Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Helmet just saved life...
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
This is a Sports forum.
No. It's not -- at least not exclusively so. There have been more than a number of requests for a cycling commuting board but the consensus seemed to be that there'd be too much crossover and it would just result in a lot of people having to read two forums. Maybe it's time to revisit the question of a separate board?
All of my posts should be viewed in the context that this board covers not only sports cycling, but also commuting and popping down to the shops.
When potential massive population-level heath benefits and savings in health care and congestion costs are on the cards if commuting cycling levels can be increased, you'll have to excuse me if I'm not overly concerned about those who engage in extreme sports or who travel at high speeds -- even if helmets were needed for such extreme activities, they and their clubs should look after them selves.Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »While I have strongly held views about helmets, I feel that a thread about someone's own head injury is probably the wrong place to start airing them.
Unless I've missed it, he hasn't argued for mandatory helmets or said anyone was a fool for not wearing them. He simply said that in the case of his own accident he felt a helmet was beneficial.
And in fairness the "Helmet just saved life..." title is going well into the territory of advocacy (advocacy does not have to be planned or done by a group)... But 'where is it ok to debate or not' is a question I've asked myself and I would usually tend to avoid diving into this type of tread and did so up to the point of the consultant's view being aired -- then we travelled into Bad Science land.
EDIT: You're right. I should have kept it for another thread, or at least just focused on the consultant's view and nothing else.I find the groupthink on this forum regarding helmets and the fervour to not get more people wearing them to be very distasteful.
Like most consensus reached in communities, the general consensus reached has come about after reading debates on the subject over many months for many and years for others. It's up to you if you want to label it "groupthink" and "very distasteful".
What is the consensus about helmets here? Mostly that helmets should not be mandatory, that they are not as effective as some say, and maybe also that they should not be a focus of the State -- I'd be pushing to say it was more that those things....a helmet will absorb impact energy that would otherwise be transferred to my head or brain...
How much energy will it observe?The smooth shell will grip on a road surface a lot less than my face or scalp would so I'm at less risk of rotational injuries as well.
See: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1039.html
No point in repeating it here at this point as it requires further reading and I'd have to quote a lot when you can just click on the link.As a practitioner of ww kayaking on grade 5 rivers I have been in unfortunate situations of having to benefit from the wearing of and possession of things like helmets and buoyancy aids. I've learned the usefulness of those types of items.
I'm guessing the risk of hitting ones head of rocks while kayaking is much larger than the while cycling?
According to the Phillips Report, the National Report on Traumatic Brain Injury in the Republic of Ireland 2008, with road traffic collisions, cyclists have the lowest of all groups to suffer anything above "mild" brain injuries and have tiny percentages of irreversible injuries and the lowest mortality rate.
All other groups, including pedestrians, have a higher risk of "moderate" and "severe" brain injuries and a higher level of irreversible injuries.
On roads, cyclists seem to be the last ones who need helmets. Which leaves a big question: Why are cyclists being targeted when they are at less risk?The near-religious fervour that posters here view the wearing or non-wearing of helmets while on bikes is just bloody harmful.
My views are strongly based on facts and a sicking amount of reading research on the subject of cycling, bicycle helmets and brain injuries.Instead of attacking those that want useful protection for us cyclists, maybe those posters that are always on that particular hobbyhorse should reconsider where their efforts are being directed. Maybe it would be better serving society as a whole that those posters that currently attack the pro-helmet posters, that they go and do more useful things that would benefit us all. Maybe getting involved in helmet design to make them more palatable to more people if that's a perceived issue? Maybe get involved in advertising campaigns to reduce the amount of crap food that people eat? Maybe suggest other methods of getting lazy bums to go and exercise? Getting involved in better ways of doing multi-size capability safely with helmets that could then be applied to hire bikes?
Maybe it'd be easier to get "lazy bums" on bikes if it wasn't for people dangerising cycling?
Maybe it'd be easier to get those "lazy bums" on bikes if the money and energy spent on helmet and high-vis promotion was spent on promoting everyday cycling?
To be clear here: The evidence does not point to a need for helmets or an improved helmet design, it points to helmets not being needed for general cycling.I will always suggest to people that I see cycling without a lid that a helmet is a good idea. At a minimum, I try to ask them why they don't.
You should go to the Netherlands and spread your god's good word!chakattack wrote: »Seeing as you bring up this crock of sh*t logic (based on a study or two in other countries - I'd love to see them!) at every mention of a helmet, it's you that appears most religious on the subject.
This wonderful study is like your personal Dianetics.
I think the original focus of this thread, one man not cracking his skull and ROK ON's analysis of cycling numbers in Ireland should give you food for thought.
"Truth is what stands the test of experience"
Is there any need at all for "crock of sh*t"?
"Truth is what stands the test of experience" -- Sure, but there's no epidemic of head and brain injuries in the Netherlands where there's large numbers cycling and helmet use is next to zero. Food for thought?
Also, given you're quoting a cyclist who was an expert in physics and forces: Where's Albert's helmet?
...The crazy fool! He should have been protecting his brain from the tiny risk of head injury.Qualitymark wrote: »This all reminds me of a man I used to know who was the shop steward on a building site, much hated by the management. He was determined to get the people working on the site to wear helmets, but they refused - until the day that a spanner mysteriously landed on his hard hat from 100 feet up (an easy target because of his bright yellow helmet).
The helmet split but he was unhurt. Next day and thereafter, everyone on the site was wearing a hard hat.
If cycling on the road in an urban area was anywhere near as dangerous as working on a building site I'd give up.Max_Charger wrote: »Tell you what, Go out with the OP and he'll have you exactly reenact what happened to him only this time you wont be wearing a helmet so we can finally put this debate to rest. Going by what you said here you have absolutely nothing to worry about so it shouldn't be a problem.
Great, I should re-enact something that has a tiny chance of happening to me. Yeah, I'm off to do that right now... just after I write to all of my TDs looking for bottle holders to be banned.Now, tongue in cheek, I can't believe the nerve of a consultant using his expert medical opinion to comment on your case !! Did he at least have a load of peer reviewed studies from countries with a far superior cycling infrastructure than here, like Denmark or The Netherlands, to back up his assertions or was he just using his experience, training and expertise ??? I hope you set him straight :-)Those that have first-hand knowledge of the usefulness of helmets should not be dissuaded from suggesting to others that helmet wearing is a good thing. This applies to those that have had reduced injuries as a result of wearnig a helmet, and those that have a properly informed opinion on the subject (medical staff, engineers etc).
Tongue in cheek...
And, yes, cycling infrastructure results in zero cyclists ever falling off their bikes.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
To the OP - I apologise that this may be taking things further off topic again.
Warning - long post, and I'm sorry about that.
Maybe the best route forwards is to mandate helmet wearing, but to allow those that think that they know better to apply for a non-helmet wearing license. This would solve the issue that appears to be here, and it would mean that a choice could be made to not wear a helmet. Those whose insurance terms require it or those that have common sense, are all covered and people that are willing to take those risks can do so without affecting other people.All of my posts should be viewed in the context that this board covers not only sports cycling, but also commuting and popping down to the shops.
When potential massive population-level heath benefits and savings in health care and congestion costs are on the cards if commuting cycling levels can be increased, you'll have to excuse me if I'm not overly concerned about those who engage in extreme sports or who travel at high speeds -- even if helmets were needed for such extreme activities, they and their clubs should look after them selves.
Joking aside, I do think that there are categories of cycling types that should always have a helmet, and there are other types that may not need a helmet. The trouble is it's hard to be able to write a law that would account cleanly and easily for this. If you can't make a perfect law that covers it then a compromise would be the next best option, and usually the compromise is one that benefits the most people. It's a complex issue the does not have a simple solution that would appease everyone. The two choices that Irish politicians would generally choose is either "everyone wears one on the road" or no law required. The trouble is, is that sometimes people are not educated enough to be able to make an informed like this and this is why legislation to force people to wear a helmet would be useful.
But you are a strong advocate of not wearing a helmet, are you not? It's a little hypocritical to criticise one poster for advocating wearing a helmet when you appear to be one that strongly and regularly advocates not wearing a helmet?And in fairness the "Helmet just saved life..." title is going well into the territory of advocacy (advocacy does not have to be planned or done by a group)...
Or have I misconstrued your postings on this subject?
From my reading of this forum over the past few years, it appears to me that the consensus here appears to be a rather vocal minority that appear to advocate no helmets, but that there is a vast majority of people that have a bit more common sense that would quietly wear a helmet but that don't tend to try and convert the no-helmetters from their crusade.Like most consensus reached in communities, the general consensus reached has come about after reading debates on the subject over many months for many and years for others. It's up to you if you want to label it "groupthink" and "very distasteful".
What is the consensus about helmets here? Mostly that helmets should not be mandatory, that they are not as effective as some say, and maybe also that they should not be a focus of the State -- I'd be pushing to say it was more that those things.
Personally, having seen and felt the difference between helmet and no helmet in various situations both on and off the bike I'm happy to wear a helmet when on the bike. I reach speeds that are fast enough to impart decent injuries - on the road I regularly read speeds akin to that at the end of a 25 to 30 foot fall. If I were a rock climber, I'd be wearing a helmet above 6 feet and no-one would bat an eyelid that I was. It comes down to risk recognition, and sane risk mitigation. It makes perfect physical sense to try and minimise the impact from an accident as I'm not arrogant enough to think that I'm immune to being in an accident on the bike. I'm fragile, and I'm not hugely experienced. My roadcraft is generally good but I recognise I'm at risk from idiots on the road including oblivious pedestrians. Is it an indication that those that think that helmets should not be worn, that they think they are immune from accidents?
I presume you meant "absorb". Here's the thing. Any energy that does not go into my skull or soft tissues inside or outside my skull is a benefit to me. The more that is absorbed, the better. Balancing that is the expected energies involved that may need to be absorbed. Examples:How much energy will it observe?
if I'm pottering into the university for lunch on the commuter bike, I know that I'm moving at most at a light jogging speed and for this usage I can see the desire for no helmet, though one would be recommended if only to maintain good habits.
If I'm on the road bike on a spin around the suburbs and non-main roads around the outskirts of the town then I'm reaching 30-50kph. Not wearing a helmet for this use pattern would just be plain dumb, and I'd like to see a quality helmet used that has a chance of helping absorb those energies if/when I fall off and land wrong.
If I'm on the mountain bike hammering on XC offroad tracks, I may not be reaching 50kph but I'm definitely hitting 35kph and there are many trees and rocks that will stop me much more quickly than the skating along on a road surface. For this I really would see that helmets would be mandated and not surprisingly every single mountainbiker I know always wears their helmet. Even the kids that do it, their parents have a clue and make the kids wear them.
I'm not a dirtjumper but for this use pattern the full-face helmets make sense with a high likelihood of coming off and high impact speeds.
Downhillers, well apart from being a breed onto themselves have a real need for decent headgear, and they wear decent headgear. Not surprising really.
I don't think that this link says what you think (or hope) it does..See: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1039.html
No point in repeating it here at this point as it requires further reading and I'd have to quote a lot when you can just click on the link.
That paper is a critique of a particular pro-helmet study, but it doesn't actually show that the helmet wearing is more harmful, only that the study used to base the Australian laws on may not be correct. These are separate issues. My point previously still stands.
Generally, no, your guess is incorrect. It's a different risk, as it's a different type of impact. The impacts from paddling-related incidents tend to be lower speed but higher force, as when submerged in the water moving at maybe 10kph there's an initial tap but the dynamic water pressure (often much greater than 1 tonne per m^2) continues to force a swimmer or paddler onto the object being hit. In other words, the peak energy is lower than a cyclist's fall, but there is a lot more energy involved. It's the difference between getting hit with a hammer and getting hit with a whip. Similar speeds but different energy profiles.I'm guessing the risk of hitting ones head of rocks while kayaking is much larger than the while cycling?
As the impact energy in a kayaking is slowly applied, it's generally easier to deal with and the kayak helmet designs and constructions types reflect this, and it's reason why cycling helmets are not suitable for kayaking and why kayaking helmets are not suitable for cyclists. There is also a risk of hitting a rock or tree that's above the water but that's rarely above a jogging speed so is less of a worry.
Not that surprising given the general speeds or cyclists at impact, and the general trend of helmet wearing amongst cyclists.According to the Phillips Report, the National Report on Traumatic Brain Injury in the Republic of Ireland 2008, with road traffic collisions, cyclists have the lowest of all groups to suffer anything above "mild" brain injuries and have tiny percentages of irreversible injuries and the lowest mortality rate.
All other groups, including pedestrians, have a higher risk of "moderate" and "severe" brain injuries and a higher level of irreversible injuries.
I've actually read the report, and it's making note that the data referring to PPE is often not recorded, so this undermines the use of this report as a basis for not wearing a helmet:
"Reference to protective devices was often lacking in the medical note"
Interesting comments from that report:
"Pedal cyclists were the most likely road user to have an isolated head injury (81%)."
"Severe TBI in pedal cyclists is low (13%) despite having less protection than people in vehicles as they are slower and energy transfer is less" (emphasis mine - but note that the comparison is with motor vehicles..)
I would interpret that report differently, as I would not use the displayed data to base an absolute risk, but it is useful to do a comparison between the differing road users. The issue is not whether cyclists are at less risk of injury than a car occupant (which is what you appear to imply by your statement above basing your view on that report), but whether cyclists would benefit from wearing helmets overall.On roads, cyclists seem to be the last ones who need helmets. Which leaves a big question: Why are cyclists being targeted when they are at less risk?
But to answer your question, probably as a result if statements like this from the report you mentioned but selectively quoted from:
"Pedal cyclists were the most likely road user to have an isolated head injury (81%)."
I would expect that most educated people reading a report like that with peer-reviewed statements like this would suggest that improving the head protection would lessen the injury rates for cyclists. Would you disagree with this?
Lets get things done right instead of being Irish about it and making a mess of it. Lets try to get society happy with the concept of PPE for appropriate situations, including cycling, instead of handwaving about how dangerous it makes cycling look. When it comes down to it, cycling on our roads is not a safe activity, and as a cyclist there is a lot less protection than a car occupant has, and can have much higher impact energies than a pedestrian falling over would experience.Maybe it'd be easier to get "lazy bums" on bikes if it wasn't for people dangerising cycling?
Maybe it'd be easier to get those "lazy bums" on bikes if the money and energy spent on helmet and high-vis promotion was spent on promoting everyday cycling?
(as an aside, I'd prefer to see adequate bike and pedestrian lighting in addition to hi-vis instead of exclusively hi-vis, but that's for another thread.)
Amm, I disagree. The arguments being used that I've read about why people do not want to wear helmets, suggest that people don't want to wear helmets because of inconvenience factors more than that helmets are not designed for or are appropriate for the protection of heads. This suggests that improved designs may mitigate these reasons, and that's why I suggested it.To be clear here: The evidence does not point to a need for helmets or an improved helmet design, it points to helmets not being needed for general cycling.
No, thanks. I'll do so here where our risks are different, and my helping others may be more useful overall. Thanks for the suggestion though. Is it possible that you be more comfortable if you moved over to the Netherlands where your no-helmet-wearing thoughts may meet with more like-minded people? And by the way, this isn't a religious discussion, though people seem to react as though it isYou should go to the Netherlands and spread your god's good word!
Less mixing of cyclists and traffic, a lot of slower bikes in use meaning less energy in impacts. Differing risk profile. Dutch racing cyclists still wear their helmets though - Also food for thought?"Truth is what stands the test of experience" -- Sure, but there's no epidemic of head and brain injuries in the Netherlands where there's large numbers cycling and helmet use is next to zero. Food for thought?
Good that you picked a useful strawman there. Building sites have situations that can easily kill, and that is why there is legislation covering the provision of PPE. It's a no-brainer to wear boots, hat and gloves on a building site, as well to use common sense and training when working in those situations with heavy machinery and working at heights.If cycling on the road in an urban area was anywhere near as dangerous as working on a building site I'd give up.
Back on topic though.. One of the problems with people in general, is that people are very poor at risk recognition and at risk management. We either magnify risk beyond all usefulness (see the US reaction to terrorists and the TSA security theatre) or we ignore the risks that are present (cycling on Irish roads without a helmet).
It's a proven fact that our roads are a dangerous place, and I for one would like to see them become perfectly safe. As this is reality, that's not going to happen so I will take what appropriate steps I can to mitigate the risks of injury to myself.
Good cycling infrastructure reduces the risk of car/cyclist collisions. The risk of falling off bikes would certainly be reduced with appropriate infrastructure with less off-camber sharp turns, less poor surfacing, more cycle-friendly kerbing, less mixing or prams and bikes etc. I do hope that you are not suggesting that we stop investing in proper cycle infrastructure?And, yes, cycling infrastructure results in zero cyclists ever falling off their bikes.
Monument, I'd suggest that instead of continuing to wander away from the OP's thread I'd suggest that instead of replying here, that we start a new thread and we'll continue our discussion there.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
I am Irish too, born and bred. It allows me to be qualified to make that statement!
I'm just well aware of our apparent inability to do things well sometimes, and it saddens me. We as a nation have the capability to do things so well, and we do from time to time, but we also manage to make a right hames of things sometimes and it's a great pity.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
chakattack wrote: »@ Monument
A few straightforward questions:
On an individual basis and acknowledging that accidents can happen, is cycling without a helmet safer than cycling with a helmet?
Are you more likely to be hit by a car if you wear a helmet?
If 20% of people reading this thread stop wearing helmets, what is the benefit to society?
As you likely have read at this stage before, some studies have shown that motorists drive closer to cyclists who have helmets on. That likely does increases the chances of getting sideswiped.
The "accidents can happen" idea allows, for example, prescription of a full facial mask or at least a chin guard "just in case". Should people commuting or popping down to the shops wear these things just in case?
What about people walking to the shop/work, should they wear a helmet just in case?Joking aside, I do think that there are categories of cycling types that should always have a helmet, and there are other types that may not need a helmet. The trouble is it's hard to be able to write a law that would account cleanly and easily for this. If you can't make a perfect law that covers it then a compromise would be the next best option, and usually the compromise is one that benefits the most people. It's a complex issue the does not have a simple solution that would appease everyone. The two choices that Irish politicians would generally choose is either "everyone wears one on the road" or no law required. The trouble is, is that sometimes people are not educated enough to be able to make an informed like this and this is why legislation to force people to wear a helmet would be useful.
Your position that a law would be useful is opposed by the majority of the community here. Use the search function of you want to understand why.But you are a strong advocate of not wearing a helmet, are you not? It's a little hypocritical to criticise one poster for advocating wearing a helmet when you appear to be one that strongly and regularly advocates not wearing a helmet?
Or have I misconstrued your postings on this subject?
Yes you have misconstrued my postings.
My point on advocation is that it opens the thread up to debate.... it appears to me that the consensus here appears to be a rather vocal minority that appear to advocate no helmets...,
I made it fairly clear in my previous post that the consensus does not extend to a no helmet position -- as I said it includes no compulsion and an understanding that helmets are not as good as some make then out to be.... it appears to me that the consensus here... on the road including oblivious pedestrians. Is it an indication that those that think that helmets should not be worn, that they think they are immune from accidents?
It's an indication that you engage in risky behavior and, it's not fully clear, but you maybe are doing a lot of unjustified transfer of risk to others?Here's the thing. Any energy that does not go into my skull or soft tissues inside or outside my skull is a benefit to me. .....
It's not that simple.
For example:
[1] You're going downhill at speed, you hit your head off a rock at a rate which -- including what the helmet absorbed -- exceeds permanent severe brain damage then you still have permanent severe brain damage regardless of what the helmet absorbed.
[2] You're going to the shop or work and you hit your head of the kerb or ground at a rate which -- including what the helmet absorbed -- exceeds the level needed for mild reversible brain damage, then yoy still have mild reversible brain damage regardless of what the helmet absorbed.
Wearing a helmet is much like the "security theater" of airports -- it makes people feel that something is been done but it is really marginal stuff, that makes little diffrence. It could be said helmets are worse as the security theater isn't linked to people acting in a risky way, but the security theater of cycling makes some cyclists feel better about their risky behavior (ie speed for starters).Generally, no, your guess is incorrect. It's a different risk, as it's a different type of impact....
The type if impact is irelllevent to my question about the level of risk - and you again seem to be trying to transfer the risks of some cycling to all cycling.I would interpret that report differently, as I would not use the displayed data to base an absolute risk, but it is useful to do a comparison between the differing road users. The issue is not whether cyclists are at less risk of injury than a car occupant (which is what you appear to imply by your statement above basing your view on that report), but whether cyclists would benefit from wearing helmets overall.
And, overall, would people in foot and those in cars not benefit from wearing helmets?
More so given then other users are at greater risk of major injoury?But to answer your question, probably as a result if statements like this from the report you mentioned but selectively quoted from:
"Pedal cyclists were the most likely road user to have an isolated head injury (81%)."
I would expect that most educated people reading a report like that with peer-reviewed statements like this would suggest that improving the head protection would lessen the injury rates for cyclists. Would you disagree with this?
The fact that those cyclists with brain injuries are more likely to have isolated injuries than those of other modes, does not mean helmets would "lessen the injury rates for cyclists".
You serm to be using the term peer-reviewed to lend support to you then trying to use an unconnected statement try to support something it does not.
More to the point, none of this remotely answers my question!
Lets get things done right instead of being Irish about it and making a mess of it. Lets try to get society happy with the concept of PPE for appropriate situations, including cycling, instead of handwaving about how dangerous it makes cycling look. When it comes down to it, cycling on our roads is not a safe activity,
Your assertion about how safe cycling on roads is an activity is not supported by facts. Thus your conclusions about the gear needed is flawed.
Even more so for urban roads in Dublin.and as a cyclist there is a lot less protection than a car occupant has,
Yet, car occupants suffer more sevare brain injuries and car occupants above all other users could wear a very high standard of crash helmet which would benefit them.and can have much higher impact energies than a pedestrian falling over would experience.
As per the report on head injouries, people on foot are often hit by cars and the force is greater than of the force which causes general cyclist brain injouries.No, thanks. I'll do so here where our risks are different, and my helping others may be more useful overall. Thanks for the suggestion though. Is it possible that you be more comfortable if you moved over to the Netherlands where your no-helmet-wearing thoughts may meet with more like-minded people? And by the way, this isn't a religious discussion, though people seem to react as though it is
I'll move to the Netherlands if you move down under where your helmet compulsion thoughts may meet with more like-minded people. And that compulsion is working out so well for them...Less mixing of cyclists and traffic, a lot of slower bikes in use meaning less energy in impacts. Differing risk profile.
Forget mixing with traffic - bike helmets are not designed for such collisions and have even more limited impact where the speed diffrence is great.
I have a heavy, upright Dutch cargo bike - it goes rather fast. But I perfer data: The Dutch have comparable advantage commuting speeds.
If helmets were needed for the genral population for cycling to work or to the shops due to the risk of falling off a bike, then the Netherlands would show an epidemic level of brain injuries.Good that you picked a useful strawman there. Building sites have situations that can easily kill, and that is why there is legislation covering the provision of PPE. It's a no-brainer to wear boots, hat and gloves on a building site, as well to use common sense and training when working in those situations with heavy machinery and working at heights.
It's a strawman argument to try to compare building site risk to urban cycling risk.Back on topic though.. One of the problems with people in general, is that people are very poor at risk recognition and at risk management. We either magnify risk beyond all usefulness (see the US reaction to terrorists and the TSA security theatre) or we ignore the risks that are present (cycling on Irish roads without a helmet). It's a proven fact that our roads are a dangerous place, and I for one would like to see them become perfectly safe. As this is reality, that's not going to happen so I will take what appropriate steps I can to mitigate the risks of injury to myself.
It might be a proven fact that the roads you use are a dangerous place for cycling. I honestly don't know. But it does not apply to all Irish roads -- it farly clearly does not apply to Dublin where there has been a notable decline of deaths and seioures injuries at the same time as a boom in cyclist numbers, and it's hard to apply your assertion of a "proven fact" to a lot of the country when the data is so low.
Good cycling infrastructure reduces the risk of car/cyclist collisions. The risk of falling off bikes would certainly be reduced with appropriate infrastructure with less off-camber sharp turns, less poor surfacing, more cycle-friendly kerbing, less mixing or prams and bikes etc.And, yes, cycling infrastructure results in zero cyclists ever falling off their bikes.
Sure but the idea that poor infrastructure is anywhere near fully to blame is not tenable -- a loss of focus for a moment, tiredness etc all apply as risks regardless of infrastructure. Before anybody points out that in winter Dutch and Dainish cycle paths are cleared of ice, sure many are but many people fall their bikes off where and when ice is not cleared from paths.
The reaction to worst conditions here should not be to engage in security theatre, but to adjust your cycling. For example, if there's shared use which mixes you with prams or if there's poor transfers between a road and a cycle track: pick between dismounting, slowing down or just using the road.
Bicycle helmets are a prime example of security theatre -- an unproven, ineffective attempt to limit the damage of collisions rather than looking at already proven and tried and tested ways of limiting collisions.Qualitymark wrote: »galwaycyclist wrote: »Hmmm
Try again?
Cyclists' heads have changed since 2003? That's good news.
The body of research has.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
chakattack wrote: »You didn't answer the last two questions? Just yes or no...
Will the helmet provide protection or would someone be better off without one?
You want me to answer a yes or no to a question about a complex issue which a ton of researchers can't agree on? Fine, so overall my answer is:
No.
People commuting or going down to the shops would be, on balance, better off without helmets. I'll sum up what I have said already:
Even if helmets were proven to have some significance benefit (which there's no proof of), the risk of hitting ones head while cycling generally is so low that helmets have little practical everyday use unless you're very unstable, accident prone, or are engaging in risky behaviour. If we take the "just in case" view, where does it stop? Face protection? Pollution masks? Knee pads? All year around gloves designed to protect your hands from falls? Body armour?... Why stop at helmets when helmets have little to no backing?
Yes, a helmet may offer some protection, but that protection maybe so limited it will not be significance in reducing brain injury, a helmet may also cause more risk by motorists driving closer to cyclists, may contribute to cyclists engaging in risky behaviour and may make things worse with some types of crashes. Helmets may also have an off putting effect which reduces the health benefits of cycling at a population level.Yeah but...
Possibly worth considering different potential types of accident here, specifically collision with a vehicle, or crashing for some other reason. Pedestrians walking on the pavement are less likely to get hit by a vehicle, as they don't share the same space other than when crossing a road. Pedestrians that trip and fall over will typically be going slower than cyclists, and hence are less prone to severe injury. While there may be more pedestrians involved in road traffic accidents than cyclists, there are probably also a helluva lot more pedestrians than cyclists. You'd need to normalise* these quantities to figure out which activity is more prone to this type of incident.
This is debunked so many times, but yet it still comes up again and again: Pedestrians tend to get hit by motorists travelling at speed. The all important mass and speed difference is higher than than for cyclists. Motorists also can mount kerbs quite easily.
As per the Philips Report: "Pedestrians are vulnerable; they are often hit at speed without any protective equipment."
The level of "Severe" brain injury is higher among pedestrians 35 (42%) compared to cyclists at 9 (13%). The irreversible injury rate for cyclist at 8 (16%) is much lower than pedestrians at 8 (16%).
My own view is we need to fix this now and bring in mandatory helmets for pedestrians.People in cars are supposed to wear seat belts, such that their heads don't bang off the windscreen in the event of a collision.
In 2008 according to the Philips Report it still leaves 76 (29%) who suffered brain injuries with helmets on (Another 131 or 49% without and 58 or 22% unknown).... The irreversible injury and mortality rates at 11 or 7% and 11 or 11% are also higher than cyclists.
Why are we not protecting these people with helmets?
We take the "just in case" view with cyclists, but not for people in cars or those on foot?For transport, as opposed to sport, you could normalise based on distance covered and/or number of journeys.
When sports / exercise is excluded, straight away have a lower rate of injuries and deaths for cyclist. But there is very little exact data on the difference because all are counted as cyclists.Put another way, saying that cycling is safer than walking or driving as a means of transport, based on the number of fatal accidents, makes no sense without comparing the number of journeys made. You might as well say that commuting by helicopter is a safe form of transport as there have been no recent fatal helicopter accidents.
The number in Dublin City are so small that the figures are likely “statistical significance” (a sad term when talking about people's life, I know) and the actual number of deaths has declined as the numbers of cyclists have risen which seems to mean that there's statistically a lower chance of death.
Source / discussion -- yes, I'm self referencing, and sadly nobody more qualified than myself has publicly looked at the numbers.
All of that is before you look at the risk–benefit analysis of cycling which has shown that -- on roads far more dangerous than Irish roads in 2012 -- health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks.Not saying that cycling isn't a safe activity, just saying you have to be careful how you look at the figures.
Indeed.0 -
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement