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

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

What you miss out on is that in Holland 40% of people cycle to work everyday.

So with a higher population and 40% of people cycling every day, of course there is going to be more accidents in total. That is obvious!

The important figure to look for and find is the number of accidents per 100,000 cyclists.

The other figure that you might want to look at is how many fatal accidents for all modes of transport (cycling, driving, walking, etc.).

No I think you'll find that the important thing to look at is the accidents per head of population, as stated "assuming all things being equal" would a death rate of 40+ cyclists have been acceptable in 2010

EDIT:- All traffic deaths 2010

Ireland 212
Holland 640

Approx 3x the rate in Holland which would sit reasonably well with their 4x population

bk

Spook_ie wrote: »

No I think you'll find that the important thing to look at is the accidents per head of population, as stated "assuming all things being equal" would a death rate of 40+ cyclists have been acceptable in 2010

If 40% of people cycled to work every day here in Ireland, then yes, assuming that there would be an equivalent fall in the number of fatal car accidents as less people would be driving.

Of course no one likes to see someone die, but we all take that risk everyday when we step out of our house and into our car, bus, bike or even walk.

Staying at home is even a risk as cyclists live an average 7 years longer then drivers.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yet another erroneous "text" bite, that is only true of drivers that take NO exercise and yet another example of the scaremongering used by the cyclist/no helmet brigade to forward their position

Nope it is a comparison of all motorists, including both who do and don't take other types of exercise and cyclists (including those who both do and don't take other types of exercise).

Being one of the most obese countries in Europe, I think it is vital to encourage as many people as possible to get out there and onto there bikes.

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

If 40% of people cycled to work every day here in Ireland, then yes, assuming that there would be an equivalent fall in the number of fatal car accidents as less people would be driving.

Of course no one likes to see someone die, but we all take that risk everyday when we step out of our house and into our car, bus, bike or even walk.

Staying at home is even a risk as cyclists live an average 7 years longer then drivers.

Correct which is why we wear seat belts in cars, have a lower speed limit for buses, look ( or should do ) both ways when crossing the road AND should wear helmets when cycling.

Staying at home is even a risk as cyclists live an average 7 years longer then drivers

Yet another erroneous "text" bite, that is only true of drivers that take NO exercise and yet another example of the scaremongering used by the cyclist/no helmet brigade to forward their position

bk

It is interesting to note that 44 pedestrians were killed in 2010 in Ireland.

Should we wrap all pedestrians in body armour and helmets so?

Aard

Spook, just to be clear, are you in favour of mandatory helmet wearing laws for cyclists? I'm not sure if it's coming across that you advocate for wearing helmets in general, or that they should be mandatory.

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

It is interesting to note that 44 pedestrians were killed in 2010 in Ireland.

Should we wrap all pedestrians in body armour and helmets so?

Stop trying to sidetrack the issue, pedestrians need to be reeducated to the old Green X code, of more interest is the fact that 72 pedestrians died in the Netherlands which is a mere 2x the rate of Ireland which pro rata is an excellent result for the Dutch, maybe you should be arguing that more cyclists is safer for pedestrians? and then put your helmets on!

Spook_ie

Aard wrote: »

Spook, just to be clear, are you in favour of mandatory helmet wearing laws for cyclists? I'm not sure if it's coming across that you advocate for wearing helmets in general, or that they should be mandatory.

I am in favor of mandatory helmet laws for people cycling their own bikes, I am in favor of an exemption for bike hire schemes with the proviso that the company supplying the service provides insurance for those using the bikes and that the bikes are readily identifiable as hire bikes, simple really

BenShermin

Spook_ie wrote: »

Stop trying to sidetrack the issue, pedestrians need to be reeducated to the old Green X code

Drivers need to be re-educated to obey speed limits in built up areas.

bk

Spook_ie wrote: »

Stop trying to sidetrack the issue

No side tracking here at all, if you are in favour of mandatory bike helmet laws, then you should also be in favour of mandatory helmets for pedestrians and motorists.

Your argument is that helmets "may" reduce head trauma suffered by cyclists who hit their heads, then logically helmets will also reduce trauma for pedestrians and motorists, so they should be mandatory for them too.

Aard

Spook_ie wrote: »

I am in favor of mandatory helmet laws for people cycling their own bikes, I am in favor of an exemption for bike hire schemes with the proviso that the company supplying the service provides insurance for those using the bikes and that the bikes are readily identifiable as hire bikes, simple really

Thanks for that. Can I ask though, do you think it's worth having mandatory helmet laws if it means that the number of cyclists drastically (not hyperbole!) drops?

I understand that you perceive that the remaining cyclists would be rendered safer due to the laws, but surely there's a better way of increasing cyclist safety that doesn't negatively affect cyclist numbers? Improved infrastructure and a critical mass of cyclists come to mind.

Spook_ie

Aard wrote: »

Thanks for that. Can I ask though, do you think it's worth having mandatory helmet laws if it means that the number of cyclists drastically (not hyperbole!) drops?

I understand that you perceive that the remaining cyclists would be rendered safer due to the laws, but surely there's a better way of increasing cyclist safety that doesn't negatively affect cyclist numbers? Improved infrastructure and a critical mass of cyclists come to mind.

Do you seriously think that the cyclists who already own their own cycles will dump them? I don't.

Where is the growth for your critical mass in the city, from the DBS of course, which I've already said several pages back http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84930943&postcount=79 should be exempt So I see no compelling reason why people who commute on their bikes shouldn't be subject to mandatory helmet law

hardCopy

Spook_ie wrote: »

Do you seriously think that the cyclists who already own their own cycles will dump them? I don't.

Where is the growth for your critical mass in the city, from the DBS of course, which I've already said several pages back http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84930943&postcount=79 should be exempt So I see no compelling reason why people who commute on their bikes shouldn't be subject to mandatory helmet law

I wouldn't cycle into town to go shopping if I had to wear a helmet.

If I wore a helmet I would have to:
A\ Carry it around all day
B\ Leave it attached to my bike to be pissed and spat on by the local wildlife

I do wear my helmet when training and commuting. But the debate isn't about me, I'd still train on my bike regardless of what laws come in. The people that matter are the ones that have yet to be tempted into cycling.

When I'm training I wear lycra, clipped in shoes and a helmet. When I'm commuting I wear a rain jacket, helmet and hi-viz. When I'm going to town to shop or meet people, I wear jeans, a t-shirt and copious amounts of hairgel.

It doesn't matter whether or not helmets are effective. If the people you're trying to save never get on a bike in the first place and end up dying or clogging up our hospitals with heart disease and Type 2 diabetes.

Helmet laws only serve to protect the driver who hits a helmetless cyclist. In the same way that cycle lanes in this country are designed purely to keep cyclists out of the drivers way.

Edit to add: When I was in secondary school we had hundreds of cyclists in and out the gates every day, only a tiny minority wore helmets. Why? Because teenagers are extremely image conscious, if cycling meant wearing a helmet the bike compound would have been deserted every day. When I left, two pupils drove to school regularly,now the road outside is lined on both sides with student's cars, do we want to encourage kids to cycle or drive?

ArmaniJeanss

Spook_ie wrote: »

You see there you go again spouting off meaningless stats instead of doing some research

Population of Ireland 4.576 million (2011)
Population of Holland 16.69 million (2011)

Therefore pro rata with all other things being equal you would expect Holland to have approx 4 times the accidents/injuries etc. or to put it the otherway Ireland to have 25% of the Dutch results

Can you imagine the outcry if we had 40 cyclists killed in 2010, did we have anywhere near that amount?

Surely you'd need to know the average distance per person cycled in a year in both countries before you can do a comparison?

Your 'yearly deaths per population for an activity' figures are basically meaningless.

Aard

Spook_ie wrote: »

Do you seriously think that the cyclists who already own their own cycles will dump them? I don't.

Where is the growth for your critical mass in the city, from the DBS of course, which I've already said several pages back http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84930943&postcount=79 should be exempt So I see no compelling reason why people who commute on their bikes shouldn't be subject to mandatory helmet law

It has been shown that people do dump their bikes due to mandatory helmet laws. Maybe it isn't true to say they stop cycling altogether, but certainly some of their trips stop being taken by bike.


DublinBikes has certainly helped the growth of cycling in Dubin. But don't forget that it is national policy to increase the modeshare for cycling to 10% by 2020. In 2006 it was 2%. All those extra cyclists are not going to be accommodated by DublinBikes. The bike-to-work scheme has proven popular too -- there's a good chunk of own-bike cyclists right there.


Given that mandatory helmet laws are proven to reduce numbers of cyclists, and that national policy is to increase numbers of cyclists, I cannot see such laws being introduced, rendering the debate academic.

BenShermin

Aard wrote: »

It has been shown that people do dump their bikes due to mandatory helmet laws. Maybe it isn't true to say they stop cycling altogether, but certainly some of their trips stop being taken by bike.

I'd certainly give up cycling down to the shops as it's just as easy albeit longer to walk and I don't need to carry a stupid helmet around the shops with me.

I'd definitely give up my Saturday/Sunday leisure cycles along the Grand Canal, Phoenix Park etc. as I really just don't like wearing a helmet, especially on warm days like this. Again, I'll go for a walk instead.

I'll probably keep cycling to work, but to be honest I wont enjoy it and I'll only be doing it to save on bus fare.

Many of my cycling friends are of the exact same opinion.

lucernarian

Spook_ie wrote: »

Do you seriously think that the cyclists who already own their own cycles will dump them? I don't.

Where is the growth for your critical mass in the city, from the DBS of course, which I've already said several pages back http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84930943&postcount=79 should be exempt So I see no compelling reason why people who commute on their bikes shouldn't be subject to mandatory helmet law

I think the question asked by Aard is a fair one, in that there is compelling evidence that the number of cyclists has dropped in other places where these laws were introduced and more importantly, the dublinbikes scheme will not accommodate much growth in cycling overall. It's particularly important to remember that the DB scheme is inherently a city centre based one, and not designed or intended to get people off cars to any particular extent and certainly not to get commuters on their bikes until the long-term extension plans are realised.

Perhaps most importantly, what about the rest of the country where no such bike rental scheme exists?? It could be extended to some of the largest cities in Ireland but it won't change levels of bike riding for the majority of the country. In other words, is it fair or sustainable nationally to enforce helmet usage while those who live in Dublin can enjoy helmet-free riding on the DB bikes? I don't see the benefits of enforcing helmet usage on the cycleways and greenways which are (slowly) emerging around the country.

Grudaire

Spook_ie wrote: »

I am in favor of mandatory helmet laws for people cycling their own bikes, I am in favor of an exemption for bike hire schemes with the proviso that the company supplying the service provides insurance for those using the bikes and that the bikes are readily identifiable as hire bikes, simple really

Wait - why does that make sense?

Either you want helmets compulsary or not!?

• What would make a bike scheme 'safer' than people cycling their own bikes?
• If I get insurance out can I cycle my own bike without a helmet?

Carawaystick

Are the pro-compulsion people not on for back protectors like motorcyclists wear?

Or gloves being compulsory, I mean you could get mrsa from a cut on the palm on your hand.
Maybe full leathers again to reduce the risk of a cut getting infected

I still can't see why if the pro-compulsion people favor helmets, they don't mandate motorbike helmets. If a pushbikes helmet is such a great thing, a full face helmet designed to protect at >20kmh is surely better...

Spook_ie

BenShermin wrote: »

Drivers need to be re-educated to obey speed limits in built up areas.

Drivers are already and continually being re-educated by the use of speed enforcement officials, fines and penalty points.

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

No side tracking here at all, if you are in favour of mandatory bike helmet laws, then you should also be in favour of mandatory helmets for pedestrians and motorists.

Your argument is that helmets "may" reduce head trauma suffered by cyclists who hit their heads, then logically helmets will also reduce trauma for pedestrians and motorists, so they should be mandatory for them too.

Why would I be in favor of helmets for pedestrians and motorists, pedestrians are ( once they've learned ) stable, cyclists aren't, think someone used the phrase Dynamically Stable to describe a cyclist, motorists aren't (for the most part) rallying around the streets of Ireland.

hardCopy

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why would I be in favor of helmets for pedestrians and motorists, pedestrians are ( once they've learned ) stable, cyclists aren't, think someone used the phrase Dynamically Stable to describe a cyclist, motorists aren't (for the most part) rallying around the streets of Ireland.

Pedestrians fall over all the time. Mandatory Zimmerframes?

Or maybe these:

Spook_ie

hardCopy wrote: »

I wouldn't cycle into town to go shopping if I had to wear a helmet.

<snipped> When I'm going to town to shop or meet people, I wear jeans, a t-shirt and copious amounts of hairgel.

<snipped>
Edit to add: When I was in secondary school we had hundreds of cyclists in and out the gates every day, only a tiny minority wore helmets. Why? Because teenagers are extremely image conscious, if cycling meant wearing a helmet the bike compound would have been deserted every day. When I left, two pupils drove to school regularly,now the road outside is lined on both sides with student's cars, do we want to encourage kids to cycle or drive?

And there in lies the problem, because you and probably every other non helmet champion think it's uncool, well it used to be cool to smoke it's not anymore.

When it comes to health and safety attitudes can be changed but only if someones prepared to grasp the nettles, how unpopular was stopping smoking in the workplace, how accepted is it now?

Richard Logue

Spook fair play to you for holding your ground.

I think we all know cycle helmets are inevitable and no amount of discussion on Internet boards will stop it.

Spook_ie

Originally Posted by Spook_ie View Post
You see there you go again spouting off meaningless stats instead of doing some research

Population of Ireland 4.576 million (2011)
Population of Holland 16.69 million (2011)

Therefore pro rata with all other things being equal you would expect Holland to have approx 4 times the accidents/injuries etc. or to put it the otherway Ireland to have 25% of the Dutch results

Can you imagine the outcry if we had 40 cyclists killed in 2010, did we have anywhere near that amount?

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Surely you'd need to know the average distance per person cycled in a year in both countries before you can do a comparison?

Your 'yearly deaths per population for an activity' figures are basically meaningless.

Not so meaningless as you'd like to think again you need to read the caveats

Therefore pro rata with all other things being equal you would expect Holland to have approx 4 times the accidents/injuries etc. or to put it the otherway Ireland to have 25% of the Dutch results

Now that would give you 40 cyclists killed in 2010, as it is in 2009 (2010 RSA hasn't broken the fatalities down ) we had 7, you want a 6x increase?

Deaths and injuries on Irish roads
The number of Irish road deaths fell to 239 in 2009, the lowest level on record, down 40 from 2008. The Government’s road safety
target of achieving no more than 252 deaths per annum by the end of 2012 was achieved three years ahead of schedule.
The 239 who died consisted of 40 pedestrians, 7 cyclists, 128 drivers, 38 passengers and 27 bikers.
Other figures show:
•

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Deaths%20and%20injuries%20on%20Irish%20roads%202009.pdf

Spook_ie

Carawaystick wrote: »

Are the pro-compulsion people not on for back protectors like motorcyclists wear?

Or gloves being compulsory, I mean you could get mrsa from a cut on the palm on your hand.
Maybe full leathers again to reduce the risk of a cut getting infected

I still can't see why if the pro-compulsion people favor helmets, they don't mandate motorbike helmets. If a pushbikes helmet is such a great thing, a full face helmet designed to protect at >20kmh is surely better...

Gloves nor back protectors are mandatory for motorbikers, perhaps you have a point there and when it comes up for debate I'll put my views about it there. Certainly most serious motorbikers wear decent equipment like leathers to prevent road rashes, gauntlets etc.

There is a faction that believe cycle helmets should incorporate mouth and chin protection but lets cross one bridge at a time shall we.

BenShermin

Spook_ie wrote: »

When it comes to health and safety attitudes can be changed but only if someones prepared to grasp the nettles, how unpopular was stopping smoking in the workplace, how accepted is it now?

It's just getting absolutely ridiculous at this stage.

My choice not to wear a helmet won't kill any second party. Second hand smoke in a bar or club pre 2004 could very well have killed many bar staff waiters etc.

I'm just gobsmacked that you linked the two.

Spook_ie

hardCopy wrote: »

Pedestrians fall over all the time. Mandatory Zimmerframes?

Or maybe these:

Examples of pedestrians falling over ALL the time, excluding icy weather...

Spook_ie

BenShermin wrote: »

It's just getting absolutely ridiculous at this stage.

My choice not to wear a helmet won't kill any second party. Second hand smoke in a bar or club pre 2004 could very well have killed many bar staff waiters etc.

I'm just gobsmacked that you linked the two.

The link is to show how an unpopular decision soon becomes acceptable, not as a comparison of how cycling kills other people, do keep it realistic

BenShermin

Spook_ie wrote: »

The link is to show how an unpopular decision soon becomes acceptable, not as a comparison of how cycling kills other people, do keep it realistic

Just like the helmet law was accepted in Mexico:

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/04/mexico-city-repeals-bike-helmet-law.html?m=1

BenShermin

Richard Logue wrote: »

Spook fair play to you for holding your ground.

I think we all know cycle helmets are inevitable and no amount of discussion on Internet boards will stop it.

Will you be proud of the day that Ireland implements a helmet law that leads to a reduction in cyclists, a more polluted Ireland with more traffic, more obesity, and the eventual scrapping of the most successful bike share scheme in the world?

BenShermin

Spook_ie wrote: »

Drivers are already and continually being re-educated by the use of speed enforcement officials, fines and penalty points.

Haha, and yet they never learn. Five minutes looking at the signs which tell drivers whether or not they're obeying the 30km/h limit on the quays tells it all.

steamengine

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why would I be in favor of helmets for pedestrians and motorists, pedestrians are ( once they've learned ) stable, cyclists aren't, think someone used the phrase Dynamically Stable to describe a cyclist, motorists aren't (for the most part) rallying around the streets of Ireland.

Yes bicycles are in engineering terms dynamically stable - in other words they are only stable in the lateral direction by virtue of continuous inputs from the cyclist whilst in motion. A post mentioned sticking ones feet on the ground to counter this point, but that only proves the point that bikes are basically unstable. Furthermore this stability can be instantly destroyed if for example a bicycle wheel gets caught in a tram track or other such obstruction.

So the closest example to a bike and its rider is not a pedestrian but a lightweight low powered motorcycle and its rider - and hey presto - nobody is going to argue about helmets there. Well I'm wrong again - I sense another barrow load of data on the way. As the man said 'When there is too much explaining going on - you're losing !

Aard

Richard Logue wrote: »

I think we all know cycle helmets are inevitable and no amount of discussion on Internet boards will stop it.

Not in the slightest. Introducing mandatory helmet wearing will lead to a reduction in cyclist numbers, which is at odds with government policy. They're not going to shoot themselves in the foot like that.

Spook_ie

BenShermin wrote: »

Haha, and yet they never learn. Five minutes looking at the signs which tell drivers whether or not they're obeying the 30km/h limit on the quays tells it all.

Probably because they're trying to overtake the octogenerian on his DBS rental that just burned them off, 30kph is a ridiculous limit but yeah it's the limit and they will get ticketed and they will eventually learn.

Perhaps it's also time cylists were speed monitored as well as helmeted

Spook_ie

Let's have some input from the NL Institute for road safety shall we....

http://www.swov.nl/rapport/factsheets/uk/fs_bicycle_helmets.pdf

You can read the full report there but here's the conclusion

Conclusions
One third of the cyclists who are admitted to hospital with serious injury after a traffic crash are diagnosed with head/brain injury.
Approximately three quarters of these cyclists sustain this
head/brain injury in crashes not involving a motor vehicle
.
As many as nine out of ten young children who sustain head/brain injury, do so in crashes not involving a motor vehicle
.
In the majority of cases these are bicycle only crashes.

Research has shown that a bicycle helmet provides protection against
serious head and brain injury. The most recent estimate (Elvik, 2011)
indicates that the risk of head injuries is 1.72 times higher for
cyclists not wearing a helmet than it is for cyclists who do wear a helmet, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.33 - 2.22. For brain injury the risk seems to be 2,13 times higher, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.33
- 3.45.
If all head and neck injuries that were investigated are combined, the risk
increase is higher, but still present (factor of 1.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.02 -1.35)
.
These effect estimates are partly based on American and Australian
studies, countries that use stricter standards for bicycle helmets than Europe.

An argument that is often heard against compulsory helmet use is that it would reduce the use of bicycles.
International research indicates that this effect sometimes occurs, especially during the first couple of years after the introduction of compulsory helmet use. The long term effects, as well as the significance of these findings for the Netherlands are unknown.
All in all, the SWOV concludes that a bicycle helmet is an effective means of protecting cyclists from sustaining head and brain injury in a fall with a bicycle.

Spook_ie

BenShermin wrote: »

Just like the helmet law was accepted in Mexico:

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/04/mexico-city-repeals-bike-helmet-law.html?m=1

And when it becomes apparent that the only way to further reduce injuries and deaths is by mandatory helmets they'll have a similar problem in the NL, so far better to introduce it now and be ahead of the pack

BenShermin

Spook_ie wrote: »

Probably because they're trying to overtake the octogenerian on his DBS rental that just burned them off, 30kph is a ridiculous limit but yeah it's the limit and they will get ticketed and they will eventually learn.

Perhaps it's also time cylists were speed monitored as well as helmeted

Overtaking anything on the quays in a 30km/h zone is downright dangerous.

30km/h limits are not ridiculous. They can be the difference between life and death for a pedestrian in a built up area.

What I'm reading from this post is that it's alright for motorists to break a speed limit because it's "ridiculous" and that cyclists should wear helmets to protect themselves from drivers who think speed limits are ridiculous.

BenShermin

Spook_ie wrote: »

And when it becomes apparent that the only way to further reduce injuries and deaths is by mandatory helmets they'll have a similar problem in the NL, so far better to introduce it now and be ahead of the pack

What are you on about? Mexico repealed it's helmet law, did you bother reading my link?

hardCopy

Spook_ie wrote: »

Examples of pedestrians falling over ALL the time, excluding icy weather...

You really don't believe people fall?

Falls
Falls are a principal cause of injury related
hospital admissions (Robertson 1992,
Laffoy 1995). Young children and older
people are known to have an increased risk
of falls (Tinetti et al. 1988, Laffoy 1995).
Older women, in particular, have very high
rates of hospital admissions and deaths due
to injuries sustained as the result of falls.
Studies estimate that between one-third of
older people fall at least once each year
(Perry 1982, Prudham and Evans 1981,
Tinetti 1988, O’Loughlin et al. 1993).
Fractures are a common outcome of a fall.
Patients with fractures were found to
occupy as much as 87% of all hospitalised
days (Sahlin 1990). Recurrent falling is also a
common problem among older people.
Older people with a history of falls are likely
to experience further falls. Common types
of falls in young children include falls from
playground equipment, baby walkers and
windows (Kavanagh and Banco 1982,
Altmann et al. 1996, Rivara and Aitken
1998).

3.2.2 Cause/mechanism of
unintentional injury
Falls accounted for 42.9% of all
unintentional injury admissions, an average
annual admission rate of 532.5 per 100,000.

From here: http://doras.dcu.ie/15042/1/Injury_in_Ireland.pdf

hardCopy

Spook_ie wrote: »

And there in lies the problem, because you and probably every other non helmet champion think it's uncool, well it used to be cool to smoke it's not anymore.

When it comes to health and safety attitudes can be changed but only if someones prepared to grasp the nettles, how unpopular was stopping smoking in the workplace, how accepted is it now?

Do you really think my helmetless head is going to give anyone cancer?

It doesn't matter if I think they're cool or not, I already wear a helmet most of the time. The people who are likely to be put off by this kind of measure are the casual "fair weather" cyclists who probably aren't bothered championing anything and will just lose interest in cycling if it's not cool anymore.

Spook_ie

BenShermin wrote: »

What are you on about? Mexico repealed it's helmet law, did you bother reading my link?

Actually I did and I can't really see where you get the idea that I didn't read it, I'll try the post another way

Mexico repealed a helmet law because of

Let's face it, it wasn't much of a law since there was little enforcement and it was, essentially, unenforceable. Back in 2008 there was a bicycle count including over 26,000 cyclists and 93% of them didn't feel the need to wear a helmet.

The main reason for the push to repeal the helmet law was the upcoming implementation of the city's bike share system, Ecobici.

and I said

And when it becomes apparent that the only way to further reduce injuries and deaths is by mandatory helmets they'll have a similar problem in the NL, so far better to introduce it now and be ahead of the pack

meaning when it comes time to introduce mandatory helmet wearing in the NL to reduce the injury rate, they will face a similar problem and it would be far better to implement a law now before we face the problem that Mexico faced and the NL will face


Is that clearer for you or do I need another attempt to make it clearer?

Spook_ie

BenShermin wrote: »

Overtaking anything on the quays in a 30km/h zone is downright dangerous.

30km/h limits are not ridiculous. They can be the difference between life and death for a pedestrian in a built up area.

What I'm reading from this post is that it's alright for motorists to break a speed limit because it's "ridiculous" and that cyclists should wear helmets to protect themselves from drivers who think speed limits are ridiculous.

Where does

30kph is a ridiculous limit but yeah it's the limit and they will get ticketed and they will eventually learn.

translate to being alright for motorists to break the speed limit?

Spook_ie

hardCopy wrote: »

You really don't believe people fall?





From here: http://doras.dcu.ie/15042/1/Injury_in_Ireland.pdf

Referencing in particular to old people and younger people, you're scraping the barrel now looking for evidence that people need to wear helmets when walking

Breakdown of falls

21
3.3
Unintentional falls
Between 1993 and 1997 there were 96,003
admissions to hospital as a result of
unintentional falls, an average of 19,201
annually. The average annual admission rate
due to unintentional falls was 532.5 per
100,000.
As outlined in Table 3.7, almost one-quarter
of unintentional falls (22.5%; 21,612)
involved slipping, tripping or stumbling on
the same level while 18.0% (17,262) of falls
involved falling from one level to another
(for example, falling from a chair or bed).
Of patients admitted to hospital as a result
of an unintentional fall, 50.3% (48,274) were
male and 49.7% (47,729) were female. The
average annual rate of unintentional
admissions due to falls was 539.1 per
100,000 for males and 525.9 per 100,000 for
females.
Children under 5 years of age accounted for
9.6% (9,237) of unintentional falls. 17.2%
(16,531) of falls were in people aged 5-14
years, 10.7% (10,271) were in people aged
15-24 years while 28.8% (27,613) were in
people aged 25-64 years. One-third of
unintentional falls (33.7%; 32,351) were in
people 65 years of age and over.
Males accounted for the majority of fall-
related admissions in all age groups under
65 years, however the gender balance was
reversed in the over 65 year age group
(Figure 3.2).
Half (50.3%; 48,258) of all injuries sustained
as the result of an unintentional fall were
limb fractures. Head injuries accounted for
23.9% (22,965) of injuries sustained (Figure
3.3).
Table 3.7:
Types of unintentional falls
Type of unintentional fall
N
%
Fall on same level from slipping, tripping or stumbling 21,612 22.5
Other fall from one level to another17,262 18.0
Fall on or from stairs or steps 5,771 6.0
Fall on same level from collision pushing or shoving, by or
with other person 5,255 5.5
Fall on or from ladders or scaffolding 3,329 3.6
Fall from or out of a building or other structure 3,337 3.5
Falling into a hole or other opening in surface 277 0.3
Other and unspecified fall 39,160 40.8
Total
96,003
100.0

but thankyou for pointing me to another reference contained in the same report

Pedal cyclist injuries
The use of cycle helmets has been
promoted widely as a way of reducing head
injuries (Dowswell
et al.
1996, Rivara and
Aitken 1998). The state of Victoria in
Australia introduced a law requiring cyclists
to wear helmets in 1990 and witnessed an
increase in the use of helmets from 31% to
75% immediately following its introduction.
There was a 48% reduction in pedal cyclist
head injuries between 1989/90 and 1990/91
and a reduction of 70% over the 2 year
period 1989/90 –1991/92. While some of
this decrease can be attributed to other
factors such as a decrease in cycling among
teenagers, at least half was attributed to the
use of cycle helmets (Cameron
et al.
1994,
McDermott 1995)

also

6.10
Head injuries
Over the period of study 23.1% of
unintentional injury admissions were head
injuries, with average annual admission rates
for intracranial injury of 230/100,000 and
for skull fracture of 53.6/100,000. Several
studies have documented the nature of
sequelae resulting from severe as well as
minor head injury. It is recognised that there
are insufficient facilities in Ireland to cater
for the rehabilitative and care needs of the
head injury survivor. This is particularly true
for young people, amongst whom head
injuries form a very significant proportion
of admissions.

R14.
The use of cycle helmets
should be encouraged,
especially in young people.
Parents, teachers and the
Gardai should encourage their
use at every opportunity.

Spook_ie

Aard wrote: »

Not in the slightest. Introducing mandatory helmet wearing will lead to a reduction in cyclist numbers, which is at odds with government policy. They're not going to shoot themselves in the foot like that.

Government policy changes faster than the weather some days

monument

EVERYBODY: Please read the charter before posting again -- it has been cleaned up and shortened to make it easier reading.

I'm limited on time and will have a decent look over the thread when I have more of such.

AltAccount wrote: »

Do you or any of your family cycle or is your interest purely academic?

Attacking / focusing on the post and not the poster is a general rule. It does not matter if the other person accepts your question -- but I think the question came with hostility from the respondent and another poster.

I like to keep some discretion, but this rule is fairly strictly enforced here and given the responses, with good reason.

Richard Logue wrote: »

Spook fair play to you for holding your ground.

I think we all know cycle helmets are inevitable and no amount of discussion on Internet boards will stop it.

The following, from boards.ie's general "How To Be A Better Poster" guide (link in charter), covers interrupting a debate to say it's pointless:

Contribute in a constructive way.

Nobody is interested in your laser sharp ability to cut someone down. Nobody is interested in the funny thing you cat did, unless it’s a thread on funny things cats do (basically, we mean cut down on the LOLCats). The odd humourous comment thrown into a thread is fine but consistently contributing nothing but noise/negativity is not helpful. One word answers aren’t useful. Please use the "rate thread" feature to vote on a thread instead of jumping in and posting 'this subject is silly and pointless'. If you like what a poster had to say, use the thanks system.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Me to which is one reason I won't let any "off the cuff" statement quoting this or that survey to go untackled

I see people making detailed contributions in reply to your out-of-hand dismissal of everything that does not suit you, so cut down on trying to label other's posts "off the cuff".

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yet another erroneous "text" bite, that is only true of drivers that take NO exercise and yet another example of the scaremongering used by the cyclist/no helmet brigade to forward their position

What's wrong with this? Why did I card it?

Rather than dealing with the issue at hand productively, it needlessly uses labels and name calling, with inflammatory use of words.

It's against more than a few sections of the charter and general rules of this site.

AltAccount

monument wrote: »

Attacking / focusing on the post and not the poster is a general rule. It does not matter if the other person accepts your question -- but I think the question came with hostility from the respondent and another poster.

I like to keep some discretion, but this rule is fairly strictly enforced here and given the responses, with good reason.

I don't understand this instruction, particularly in the context of me clarifying my query in a subsequent post, in case my "tone" had been taken up wrong.

Can you PM me regarding this please as I don't want further sanction for questioning Mod instruction on-thread?

BenShermin

Spook_ie wrote: »

Is that clearer for you or do I need another attempt to make it clearer?

Nope that's clear enough .

monument

AltAccount wrote: »

I don't understand this instruction, particularly in the context of me clarifying my query in a subsequent post, in case my "tone" had been taken up wrong.

Can you PM me regarding this please as I don't want further sanction for questioning Mod instruction on-thread?

As I already instructed, please read the charter before posting again.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Probably because they're trying to overtake the octogenerian on his DBS rental that just burned them off, 30kph is a ridiculous limit but yeah it's the limit and they will get ticketed and they will eventually learn.

Perhaps it's also time cylists were speed monitored as well as helmeted

Spook_ie wrote: »

And when it becomes apparent that the only way to further reduce injuries and deaths is by mandatory helmets they'll have a similar problem in the NL, so far better to introduce it now and be ahead of the pack

Your views about 30km/h and helmets is a stunning contrast.

hardCopy

Spook_ie wrote: »

Referencing in particular to old people and younger people, you're scraping the barrel now looking for evidence that people need to wear helmets when walking

Breakdown of falls

21
3.3
Unintentional falls
Between 1993 and 1997 there were 96,003
admissions to hospital as a result of
unintentional falls, an average of 19,201
annually. The average annual admission rate
due to unintentional falls was 532.5 per
100,000.
As outlined in Table 3.7, almost one-quarter
of unintentional falls (22.5%; 21,612)
involved slipping, tripping or stumbling on
the same level while 18.0% (17,262) of falls
involved falling from one level to another
(for example, falling from a chair or bed).
Of patients admitted to hospital as a result
of an unintentional fall, 50.3% (48,274) were
male and 49.7% (47,729) were female. The
average annual rate of unintentional
admissions due to falls was 539.1 per
100,000 for males and 525.9 per 100,000 for
females.
Children under 5 years of age accounted for
9.6% (9,237) of unintentional falls. 17.2%
(16,531) of falls were in people aged 5-14
years, 10.7% (10,271) were in people aged
15-24 years while 28.8% (27,613) were in
people aged 25-64 years. One-third of
unintentional falls (33.7%; 32,351) were in
people 65 years of age and over.
Males accounted for the majority of fall-
related admissions in all age groups under
65 years, however the gender balance was
reversed in the over 65 year age group
(Figure 3.2).
Half (50.3%; 48,258) of all injuries sustained
as the result of an unintentional fall were
limb fractures. Head injuries accounted for
23.9% (22,965) of injuries sustained (Figure
3.3).
Table 3.7:
Types of unintentional falls
Type of unintentional fall
N
%
Fall on same level from slipping, tripping or stumbling 21,612 22.5
Other fall from one level to another17,262 18.0
Fall on or from stairs or steps 5,771 6.0
Fall on same level from collision pushing or shoving, by or
with other person 5,255 5.5
Fall on or from ladders or scaffolding 3,329 3.6
Fall from or out of a building or other structure 3,337 3.5
Falling into a hole or other opening in surface 277 0.3
Other and unspecified fall 39,160 40.8
Total
96,003
100.0

but thankyou for pointing me to another reference contained in the same report


also

I don't think pedestrians should have to wear helmets. I don't cyclists should either. Cycling is not dangerous.

As you quoted, the reason head injuries to cyclists dropped in Australia is because people just stopped cycling. Less cyclists => less injured cyclists. What about the people who no longer or never cycle because of the ban? How many of them have since died of heart attacks or hit other people in their cars.

Reducing the number of cyclists is not an acceptable way to reduce the number of injuries to cyclists.

If you can show me anywhere in the world where mandatory helmets have not reduced the number of cyclists then there's a debate to be had. Otherwise, we're just going round in circles.