Helmets - the definitive thread.. ** Mod Note - Please read Opening Post **

tomasrojo

Cycle helmets still optional as road death toll rises

THE Government has no plans to legislate to make cyclists wear helmets, the Junior Transport Minister said

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cycle-helmets-still-optional-as-road-death-toll-rises-30403506.html


Misleading headline, as the road death toll for cyclists is not rising (unless you mean people are occasionally dying at the same low rate as the last few years).

HivemindXX

Iwannahurl wrote: »

At least your head is covered.

Yeah. I crashed my bike the other day. Luckily I was wearing a cap otherwise I would certainly have been killed.

check_six

HivemindXX wrote: »

Yeah. I crashed my bike the other day. Luckily I was wearing a cap otherwise I would certainly have been killed.

...or worse!

Beasty

tomasrojo wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cycle-helmets-still-optional-as-road-death-toll-rises-30403506.html


Misleading headline, as the road death toll for cyclists is not rising (unless you mean people are occasionally dying at the same low rate as the last few years).

Clearly there is a higher rate of deaths this year than there has been for a few years, but there's absolutely no statistical significance in this. Some years the figure goes up (compared to the year immediately preceding), other years it goes down, and occasionally it stays the same. One thing is very clear - despite a huge uptake in cycling in recent years the death rate is at an all time low (or at least since the dawn of the "motor age")

check_six

tomasrojo wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cycle-helmets-still-optional-as-road-death-toll-rises-30403506.html


Misleading headline, as the road death toll for cyclists is not rising (unless you mean people are occasionally dying at the same low rate as the last few years).

Yeah, it's disturbing that the actual story is that a shared bike scheme is starting up in Cork, Galway, and Limerick, and the headline mentions death and implies that it's wrong that helmets have not been made mandatory. Some serious editorial shenanigans going on there. Doing dome weird agenda setting. The story should be positive, but they're adding in the tragic (and highly rare, can't remember another one where a vehicle wasn't involved) accident of that poor fellow the other day and using it to knock the scheme, or at least frighten people away from it.

Don't think it will work, however, as they mention the 6,000,000 trips on Dublin Bikes, so far, down the bottom. Seems to indicate they are pretty darn popular.

tomasrojo

I graphed the rise of cumulative dublinbikes trips over time and it's very close to a straight line pointed sharply upwards. Extrapolating, I think the scheme has already hit seven million.

EDIT:

Data from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublinbikes

magicbastarder

that headline is not borne out by any supporting figures in the article - unless you read the headline as 'road death toll rises by one' - i.e. it's not talking about this year vs. last year, but simply that there's been another death.

Chips Lovell

"Minister opens new motorway less than 24 hours after death of motorist!"

No Pants

check_six wrote: »

...or worse!

Turned into a Zombie? Developing a taste for Justin Bieber's music?

CramCycle

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

"Minister opens new motorway less than 24 hours after death of motorist!"

Please send that quote into their letters page

RayCun

No Pants wrote: »

Turned into a Zombie? Developing a taste for Justin Bieber's music?

turned into a triathlete

Iwannahurl

check_six wrote: »

Yeah, it's disturbing that the actual story is that a shared bike scheme is starting up in Cork, Galway, and Limerick, and the headline mentions death and implies that it's wrong that helmets have not been made mandatory. Some serious editorial shenanigans going on there. Doing dome weird agenda setting. The story should be positive, but they're adding in the tragic (and highly rare, can't remember another one where a vehicle wasn't involved) accident of that poor fellow the other day and using it to knock the scheme, or at least frighten people away from it.

Don't think it will work, however, as they mention the 6,000,000 trips on Dublin Bikes, so far, down the bottom. Seems to indicate they are pretty darn popular.

A mixed-up story for sure. It's as if the journalist (a freelance) was looking for an opportunity to do some helmet-related sh1t-stirring.

There's more to the story, but it can't be related here and it's highly unlikely that it will be mentioned in the local or national press now or perhaps ever. Meanwhile helmetophilia can be given free rein.

check_six

...

buffalo

Reading this - http://www.vox.com/2014/5/22/5738626/how-and-why-bicycle-deaths-happen-in-the-us - and the below graph caught my attention. Seems like if you were a helmet you're more likely to be killed? </dubious and dodgy statistical analysis>

buffalo

What a l****e ****ing ****

magicbastarder

buffalo wrote: »

Seems like if you were a helmet you're more likely to be killed? </dubious and dodgy statistical analysis>

nearly all motorists killed in car crashes are in a car at the time of fatality too!

Capt'n Midnight

Has anyone done any studies of how wearing helmets with loose straps / too far back on the head affects their performance ?

Maybe helmets save lives if worn correctly ?

But we'd never know since so many people were them like hats so that they couldn't possibly offer any protection to the forehead or possibly even the temple region.

tomasrojo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Has anyone done any studies of how wearing helmets with loose straps / too far back on the head affects their performance ?

Maybe helmets save lives if worn correctly ?

But we'd never know since so many people were them like hats so that they couldn't possibly offer any protection to the forehead or possibly even the temple region.

Wikipedia mentions something about fit:

It is important that a helmet fit the cyclist properly – in one study of children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years, 96 %[12] were found to be incorrectly fitted. Efficacy of incorrectly fitted helmets is reckoned to be much lower; one estimate states that risk is increased almost twofold.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet

Note [12] being Parkinson GW, Hike KE (August 2003). "Bicycle helmet assessment during well visits reveals severe shortcomings in condition and fit". Pediatrics 112 (2): 320–3.
Note [13] being Rivara, F. P; Astley, S. J; Clarren, S. K; Thompson, D. C; Thompson, R. S (1999). "Fit of bicycle safety helmets and risk of head injuries in children". Injury Prevention 5 (3): 194–7.

The abstract of the second paper is here; it's another study by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson of "helmets prevent 85% of head injuries" fame.

I'm intrigued as to whether the researchers see a certain inconsistency between their studies. On the one hand, we have a study from 1989 purporting to show that helmets are 85% effective in preventing head injury; on the other hand, it's pretty clear that helmets are seldom worn completely correctly and we have a paper by the same authors of the 1989 paper claiming that incorrectly worn helmets are much less effective. It's not clear to me how the helmeted cyclists in the 1989 paper managed to wear helmets correctly (as they presumably must have done to have achieved such high efficacy, if we accept the authors' claim that differences in head injury rates in the study are down to helmets alone) when the other studies and personal experience suggest that helmets are not generally worn correctly.

JoeLeogue

Iwannahurl wrote: »

A mixed-up story for sure. It's as if the journalist a freelance was looking for an opportunity to do some helmet-related sh1t-stirring.

There's more to the story, but it can't be related here and it's highly unlikely that it will be mentioned in the local or national press now or perhaps ever. Meanwhile helmetophilia can be given free rein.

Hi there.

I'm the journalist in question. I noticed a lot of traffic coming to my site via the link on this page.

First of all I don't see how my status as a freelance journalist has any bearing on the story. Second of all the question about helmets was raised by another journalist, and I wasn't the only one to include the minister's comments on helmets when covering the story.

I myself am a cyclist and regularly cycle to jobs I have here in Cork. However, the death of a cyclist on our streets is a story that needs to be covered, as do all cycling and motor deaths.

Local media in Cork had accounts from many witnesses who said that the deceased hit his head and was not wearing a helmet. In that context it is perfectly reasonable question to ask the Minister who oversees this mode of transport if it is a safety measure that should be introduced. As you read, he suggested it's not a clear cut issue. As I said, I didn't ask the question, but I would have anyway.

So it wasn't so much a case of "helmet related sh1t-stirring" as reporting on the Minister's thoughts on a cycling safety question put to him when launching a cycling scheme.

CramCycle

JoeLeogue wrote: »

Second of all the question about helmets was raised by another journalist, and I wasn't the only one to include the minister's comments on helmets when covering the story.

But your headline has nothing to do with the story, the story was about the Coca Cola bikes, your headline is relates to government inaction on an issue that does not need action.

I thought your article was fine but the headline was nothing short of ridiculous.

I myself am a cyclist and regularly cycle to jobs I have here in Cork. However, the death of a cyclist on our streets is a story that needs to be covered, as do all cycling and motor deaths.

Indeed but as another posted here on a different thread asked, how come when there is a bit piece about a motorway opening or a by pass, the headline isn't "speed limiters still optional as a driver died in a speed related accident last night"

Local media in Cork had accounts from many witnesses who said that the deceased hit his head and was not wearing a helmet. In that context it is perfectly reasonable question to ask the Minister who oversees this mode of transport if it is a safety measure that should be introduced. As you read, he suggested it's not a clear cut issue. As I said, I didn't ask the question, but I would have anyway.

Were there any other contributing factors to the cyclists death? I have heard where the cyclists was coming from and other important news related bit pieces but the only thing that anyone comes up with in the media is he should have been wearing a helmet, not that he should or should not have been doing a, b or c while on the bike. Unfortunately we can only discuss what is released in the media here as anything else is hearsay.

So it wasn't so much a case of "helmet related sh1t-stirring" as reporting on the Minister's thoughts on a cycling safety question put to him when launching a cycling scheme.

Why did no one ask him what were his perception on benefits to the HSE 35 years down the line as the nation gets fitter, not why aren't helmets compulsory despite its negative impact with no corroborating evidence that it is beneficial to the population in other legal districts eg parts of Canada and Australia.

JoeLeogue

CramCycle wrote: »

But your headline has nothing to do with the story, the story was about the Coca Cola bikes, your headline is relates to government inaction on an issue that does not need action.


I thought your article was fine but the headline was nothing short of ridiculous.

Journalists don't write the headlines that appear in the newspapers.

CramCycle wrote: »

Indeed but as another posted here on a different thread asked, how come when there is a bit piece about a motorway opening or a by pass, the headline isn't "speed limiters still optional as a driver died in a speed related accident last night"


Were there any other contributing factors to the cyclists death? I have heard where the cyclists was coming from and other important news related bit pieces but the only thing that anyone comes up with in the media is he should have been wearing a helmet, not that he should or should not have been doing a, b or c while on the bike. Unfortunately we can only discuss what is released in the media here as anything else is hearsay.

The man had died less than 24 hours before the press conference. It was a relevant news story. At that stage the only information available was from eye witnesses who called local radio stations with their accounts, and they said he wasn't wearing a helmet. No other information was revealed. Perhaps we will learn more when the inquest is heard, but that is a while away yet.

CramCycle wrote: »

Why did no one ask him what were his perception on benefits to the HSE 35 years down the line as the nation gets fitter, not why aren't helmets compulsory despite its negative impact with no corroborating evidence that it is beneficial to the population in other legal districts eg parts of Canada and Australia.

The health benefits of cycling are mentioned in the article, in the context that he was asked if it is appropriate to have a public health initiative sponsored by a soft drinks company.

Chips Lovell

Why are you singling out cycling like this?

Is it the overall number of head injuries?

Is it the proportion of head injuries to journeys taken?

I'd like to hear the reasoning behind it.

CramCycle

JoeLeogue wrote: »

Journalists don't write the headlines that appear in the newspapers.

Apologies, I knew that, I should have stated that the headline, not your headline.

The man had died less than 24 hours before the press conference. It was a relevant news story. At that stage the only information available was from eye witnesses who called local radio stations with their accounts, and they said he wasn't wearing a helmet. No other information was revealed. Perhaps we will learn more when the inquest is heard, but that is a while away yet.

No, it wasn't. It was relevant to a bike scheme opening, whose only link to the deceased was that there was a bike in both. It's like you had two different stories and they were merged into one.

I realise you probably have to do things like this to get an editor to publish, that's the business, I just think its a bit pointless, why not have two smaller, more internally relevant articles, with facts and points of interest, rather than two stories that are loosely (and I mean very loosely related) merged into one half story.
As a journalist were you able to ascertain any facts about the mans accident that were publishable other than what you overheard on the local radio. How was the man at the time of the accident, where was he coming from, was he tired, did something force him off the road eg pothole/road surface. Was there any indication form his story at the time of the accident that indicates why the accident occurred rather than what he wasn't wearing at the time? How did he hit a stationary object while cycling? His lack of a helmet surely did not cause the collision but yet is the only thing anyone in the media have mentioned bar his age and location.

No Pants

JoeLeogue wrote: »

The man had died less than 24 hours before the press conference. It was a relevant news story.

Relevant - bit of a stretch there. If the journalist doesn't write the headline, what's your excuse for the opening line?

I see that only at the end of the article do you mention how many journeys have been made on the existing bike scheme. That might have been more relevant.

JoeLeogue

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

Why are you singling out cycling like this?

Is it the overall number of head injuries?

Is it the proportion of head injuries to journeys taken?

I'd like to hear the reasoning behind it.

The reasoning behind “singling out cycling like this”?
It was a press conference about cycling. I reported what was said.

CramCycle wrote: »

No, it wasn't. It was relevant to a bike scheme opening, whose only link to the deceased was that there was a bike in both. It's like you had two different stories and they were merged into one.
I realise you probably have to do things like this to get an editor to publish, that's the business, I just think its a bit pointless, why not have two smaller, more internally relevant articles, with facts and points of interest, rather than two stories that are loosely (and I mean very loosely related) merged into one half story.

It is absolutely relevant. Whether you like it or not there was public discussion on the morning of the press conference about cyclists wearing helmets. It was in the context of a fatal accident the night before. The Minister who oversees cycling was there taking questions. It would have been a dereliction of duty to the public not to put a question being asked by many to the Minister when the opportunity arose, as it did in this instance.

CramCycle wrote: »

As a journalist were you able to ascertain any facts about the mans accident that were publishable other than what you overheard on the local radio. How was the man at the time of the accident, where was he coming from, was he tired, did something force him off the road eg pothole/road surface. Was there any indication form his story at the time of the accident that indicates why the accident occurred rather than what he wasn't wearing at the time? How did he hit a stationary object while cycling? His lack of a helmet surely did not cause the collision but yet is the only thing anyone in the media have mentioned bar his age and location.

What I had ascertained which was publishable are in the details. As I clearly stated in the article, he hit a bollard, he was not wearing a helmet. No one mentioned anything at the time about him being forced off the road or passed any comment about whether or not he looked tired etc. It never came up.

No Pants wrote: »

Relevant - bit of a stretch there. If the journalist doesn't write the headline, what's your excuse for the opening line?

I see that only at the end of the article do you mention how many journeys have been made on the existing bike scheme. That might have been more relevant.

The opening line is “THE Government has no plans to legislate to make cyclists wear helmets, the Junior Transport Minister said.”
I fail to see the problem with it. It reflects what he said, and further on in the piece he outlines why he is against making the wearing of helmets mandatory.

JoeLeogue

Just so I'm clear.

A man dies in a bike accident in Cork city.

The following morning his accident prompts a debate on the most listened to local radio show in the country, and part of the debate centers on whether or not the wearing of helmets should be made compulsory.

An hour after that debate airs, the Minister who oversees cycling, who would have the power to bring about a mandatory helmet law if he wanted to, is in Cork to launch a cycling initiative.

Given this context, I'm to believe that it is "hardly relevant" to put that question to him and to report what he has to say?

No Pants

JoeLeogue wrote: »

The opening line is “THE Government has no plans to legislate to make cyclists wear helmets, the Junior Transport Minister said.”
I fail to see the problem with it. It reflects what he said, and further on in the piece he outlines why he is against making the wearing of helmets mandatory.

"The article was published by Joe Leogue, less than 24 hours after the newspaper was forced to apologise and pay damages over another article."

Do you think the above sentence would be a good opener to an article or a bad opener?

Regardless, thanks for taking the time to come on here and discuss this.

JoeLeogue

No Pants wrote: »

"The article was published by Joe Leogue, less than 24 hours after the newspaper was forced to apologise and pay damages over another article."

Do you think the above sentence would be a good opener to an article or a bad opener?

Regardless, thanks for taking the time to come on here and discuss this.

I have absolutely no idea what your point is here.

CramCycle

JoeLeogue wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea what your point is here.

His point was that your article gives the impression that it was meant to be about the bike scheme but you talk about an unrelated event that involved a cyclist.

It is akin to you writing a self biographical article and opening it with the above line. The paper paying out damages is unrelated to you but they are linked by the fact that both stories would involve the paper

JoeLeogue

Again I'll ask the following

A man dies in a bike accident in Cork city.

The following morning his accident prompts a debate on the most listened to local radio show in the country, and part of the debate centers on whether or not the wearing of helmets should be made compulsory.

An hour after that debate airs, the Minister who oversees cycling, who would have the power to bring about a mandatory helmet law if he wanted to, is in Cork to launch a cycling initiative.

Given this context, I'm to believe that it is irrelevant to put that question to him and to report what he has to say?