you never hear anybody say “ not wearing a helmet saved me from injury”.

. Once saw a cyclist hit a pot hole and go right over his handlebars, his helmet was a right off but he was fine. I have no doubt that it would have been far more serious without his helmet.

Probably not, and probably because it's such a convoluted sentence that no one what speaks english, speaks like what you wrote.

But people who have been injured while wearing a helmet like what they say here https://crag.asn.au/5-ways-wearing-a-bicycle-helmet-can-result-in-injuries/ might agree with the sentiment.

danhopgood wrote:

Someone cut across a junction when I had my 5 year old son strapped in a child seat on the back of the tandem.  I had to stop suddenly; the foot I needed to put down got snagged in the toe clip, the bike went down from the stopped position and son's head hit the road.  I was damn glad he was wearing a helmet.  No injury and we got to school with no drama......

That's an interesting story, but I don't ride with children strapped to my bike (although I think that's a perfectly acceptable practice) and, if I did, I certainly wouldn't do it on a bike with any kind of pedal clips.

slappop wrote:

danhopgood wrote:

Someone cut across a junction when I had my 5 year old son strapped in a child seat on the back of the tandem.  I had to stop suddenly; the foot I needed to put down got snagged in the toe clip, the bike went down from the stopped position and son's head hit the road.  I was damn glad he was wearing a helmet.  No injury and we got to school with no drama......

That's an interesting story, but I don't ride with children strapped to my bike (although I think that's a perfectly acceptable practice) and, if I did, I certainly wouldn't do it on a bike with any kind of pedal clips.

I am trying to remember if I was using pedal clips or not at the time I was cycling to Nursery with my daughter strapped to my bike. Though as the seat that she was strapped to was mounted on the toptube she would probably have been protected by me in a fall. At school age though I did use pedal clips but she was too big for the top tube seat so had a padded seat on the rear pannier rack. As she was not strapped into it she could jump clear if needed, indeed she did when I lost my balance once going through the park (attempting to stupidly do some of the bmx bumps for fun).

danhopgood wrote:

Respectful comments please.

Read the evidence cyclehelmets.org

Your anecdote is not evidence.

danhopgood wrote:

Respectful comments please.  

 Cycle helmets don't protect in all eventualities.  No safety equipment protects in all circumstances - including seat belts in vehicles.    That's not a reason not to use safety equipment .  It's not a big deal wearing a helmet - they're affordable, light & comfortable.  I don't wear a helmet to compensate for other idiots on the road, I do it in case something goes wrong -  including me making  a mistake at low speed.

Someone cut across a junction when I had my 5 year old son strapped in a child seat on the back of the tandem.  I had to stop suddenly; the foot I needed to put down got snagged in the toe clip, the bike went down from the stopped position and son's head hit the road.  I was damn glad he was wearing a helmet.  No injury and we got to school with no drama......

Glad your child is ok and none the worse physically at least due to the incident.

But respectfully,

it IS a big deal to wear a helmet, they're not comfortable for all people and certainly not for all situations either, they absolutely do increase chances of heat related issues to the head.

They increase chances of child strangulation, the increase chances of your head being caught in something and have you actually considered that your child only hit their head BECAUSE of the helmet, because your child had increased the size of their head and weight thus had more kinetic energy as they were flung thus significantly increasing the chances of a head strike?

Children particularly are effected by wearing PPE or something they percieve will make them safer, there are plenty of tests done on this and we see the results of risk compensation in adults all the time, not just cycling and sports activities but everywhere.

Let me put this to you, there are more children dying solely of head injuries in England and Wales whilst being occupants of motorvehicles than there are total number of child cyclists by ALL types of injuries for the whole of the UK. That's despite low rates of helmet wearing in children and despite airbags/crash cells etc in motors.

More children dying of head injuries in playgrounds and schools, more child pedestrians dying of head injuries, more children dying of head injuries in the home than total number of child cyclists by all injury types.

This stat (similar to that from a fair few years ago) is taken from HEADWAY

"There were 155,919 hospital admissions in 2016-17 due to head injury, that's people actually staying in hospital not just attending hospital. For England only there were 430,725 A&E head injury reports, there are circa 1.3 million total reported head injuries.

The number of child cycling deaths of all injury types was 8 in 2016

For those concerned with protecting their child I suggest that they reasses their understanding of risk and put helmets on their kids before they get up in a morning and take them off just after they've got into bed, in fact probably best to put one on yourself too outside of sleeping hours (and even then there's a risk of head injury) afterall there's not a reason not to use safety equipment whilst going about your normal activities in life, It's not a big deal wearing a helmet - they're affordable, light & comfortable ... RIGHT??

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Children particularly are effected by wearing PPE or something they percieve will make them safer, there are plenty of tests done on this and we see the results of risk compensation in adults all the time, not just cycling and sports activities but everywhere.

Let me put this to you, there are more children dying solely of head injuries in England and Wales whilst being occupants of motorvehicles than there are total number of child cyclists by ALL types of injuries for the whole of the UK. That's despite low rates of helmet wearing in children and despite airbags/crash cells etc in motors.

More children dying of head injuries in playgrounds and schools, more child pedestrians dying of head injuries, more children dying of head injuries in the home than total number of child cyclists by all injury types.

This stat (similar to that from a fair few years ago) is taken from HEADWAY

"There were 155,919 hospital admissions in 2016-17 due to head injury, that's people actually staying in hospital not just attending hospital. For England only there were 430,725 A&E head injury reports, there are circa 1.3 million total reported head injuries.

The number of child cycling deaths of all injury types was 8 in 2016

For those concerned with protecting their child I suggest that they reasses their understanding of risk and put helmets on their kids before they get up in a morning and take them off just after they've got into bed, in fact probably best to put one on yourself too outside of sleeping hours (and even then there's a risk of head injury) afterall there's not a reason not to use safety equipment whilst going about your normal activities in life, It's not a big deal wearing a helmet - they're affordable, light & comfortable ... RIGHT??

This has always been the big thing for me.

You can get in to the semantics of how much difference a helmet makes (in the example of this news report, of course the helmet 'could' have made a difference, just as much as a helmet 'could' have made absolutely no difference at all, the non-wearing of said helmet means we'll never really know) however the bigger quesiton, for me anyway, is establishing what is the size of the actual risk a helmet is mitigating against? 

So far, and as alluded to above, the actual risk involved is very small, and crucially smaller than other far more common activity that are not deemed as requiring dedicated safety measures. 

This whole image of cycling as dangerous thing is frankly bull crap. Its an image touted by the media and motoring lobby to help justify avoidable death, and to stigmatise those on bikes as risk taking outgroups in order to shift blame and focus away from the real problem on our roads.

The really sad thing is that the cycle industry and community have jumped on board and frankly love it... 'oooh cycling its all edgy and dangerous, look at us risk taking rebels'.

Not being funny to all the adrenalin junkies out there, riding a bike is something my kids were very quickly capable of doing before they were six years old... its hardly rocket science. 

Try and remember this whenever the talk turns to danger, saving lives and stuff. Beyond the bravado, you are talking about mitigating against freak events / unlawful driving practices.

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

the bigger quesiton, for me anyway, is establishing what is the size of the actual risk a helmet is mitigating against?

So far, and as alluded to above, the actual risk involved is very small, and crucially smaller than other far more common activity that are not deemed as requiring dedicated safety measures. 

True. CUK claim that "the health benefits of cycling outweigh the injury risks by between 13:1 and 415:1". Them is big numbers. More information in their briefing on Health and cycling.

Ian Walker's research stated "wearing a bicycle helmet led to traffic getting significantly closer when overtaking". It would seem that, in relation to collisions with other vehicles, wearing a helmet may make cycling slightly more dangerous. We may also wish to consider risk compensation in adult cyclists, also studied by Walker and published in 2016.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

This whole image of cycling as dangerous thing is frankly bull crap. Its an image touted by the media and motoring lobby to help justify avoidable death, and to stigmatise those on bikes as risk taking outgroups in order to shift blame and focus away from the real problem on our roads.

Sadly true. The 'road safety' lobby is run by motoring organisations, which is why its messages are loaded with victim-blaming crap that doesn't address the real problem. They do not have our wellbeing at heart, money is what interests them. I believe it was dissected in Robert Davies's book 'Death on the Streets' published in 1992. Very little has changed since then.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

For those concerned with protecting their child I suggest that they reasses their understanding of risk

Agreed. Far too many people just believe what they consider a 'credible' source (or well-meaning parenting advice) and assume it is correct. They then argue with anyone who thinks differently rather than step back and consider whether the issue is more complex than they assumed.

A question for any helmet-shaming zealots to consider: how many of you are involved in advocacy or any degree of campaigning for better facilities or safer cycling or better driving? I bet it's not many (and not much). IME those looking down at people for not wearing a helmet don't generally make an effort to improve things for vulnerable road users, press their councillors or their MP for better infrastructure or improved policing. If you're not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

Simon E wrote:

 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

For those concerned with protecting their child I suggest that they reasses their understanding of risk

Agreed. Far too many people just believe what they consider a 'credible' source (or well-meaning parenting advice) and assume it is correct. They then argue with anyone who thinks differently rather than step back and consider whether the issue is more complex than they assumed.

A question for any helmet-shaming zealots to consider: how many of you are involved in advocacy or any degree of campaigning for better facilities or safer cycling or better driving? I bet it's not many (and not much). IME those looking down at people for not wearing a helmet don't generally make an effort to improve things for vulnerable road users, press their councillors or their MP for better infrastructure or improved policing. If you're not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

What are you talking about?  Parents taking their kids to school by bike obviosly are assessing and balancing the risks - the same way they do in the rest of life.  They take the view, as I do, that the benefits of cycling - a quicker, healthier and environmentally responsible journey outweighs the downside - of having to use poor quality road infrastructure; the risks of falling off and sharing the road with people who don't treat cyclists with respect.  Parents take action to mitigate the risks - such as choice of route, choice of vehicle - I use a tandem - and protective equipment like hi-vis and helmets.

Not sure if that makes me a "helmet zealot".  I, like many, am involved in campaigning for better facilities.  I've been a member of a local cycling campaining group, have commented on planning applications, have written to my MP and local councillors on numerous occasions for starters - as do many people I know.  I see no evidence to support the point you're making.

danhopgood wrote:

What are you talking about?  Parents taking their kids to school by bike obviosly are assessing and balancing the risks - the same way they do in the rest of life. 

The parents who do take their kids to school by bike may well be assessing and balancing the risks, but they are few and far between, and even in that group, there are many who are not accurately informed about risk.

We all know the benefits of cycling, health, pollution, congestion, safety, financial, and the costs of motoring, pretty much the same list but negative.  The question is why so many people chose the unhealthy, polluting, jam-causing, dangerous, expensive method, and the biggest reason is perception of risk.  In all surveys to determine why people don't ride more, danger is always top of the list, so why do people think cycling is so dangerous, and much more dangerous than other common activities like walking?

The answer is that there has been a thirty year campaign to sell helmets by deliberately exaggerating the risks of cycling, ably fronted by the BBC, which to all intents and purposes advertised helmets and refused to publish the facts, against all their own rules.  The media loves stories about helmets saving lives, cheap sensational journalism, but almost never question or investigate the truth of that proposition.  The accumulation over the years of the mantra that cycling is incredibly risky has had a massive effect, with most people thinking that cycling is much, much riskier than it actually is, and hence, they avoid it.

You can't assess and balance risks if you don't understand them because you have been subject to propaganda for thirty years.  If people made rational decisions based on risks and benefits, the number of people cycling would be orders of magnitude higher, as all those surveys also show that many more people want to do it, but are too scared.

Cycle helmets and their promotion have been an absolute disaster in health, pollution, congestion, safety, and financial terms for society.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

But respectfully,

it IS a big deal to wear a helmet, they're not comfortable for all people and certainly not for all situations either, they absolutely do increase chances of heat related issues to the head.

They increase chances of child strangulation, the increase chances of your head being caught in something and have you actually considered that your child only hit their head BECAUSE of the helmet, because your child had increased the size of their head and weight thus had more kinetic energy as they were flung thus significantly increasing the chances of a head strike?

Sorry but I have to call out this as utter shite, have you fallen off the wagon today?

Heat related issues?

I wonder why is it a big deal to you to wear a helmet? Will it mess you hair up? Or perhaps the increased mass slows your strava times down.

Or maybe it is just something you object to which in actual fact wouldn't actually prevent or hinder anything in your daily life of substance.. 

The bloke just said his five year old didn't crack his head on the curb instead the helmet took the brunt. Do you really think that that child had a say on where he was going to fall and that the inch of foam protruding was the inch where the five year old would have saved himself if he wasn't wearing a lump of foam. You're really scraping the barrel here... shame on you.

FWIW I'm pro-choice helmeteer, I do wear a helmet in a group and I may or may not wear a helmet when on my own or pottering.

FWIW, never forget that this is a pointless 'argument'. You can pretty much turn any set of stats/figures to read whatever conclusion you want them to, or just disregard them with some form of reason. The only people winning this argument have graphs, squirrels and monty python in their arse-nal.

aegisdesign wrote:

"I must stress that cycle helmets do save lives."

Something the helmet manufacturers do not claim themselves.

I read an article about that recently, and the author said he could not get any helmet company to say that their helmets provided actual protection or could save lives.  Not one.  If that's the case, well then polystyrene is not really my hat material of choice, m'kay?

brooksby wrote:

aegisdesign wrote:

"I must stress that cycle helmets do save lives."

Something the helmet manufacturers do not claim themselves.

I read an article about that recently, and the author said he could not get any helmet company to say that their helmets provided actual protection or could save lives.  Not one.  If that's the case, well then polystyrene is not really my hat material of choice, m'kay?

Got a link to that article please?

burtthebike wrote:

brooksby wrote:

aegisdesign wrote:

"I must stress that cycle helmets do save lives."

Something the helmet manufacturers do not claim themselves.

I read an article about that recently, and the author said he could not get any helmet company to say that their helmets provided actual protection or could save lives.  Not one.  If that's the case, well then polystyrene is not really my hat material of choice, m'kay?

Got a link to that article please?

Afraid not. Thinking back, I think it was something by Mikael Colville-Andersson (isn't everything?). Might have been in his latest book - I'll check it out in the morning.

brooksby wrote:

aegisdesign wrote:

"I must stress that cycle helmets do save lives."

Something the helmet manufacturers do not claim themselves.

I read an article about that recently, and the author said he could not get any helmet company to say that their helmets provided actual protection or could save lives.  Not one.  If that's the case, well then polystyrene is not really my hat material of choice, m'kay?

That is simply because if they did and somebody fell off and was killed the cycle helmet company with be open to a massive law suit, airbags save lies every day but not one airbag company would say they save lives, unfortunately we live is a law suit society these days.

There is no question that a helmet can save your head in certain types of falls and there is no question there are other whereby it would be of no help what so ever.

bigbiker101 wrote:

There is no question that a helmet can save your head in certain types of falls and there is no question there are other whereby it would be of no help what so ever.

Except that all reliable evidence shows that cycle helmets don't reduce the death rate of cyclists, so if they save some lives, they must kill other people and the chances must be the same.  So what is the point of wearing something which is just as likely to kill you as save you?

burtthebike wrote:

bigbiker101 wrote:

There is no question that a helmet can save your head in certain types of falls and there is no question there are other whereby it would be of no help what so ever.

Except that all reliable evidence shows that cycle helmets don't reduce the death rate of cyclists, so if they save some lives, they must kill other people and the chances must be the same.  So what is the point of wearing something which is just as likely to kill you as save you?

There is no way we can know that, how do you gather evidence of people who are alive who should be dead, it is nonsense.

bigbiker101 wrote:

Except that all reliable evidence shows that cycle helmets don't reduce the death rate of cyclists, so if they save some lives, they must kill other people and the chances must be the same.  So what is the point of wearing something which is just as likely to kill you as save you?

There is no way we can know that, how do you gather evidence of people who are alive who should be dead, it is nonsense.

[/quote]

OK, explain to me how, if cycle helmets save lives, the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase?

And why there was no dose response in Australia and New Zealand when helmet wearing rates doubled overnight when they brought in a helmet law?

What is nonsense is claiming that cycle helmets save lives when all the reliable evidence shows that they don't.  For the avoidance of doubt, anecdotes are not reliable evidence.

burtthebike wrote:

bigbiker101 wrote:

Except that all reliable evidence shows that cycle helmets don't reduce the death rate of cyclists, so if they save some lives, they must kill other people and the chances must be the same.  So what is the point of wearing something which is just as likely to kill you as save you?

There is no way we can know that, how do you gather evidence of people who are alive who should be dead, it is nonsense.

OK, explain to me how, if cycle helmets save lives, the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase?

And why there was no dose response in Australia and New Zealand when helmet wearing rates doubled overnight when they brought in a helmet law?

What is nonsense is claiming that cycle helmets save lives when all the reliable evidence shows that they don't.  For the avoidance of doubt, anecdotes are not reliable evidence.

[/quote]

The number of deaths indicates the number of times a helmet was of no use, it has no bearing at all on the number of times it was useful, it simply is not relevant in judging how many times a helmet saved somebody, I had an accident at the velodrome, my helmet was split in two, my collarbone into 4 bits, I had a headache for a week and I had blurred vision for a few days due to swelling, the doctor at the hospital said that the helmet limited the swelling and that without it I could likely be in a coma and possible worse, who knows if it really did save my life, but I use this incident to point out that this accident isn’t recorded in anyway that a helmet was useful, and it is these types of incidents that really prove if a helmet is worth it or not, but I want to add something, I am not Pro Helmet, I am Pro choice… I am only arguing the point here because I don’t agree with some of the assumptions being made.

bigbiker101 wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

bigbiker101 wrote:

Except that all reliable evidence shows that cycle helmets don't reduce the death rate of cyclists, so if they save some lives, they must kill other people and the chances must be the same.  So what is the point of wearing something which is just as likely to kill you as save you?

There is no way we can know that, how do you gather evidence of people who are alive who should be dead, it is nonsense.

OK, explain to me how, if cycle helmets save lives, the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase?

And why there was no dose response in Australia and New Zealand when helmet wearing rates doubled overnight when they brought in a helmet law?

What is nonsense is claiming that cycle helmets save lives when all the reliable evidence shows that they don't.  For the avoidance of doubt, anecdotes are not reliable evidence.

The number of deaths indicates the number of times a helmet was of no use, it has no bearing at all on the number of times it was useful, it simply is not relevant in judging how many times a helmet saved somebody, I had an accident at the velodrome, my helmet was split in two, my collarbone into 4 bits, I had a headache for a week and I had blurred vision for a few days due to swelling, the doctor at the hospital said that the helmet limited the swelling and that without it I could likely be in a coma and possible worse, who knows if it really did save my life, but I use this incident to point out that this accident isn’t recorded in anyway that a helmet was useful, and it is these types of incidents that really prove if a helmet is worth it or not, but I want to add something, I am not Pro Helmet, I am Pro choice… I am only arguing the point here because I don’t agree with some of the assumptions being made.

[/quote]

Which bit of this did you not understand "For the avoidance of doubt, anecdotes are not reliable evidence."

Given that you don't agree with some of the assumptions being made, and you make assumptions which contradict the evidence, do you disagree with your own assumptions, or just those of other people who've looked at the evidence?

If helmets save all these lives, how come the death rate of cyclists doesn't fall as helmet wearing rates increase?  Facts only please, not assumptions or anecdotes.

burtthebike wrote:

OK, explain to me how, if cycle helmets save lives, the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase?

And why there was no dose response in Australia and New Zealand when helmet wearing rates doubled overnight when they brought in a helmet law?

What is nonsense is claiming that cycle helmets save lives when all the reliable evidence shows that they don't.  For the avoidance of doubt, anecdotes are not reliable evidence.

Ignoring the UK stats again Burt. Good lad.

If the case against helmets is so clear cut why do you need to lie continually in order to make it?

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

OK, explain to me how, if cycle helmets save lives, the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase?

And why there was no dose response in Australia and New Zealand when helmet wearing rates doubled overnight when they brought in a helmet law?

What is nonsense is claiming that cycle helmets save lives when all the reliable evidence shows that they don't.  For the avoidance of doubt, anecdotes are not reliable evidence.

Ignoring the UK stats again Burt. Good lad. If the case against helmets is so clear cut why do you need to lie continually in order to make it?

It's YOU that ignore the facts as always!

Since helmet wearing started to become a thing, most notably post UCI and BC rules, cycling injuries have gone up, Between 2003 and 2016 serious injuries rose by 48 per cent, (Pedal Cycling Road Safety Factsheet March 2018)  whilst cycling miles only went up by 15%! 

At the same time the rates of injuries elsewhere on the roads have gone down, the swing in cycle injuries is massive comparatively, all the whilst that helmet wearing has increased significantly across the board and 45-50% is thrown around as a wearing rate. Certainly since the UCI and BC made it compulsory for their events that's been replicated in most cycling clubs, it's compulsory for charity rides, sportives, racing, even CUK groups are being forced to wear by the vocal few, compulsory for kids doing cycle training, kids being forced to wear going to school, mums and dads + othger relatives forcing their kids to wear (and wonder why their kids don't want to cycle as much if at all!), despite more infra in London, Cambs/Oxford, York, Bristol etc etc, despite better brakes and other so called 'safety' devices such as disc brakes which are again supposed to increase safety, despite all that and the noddy hat wearing the injury rates are a complete about turn to that displayed by other road users!

So how are you going to worm your way out of that sonshine?

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

OK, explain to me how, if cycle helmets save lives, the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase?

And why there was no dose response in Australia and New Zealand when helmet wearing rates doubled overnight when they brought in a helmet law?

What is nonsense is claiming that cycle helmets save lives when all the reliable evidence shows that they don't.  For the avoidance of doubt, anecdotes are not reliable evidence.

Ignoring the UK stats again Burt. Good lad. If the case against helmets is so clear cut why do you need to lie continually in order to make it?

It's YOU that ignore the facts as always!

Since helmet wearing started to become a thing, most notably post UCI and BC rules, cycling injuries have gone up, Between 2003 and 2016 serious injuries rose by 48 per cent, (Pedal Cycling Road Safety Factsheet March 2018)  whilst cycling miles only went up by 15%! 

At the same time the rates of injuries elsewhere on the roads have gone down, the swing in cycle injuries is massive comparatively, all the whilst that helmet wearing has increased significantly across the board and 45-50% is thrown around as a wearing rate. Certainly since the UCI and BC made it compulsory for their events that's been replicated in most cycling clubs, it's compulsory for charity rides, sportives, racing, even CUK groups are being forced to wear by the vocal few, compulsory for kids doing cycle training, kids being forced to wear going to school, mums and dads + othger relatives forcing their kids to wear (and wonder why their kids don't want to cycle as much if at all!), despite more infra in London, Cambs/Oxford, York, Bristol etc etc, despite better brakes and other so called 'safety' devices such as disc brakes which are again supposed to increase safety, despite all that and the noddy hat wearing the injury rates are a complete about turn to that displayed by other road users!

So how are you going to worm your way out of that sonshine?

When helmet use started to rise in the UK cycling KSIs plummeted.

That is an indisputable fact.

When you and Burt and other claim otherwise you are lying.

Where are your stats from for helmet wearing over that period? I don't believe any exist for the last few years. If you don't have the stats then you are also lying.

If your argument is so convincing why do you constantly lie?

Finally your own cited evidence reports a drop in fatalities over the period in question.

If there are more serious injuries but fewer deaths then something must be limiting the severity of the damage.

Rich_cb wrote:

If your argument is so convincing why do you constantly lie?

You have tried this approach previously and I find it disturbing.

It's disingenuous to accuse someone of lying simply because they either have a different evidence base or differing perspective to you, particularly on a contentious topic like this (and for many an emotive one). It undermines the integrity of your own case so that an impartial observer may think that in fact you are the charlatan, or at least not playing with a straight bat. I hope that's not the case but you're not helping yourself.

If everyone tries to be a bit more grown-up and civil, and stick to facts instead of faith-based declarations, then maybe we can have a discussion instead of a war of words. But the more you entrench your position and hurl abuse the less likely anyone will listen.

Simon E wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

If your argument is so convincing why do you constantly lie?

You have tried this approach previously and I find it disturbing.

It's disingenuous to accuse someone of lying simply because they either have a different evidence base or differing perspective to you, particularly on a contentious topic like this (and for many an emotive one). It undermines the integrity of your own case so that an impartial observer may think that in fact you are the charlatan, or at least not playing with a straight bat. I hope that's not the case but you're not helping yourself.

If everyone tries to be a bit more grown-up and civil, and stick to facts instead of faith-based declarations, then maybe we can have a discussion instead of a war of words. But the more you entrench your position and hurl abuse the less likely anyone will listen.

The fact is that as helmet use rose in the UK cycling KSIs fell. There was a correlation.*

To claim otherwise is incorrect and demonstrably so.

If people on this forum insist on making claims that they know are incorrect then they are deliberately misleading people.

To deliberately mislead is to lie.

*We can argue until the cows come home about the significance of the correlation but you cannot deny that it exists.