Cyclists? Helmets???

Cyrus

Something ive noticed a lot since my nervous L plate driver girlfriend pointed it out to me,

Most cyclists i see on the road dont wear helmets.

Surely if someone gets hit and falls without a helmet they have a serious chance of injury or worse? And surely with the massive clamp down on motorists and seat belts (which worked very well) this should have been on the same agenda?

Helmets aside they dont seem to follow any other rules of the road either, saw one guy last night no lights etc, on his mobile cycling in heavy traffic and another girl with massive can style headphones on cycling in the same traffic no helmet etc mad ness

Gatster

I heard once that most cycling helmets don't really offer any protection in collisions where the speed of the cyclist exceeds 12mph. Not sure if this is true nowadays (this was when I was racing mountain bikes years ago, a lot of people wore open face motocross helmets, but nothing on the road).

You see a lot of people with no, or inadequate, lights, which is IMO much more dangerous.

Automan

And then you get the cyclists who wont use the cycle path and decide to use the road / bus lane instead (Example of this would be Phoenix Park),
Very dangerous, the cycle path is there for good reason.

Stephen

Saw some muppet cyclist last night who sailed through red lights at a very busy junction at night... with no lights... and no helmet... and dark clothing... whilst talking on his mobile.

To think then that a motorist would probably still be held liable if they collided with this moron drives me mad.

TWAT.

the_syco

If you get hit by a car, and go flying, the helmet will allow your head to slide along, and your body take the impact. No helmet, and your head may just catch, and your neck snaps.

Pherekydes

Automan wrote:

Very dangerous, the cycle path is there for good reason.

Please explain that to the pedestrians who use them.

Automan

Slow coach wrote:

Please explain that to the pedestrians who use them.

The few cyclists that do use them have no problem avoiding the pedestrians.

MarkN

Automan wrote:

And then you get the cyclists who wont use the cycle path and decide to use the road / bus lane instead (Example of this would be Phoenix Park),
Very dangerous, the cycle path is there for good reason.

I challenge you to cycle from one end of the Park to the other using the cycle track and not to encounter pedestrians who use the cycle track to walk on. It is a fu**ing joke when I hear comments like the above. :rolleyes:

The amount of idiots walking on the track who I've had to roar at to move out of the way as they're walking along in their own little world and I'm approaching on a road bike.

BTW, this thread would be more suited to the cycle forum but I don't think some of you could handle the abuse you will get

TwoShedsJackson

MarkN wrote:

I challenge you to cycle from one end of the Park to the other using the cycle track and not to encounter pedestrians who use the cycle track to walk on. It is a fu**ing joke when I hear comments like the above. :rolleyes:

So you'd rather cycle in close proximity to things which are made of metal, weigh over a ton, and are probably going several times faster than the pedestrians, then weave around a few pedestrians? Ok.

I've only been driving a year and I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of cyclists with a proper, working back light I've seen on the road.

MarkN

Well I've done more driving behind the wheel and on a bike than you have in your one year driving so I'll take the risk.

I also have cat eye lights, an Altura high vis yellow jacket and will happily cycle in the "hard shoulder" in the Park where you shouldn't be driving a car unless you're parking it.

It's the only place on a 12km commute to work that I don't use a cycle lane but in my experience of using the Park to commute and living next to it, it's too much to ask pedestrians to use the footpath.

seamus

You'd get a proper debate on it, on the Cycling forum. There's kind of a 50-50 thing about whether helmets are actually useful or not. Studies would suggest that cyclists wearing helmets are more likely to take risks and other road users are more likely to be less cautious around them.

Many are also injured so badly by an accident in an ill-fitting helmet that they would have been better off without it.

I'm still on the fence, officially.

So you'd rather cycle in close proximity to things which are made of metal, weigh over a ton, and are probably going several times faster than the pedestrians, then weave around a few pedestrians? Ok.

Well, at least vehicles are more predictable. A pedestrian can sidestep at a moments notice. If you see a car in front of you, you can expect some weaving but mostly that they'll stay in their lane. Nine times out of ten when I come up behind a pedestrian, each step they take moves them six inches to the left or right. I've clipped a couple of weaving idiots (mainly with my bag or knee though).

ferdi

Cyrus wrote:

Cyclists? Helmets???

Drivers? Indicators???

Cyrus

me not using my indicator (and i dont have one anyway i drive a bmw /joke) isnt particularily harmful to me, a cyclist having an accident with no helmet on would on the face of seem to be much more harmful

cyclopath2001

Cyrus wrote:

me not using my indicator (and i dont have one anyway i drive a bmw /joke) isnt particularily harmful to me, a cyclist having an accident with no helmet on would on the face of seem to be much more harmful

There are far more dangerous things done by BMW drivers than not indicating. Just today I had to take evasive action when a female BMW- abuser crossed a continuous white line, and drove straight at me so as to park on a double yellow line and beside a continuous white line, facing the wrong way on a busy main road. No, she didn't indicate. And, as she overtook on my left side, while driving on the wrong side of the road, I was able to see that she while holding a hand phone to her ear. This probably explains why she was unable to indicate.

I reckon she'd clocked up between 8 and 10 points in as many seconds, assuming she wasn't also breaking the speed limit beforehand, in which case, if there had been any justice, she'd be now be checking out a bicycle in Halfords.

Safety advice from motorists? No thanks.

Carawaystick

when people post actual statistics showing cyclists not wearing helmets suffer more head injuries to the part of the head actually covered by bike helmets than people in motor cars do, I'll take your point seriously.

the speed limit in the Phoenix is 50 kmh. most pedestrians walk at 5-7 kmh
Reasonably fit cyclists would manage an average speed of >20 and I'd say >30kmh on the flat. This is far closer to the speed of motorised traffic. pedestrians walking slowly on the cycle paths in the phoenix present a far greater danger than motorists driving at the speed limit on Chesterfield avenue as seamus said.

I can't find a reference now, but I will if people don't believe this,
After penalty points came in for non-wearing seat belts, the death rate of road fatalities for the few months after increased.


reading the bike helmet thread on the bike forum would be a reasonable idea. there's loads of points of view on this amoung cyclists, And loads of the hard scientific/medical evidence is baffling, Quantum mechanics baffling, in it's unintuitiveness.

Quint

Cyclists should wear motorcycle helmets

Stark

Automan wrote:

The few cyclists that do use them have no problem avoiding the pedestrians.

Bull****. The only way to avoid crashing into the Phoenix Park cycle lane morons is to swerve out of the cycle lane. I've played chicken with them a few times; it's usually met with the buggy counter attack.

Carawaystick wrote:

the speed limit in the Phoenix is 50 kmh. most pedestrians walk at 5-7 kmh
Reasonably fit cyclists would manage an average speed of >20 and I'd say >30kmh on the flat. This is far closer to the speed of motorised traffic. pedestrians walking slowly on the cycle paths in the phoenix present a far greater danger than motorists driving at the speed limit on Chesterfield avenue as seamus said.

QFT.

I know quite a few cyclists who would do the full 50km/hr speed limit or even more as well. At that speed, you could kill a pedestrian if you collided with them on the footpath. And if anyone is being reasonable and not bashing cyclists for the sake of bashing cyclists, then you'll admit that the Phoenix park cycle lanes are nothing better than footpaths.

As for the topic of the thread ("get your cyclist rants in" aside), I'm like seamus in that I'm on the fence. I know of quite a few people who were saved from serious injury by a good helmet, but there are also the cons that seamus mentioned.

jimmycrackcorm

I spent 50 yo yos in Halfords on a helmet for the sprog only to examine it closely and see it is light plastic and foam. Methinks 1 euro for plastic, 1 for foam and 48 for the name BELL!

Alkers

Carawaystick wrote:

when people post actual statistics showing cyclists not wearing helmets suffer more head injuries to the part of the head actually covered by bike helmets than people in motor cars do, I'll take your point seriously.

the speed limit in the Phoenix is 50 kmh. most pedestrians walk at 5-7 kmh
Reasonably fit cyclists would manage an average speed of >20 and I'd say >30kmh on the flat. This is far closer to the speed of motorised traffic. pedestrians walking slowly on the cycle paths in the phoenix present a far greater danger than motorists driving at the speed limit on Chesterfield avenue as seamus said.

I can't find a reference now, but I will if people don't believe this,
After penalty points came in for non-wearing seat belts, the death rate of road fatalities for the few months after increased.


reading the bike helmet thread on the bike forum would be a reasonable idea. there's loads of points of view on this amoung cyclists, And loads of the hard scientific/medical evidence is baffling, Quantum mechanics baffling, in it's unintuitiveness.

Very good post. I'd be pretty sure that a cycling helmet would do just as good on the head of a car driver in an accident as it does on the head of a cyclist...
As for not cycling in the cycling lane, only the cycle lanes with a solid white line are compulsory and any time you see a cyclist not cycling in a cycle lane it can be taken for granted they would have a good cause for not doing so. It's dangerous enough as it is out there without going to extra lengths to put ones self at more risk.
As for not having lights (especially rear) at night, no arguments there, idiotic on the behalf of the offender.

cyclopath2001

Simona1986 wrote:

As for not cycling in the cycling lane, only the cycle lanes with a solid white line are compulsory

Not correct. All cycle tracks are compulsory for cyclists. But, since 1998, when the PDs changed the law, the ones with broken white lines must be shared with motorists. The purpose of cycle tracks is to force cyclists off the road and make more space for motorists.The cycle track regulations are heavily loaded in favour of motorists.

Simona1986 wrote:

and any time you see a cyclist not cycling in a cycle lane it can be taken for granted they would have a good cause for not doing so.

Correct. Most of the the cycle tracks located on footways are illegal. Then, among the legal ones, there are quite a number that go nowhere useful, or have lamposts in the middle or do not comply with the minimum width regulations. One I've seen is just 1.5 metres wide and is marked as being for two-way cycling use and has to be shared with pedestrians.

For example, on the coastal cycle track in Clontarf, going towards Fairview, the design makes no provision for leaving the track and rejoining the road to Fairview. To get back on the road you have to ride along a footpath, then down a sharp kerb into a lane of left-hand-turning motorists, most of whom don't bother indicating as they speed towards the junction while driving in the bus lane.

Telling cyclists to wear helmets is just a way of avoiding the real road safety issues.

keefg

MarkN wrote:

I also have cat eye lights, an Altura high vis yellow jacket

Mark, you sound like an experienced cyclist and by your description of your PPE on your bike, someone who takes the care to be seen.

Surely even you must agree with the fact that people like yourself who bother with adequate lights & hi-viz clothing are in the minority.
I have been driving for 18 years and I can honestly say that cyclist scare the crap out of me - not in a Boogeyman kind of way - but the fact that one day I am worried I will kill or seriously injure someone on a bike. As an ex-biker (the motor type) I always take care to look for bikes but cyclists just make it so damn difficult for motorists to see or avoid them and then the motorist is vilified as some sort of monster if an accident does occur involving a cyclist.

Most cyclist show little or no regard for their own safety and some almost "dare" drivers to hit them. I wish I had a fiver for every cyclist I have seen who

- go through red lights
- wear dark clothing, no matter what the conditions
- do not bother with any kind of lights on their bike
- weave in & out of traffic as if they are invincible
- wearing ipods/headphones

Yep, I agree that car drivers are terrible regarding driving whilst reading/eating/shaving/applying makeup/ cell phone use etc but their chances of death are slim in a built up, slow moving traffic situation.......not so for a cyclist.
You or any other cyclist can come on here and point out the motorists faults but the theme of this thread is about cyclists not doing enough to protect themselves and as the OP correctly pointed out.....that's just madness.

On a lighter note.....During an episode of "Ross Kemp On Gangs" recently in Jamaca, they filmed a guy riding a pushbike down the road at night using the back (reflective) side of 2 cd's tied to te bike as reflectors Now that's cool Third World ingenuity.

daedalus2097

I can't believe the number of cyclists in Dublin who don't use lights on their bikes! I too cycle and drive, and there are plenty of occasions where it's far easier and feels safer to cycle on the road than on the cycle track. I always have a good set of lights with me (and I mean a real front light, not a flashing green LED one - how are they meant to help you see where you're going??) and while I normally wouldn't wear a high vis jacket, I'll have reflective armbands instead. I think it's just crazy not to kame yourself visible, these people really must have no idea that they suddenly appear out of the dark right in front of cars along the darker roads...

daedalus2097

Oh, and I might add, that while helmets aren't compulsory, proper lighting is a legal requirement for any pushbike on a public road.

Automan

For people who had to use "fu**ing" and "Bull****" GROW UP.

MarkN wrote:

"BTW, this thread would be more suited to the cycle forum but I don't think some of you could handle the abuse you will get "

Just says it all really.

MarkN wrote:

"will happily cycle in the "hard shoulder" in the Park where you shouldn't be driving a car unless you're parking it."

During busy times in the park you would find it very difficult to cycle in the "hard shoulder" especially around the zoo due to the amount of people parked in it. So you dont mind holding up and causing a danger to cars and buses but have a problem with people walking on the cycle track when all you have to do is cycle your "road bike" for a few feet in the grass?
You also pose a great danger to yourself with the motorist who just open there car doors and do not check there mirrors to see if there is anything coming.

seamus wrote:

"A pedestrian can sidestep at a moments notice." ).

Cyclists can also be unpredictable at the best of times.

Carawaystick wrote:

"the speed limit in the Phoenix is 50 kmh. most pedestrians walk at 5-7 kmh
Reasonably fit cyclists would manage an average speed of >20 and I'd say >30kmh on the flat."

So its ok to hold up a car / bus at less than half the speed limit when there is cars parked in the "hard shoulder" and continuous traffic on the other side, but its not ok to cycle your bike in the grass when there are people in the cycling lane, why not cars have to avoid Cyclists.

Stark wrote:

"I know quite a few cyclists who would do the full 50km/hr speed limit or even more as well. At that speed, you could kill a pedestrian if you collided with them on the footpath." .

Most cyclists ive been behind are normally doing about 10 to 20 kmh . So your talking about a very small minority there.


Odd how motorists have no problem admitting that there are plenty of bad drivers out there but cyclists on this board seem to think that all cyclists are saints and in the right.

markpb

Automan wrote:

Odd how motorists have no problem admitting that there are plenty of bad drivers out there but cyclists on this board seem to think that all cyclists are saints and in the right.

I think you're reading what you want to read. Most cyclists on boards will happily agree that anyone cycling without lights and reflective gear are idiotic and suicidal. In fact, there's not one post here (or in any other thread on boards) where I've seen a cyclist justify not having lights. Personally I don't leave the house without (decent) front and back lights (two of each), a hi-viz jacket and and an ex-guarda sam brown belt.

You're contradicting yourself with your second point. Cyclists say they don't want pedestrians on the cycle lane because it's unsafe and slows them down. You think that's stupid and selfish but you don't want cyclists on the road because you think it's unsafe and it slows you down. How do you justify that?

Also keefg, out of curiosity why do you think cyclists shouldn't wear headphones? Do you use a radio in your car?

seamus

Automan wrote:

Cyclists can also be unpredictable at the best of times.

Irrelevant in the context of the point I made.

Surely even you must agree with the fact that people like yourself who bother with adequate lights & hi-viz clothing are in the minority.

As someone who cycles 16 miles (in total) to work most days, I'll totally agree with this. The vast majority of cyclists wear little or no safety gear and cycle with complete disdain for their own safety.

I can't count the number of times I've encountered (in my car) a cyclist cycling the wrong way down the road in the middle of the night with no lights or other visibility gear on them.

The importance of safety equipment when cycling is completely ignored by public and politicians. This is core of the issue - no-one who can make a difference cares.

- weave in & out of traffic as if they are invincible
- wearing ipods/headphones

Well, as an ex-motorcyclist yourself, you can't see how these can terrible things. Moving around slow-moving or stopped traffic is fine so long as you watch what you're doing and you have a good reason for doing it.
Wearing headphones is also fine so long as you do it sensibly. I cycle with the radio on in the mornings. I can still hear the traffic fine, but even if I had no headphones in, I would still do the basics of moving my head and looking around instead of relying on my ears. On a motorbike, anything over 30 or 40mph and the wind drowns out all but the loudest vehicles, so using your eyes is a must. The principle here is the same.

What terrifies me is the number of cyclist who *never* look around - jumping out into traffic and changing lane without so much as a glance.

keefg

markpb wrote:

Also keefg, out of curiosity why do you think cyclists shouldn't wear headphones? Do you use a radio in your car?

Hi Mark,

I certainly do listen to my car stereo, but I don't weave in & out of traffic oblivious to my surroundings.
I don't drive through red lights.
I don't drive at night with no lights on.
I don't drive on the wrong side of the road.
I don't drive with any serious obstructions - ie. bags of shopping hanging off the handle bars.

The point I am trying to make is that as cyclists are at such risk of death & serious injury from even the slightest of accidents - they should do everything possible to protect themselves.

Sure, you can say such & such an accident was the car/truck drivers fault for changing lanes or whatever but that doesn't help the dead cyclist does it? Car drivers can be an ignorant (and in this country - untrained) shower, more reason for the cyclist to do all they can to protect themselves from such a shower.
If this means not listening to some eejit DJ or whatever on the way to work then so be it.

markpb

keefg wrote:

Car drivers can be an ignorant (and in this country - untrained) shower, more reason for the cyclist to do all they can to protect themselves from such a shower. If this means not listening to some eejit DJ or whatever on the way to work then so be it.

The smiley at the end of my question meant it was a joke - I do understand why people think listening to a radio is dangerous but imho it comes down to experience and awareness above anything else. I only wear earphones occasionally but tbh it doesn't make much difference - I signal and look behind me when I'm changing lanes and I cycle the same route all the time so I know where people change lanes, jump lights, mis-read road markings, expect me to turn left, etc.

A driver who sees a cyclist behaving erratically and listening to music might say 'look at him, he's not paying attention to his surroundings because he's listening to music' but the same cyclist is likely to be just as stupid if they weren't listening to music.

keefg

markpb wrote:

A driver who sees a cyclist behaving erratically and listening to music might say 'look at him, he's not paying attention to his surroundings because he's listening to music' but the same cyclist is likely to be just as stupid if they weren't listening to music.

Unfortunately that is so true

Ger the man

I have been cycling in the px park for the last 3 years and never use the main road or the cycle paths because Im convinced the pedestrians see you coming and refuse to move due to pure ignorance (even though its a cycle lane??). Ive gotten the usual abuse too..'Who do you think you are!' , 'Fu**in cyclists' etc. Instead I use the route around by the old magazine fort, its much quieter. Dangerous\ careless motorists, pedestrians and cyclists is just a fact of life and is here to stay. Some people simply dont care.

Automan

markpb wrote:

You're contradicting yourself with your second point. Cyclists say they don't want pedestrians on the cycle lane because it's unsafe and slows them down. You think that's stupid and selfish but you don't want cyclists on the road because you think it's unsafe and it slows you down. How do you justify that?

Dont see were im contradicting myself point was that its easier and not as dangerous to cycle around pedestrians than it is to drive around cyclists during heavy traffic.
And I dont agree with pedestrians using the cycle path at all.

seamus wrote:

Irrelevant in the context of the point I made.

Dont see how it is Irrelevant, you said "A pedestrian can sidestep at a moments notice." A cyclist can easily swerve out when they see a shore / bad part of road / rocks etc.. this cannot always be predicted by a driver so it is unpredictable. Also some cyclist go into there own little world and verge out from the curb.