Garda checkpoints for cyclists?

buffalo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Whose IUPG nonsense?

The article's. If a person is arrested for murder, but not convicted, I'm pretty sure any paper who prints "Murderer gets off scot-free" would be done for libel or slander (or whatever the relevant term is).

Lusk Doyle

Lars1916 wrote: »

I don't mind, if they do it. I am well equipped, and know from Germany, that lights, helmets and stuff are compulsory

Don't forget about the self righteous sense of superiority!

Lumen

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Law was updated couple of years ago

OK, so in summary the maximum fine has gone from £20 for the first offence and £50 for subsequent offences (1961), to €2000 for any offence (2010).

Factoring in increases in wages, the current fine is somewhere like 2-3x the old ones.

The current fixed charges relating to drink driving appear to be €200 or €400, depending on BAC.

I don't know what typical fines for drunk cycling are, or even if they get prosecuted at all unless there's an accident, and there is no licence element to cycling (spawn tangent) so it's a bit difficult to compare.

Lusk Doyle

areyawell wrote: »

People riding bicycles should be made do the theory test as they are using the road . They have to wear an L plate on there backs. They should get 12 lessons on how to ride the bike at 30 euro a pop, wait six months to get a bicycle full license test at 85 euro. They should only be aloud to cycle on a 2man bike with another bicycle full license holder until they past there test. They should then be made to wear R plates on there back for another year.

And you should learn the difference between the words there and their.

You're (not your) welcome.

Lusk Doyle

reprazant wrote: »

Yes, I did ask that. But rather than actually say that he preferred lights, reflectors, etc, he, like you did there, went the smartarse pedantic route. It was a simple question that only required a simple answer. It is easier to belittle though.

Oh go cry to your mommy. Do you come with a warning "Caution - Offends easily."?

Iwannahurl

buffalo wrote: »

The article's. If a person is arrested for murder, but not convicted, I'm pretty sure any paper who prints "Murderer gets off scot-free" would be done for libel or slander (or whatever the relevant term is).

I would have to acknowledge that anti-cyclist sentiment appears in the media far too often. However, I think the article, or at least the headline, may have been reflecting the reporter's or the quoted TD's consternation at the apparently low conviction rate.

Here's a headline on the Amnesty International website, over a report which refers to, among other things, Ireland's very low conviction rate in rape cases: A DAMNING INDICTMENT OF IRELAND’S ATTITUDE TO WOMEN.

Does the paltry 1% conviction rate in rape cases mean that the 99% of defendants acquitted actually did no wrong? I very much doubt it, and Amnesty's headline indicates they have the same misgivings.

Lumen wrote: »

How is it relevant to Motors? This is a cycling discussion.

It's all about responsibility on the road. If you were to suggest in the Motors forum that you can "drink without getting drunk" and then get into a car and drive you would get short shrift, and rightly so. You'd get a bollocking, I'd bet, even from some of the petrol heads who think speeding is no big deal.

Here in the Cycling forum you say it's your "right" to drink and cycle -- and you're not joking!

Incidentally, I'm aware of your cycle helmet scepticism, which I would generally share.

However, are you aware that alcohol is one of the main risk factors for traumatic brain injury? A 2010 US Dept. of Health paper I saw recently cited research which found that approximately three-quarters of all patients with TBI have measurable amounts of alcohol in their blood when admitted to the hospital.

While the helmet question is highly controversial, I find it extraordinary that in the context of TBI (whatever the proximal cause of the head injury) the far more important issue of alcohol is forgotten or casually dismissed. All part of the denial, I suppose...

buffalo

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I would have to acknowledge that anti-cyclist sentiment appears in the media far too often. However, I think the article, or at least the headline, may have been reflecting the reporter's or the quoted TD's consternation at the apparently low conviction rate.

Here's a headline on the Amnesty International website, over a report which refers to, among other things, Ireland's very low conviction rate in rape cases: A DAMNING INDICTMENT OF IRELAND’S ATTITUDE TO WOMEN.

Does the paltry 1% conviction rate in rape cases mean that the 99% of defendants acquitted actually did no wrong? I very much doubt it, and Amnesty's headline indicates they have the same misgivings.

"Did no wrong" is a very different statement to "did not rape". The Amnesty headline doesn't say "99% of rapists get off scot-free".

Putting aside the rape analogy (which is not one I'm comfortable using), you can't say that x% of shoplifters got off scot-free. If a person charged with shoplifting was not convicted, then one can no longer accuse them of shop-lifting. Whether they were actually stealing something or accidentally walked out with something is impossible to tell from the overall statistics.

Someone along the line from Garda to judge decided there was not enough evidence to convict the alleged drunken cyclists. Therefore though they may have had alcohol consumed, they may instead have just been an unsteady first-timer and wrongfully charged. To say they got off scot-free is far too general and, as you say, symptomatic of an anti-cyclist sentiment. The headline "two-thirds of cyclists charged with drunken cycling not convicted" just doesn't capture the public imagination.

Lumen

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's all about responsibility on the road.

Responsibility to whom? We live in a society that tends to regulate our actions with respect to the impact they have on other people, not on ourselves.

Cycling is less regulated than driving (in terms of insurance, licensing, safety devices) because cycling accidents caused by cyclists almost always just hurt themselves, and even then usually not very seriously.

Alcohol consumption in moderation makes a very safe thing ever so slightly less safe. This is why it's illegal to be uncontrollably drunk whilst cycling but no law against having alcohol in your system.

Iwannahurl

Lumen wrote: »

Responsibility to whom? We live in a society that tends to regulate our actions with respect to the impact they have on other people, not on ourselves.

Cycling is less regulated than driving (in terms of insurance, licensing, safety devices) because cycling accidents caused by cyclists almost always just hurt themselves, and even then usually not very seriously.

Alcohol consumption in moderation makes a very safe thing ever so slightly less safe. This is why it's illegal to be uncontrollably drunk whilst cycling but no law against having alcohol in your system.

Responsibility to self and others, and to society at large. Road crashes place a burden on society, though clearly motor vehicles are the most 'costly' category in that context.

As an example, apart from its illegality I would regard behaviour such as cyclists not having lights at night as being very inconsiderate to other road users, including and perhaps especially motorists who may be put in risky or scary situations. OTOH, I don't regard the wearing of hi-vis, by cyclists or pedestrians, as a social responsibility, which is what some people seem to think.

I agree with you about the inherent safety (and healthfulness) of cycling. However, introducing alcohol into the picture complicates things more than we might hope for.

What objective standard can you point to that defines "moderate" alcohol consumption in terms of operating a bicycle on a public road?

What is the evidence that alcohol makes an ordinarily safe activity such as cycling just "ever so slightly less safe"?

Can you quantify "ever so slightly" in any way, eg relative risk increase or something along those lines?

Or is that just your belief?

And by the way, do you still claim that you have a "right" to drink and cycle, despite the legislation referred to earlier?

Tobyglen

City is full of junkies & scumbags & they're going around looking for quick bucks from fines etc.

Too much nanny state in this country.

sconhome

I've been following along and just wondering why nobody has mentioned that all road users are obliged to have due care and consideration for other road users?

This goes for pedestrians, motorists & cyclists alike.

Those who have a hatred of high viz, it is the flappy high viz road worker vest you are talking about or is it all manner of easy to spot clothing that is the problem?

Not looking to be eaten over it, but I find it hard to understand why there is such reluctance to wear clothing that may help make you easier to differentiate against the background.

charlemont

"Could you take your hands off the handlebars and move your bicycle*bisekal to the side of the footpath there like a good man."




*Think of how they pronounce vehicle vehekal

They will probably start searching the bike for hidden drugs too..

buffalo

amphkingwest wrote: »

I've been following along and just wondering why nobody has mentioned that all road users are obliged to have due care and consideration for other road users?

This goes for pedestrians, motorists & cyclists alike.

Those who have a hatred of high viz, it is the flappy high viz road worker vest you are talking about or is it all manner of easy to spot clothing that is the problem?

Not looking to be eaten over it, but I find it hard to understand why there is such reluctance to wear clothing that may help make you easier to differentiate against the background.

Due care and consideration goes without saying, and it's not really something Gardaí at checkpoints eh, check for.

Why should a cyclist have to wear special clothes if they've got fully functional and visible lights? If hi-viz is sufficient, why have lights? Or is it just one more excuse to be rolled out when a car driver says, "sorry mate, I didn't see you. You should've been wearing hi-viz."

The more people wear it, the more normal it appears, and the more those who don't wear it will be seen as bringing accidents on themselves. When we should really be educating drivers to check properly for cyclists, imo.

Iwannahurl

amphkingwest wrote: »

I've been following along and just wondering why nobody has mentioned that all road users are obliged to have due care and consideration for other road users?

This goes for pedestrians, motorists & cyclists alike.

Those who have a hatred of high viz, it is the flappy high viz road worker vest you are talking about or is it all manner of easy to spot clothing that is the problem?

Not looking to be eaten over it, but I find it hard to understand why there is such reluctance to wear clothing that may help make you easier to differentiate against the background.

I notice you give your location as Oranmore, home of the Hi-Vis World Record.

As an example of what I call hivisteria, that event will take some beating.

My own view is that in normal everyday circumstances, people shouldn't have to leave their homes dressed as road workers in order to walk to school or work.

That said, I wear a small amount of reflective gear when on the bike. However, it seems to have no mitigating effect whatsoever on the dangerous situations and inconsiderate driving I encounter on an all too frequent basis, speeding being the #1 hazard IMO.

nomdeboardie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

... hivisteria ...

:pac::pac::pac:

Lumen

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What is the evidence that alcohol makes an ordinarily safe activity such as cycling just "ever so slightly less safe"?

Can you quantify "ever so slightly" in any way, eg relative risk increase or something along those lines?

This is for drivers, but I assume the correlations map somewhat to cycling in terms of experience/age and relative risk increase.

Say, for example, that at 130 BAC I have a 100% increase in the risk of having an accident. That's 100% greater than almost zero, which is still almost zero.

In the last five years and something like 25000km of commuting I've had (I think) one commuting "accident", where I fell off on a greasy roundabout due to excessive speed. The consequences of that were that I had to buy a new rear derailleur and pair of gloves, and my Assos shorts now have a couple of small abrasions.

Taking the graph at face value, if I were to cycle every single commute with a 130 BAC, which would require me to drink something like 5 pints for breakfast and then again as a mid-afternoon "topper", I might face the horrifying prospect of falling off my bike and grazing my shorts one extra time in the next 5 years. Or none at all, since I now take that roundabout slower, and it's been properly resurfaced.

Now I'm not for a second advocating drinking and cycling, but I do think it's worth keeping some perspective, and I fully intend to occasionally drink moderately and cycle whilst it remains legal to do so.

Drinking significant alcohol and operating a couple of car at speed is probably a bad idea, but I'm not really interested in that because (a) it's already illegal so I don't do it, and (b) it has nothing to do with cycling.

edit: just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that a BAC of 130 equates to "moderate" drinking. I just roughly calculated my BAC from my last cycle home from the pub, and it was about 60.

enas

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Responsibility to self and others, and to society at large. Road crashes place a burden on society, though clearly motor vehicles are the most 'costly' category in that context.

As per your own admission, this is out of topic.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

As an example, apart from its illegality I would regard behaviour such as cyclists not having lights at night as being very inconsiderate to other road users

Quite out of topic again (no one here ever denied the importance of having lights -- anyway, it's one of the few things are mandatory by law).

Iwannahurl wrote: »

What objective standard can you point to that defines "moderate" alcohol consumption in terms of operating a bicycle on a public road?

The law (see below) simply says that you should still be able to "operate" your bicycle. So there's no objective standard set by law, it's left to your appreciation. As far as I know, in terms of enforcement, it's also left to the guards' appreciation to decide whether this is the case or not.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And by the way, do you still claim that you have a "right" to drink and cycle, despite the legislation referred to earlier?

As he put it:

Lumen wrote: »

This is why it's illegal to be uncontrollably drunk whilst cycling but no law against having alcohol in your system.

which is a fairly accurate summary of the legislation, reminded here once more:

A person shall not, in a public place, drive or attempt to drive a pedal cycle,
while he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant to such an
extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle
or cycle.

Lusk Doyle

What's 'significant' alcohol? A particular brand that you have in the manor?!?

seamus

Lumen wrote: »

This is for drivers, but I assume the correlations map somewhat to cycling in terms of experience/age and relative risk increase.

Say, for example, that at 130 BAC I have a 100% increase in the risk of having an accident. That's 100% greater than almost zero, which is still almost zero.

Although I don't know where that graph came from, I've seen similar ones and you're reading it a little incorrectly.

The increase in risk is in actual terms. A 100% increase in risk would mean that you are only twice as likely to crash at BAC 130 (drunk, slurring words, stumbling). In actual fact you are 100 times more likely to crash at that level (10000% in pseudo-maths).

There's no real need to demonise drink-cycling. Certainly not the way that drink-driving is demonised. I would have no specific problem with an upper limit for drink-cycling (say BAC 80) which carried a smallish fine. The punishment should always reflect the seriousness of the infraction, and cycling with BAC 80 cannot on any planet be considered as dangerous as driving with the same level of alcohol in your system. Because you weigh 30 times less and go at most half the speed.

Harrybelafonte

seamus wrote: »

Although I don't know where that graph came from, I've seen similar ones and you're reading it a little incorrectly.

The increase in risk is in actual terms. A 100% increase in risk would mean that you are only twice as likely to crash at BAC 130 (drunk, slurring words, stumbling). In actual fact you are 100 times more likely to crash at that level (10000% in pseudo-maths).

There's no real need to demonise drink-cycling. Certainly not the way that drink-driving is demonised. I would have no specific problem with an upper limit for drink-cycling (say BAC 80) which carried a smallish fine. The punishment should always reflect the seriousness of the infraction, and cycling with BAC 80 cannot on any planet be considered as dangerous as driving with the same level of alcohol in your system. Because you weigh 30 times less and go at most half the speed.

Harumph... speak for yourself.

sconhome

buffalo wrote: »

Due care and consideration goes without saying, and it's not really something Gardaí at checkpoints eh, check for.

Wasn't necessarily suggesting it could be 'checked' but there seems to be an undercurrent through a large majority of the cycling forum threads that its mainly the fault of other road users when accident occur. My sentence was a suggestion that everyone is actually responsible for their safety and that of others. Not relevant to the thread, I agree.

buffalo wrote: »

Why should a cyclist have to wear special clothes if they've got fully functional and visible lights? If hi-viz is sufficient, why have lights? Or is it just one more excuse to be rolled out when a car driver says, "sorry mate, I didn't see you. You should've been wearing hi-viz."

The more people wear it, the more normal it appears, and the more those who don't wear it will be seen as bringing accidents on themselves. When we should really be educating drivers to check properly for cyclists, imo.

Couldn't agree with you more. The standard of road user education is appalling, as is the standard of infrastructure. At least a checkpoint may help give some advice to cyclists / commuters who may not be seasoned cyclists fully aware of RotR etc.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I notice you give your location as Oranmore, home of the Hi-Vis World Record.

As an example of what I call hivisteria, that event will take some beating.

My own view is that in normal everyday circumstances, people shouldn't have to leave their homes dressed as road workers in order to walk to school or work.

That said, I wear a small amount of reflective gear when on the bike. However, it seems to have no mitigating effect whatsoever on the dangerous situations and inconsiderate driving I encounter on an all too frequent basis, speeding being the #1 hazard IMO.

Agree. I was asked to get involved in the event and when I discovered only the RSA issued high viz vests would be considered for the record I politely declined. Even if I rocked up in my most flourescent DynaRod dayglo colours it would not be deemed high-viz 'enough', no thanks.

My own personal opinion is any clothing which helps identify you from the background has got to be a benefit in making you visible, stand out a little more and help drivers be aware of your presence, can't be a bad thing.

I would hope that the Garda checkpoints are staffed by cyclists who can give constructive advice where required about bike maintenance, road worthiness, suitable lights, reflectors etc and who understand and can explain the RotR re cycle paths, bus lanes and so on.

Harrybelafonte

amphkingwest wrote: »

I would hope that the Garda checkpoints are staffed by cyclists who can give constructive advice where required about bike maintenance, road worthiness, suitable lights, reflectors etc and who understand and can explain the RotR re cycle paths, bus lanes and so on.

I think this forum proves the impossibility of your hope.

Lumen

seamus wrote: »

Although I don't know where that graph came from, I've seen similar ones and you're reading it a little incorrectly.

The increase in risk is in actual terms. A 100% increase in risk would mean that you are only twice as likely to crash at BAC 130 (drunk, slurring words, stumbling). In actual fact you are 100 times more likely to crash at that level (10000% in pseudo-maths).

A-ha! I didn't read it a little incorrectly, I read it entirely incorrectly.

So for a 60 BAC the risk would be about x10.

I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Jawgap

amphkingwest wrote: »

....... At least a checkpoint may help give some advice to cyclists / commuters who may not be seasoned cyclists fully aware of RotR etc.

.........

My own personal opinion is any clothing which helps identify you from the background has got to be a benefit in making you visible, stand out a little more and help drivers be aware of your presence, can't be a bad thing.

I would hope that the Garda checkpoints are staffed by cyclists who can give constructive advice where required about bike maintenance, road worthiness, suitable lights, reflectors etc and who understand and can explain the RotR re cycle paths, bus lanes and so on.

Hi-viz is not a bad thing, but that does not make it a 'good' thing - I'm completely indifferent to it. However, I think the attitude that it will somehow protect you is dangerous, and that if you wear it and a helmet, that that's you sorted for cycle safety!

The corollary of their campaigns is that if you get ploughed by another road user and you are not wearing your helmet and hi-viz combo then somehow you are to blame.

I'd prefer if the RSA pushed for people to get and use a decent set of lights.

I think your hopes about the Guards on these checkpoints are misplaced - it'll be whoever has pi$$ed off the sargent on the checkpoints, not Guards who can give advice.

Personally, if the Guards have a resource to devote to this I'd prefer if it was devoted to enforcing the safe passing elements of the road traffic legislation - a few well publicised prosecutions for close passing would probably do more for safety than checkpoints for cyclists.

tomasrojo

seamus wrote: »

Please tell us what european countries require cyclists to wear reflective jackets and helmets.

There are a few countries which require children to wear helmets (Sweden, Iceland, Austria, for example). Some require them for adults, but usually with some exemption (Finland has no penalty, Spain only requires them on interurban routes, and you can plead heat as a mitigating extenuating factor). France requires a hi-viz gilet (I think) on interurban routes.

In general, there is no strong trend towards mandatory hi-viz or even helmets. As yet.

enas

tomasrojo wrote: »

Some require them for adults, but usually with some exemption (Finland has no penalty, Spain only requires them on interurban routes, and you can plead heat as a mitigating factor).

Helmet legislation in Spain is essentially a legal "curiosity" and is hardly enforced. Their law says:

Los conductores de bicicletas y, en su caso, los ocupantes estarán obligados a utilizar cascos de protección homologados o certificados según la legislación vigente, cuando circulen en vías interurbanas, salvo en rampas ascendentes prolongadas, o por razones médicas que se acreditarán conforme establece el artículo 119.3, o en condiciones extremas de calor.
Los conductores de bicicletas en competición, y los ciclistas profesionales, ya sea durante los entrenamientos o en competición, se regirán por sus propias normas.

Essentially, helmets are mandatory in interurban roads, except for prolonged uphill sections, medical reasons (???), or extreme heat. However, sport cyclists and professional cyclists, both in training and racing, will apply their own rules (!!!).

tomasrojo wrote: »

France requires a hi-viz gilet (I think) on interurban routes.

French law says:

Lorsqu'ils circulent la nuit, ou le jour lorsque la visibilité est insuffisante, tout conducteur et passager d'un cycle doivent porter hors agglomération un gilet de haute visibilité conforme à la réglementation et dont les caractéristiques sont prévues par un arrêté du ministre chargé des transports.

So hi-viz gilet (as approved by minister of transports) is only required on interurban road with bad visibility conditions or at night. Sounds quite drastic indeed. Not sure how enforced it is in reality. Also, there's a recent change that requires a white front reflector, in addition to a rear red reflector, some side reflectors, and reflectors on the pedal. Not sure what this should look like.

Iwannahurl

seamus wrote: »

Although I don't know where that graph came from, I've seen similar ones and you're reading it a little incorrectly.

The increase in risk is in actual terms. A 100% increase in risk would mean that you are only twice as likely to crash at BAC 130 (drunk, slurring words, stumbling). In actual fact you are 100 times more likely to crash at that level (10000% in pseudo-maths).

There's no real need to demonise drink-cycling. Certainly not the way that drink-driving is demonised. I would have no specific problem with an upper limit for drink-cycling (say BAC 80) which carried a smallish fine. The punishment should always reflect the seriousness of the infraction, and cycling with BAC 80 cannot on any planet be considered as dangerous as driving with the same level of alcohol in your system. Because you weigh 30 times less and go at most half the speed.

Lumen wrote: »

A-ha! I didn't read it a little incorrectly, I read it entirely incorrectly.

So for a 60 BAC the risk would be about x10.

I'm not sure how I feel about that.

What a difference a % makes. Absolutely.

The reason I harp on about alcohol is that the epidemiological evidence consistently shows it to be a major risk factor for Traumatic Brain Injury in particular (very relevant to the debate surrounding attempts at making helmets mandatory), possibly eclipsing other factors altogether. Yet alcohol barely merits a mention in many such discussions, and some people who ought to know better prefer to focus on measures with at best modest benefits, such as cycle helmets.

A repeated finding in reviews of the epidemiological evidence is that between one third and one half of patients with TBI were intoxicated at the time of injury. I don't know how that might translate into Relative Risk of TBI for different levels of BAC when cycling, but the general take-home message ought to be fairly clear.

Speaking of which, the message isn't "don't cycle"! Far from it. The 2008 National Report on Traumatic Brain Injury in Ireland found that 59% of TBI (aggregating all levels of severity) in Ireland was due to falls and overall more than a third of head injuries occurred in the home. Moreover, 60% of falls in the study occurred at home.

Key message: stay in bed?!

Joking aside, I do think we ought to be taking the alcohol issue much more seriously, especially when the real 'nanny staters' try to foist helmesteria and hivisteria on us.


.

buffalo

I think that'll be my new standard response to, "why don't you wear a helmet while cycling?"

"I don't want to. Why don't you wear a helmet while drinking?"

Lumen

Iwannahurl wrote: »

A repeated finding in reviews of the epidemiological evidence is that between one third and one half of patients with TBI were intoxicated at the time of injury. I don't know how that might translate into Relative Risk of TBI for different levels of BAC when cycling, but the general take-home message ought to be fairly clear.

Wear a drinking helmet?

It's fairly obvious to anyone that has ever consumed large amounts of alcohol or attended A&E on a Fri/Sat night that, given a random selection of the population, the ones getting the head injuries are likely to be the most pissed.

I'm not sure where the tipping point is though.

I have never, ever got a head injury just walking around the place mildly inebriated. I do spend a significant amount of time being mildly inebriated.

The head injuries I've had have been a consequence of:

- Football, specifically running into a fat person, when sober.
- Motorway car crash, when sober.
- Bicycle race, when sober (wasn't admitted to hospital for that one though).

From this I conclude that should I wish to reduce my risk of head injury I should avoid bike racing, motorway driving and field sports involving the obese.

Given these experiences, if 50% or whatever of people who turn up at A&E with head injuries are pissed, that still doesn't say much about whether I should walk, cycle or get a taxi home after the pub.

enas

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Joking aside, I do think we ought to be taking the alcohol issue much more seriously, especially when the real 'nanny staters' try to foist helmesteria and hivisteria on us.

Your post has now shifted from drink-cycling being immoral to society to it being dangerous for oneself, because of increased risk of head injury. Furthermore, you make the point that cycling isn't particularly highly represented in head injuries -- the common factor seems to be alcohol. So you're saying that drinking alcohol, whether you introduce cycling or not into the equation, introduces some risks. Well, I imagine most people knew that, but mostly, that this is a personal decision to be taking. If Lumen is happy cycling with 60 BAC, I absolutely don't see why should anyone take issue with that.

ROK ON

The only acceptable way to get home after the pub is to walk.
How else is one meant to eat a kebab other than consuming it while walking ever sonslightly wobbly.

Lusk Doyle

Let's get back on topic here.

Aren't the gardai awful bollockses for stopping harmless cyclists in the first place?

:P

Lumen

ROK ON wrote: »

The only acceptable way to get home after the pub is to walk. How else is one meant to eat a kebab other than consuming it while walking ever sonslightly wobbly.

Cycling no-hands, obviously.

Jawgap

What's really needed are checkpoints for Garda cyclists.......

......keep them off the footpads and teach 'em respect for red lights.

steve9859

Lumen wrote: »

The head injuries I've had have been a consequence of:

- Football, specifically running into a fat person, when sober.

I'd like to have seen that!

tomasrojo

enas wrote: »

you make the point that cycling isn't particularly highly represented in head injuries -- the common factor seems to be alcohol. So you're saying that drinking alcohol, whether you introduce cycling or not into the equation, introduces some risks. Well, I imagine most people knew that, but mostly, that this is a personal decision to be taking.

I think it does highlight that when clinicians and statisticians are looking at causes of head injury, they must consider confounding factors, the two biggest being the social class* of the head-injured, and whether they were drunk at the time of acquiring the injury.

*This might sound a bit funny, but for various reasons people from lower-income brackets are more likely to be hurt in traffic accidents

kenmc

tomasrojo wrote: »

*This might sound a bit funny, but for various reasons people from lower-income brackets are more likely to be hurt in traffic accidents

Interesting! Could it be attributed to the increase in litigation and compensation culture? (Yes, I'm really asking are they scamming)

tampopo

buffalo wrote: »

Due care and consideration goes without saying, and it's not really something Gardaí at checkpoints eh, check for.

Why should a cyclist have to wear special clothes if they've got fully functional and visible lights? If hi-viz is sufficient, why have lights? Or is it just one more excuse to be rolled out when a car driver says, "sorry mate, I didn't see you. You should've been wearing hi-viz."

The more people wear it, the more normal it appears, and the more those who don't wear it will be seen as bringing accidents on themselves. When we should really be educating drivers to check properly for cyclists, imo.

just flicking through this thread and wanted to say I agree with these sentiments completely and wholeheartedly.

endacl

ROK ON wrote: »

The only acceptable way to get home after the pub is to walk.
How else is one meant to eat a kebab other than consuming it while walking ever sonslightly wobbly.

Cycling no-handed and eating a kebeb while drunk should be a part of any basic cycling proficiency test. Any sign of kebeb-juice dribble on your shirt should constitute an automatic fail*. Same as clipping a kerb on the driving test.













*Taking the test shirtless = automatic 'drunk cycling legend A1' licence.

Lusk Doyle

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think it does highlight that when clinicians and statisticians are looking at causes of head injury, they must consider confounding factors, the two biggest being the social class* of the head-injured, and whether they were drunk at the time of acquiring the injury.

*This might sound a bit funny, but for various reasons people from lower-income brackets are more likely to be hurt in traffic accidents

What are the parameters of said brackets?

Wishbone Ash

endacl wrote: »

Cycling no-handed and eating a kebeb while drunk should be a part of any basic cycling proficiency test. Any sign of kebeb-juice dribble on your shirt should constitute an automatic fail

...or use the aero bars when eating a kebab. Leaves hands free for kebab and no dribbles on jersey.

rp

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

What are the parameters of said brackets?

I think its calculated by sportswear worn, y'know, Premiership < Rugger< Polo

ThisRegard

Horse or water polo?

Keep_Her_Lit

tomasrojo wrote: »

*This might sound a bit funny, but for various reasons people from lower-income brackets are more likely to be hurt in traffic accidents

That doesn't surprise me. I certainly see more risky/reckless behaviour on the roads in West Dublin than in South Dublin. Pedestrians in particular seem oblivious to the danger in which they place themselves on occasion.

However, sometimes it's deliberate. A while back I saw a group of lads nonchalantly stroll into the path of busy traffic and the traffic just had to stop. By their demeanour, they didn't look as though they were prepared to react to the possibility of somebody not stopping ... it was more a case of "f**k you, whatcha gonna do about it?".

Indeed, IIRC, as I was approaching I'm quite sure I heard one of them say to the others "I propose that we nonchalantly stroll into the path of this busy traffic".

kenmc wrote: »

Interesting! Could it be attributed to the increase in litigation and compensation culture? (Yes, I'm really asking are they scamming)

In some cases perhaps. In other cases, either they're not scamming or their scamming plans have gone badly wrong. There are a couple of places locally where fatalities are marked by commemorative wreaths. My guess is that the victims were pedestrians or cyclists.

tomasrojo

I'm not sure of the exact details of why the less well off are more likely to be in a traffic accident, but I think it might be down to the tendency of planners to route high-velocity traffic through their neighbourhoods, as well as them having less money available to keep their kids playing in safe areas away from the street.

I know that there's a similar effect in overall health, which was quite well covered by Ben Goldacre:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/01/pharmaceuticals.drugs

A failure to adjust for social-class confounding led to an unwarranted belief in the powers of HRT to ward off heart disease too. So in general it seems to be a very important factor to keep in mind.

EDIT: I think if you get a result such as this, you really have to consider whether you have confounding:

As long ago as 1986, it was shown in observational studies that HRT was apparently equally protective against accidental and violent deaths as it was against death resulting from cardiovascular disease.

http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/socio-economic-confounding-hrt-and-stroke

Karma

ThisRegard wrote: »

Horse or water polo?

Bike Polo

dub_skav

Lumen wrote: »

A-ha! I didn't read it a little incorrectly, I read it entirely incorrectly.

So for a 60 BAC the risk would be about x10.

I'm not sure how I feel about that.

But it also states on the graph that is is for relative risk of a fatal crash.
So, given that the risk of a fatal bicycle crash is indeed very small, is it being 10 times greater that big a deal?

Lumen

dub_skav wrote: »

So, given that the risk of a fatal bicycle crash is indeed very small, is it being 10 times greater that big a deal?

That entirely depends on whether it actually happens or not.

Lusk Doyle

Lumen wrote: »

That entirely depends on whether it actually happens or not.

BOOM!