Negative View of Cycle Helmets

GreeBo

sobriquet wrote:

Now, this would seem to me to indicate that it is possible that a compulsory helmet law might in fact add to the queues in A&E. I outlined the possibility previously: that drivers may come to the conclusion that the cyclist is now less vulnerable, therefore they take more risks around them in traffic, and cyclists feel more confident and also take risks. So in return for less impact damage to the head in the event of an accident, we get in more accidents.

Then why not just make it illegal for cyclists to be visible on the road, then motorists would take more care because we could be anywhere at anytime...
:cool:

GreeBo

rubadub wrote:

Bicycle = sense, cycleways, lights, good brakes, serviced bike, elbow pads, knee pads, helmet. Some mandatory some optional.

All the other modes have all of the above and more.

and I assume even you do not believe that an irish cycleway provides any useful degree of separation from the other forms of transport (be it vehicular or pedestrian)

sobriquet

GreeBo wrote:

Then why not just make it illegal for cyclists to be visible on the road, then motorists would take more care because we could be anywhere at anytime...
:cool:

The point is this: even though the law was intended for the safety of cyclists, the data since its' introduction shows a rise in accidents, for whatever reason. So if it fails in its intent, is there any point to introducing it?

cyclopath2001

GreeBo wrote:

and I assume even you do not believe that an irish cycleway provides any useful degree of separation from the other forms of transport (be it vehicular or pedestrian)

Well I think that if the government believed that separating cyclists from trucks was a necessary safety measure, they would not, as they did in 1998, have amended the law so as to permit shared use of cycle tracks by bicycles and trucks. Nor would that have enacted laws in 1997 which mean that cycle-tracks do not operate at night.

GreeBo

sobriquet wrote:

The point is this: even though the law was intended for the safety of cyclists, the data since its' introduction shows a rise in accidents, for whatever reason. So if it fails in its intent, is there any point to introducing it?

Its very easy to make a "point" using statistics.
A study like this has few controls over the problem space and so there could be any manner of things skewing the data.
Im sure a sunny day shows a rise in accidents too, want to ban cycling when then sun is out?

sobriquet

GreeBo wrote:

Its very easy to make a "point" using statistics.

Well, of course. Eighty-four percent of people know that.

GreeBo wrote:

A study like this has few controls over the problem space and so there could be any manner of things skewing the data.
Im sure a sunny day shows a rise in accidents too, want to ban cycling when then sun is out?

It's problematic, of course, but I think you're dismissing it too easily. From the data on that site, there's a distinct correlation between the introduction of the law (and its promotion) and the rise in the number of accidents. It's not a small increase either - check the site for the graph titled 'West Australian hospital cyclist admissions: 1985-2000.' Of course there could be other variables coming into the mix, but I wouldn't like to see the scenario repeated here because it doesn't make sense on the face of it. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on what else could be the cause of the skewing.

John_C

GreeBo wrote:

Im sure a sunny day shows a rise in accidents too, want to ban cycling when then sun is out?

But does a sunny day show a proportional rise or is there just a rise in the total number of cyclists? If cycling in the sun is more dangerous (which I seriously doubt) then the government should not ban it but instead try to find out the cause of the increased danger and make cyclists aware of it and of any possible remidy.

We're getting a little hypothetical here though.

cyclopath2001

tabatha wrote:

i think this thread has exhausted itself. i had made my views known.

We respect you're entitled to you beliefs no matter how poorly supported by facts.

i agree that bringing in a law on helmets would do no harm.

So you disagree that it would take resources away from accident-prevention measures?

tabatha

cyclopath2001 wrote:

We respect you're entitled to you beliefs no matter how poorly supported by facts.

So you disagree that it would take resources away from accident-prevention measures?

yes and yes. i am saying that it is a possibility.

apart from that my opinion hasnt changed one bit. from what i see on a daily basis, most cyclists are a hazard on our roads. the darker evenings has opened my eyes to the amount of cyclists that dont use lights. i would easily say its at least one in every two that goes without them. based on this i would say that a lot of cyclists are taking there lives into there own hands anyway.

cyclopath2001

tabatha wrote:

basis, most cyclists are a hazard on our roads.

But far , far less of a hazard than trucks & cars, the statistics bear this out. Very few people are seriously injured by cyclists & it's almost unheard of for a person to be killed by a cyclist (although it has happened).

Your assertion that cyclists are a hazard and that cycling is dangerous needs to be placed in context relative to far greater hazards and much more dangerous activities. Nearly all drivers drive at unsafe speeds. That's acknowledged to be a major factor in accidents. Wouldn't it save more lives if instead of Gardai enforcing a MHL, they were prosecuting dangerous drivers.

the darker evenings has opened my eyes to the amount of cyclists that dont use lights.

It's true that they're breaking the law. It's also remarkable how many people see cyclists that have no lights, even though they have no lights. Let's put this behaviour in context. It's against the law, it's risky and it's inconsiderate. But, does anyone have statistics on accidents caused by having no lights?

Have you read the sticker on the inside of your cycle helmet yet?

silverside

well i havent really posted on this thread because i dont think its going anywhere except provide people with an arena to rant in.
however
- i think anyone who cycles without a helmet is a fool, they may not protect in all circumstances but they will help in a lot of accidents, and can't do any harm. no stats but common sense and friends experience.
- i'm not sure about compulsory helmet wearing, i can see both sides of the argument here
- i am sure there are lots of other things to be fixed (bad driver & cyclist behaviour, bad roads, etc, etc) but the idea that there is a conspiracy to promote helmet use as a sideshow from the real issues is ridiculous.

tabatha

cyclists with no lights are a hazzard - personally speaking i wouldnt like to run over one (well some of them maybe!). do u drive? if so do you not mind people on bikes with no lights? i find it a hazzard and i think you will be hard pushed to find anyone that doesnt.

tabatha

silverside wrote:

well i havent really posted on this thread because i dont think its going anywhere except provide people with an arena to rant in.
however
- i think anyone who cycles without a helmet is a fool, they may not protect in all circumstances but they will help in a lot of accidents, and can't do any harm. no stats but common sense and friends experience.
- i'm not sure about compulsory helmet wearing, i can see both sides of the argument here
- i am sure there are lots of other things to be fixed (bad driver & cyclist behaviour, bad roads, etc, etc) but the idea that there is a conspiracy to promote helmet use as a sideshow from the real issues is ridiculous.

here here!!

Capt'n Midnight

tabatha wrote:

someone mentioned something in an earlier post about tour de france riders, why do they were helmets if they are no use?

They actually went on strike about that issue.

cyclopath2001

tabatha wrote:

cyclists with no lights are a hazzard - personally speaking i wouldnt like to run over one (well some of them maybe!).

As usual tabatha, you miss the point. How much of a hazard? (Your joke is in bad taste BTW). Tell me what is written on the label inside of you cycle helmet (you DO cycle, right?)

do u drive? if so do you not mind people on bikes with no lights?

Yes, I drive, but I've never found cyclists without lights to be hazardous to me. Maybe it's because at night, I adapt my speed to the conditions. I do find drivers with no lights to be a serious hazard.

silverside wrote:

except provide people with an arena to rant in.
but the idea that there is a conspiracy to promote helmet use as a sideshow from the real issues is ridiculous.

tabatha wrote:

here! here!

There's no need to insult the contributers here, just because they view the risks differently to you. Nobody has said that helmets are useless. Prioirities and usefulness are in dispute.

Who said anything about a conspiracy, where was the word used in the thread?

robfitz

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Have you read the sticker on the inside of your cycle helmet yet?

The follow is on two label inside my Specialized Telluride (Jun 05) helmet:

"This helmet is not intended for motor veichle use. Read manual before using this helmet. Call 1-801-886-2453 for a helment owner's manual. This helmet can be pierced by charp objects. This helmet can be seriously damaged by some common substances (for exampel, solvents[ammonia], cleaners[bleach], etc.) without causing visible damage. Apply only mild soap and water to clean helmet. Do not paint or use decals on either the foam or the outer shell. do not store in direct heat or sunlight.

A bicycle helmet is for bicycling only! Always wear a helmet when bicycling. After receiving an impact this helmet should be destroyed and replaced. For maximum protection this helmet should be of fit and the buckles should be fastened securely under the jaw. When you get off your bicycle remove your helmet. Do not wear a helmet while climbing trees, in play areas, on playground equipment, or at any time while not riding a bicycle. Adults: instruct shildren to follow this warning. Failure to follow this warning could result in serious personal injury, death by strangulation, death."

rubadub

GreeBo wrote:

Its very easy to make a "point" using statistics.
A study like this has few controls over the problem space and so there could be any manner of things skewing the data.

I would usually agree that stats can be manipulated. But like I mentioned before I can see no reason or benefit in doing so in this case. Who would "win", who has a vested interest in saying helmets are not as good as some people would like to think?
The helmet companies would have a vested interest to say they do reduce accidents.

On the way into work today I saw a guy in front with a full reflective jacket, helmet, reflective clips to hold the jeans in, armbands and then this pitiful little flashing LED light, I couldnt see any clips for other additional lights either. At least he had a light but I thought it a bit strange.

So silverside & tabatha think people without cycling helmets are fools. What other safeguards would you consider people fools for doing without? I have yet to hear anybody saying they use elbow or knee pads, something I did consider getting but there was very little ice this year. Or are you just afraid of death and not being crippled?

GreeBo

rubadub wrote:

I would usually agree that stats can be manipulated. But like I mentioned before I can see no reason or benefit in doing so in this case. Who would "win", who has a vested interest in saying helmets are not as good as some people would like to think?
The helmet companies would have a vested interest to say they do reduce accidents.

I am not implying that it is being done on purpose, merely that without total control over the "experiment" you cannot accurately draw any conclusions from the results as you have no idea what is not taken into account.

cyclopath2001

rubadub wrote:

I would usually agree that stats can be manipulated. But like I mentioned before I can see no reason or benefit in doing so in this case. Who would "win", who has a vested interest in saying helmets are not as good as some people would like to think?

First, it depends on who sponsored the studies that produced the statistics. Then, there is the problem of interpretation.

What I would be most afraid of is a political opportunist looking for a catchy issue, a quick-fix, easy win solution for cyclist safety (and to get his/her name in the papers). I've seen a few flyers from local politicians where this would be their only policy on cyclist safety.

Let's face it, most motorists would vote for MHL rather than lower speed limits.

tabatha

cyclopath2001 wrote:

As usual tabatha, you miss the point. How much of a hazard? (Your joke is in bad taste BTW). Tell me what is written on the label inside of you cycle helmet (you DO cycle, right?)

Yes, I drive, but I've never found cyclists without lights to be hazardous to me. Maybe it's because at night, I adapt my speed to the conditions. I do find drivers with no lights to be a serious hazard.


There's no need to insult the contributers here, just because they view the risks differently to you. Nobody has said that helmets are useless. Prioirities and usefulness are in dispute.

Who said anything about a conspiracy, where was the word used in the thread?

well cycopath, i find u to be a little bias on the subject (yoiur name says it all). i cant understand how you have never found cyclists to be a hazard without lights? adjusting your speed to meet the conditions?? what does that mean?? driving at 20mph at night (which is under the limit in most areas) would still kill or seriously injure a cyclist.

quite frankly i dont see what your problem is. you have your views and i have mine, get over it! you wont change my mind and quite frankly i dont want to change yours. i couldnt care less! stop trying to change my views and change to topic back to drivers.

Civilian_Target

rubadub wrote:

On the way into work today I saw a guy in front with a full reflective jacket, helmet, reflective clips to hold the jeans in, armbands and then this pitiful little flashing LED light, I couldnt see any clips for other additional lights either. At least he had a light but I thought it a bit strange.

But you saw him - so that's a good start

sobriquet

tabatha wrote:

quite frankly i dont see what your problem is. you have your views and i have mine, get over it! you wont chan[g]e my mind and quite frankly i dont want to change yours. i couldnt care less! stop trying to change my views and change to topic back to drivers.

:rolleyes: So why bother joining the discussion at all? You've made your mind up, and apparently don't want to change anyone elses though you could've fooled me on that one...

Silverside commented above that the discussion is going nowhere, and he's right. I'm open to having my mind changed on the subject of mandatory helmet laws and the efficacy of helmet usage, but haven't seen much that will do it. Safe cycling, everyone.

tabatha

sobriquet wrote:

So why bother joining the discussion at all?

to give my view :rolleyes:

cyclopath2001

tabatha wrote:

well cycopath, i find u to be a little bias on the subject

If I'm biased, it's in favour of rational views based on facts.

I assume that you do not ride a bicycle? You've been quite evasive on this point.

tabatha wrote:

i cant understand how you have never found cyclists to be a hazard without lights?

Well it's like this, I always see them, even without lights. I carefully watch the road ahead and also pay special attention to places where I might expect cyclists to be. That's worked for me so far. Also, I observe the speed limit and will slow down if it is not appropriate to drive at the posted speed limit. I read this somewhere in the 'Rules of the Road'. Seems like a sensible thing to do.

tabatha wrote:

adjusting your speed to meet the conditions?? what does that mean??

If you're a qualified driver, you should know this already. Have you passed your driving test?

tabatha wrote:

driving at 20mph at night (which is under the limit in most areas) would still kill or seriously injure a cyclist.

Did I say anything about driving at 20mph? Can I ask where you got the 'fact' that 'driving at 20mph at night would still kill or seriously injure a cyclist.' . Did you make it up?

tabatha wrote:

quite frankly i dont see what your problem is.

Let me explain then: Your views are not soundly based on facts. You seem to be incapable of prioritising risks.

roadmanmad

It looks as if this discussion is getting personnal.

Apart from futher mud slinging, I thing this discussion should be terminated.

tabatha

i agree. i am sick of being picked. its getting way to personal. i thought this was a discussion board and not a forum for taking your stresses out on members!

cyclopath2001

tabatha wrote:

i agree. i am sick of being picked. its getting way to personal. i thought this was a discussion board .and not a forum for taking your stresses out on members!

tabatha wrote:

......cyclists with no lights are a hazzard - personally speaking i wouldnt like to run over one (well some of them maybe!).

Indeed.

Gavin

I think the people getting offended need to realise that this is a debate. No comments being made are personal.

You are not being 'picked on' tabatha. Your opinions are being discussed in a factual manner. There's no need no get excited, this is simply, as I said, a debate. Provide facts to give your comments merit, anecdotal evidence in this scenario doesn't cut it.

Gav

whiskeyman

Thought this would fit in.... a German public information ad to wear bike helmets.

cyclopath2001

And your point is, exactly?