[C&T's very own] cycling helmet thread

foggy_lad

This new thread includes most or all helmet posts from this thread.

This part of foggy_lad's post and the reply from BenShermin started the helmet debate:

foggy_lad wrote: »

I would also ask is there plans to bring in any rules for cyclists to make wearing a proper helmet mandatory.

BenShermin wrote:

Don't want to turn this into a helmet debate but why would you ask that?

Both posts had wider on-topic points, so I'm leaving them there, but moving posts on mass may result in some people's on-topic points being moved here and there's not much I can do about that -- moving posts is already one of the most time-consuming act of a mod!

At some point this thread may be moved over to Cycling forum and the mods there can lock it or merge it with the "Helmets - the definitive thread" thread... but for now this is staying put and we'll see where it goes from here.

- Monument
__________________

BenShermin wrote: »

Don't want to turn this into a helmet debate but why would you ask that?

I would ask that because i believe it should be mandatory for all cyclists countrywide to wear a helmet and there should be some way found of providing them with the Dublin Bikes scheme. they are mandatory already in many countries and reduce head injuries significantly.

I didn't mention cycle paths or lanes because from what we can all see on the roads and paths no local authority is really serious about providing cycle paths and lanes apart from painting a few lines on some random roads and streets as a publicity stunt.

BenShermin

foggy_lad wrote: »

I would ask that because i believe it should be mandatory for all cyclists countrywide to wear a helmet and there should be some way found of providing them with the Dublin Bikes scheme. they are mandatory already in many countries and reduce head injuries significantly

Show conclusive proof that helmets reduce head injuries significantly. Helmets are absolutely no use if you're rammed down by a car, bus etc at any significant speed.

All the mandatory helmet law in Australia has reduced is the number of the cyclists on the road. This reduction in cyclists has meant that motorists are less aware of cyclists, in the long run this has made the roads less safe for cyclists.

While you're at it Foggy, please explain why Netherlands and Denmark are the safest countries in the world to cycle in when 99% of cyclists in these countries don't wear helmets??

PS. Monument sorry for derailing the thread, feel free to move these posts if you want.

coylemj

BenShermin wrote: »

Show conclusive proof that helmets reduce head injuries significantly. Helmets are absolutely no use if you're rammed down by a car, bus etc at any significant speed.

They are if the first point of bodily impact is between the cyclist's head and the road or another vehicle.

A seat belt does nothing for a motorist if he's smashed into from behind or drives into a canal and a hard hat does nothing for a construction worker if he trips over loose cables or gets electrocuted by a naked live cable.

BenShermin wrote: »

While you're at it Foggy, please explain why Netherlands and Denmark are the safest countries in the world to cycle in when 99% of cyclists in these countries don't wear helmets??

Probably because they have dedicated cycle lanes so there is little opportunity for a motorist to smash into a cyclist.

What exactly is your point?

A & E surgeons in all the Dublin hospitals have said over the years that nobody should get on a bike in an urban environment without a cycling helmet.

Life is all about assessing risk and my risk assessment says that you would need your head examined going out in Dublin on a bike without head protection.

rp

coylemj wrote: »

A & E surgeons in all the Dublin hospitals have said over the years that nobody should get on a bike in an urban environment without a cycling helmet.

Life is all about assessing risk and my risk assessment says that you would need your head examined going out in Dublin on a bike without head protection.

The Phillips report, compiled by a Neurosurgeon and analysing brain trauma, causes and outcomes makes the following points:

• The non-wearing of helmets : no statistical difference is injury severity was proven for either pedal or motorcyclists.
• Severe TBI in pedal cyclists is low, despite having less protection than people in vehicles as they are slower and energy transfer is less
• The road users overall mortality rate was similar to the audit average (12%) with higher levels seen amongst motorcyclists (17%) and lower levels amongst the pedal cyclists (7%)
• Pedal cyclists needed the least critical care facilities of all road users.

So yes, cyclists would benefit from wearing helmets, but not as much as motorists, motorcyclists or pedestrians. Something to keep in mind when assessing your risks.

Spook_ie

rp wrote: »

The Phillips report, compiled by a Neurosurgeon and analysing brain trauma, causes and outcomes makes the following points:

• The non-wearing of helmets : no statistical difference is injury severity was proven for either pedal or motorcyclists.
• Severe TBI in pedal cyclists is low, despite having less protection than people in vehicles as they are slower and energy transfer is less
• The road users overall mortality rate was similar to the audit average (12%) with higher levels seen amongst motorcyclists (17%) and lower levels amongst the pedal cyclists (7%)
• Pedal cyclists needed the least critical care facilities of all road users.

So yes, cyclists would benefit from wearing helmets, but not as much as motorists, motorcyclists or pedestrians. Something to keep in mind when assessing your risks.

Motorcyclists already use helmets

Motorists already have helmets, they are called safety cells and work in conjunction with seatbelts and SRS

Leaves cyclists and pedestrians as the errant ones

rp

Spook_ie wrote: »

Motorists already have helmets, they are called safety cells and work in conjunction with seatbelts and SRS

That being the case, how come there are a higher percentage of head trauma injuries for motorists, compared to cyclists, and the outcomes are more severe?
I'm not aware of a break-down within road users for Ireland, but in Germany and Canada at least, the breakdown for serious TBI admissions is Motorists: 50%, Cyclists: 1%, Pedestrians: 1%. It's probably not significantly different here.
Anyways, do the risk assessment and buy the hat:

BenShermin

coylemj wrote: »

Probably because they have dedicated cycle lanes so there is little opportunity for a motorist to smash into a cyclist.

What exactly is your point?

I think you've proven my point there. While Foggy thinks we should be asking Irish politicians to make helmets mandatory, the Dutch are asking politicians for more cycling lanes. The whole helmet debate serves as a distraction against provision of real cycle safety IMO.

coylemj wrote: »

A & E surgeons in all the Dublin hospitals have said over the years that nobody should get on a bike in an urban environment without a cycling helmet.

With all the head injuries coming into Irish A&Es from motor crashes, pedestrians tripping etc. why aren't they asking those people to wear helmets? If health professionals, the RSA etc spent more time on lobbying for safer cycling infrastructure and less time on helmets and hi-viz the hospitals would see less injuries overall.

coylemj

BenShermin wrote: »

With all the head injuries coming into Irish A&Es from motor crashes, pedestrians tripping etc. why aren't they asking those people to wear helmets? If health professionals, the RSA etc spent more time on lobbying for safer cycling infrastructure and less time on helmets and hi-viz the hospitals would see less injuries overall.

Stating the bleeding obvious.....

When a cyclist is involved in a crash, his head is almost certain to hit a hard object at speed, either the other vehicle or the road surface and even if he has his arms outstretched to break the fall, he will be going so fast that it will be impossible to avoid an impact to the head, that's why he needs a helmet.

A pedestrian tripping onto the footpath has two arms to break his fall and is travelling considerably slower than a cyclist, he is far more likely to suffer a broken wrist than an injury to his head.

Road cars have seat belts and airbags. Rally drivers have cages and they wear helmets but that's because there's a reasonable chance of them ending upside down in a ditch.

monument

coylemj wrote: »

Stating the bleeding obvious.....

When a cyclist is involved in a crash, his head is almost certain to hit a hard object at speed, either the other vehicle or the road surface and even if he has his arms outstretched to break the fall, he will be going so fast that it will be impossible to avoid an impact to the head, that's why he needs a helmet.

Err what? Where on earth are you getting the your idea that a cyclist's "head is almost certain to hit" something?

coylemj wrote: »

A pedestrian tripping onto the footpath has two arms to break his fall and is travelling considerably slower than a cyclist, he is far more likely to suffer a broken wrist than an injury to his head.

Your view isn't supported by the data in the Philips report on head injuries.

The speed of pedestrians is accelerated by the vehicle that hits them. The report shows that pedestrians are hit at faster speeds than cyclists.

coylemj wrote: »

Road cars have seat belts and airbags. Rally drivers have cages and they wear helmets but that's because there's a reasonable chance of them ending upside down in a ditch.

Research shows "road car" users would still benefit from helmets.

bk

coylemj and as has already been pointed out, what might seem to be the "bleeding obvious" actually has no basis in fact.

All the scientific evidence shows that you are significantly more likely to suffer brain injury in a car (yes even with air bags) or even walking.

I don't understand how people can simply blindly deny all the scientific proof and research into something just because it doesn't match up with their view of the world!

steamengine

It is surprising to note how common sense flies out the window on cycling issues. The wearing of a helmet is just common sense, not because your head will hit something but it could hit something !!!

There are many issues I note whilst out either cycling or walking but the one which recently gobsmacked me the most was whilst crossing O'Connell St on foot at a pedestrian crossing, a cyclist pushed his way through the crossing pedestrians. He not only broke the red light but forced his way through the pedestrians as well, even though the green man was clearly showing. This guy was no 'Dublin Bike' amateur judging by the expensive bike and gear to match.

What would be a good idea IMO would be to introduce a comprehensive 'cycling course' into the Primary School curriculum and so impart such a necessary and useful life skill. Kids don't seem to have a clue as to how to cycle safely, or indeed cycle at all. The modern kid gets bussed around in 4X4's with an Iphone in hand and it doesn't bear thinking about that later on in life he or she will just jump on board a 'Dublin bike' and all will be fine.

hardCopy

coylemj wrote: »

Stating the bleeding obvious.....

When a cyclist is involved in a crash, his head is almost certain to hit a hard object at speed, either the other vehicle or the road surface and even if he has his arms outstretched to break the fall, he will be going so fast that it will be impossible to avoid an impact to the head, that's why he needs a helmet.

A pedestrian tripping onto the footpath has two arms to break his fall and is travelling considerably slower than a cyclist, he is far more likely to suffer a broken wrist than an injury to his head.

Road cars have seat belts and airbags. Rally drivers have cages and they wear helmets but that's because there's a reasonable chance of them ending upside down in a ditch.

I've fallen of my bike plenty of times, in heavy traffic, stopped at light, on country roads, on steep hills. Never even scratched my helmet.

Mandatory helmets are proven to be a dumb ass idea. Do your research.

coylemj

bk wrote: »

All the scientific evidence shows that you are significantly more likely to suffer brain injury in a car (yes even with air bags) or even walking.

monument wrote: »

Your view isn't supported by the data in the Philips report on head injuries.

The speed of pedestrians is accelerated by the vehicle that hits them. The report shows that pedestrians are hit at faster speeds than cyclists.

Research shows "road car" users would still benefit from helmets.

hardCopy wrote: »

I've fallen of my bike plenty of times, in heavy traffic, stopped at light, on country roads, on steep hills. Never even scratched my helmet.

Mandatory helmets are proven to be a dumb ass idea. Do your research.

OK, got it now. Clearly the 'facts' show that the wearing of helmets should be mandatory for all road users except cyclists.

hardCopy

coylemj wrote: »

OK, got it now. Clearly the 'facts' show that the wearing of helmets should be mandatory for all road users except cyclists.

Helmets can mitigate the risks of head trauma.

All risks can be mitigated, sometimes the risk reduction is not worth it.

Helmet laws stop people cycling. Anyone who cycles is free to wear a helmet if they want to.

monument

coylemj wrote: »

OK, got it now. Clearly the 'facts' show that the wearing of helmets should be mandatory for all road users except cyclists.

It would be stretching it to say that the Philips data says that, but it does seem to show that other users could benefit more from helmets, far more:

Cyclists, as covered in the report, were the group which mainly showed mild injuries and had a very notably low percentage of severe injuries compared to other road users:



Cyclists were also the group with the lowest mortality rate and lowest irreversible injury rate:



These are not just lowest by a margin this is stark, notable findings of statistical significance. It is discussed very little in the report.

Bizarrely instead the report goes on claim that "Helmets are proven to save lives" without any reference to evidence of such. Rather than referencing their claim, the author bizarrely just references the words "National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the USA" and just link to the administration's home page!

Going by the data they had the report authors say:

"The non-wearing of helmets was frequent and noted for one in five NAS and NSU cyclists and motorcyclists (Table 6.14). In the NSU, 15 out of 29 (52%) pedal cyclists and 6 out of 18 motor-cyclists (33%) were reported to be without a helmet. Nine of the 10 motorcyclists without a helmet had a GCS <9 (a severe injury) but no statistical difference is injury severity was proven for either pedal or motorcyclists. Reference to protective devices was often lacking in the medical notes."

Some great solid raw data, pity about the unsupported conclusions which might as well be plucked out of the air.

BenShermin

steamengine wrote: »

It is surprising to note how common sense flies out the window on cycling issues.

I have to agree with you. Why would town planners paint cycle lanes that put cyclists directly into drivers blind spots at junctions? Why would motorists park on cycle lanes outside schools forcing children cycling to school into dangerous traffic? Why do parents wheel their buggys on the Grand Canal cycle lane? Yep common sense goes out the window alright;)!!

steamengine wrote: »

The wearing of a helmet is just common sense, not because your head will hit something but it could hit something !!!

According to the RSA 40% of cyclists in Ireland wear a helmet, yet 0% of motorists have any common sense it seems. After all motorists could also hit their head!!

The point was made there that rally drivers wear helmets, similarly in my experience anyway, the vast majority of road bike (racing bike) users in Ireland also wear helmets. Too often people who are not cyclists can't make the distinction between racing cyclists and utility cyclists and they think that everyone on two wheels needs protection. There's a huge difference between somebody riding a 20KG Dutch style bike in their normal clothes at an average of 17km/h through city centre traffic and/or on quiet cycle lanes and somebody on a 5KG racing bike in Lycra going down the Wicklow mountains at 35km/h.

steamengine wrote: »

The modern kid gets bussed around in 4X4's with an Iphone in hand and it doesn't bear thinking about that later on in life he or she will just jump on board a 'Dublin bike' and all will be fine.

An average of 5,000 Dublin Bike trips are taken every day (huge majority of trips are without helmets I might add). The injury levels are extremely low, this would suggest that actually, all is fine!

steamengine

BenShermin wrote: »

I have to agree with you. Why would town planners paint cycle lanes that put cyclists directly into drivers blind spots at junctions? Why would motorists park on cycle lanes outside schools forcing children cycling to school into dangerous traffic? Why do parents wheel their buggys on the Grand Canal cycle lane? Yep common sense goes out the window alright;)!!

According to the RSA 40% of cyclists in Ireland wear a helmet, yet 0% of motorists have any common sense it seems. After all motorists could also hit their head!!

Indeed there are many issues, but really I'm referring to the 'hinting' here by some cyclists that helmets aren't necessary. Bringing motorists into the argument is only blurring the focus. Simply put - if a cyclist is tossed off a bike for whatever reason and is likely to suffer a bang to the head then is that cyclist better off wearing a helmet or not ? Its a no brainer to me and I hope to others.

The point was made there that rally drivers wear helmets, similarly in my experience anyway, the vast majority of road bike (racing bike) users in Ireland also wear helmets. Too often people who are not cyclists can't make the distinction between racing cyclists and utility cyclists and they think that everyone on two wheels needs protection. There's a huge difference between somebody riding a 20KG Dutch style bike in their normal clothes at an average of 17km/h through city centre traffic and/or on quiet cycle lanes and somebody on a 5KG racing bike in Lycra going down the Wicklow mountains at 35km/h.

As a cyclist I would consider all cyclists should use whatever protection they can. I don't know of any regular cyclist in Dublin who hasn't been physically parted from their bike at some stage or other and I fail to see how Dublin bike users can avoid it either.

An average of 5,000 Dublin Bike trips are taken every day (huge majority of trips are without helmets I might add). The injury levels are extremely low, this would suggest that actually, all is fine!

I often see these bikes also en route to Howth and Malahide - no helmets and God only knows what their cycling skill level is and I make no apologies for advocating that all these cyclists should be wearing helmets for their own safety. That injury levels exist at all is an indicator that all is not fine so what's wrong with playing safer ?

hardCopy

steamengine wrote: »

Indeed there are many issues, but really I'm referring to the 'hinting' here by some cyclists that helmets aren't necessary. Bringing motorists into the argument is only blurring the focus. Simply put - if a cyclist is tossed off a bike for whatever reason and is likely to suffer a bang to the head then is that cyclist better off wearing a helmet or not ? Its a no brainer to me and I hope to others.



As a cyclist I would consider all cyclists should use whatever protection they can. I don't know of any regular cyclist in Dublin who hasn't been physically parted from their bike at some stage or other and I fail to see how Dublin bike users can avoid it either.



I often see these bikes also en route to Howth and Malahide - no helmets and God only knows what their cycling skill level is and I make no apologies for advocating that all these cyclists should be wearing helmets for their own safety. That injury levels exist at all is an indicator that all is not fine so what's wrong with playing safer ?

What's more important, that more people cycle, or that the minority of people who do cycle wear a Styrofoam hat?

The only question that matters in any decision on cycling policy is "Would this encourage more people to cycle?"

Helmet laws do not encourage cycling, hence they a are dreadful idea.

steamengine

hardCopy wrote: »

What's more important, that more people cycle, or that the minority of people who do cycle wear a Styrofoam hat?

The only question that matters in any decision on cycling policy is "Would this encourage more people to cycle?"

Helmet laws do not encourage cycling, hence they a are dreadful idea.

Safety has to enter the equation somewhere as there is little point in encouraging more people to cycle unless they do so safely and abide by the Rules of the Road. Only the other day I was in the cycle lane on the Howth Road just past Killester heading in the city direction, when a cycling looper came whizzing along on the adjacent footpath in the opposite direction. Absolutely no need for this as there was a cycle lane available on the far side of the road. Anyone walking out of their house at that point would have been skulled ! Advocating that cyclists wear helmets and making it mandatory are not quite the same thing but people should be able to see for themselves the common sense of wearing helmets.

PS - on my bike I have a bulb type horn, which has saved my bacon twice from cars reversing out blindly from driveways. I also use a mirror to continually scan approaching traffic from the rear, without losing vision of the road ahead. Again these are two pieces of safety equipment which are totally optional but make for a safer riding experience.

monument

Indeed there are many issues, but really I'm referring to the 'hinting' here by some pedestrians that helmets aren't necessary for pedestrians. Making it just about cyclists is only blurring the focus. Simply put - if a pedestrian is tossed falls, trips, or gets hit by a car or cyclists for whatever reason and is likely to suffer a bang to the head then is that pedestrian better off wearing a helmet or not ? Its a no brainer to me and I hope to others.

As a pedestrian I would consider all pedestrians should use whatever protection they can. I don't know of any regular pedestrian in Dublin who hasn't tripped on a bit of poor footpath surface some stage or other.

I often see these pedestrians walking around town - no helmets and God only knows what their street walking skill level is and I make no apologies for advocating that all these pedestrians should be wearing helmets for their own safety. That injury levels exist at all is an indicator that all is not fine so what's wrong with playing safer?

steamengine wrote: »

Safety has to enter the equation somewhere as there is little point in encouraging more people to cycle unless they do so safely and abide by the Rules of the Road.

I've written about this extensively here.

A summery:

...despite an increase of inexperienced cyclists on Dublin’s road, the data shows that the death and injury rates have not increased. The opposite has happened, death and injury rates have continued to decline.

Conclusion: If cyclists in Dublin are as reckless as it is report and there has been a marked increase in inexperienced cyclists on the roads, cyclist behaviour seems to have little to do with the death and injury rate. Motorists seem to have adjusted their behaviour to an increasing amount of cyclists around them.

Full argument/analyses/etc again is here.

steamengine wrote: »

Only the other day I was in the cycle lane on the Howth Road just past Killester heading in the city direction, when a cycling looper came whizzing along on the adjacent footpath in the opposite direction. Absolutely no need for this as there was a cycle lane available on the far side of the road. Anyone walking out of their house at that point would have been skulled !

But was he wearing a helmet?

That's a major problem with helmets -- it takes up an undue amount of time in any debate about cycling. Even if helmets helped a little the focus on them is hugely disproportionate.

steamengine wrote: »

Advocating that cyclists wear helmets and making it mandatory are not quite the same thing but people should be able to see for themselves the common sense of wearing helmets.

Helmets? Common sense? Common? Where?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OdPU_XfZYQ

steamengine wrote: »

PS - on my bike I have a bulb type horn, which has saved my bacon twice from cars reversing out blindly from driveways. I also use a mirror to continually scan approaching traffic from the rear, without losing vision of the road ahead. Again these are two pieces of safety equipment which are totally optional but make for a safer riding experience.

I hope you have a bell. Otherwise you're breaking the law. It's a legally required bit of safety equipment. There's no debate here. It's the law.

paddyland

monument wrote: »

...I often see these pedestrians walking around town - no helmets and God only knows what their street walking skill level is and I make no apologies for advocating that all these pedestrians should be wearing helmets for their own safety. That injury levels exist at all is an indicator that all is not fine so what's wrong with playing safer...

Is it too much to expect that the moderator, at least, would avoid the hysterics that infects most others who contribute to these increasingly ridiculous threads? Do you want to be taken seriously?

rp

paddyland wrote: »

Is it too much to expect that the moderator, at least, would avoid the hysterics that infects most others who contribute to these increasingly ridiculous threads? Do you want to be taken seriously?

This thread was started to elicit suggestions around making cycling safer.
A poster suggested that making helmets mandatory would make cycling safer.
A number of posters, myself and monument included, argue that mandatory helmets would be of marginal benefit, and monument's ironical statement that you quote is drawing a valid comparison to the benefits of making helmets mandatory for pedestrians.
If you can offer a counter-argument, please do, it will benefit the discussion, but using terms like 'hysterical' and 'ridiculous' and appealing to the ref, is not helpful.

paddyland

rp wrote: »

This thread was started to elicit suggestions around making cycling safer.
A poster suggested that making helmets mandatory would make cycling safer.
A number of posters, myself and monument included, argue that mandatory helmets would be of marginal benefit, and monument's ironical statement that you quote is drawing a valid comparison to the benefits of making helmets mandatory for pedestrians.
If you can offer a counter-argument, please do, it will benefit the discussion, but using terms like 'hysterical' and 'ridiculous' and appealing to the ref, is not helpful.

I couldn't care less whether cyclists wear helmets. That is their own choice. I can understand why they should. I can also understand why they might not want to.

I do think they should wear hi-viz, if they are sharing the road with heavy vehicles. People walking across busy industrial yards or shunting areas wear hi-viz, to be seen by drivers of heavy vehicles. Those same drivers on the road may have poor visibility depending on prevailing conditions. Hi-viz is a courtesy to those drivers, even if the cyclist cares not for their own safety. But I think it is a waste of time legislating for it. It is practically unenforceable.

There are good, valid arguments on both sides. Unfortunately, on all these similar threads, there are far more hysterics than reason. That is to be expected on an internet forum. I am far more likely to read and take in the reasonable ones than the hysterical ones. When people start talking about pedestrians wearing helmets, then that to me is hysterics, whether serious or in jest.

Pedestrians and cyclists are two very different things. Pedestrians are expected to spend most of their time on a footpath, seperated, if precariously, from traffic. Cyclists are expected, generally, to spend most of their time sharing the same road space with traffic, and are more vulnerable. Wearing a helmet shouldn't be law. It should, however, be simple commonsense.

If people would apply more reason and commonsense, then there would be no need for bloody laws dictating everyone's lives. It is precisely because some are more hysterical and reactionary than others, or just plain stupid, that we need law.

BenShermin

paddyland wrote: »

I do think they should wear hi-viz, if they are sharing the road with heavy vehicles. People walking across busy industrial yards or shunting areas wear hi-viz, to be seen by drivers of heavy vehicles. Those same drivers on the road may have poor visibility depending on prevailing conditions. Hi-viz is a courtesy to those drivers, even if the cyclist cares not for their own safety. But I think it is a waste of time legislating for it. It is practically unenforceable.

You go on and on here about hi-viz and not once in your post do you mention bicycle lights. A good set of lights on a bicycle will be seen by all road users and will do more for the cyclists safety than hi-viz ever will. It's the law to have a white/yellow light to the front of a pedal cycle and a red light to the rear between dusk and dawn, now that is COMMON SENSE!!

The Gardaí should be clamping down on cyclists who don't use lights. Instead we have the useless pen pushing Road Safety Authority throwing hi-viz at problem, hi-viz is their answer to bloody everything. What really annoys me is that half the stupid eejits I see wearing "RSA Be Safe Be Seen" hi-viz vests don't even have lights on their bikes at night:mad:!!

BenShermin

NoelRockDublin wrote: »

Personally, I think that cycle lanes along the lines of those on the Grand Canal are close to what we should be looking at, with an initial demand of having such built - where practical - on routes going to and from the City Centre. Maybe six trial routes like this and then an impact assessment of how much it has increased cycling as a viable commute option and going from there.

The Grand Canal, The Royal Canal, Sutton to Sandycove, The Dodder, The Quays are five projects that could be easily completed without affecting motorised traffic. Rathmines to the City Centre via Camden Street and possibly northbound via the new Luas alignment would be a very worthwhile sixth route imo, these areas see huge numbers of cyclists and the lanes are useless along this route.

NoelRockDublin wrote: »

Finally, as a Cllr, have they ever cycled to City Hall from their home and, if not, why not?

Can't speak for cllrs. but Green Party TDs seemed to be the only ones that cycled. Trevor Sargent used a fold up bike on the Skerries to Dublin commuter train, and Ciaron Cuffe cycled from the Sandycove area into Merrion Square. I doubt many other "decision makers" would cycle tbh.

Welcome to the forum btw:).

paddyland

BenShermin wrote: »

You go on and on here about hi-viz and not once in your post do you mention bicycle lights. A good set of lights on a bicycle will be seen by all road users and will do more for the cyclists safety than hi-viz ever will. It's the law to have a white/yellow light to the front of a pedal cycle and a red light to the rear between dusk and dawn, now that is COMMON SENSE!!

The Gardaí should be clamping down on cyclists who don't use lights. Instead we have the useless pen pushing Road Safety Authority throwing hi-viz at problem, hi-viz is their answer to bloody everything. What really annoys me is that half the stupid eejits I see wearing "RSA Be Safe Be Seen" hi-viz vests don't even have lights on their bikes at night:mad:!!

But bicycle lights are already in law. Hi-viz is not. I am not saying hi-viz should be law. I am saying hi-viz is commonsense. I didn't mention lights, as all cyclists should have lights, according to the law. If that cannot or will not be enforced, then hi-viz or helmets certainly won't.

We are great at enacting legislation. Legislation that is then never enforced.

As a driver of large vehicles, I wish cyclists would wear hi-viz. It would help me out tremendously. I would of course expect them to have lights, as that is the law. But if they don't have lights, and nobody will enforce them to do so, then what can I do about that? Complain to my TD?

monument

I've been told not to take nonsense from people just because I'm both mod and a normal user... so, here goes...

To be clear: This post is in bold because it is me acting as a moderator.

paddyland wrote: »

Is it too much to expect that the moderator, at least, would avoid the hysterics that infects most others who contribute to these increasingly ridiculous threads? Do you want to be taken seriously?

Please stick to the rules and attack the post, not the poster. Moderation is not allowed to be discussed in threads and mods are both normal users and mods.

paddyland wrote: »

Unfortunately, on all these similar threads, there are far more hysterics than reason. That is to be expected on an internet forum. I am far more likely to read and take in the reasonable ones than the hysterical ones. When people start talking about pedestrians wearing helmets, then that to me is hysterics, whether serious or in jest.

Drop the talk of hysterics or expect an infraction.

None of this is a request and do not reply to this post and never reply to moderation in thread.

the_syco

Will they get the the Gardai to issue on the spot fines to cyclists breaking red lights, and also have traffic wardens more proactive in issuing fines for anything parked on cycle lanes during peak hours.

=-=

Regarding lights; you sometimes don't (as a cyclist) realise it has gotten dark, as your eyes have adjusted to the fading light, and thus not have lights. An on-the-spot fine should help them not forget, but wearuing a high-viz vests would allow cyclists to be more visible when they don't realise it's dark.

monument

This post is not moderation, not in bold and you're free to reply...

paddyland wrote: »

Pedestrians and cyclists are two very different things. Pedestrians are expected to spend most of their time on a footpath, seperated, if precariously, from traffic. Cyclists are expected, generally, to spend most of their time sharing the same road space with traffic, and are more vulnerable. Wearing a helmet shouldn't be law. It should, however, be simple commonsense.

The idea that cyclists "are more vulnerable" and need helmets more just does not stack up.

A larger percentage of pedestrians end up with severe head injuries (38% compared to just 13% of cyclists) and pedestrians with head injuries have a higher percentage death rate (17% compared to 7% for cyclists) and a higher irreversible injury rate (16% compared to just 3% for cyclists).

As for the idea that anybody is safe on footpath, that really does not pass the quick Google test:

• Motorist struck car after mounting kerb
• Struck pedestrian on footpath
• Motorists driving on footpaths in estate
• Vehicles being driven on the footpath every day
• Pedestrians had to dodge car on path

steamengine

As somebody once said and there is data to prove the point :-

A tomato is a fruit but common sense would suggest you don't put it in a fruit salad.

Similarly I think as regards helmets for pedestrians !

monument

Why are cyclists different?

the_syco

monument wrote: »

The idea that cyclists "are more vulnerable" and need helmets more just does not stack up.

I think it comes from how your average cyclist can go fast on their bicycles, whereas the average pedestrian doesn't go fast on the pavement.

paddyland

the_syco wrote: »

I think it comes from how your average cyclist can go fast on their bicycles, whereas the average pedestrian doesn't go fast on the pavement.

You cannot either legislate for, or even guard against, every possibility of danger that might occur on the road. The very fact of being on a road, or on a footpath, at all, is a danger if taken to it's extreme.

It is dangerous for a pedestrian to be on a footpath. It is dangerous for a cyclist to be on a road. Of course a pedestrian can be knocked down and killed on a footpath. But, by and large, it doesn't happen. Or at least the few who have unfortunately been knocked down, when taken in the context of the billions of pedestrian movements daily on our footpaths, is negligable.

Of course it could be improved, and I am all for anything practicable. For instance, there are plenty of places where busy footpaths could be widened, and traffic calmed.

Very few cyclists are knocked down and killed too, in the context of the thousands of cyclist movements every day. But therein lies the difference. For every thousands of cyclist movements, there are millions of pedestrian movements.

I also think that the vulnerability of a cyclist sharing a narrow road space with cars, lorries and buses, is far greater than the vulnerability of a pedestrian on a footpath. All are vulnerable, to varying degrees. But cyclists moreso. Given the speed some cyclists attain, the impact when they fall or hit something, or are hit, is many times greater than for a pedestrian at walking pace.

Here is another point. Some cyclists are ambling along very slowly, and have an almost immediate reaction time to any danger that presents itself. In fact, they are going so slowly, that they could quite easily use footpaths, at no danger to themselves or pedestrians. But they cannot use footpaths, because there are other cyclists going at a very fast rate, who would be a danger to pedestrians. Those cyclists are better suited to the roadway than the footpath, where they can progress better, and are not in as much danger of running down pedestrians.

It is those cyclists who can go at a fast rate, who would ideally wear helmets, and in fairness, most do. There is no need to enforce helmets on the slower users. Again, it is all down to commonsense, and blanket legislation, which would hardly be enforced anyway, serves little or no purpose.

Far better to ask why cycling infrastructure has been so poorly designed and implemented, and find out how it can be done better.

BenShermin

Just talking to a friend there this evening about this thread. The question was asked, are helmets only "common sense" in anglophone societies?

The Dutch, Danes and the Flemish are too busy cycling to care about them. Parisians care more about cycle chic on their Vélibs then they do about headgear. There may be 9 million bicycles in Beijing, but there certainly isn't 9 million helmets!

Yet in Australia, New Zealand and parts of Canada and The U.S. there's mandatory helmet laws. Here in the UK and Ireland there's always debate on the issue. Is it only an issue that English speaking people worry about?

Richard Logue

I cycle in Central London on a weekly basis and would not ride there or anywhere else without a helmet. What's the issue with helmets anyway? Are we talking about some libetarian concept of personal freedom? For me at least I'd rather increase my chances of avoiding a serious head injury.

Aard

There seems to be two debates going concurrently:

1. Should cyclists wear helmets?
2. Should it be illegal to cycle without a helmet?

On the first issue, I wonder if it even makes sense to have the debate. If a person feels safer cycling with a helmet, then go them. Likewise, if another person feels that a helmet isn't necessary, or indeed isn't always practical, go them too. Does it really matter what anybody else thinks, except for the individual?

Onto the second issue. It has been shown that mandatory helmet laws reduce the numbers of cyclists. This, coupled with the fact that a critical mass of cyclists both increases numbers likely to cycle and increases safety, can only be a negative thing. The debate seems to centre on whether or not helmets actually save lives (or at least prevent injuries).

I think it is telling that where there is a huge cycle mode-share, there are no mandatory helmet laws, while in cities where there are such laws there are very low levels of cycling.

the_syco

Having gone through a car window, over the handlebars, slipped on black ice (broke the elbow, not the head), I say helmets are a great idea.

I view them like seatbelts; annoying until you need them, and then they save your life :P

Cookie_Monster

the_syco wrote: »

Having gone through a car window, over the handlebars, slipped on black ice (broke the elbow, not the head), I say helmets are a great idea.

having been hit by a car more than once, had two high speed crashes and several low speed ones I say helmets are pointless and making wristpads manditory would reduce injuries far more...
See I can make an equally pointless point on the topic.

paddyland wrote:

I do think they should wear hi-viz, if they are sharing the road with heavy vehicles. People walking across busy industrial yards or shunting areas wear hi-viz, to be seen by drivers of heavy vehicles. Those same drivers on the road may have poor visibility depending on prevailing conditions. Hi-viz is a courtesy to those drivers, even if the cyclist cares not for their own safety. But I think it is a waste of time legislating for it. It is practically unenforceable.

so why don't we paint all trucks highvis?

monument

BenShermin wrote: »

Just talking to a friend there this evening about this thread. The question was asked, are helmets only "common sense" in anglophone societies?

The Dutch, Danes and the Flemish are too busy cycling to care about them. Parisians care more about cycle chic on their Vélibs then they do about headgear. There may be 9 million bicycles in Beijing, but there certainly isn't 9 million helmets!

Yet in Australia, New Zealand and parts of Canada and The U.S. there's mandatory helmet laws. Here in the UK and Ireland there's always debate on the issue. Is it only an issue that English speaking people worry about?

A mix of a strong culture of fear and culture of victim blaiming in anglophone?

the_syco wrote: »

I think it comes from how your average cyclist can go fast on their bicycles, whereas the average pedestrian doesn't go fast on the pavement.

The problem with that is that cars tend to hit pedestrians at speed. The speed difference makes things worse, not better.

People don't think about that, while they overestimate how safe footpaths are (cars mounting footpaths is very common) and a lesser extend peoople underestimate how much motorists break red/orange lights and speed.

People on footpaths are also at risk from cyclists -- both those there legally and poorly designed shared use paths, when cyclists are allowed.

Also, you should note that pedestrians slip on ice and end up in A&E all the time when there's bad ice.

paddyland

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so why don't we paint all trucks highvis?

Aw for Jesus' sake, it's the truck driver who might not see the cyclist. Surely to God the cyclist can see the truck, unless he is thick.

paddyland

monument wrote: »

The problem with that is that cars tend to hit pedestrian a speed. The speed diffrence makes things worse, not better.

People don't think about that, while they overestimate how safe footpaths are (cars mounting footpaths is very common) and a lesser extend peoople underestimate how much motorists break red/orange lights and speed.

People on footpaths are also at risk from cyclists -- both those there legally and poorly designed shared use paths, when cyclists are allowed.

Also, you should note that pedestrians slip on ice and end up in A&E all the time when there's bad ice.

You are NOT going to get MILLIONS of pedestrians to wear helmets every time they go outside their door. Can we please put that to bed? Is your granny going to put on a helmet on Sunday morning on her way to mass?

If you really are suggesting she should, then this whole thread is a complete farce.

galwaycyclist

paddyland wrote: »

You are NOT going to get MILLIONS of pedestrians cyclists to wear helmets every time they go outside their door. Can we please put that to bed? Is your granny going to put on a helmet on Sunday morning on her way to mass?

If you really are suggesting she should, then this whole thread is a complete farce.

Fixed your post there.

ArmaniJeanss

The Amsterdam vid above, or the Utrecht cycle rush hour vids that have been posted in other threads should end the helmet debate -
thats the volume of bicycle use that we should be aiming for and that volume appears to be only in countries where helmets aren't mandatory.
Countries with mandatory helmet use don't have that volume (happy to be proven wrong with a vid of hundreds of helmet wearing cyclist commuters going through a metropolis junction).

To keep on the original topic, the question for the TDs/councillors would be have they talked to their counterparts in cities like Amsterdam and Utrecht about their cycling policy?

bk

They introduced mandatory helmet laws in Australia and found that there was:

- A 36% decline in the number of people cycling.

- An increase in the number of cyclists who experienced fatal accidents !!

Conclusion mandatory cycle helmet laws reduce the number of people cycling and don't make you any safer.

As for the question if you should wear a helmet our not, it depends on the circumstances. When I cycle to work every day on my commuting bike with normal clothes and go at a relatively slow speed, then I don't wear a helmet, it isn't necessary. When I take my racer out for the weekend for a long fast cycle, then yes, I wear a helmet.

Enough with the nanny state stuff, it should be up to each individual.

What we need to be doing is focusing on getting more people cycling and improving cycle facilities.

Helmets and high vis are a distraction, which turn people away from cycling.

the_syco

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so why don't we paint all trucks highvis?

If ye can't see a truck, you shouldn't really be allowed out of the house, never mind let near a road!

bk wrote: »

- An increase in the number of cyclists who experienced fatal accidents !!

Conclusion mandatory cycle helmet laws reduce the number of people cycling and don't make you any safer.

From a study;

A 1994 MUARC study of cycling in Victoria found that "...the number of insurance claims from bicyclists killed or admitted to hospital after sustaining a head injury decreased by 48% and 70% in the first and second years after the law, respectively

=-=

Back to the topic at hand; I'd ask why they (DCC) allow signs placed on and/or blocking cyclist paths?

monument

Moved from the other thread and a note added to the new opening post on this thread.

I think this is an interesting discussion to have in the wider context other modes of transport, so as noted in the opening post -- this is not being moved to the cycling board at this time.

Cookie_Monster

paddyland wrote: »

If you really are suggesting she should, then this whole thread is a complete farce.

as is suggesting casual and road cyclists should wear helmets, as someone pointed out above it really is only an anglophone problem.

Cycle helmets are mandatory over here and because of that you see far less people out cycling on the roads (I do up to 200km of commuting and training a week so out a lot), I was gobsmacked at the sheer numbers of people out and about the last time I was back home in April.
I wear a helmet out cycling purely to avoid a fine now.

Aw for Jesus' sake, it's the truck driver who might not see the cyclist. Surely to God the cyclist can see the truck, unless he is thick.

if a truck driver cannot see a cyclist in daylight or a correctly lit cyclist at night he must be thick or blind...
we can go around and around with stupid points like these...

BenShermin

Oh God, I've created a monster

lucernarian

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

if a truck driver cannot see a cyclist in daylight or a correctly lit cyclist at night he must be thick or blind...
we can go around and around with stupid points like these...

A point which implies that a cyclist (with legal-minimum lighting) is equally as visible as a truck (with legal-minimum lighting) and its driver, would be a stupid point indeed. So why would anyone write yet more of the same kind of nonsense?


Anyway... I can't quite get my head around the significance of the various numbers being quoted here. Especially if they're being placed out of context. Is there a definitive answer to the level of risk reduction or increase a helmet offers to particular cyclists in a particular environment with a particular kind of bike etc. etc.?

I mean, it's not much use drawing conclusions from overall studies when there could be a million and one confounding factors.

Spook_ie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

having been hit by a car more than once, had two high speed crashes and several low speed ones I say helmets are pointless and making wristpads manditory would reduce injuries far more...
See I can make an equally pointless point on the topic.


so why don't we paint all trucks highvis?

paddyland wrote: »

Aw for Jesus' sake, it's the truck driver who might not see the cyclist. Surely to God the cyclist can see the truck, unless he is thick.

Commercial vehicles over 3500Kg are required to display various markings to pass the DoE tests

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Vehicle%20Testing/HGVManual29.02.2012.pdf

Pages 64 - 71

Cookie_Monster

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

A point which implies that a cyclist (with legal-minimum lighting) is equally as visible as a truck (with legal-minimum lighting) and its driver, would be a stupid point indeed. So why would anyone write yet more of the same kind of nonsense?

I never implied anything of the kind.