Cyclists should do a theory test!

Chips Lovell

Plus, if you've short hair or are bald you get stripy tanlines on your head. Nobody needs that s**t.

CramCycle

Jawgap wrote: »

it offers fantastic protection from nagging family members,

It does provide protection from mother in laws.

smash wrote: »

Weight it up. Brain damage & possibly death or a neck injury which would probably happen along side the brain injury anyway.

If you hit the ground hard enough for brain damage without the helmet, you probably were travelling fast enough to cause brain damage with the helmet. You may have a prettier face afterwards though, so swings and roundabouts.
Would you have gotten your arms around your head if you weren't wearing one, would you have travelled as fast without one, would the car that hit you have travelled as close to you without one, would you have noticed whatever took you out if you weren't wearing one, the questions are endless.

The facts on the other hand are simple, at population level, it makes no difference.

If mandatory use is brought in, the negatives far outweigh any perceived positives.

I am neither for or against helmet wearing, just against mandatory use.

Jawgap

smash wrote: »

Weight it up. Brain damage & possibly death or a neck injury which would probably happen along side the brain injury anyway.

I have, and brain damage is not an automatic consequence of a tumble from a bike - neither is spinal chord injury.

Plus, if we're really trying to limit acquired brain injury by modifying or introducing mandatory requirements for sports and leisure activities, let's start with my favourite sport - rugby.

How many kids, teens and adults next year will suffer concussions from playing rugby? Likewise Gaelic football? Soccer? Are we going to make head protection mandatory for those activities?

RainyDay

Dr Crippen wrote: »

As a driver and a cyclist I would there is, that's my opinion based on the fact I have done the theory and driving test.

Generally, changes to public policy require something more than opinion. Perhaps some facts, maybe some research etc.

smash wrote: »

A brief glimpse of that thread didn't lead me to any reason for not wearing one other than a few saying that compulsory helmet wearing in other countries didn't save lives. This just sounds defiant and in my opinion it still isn't a reason to not wear one. For every person saying no, there seems to be 2/3 saying yes.

smash wrote: »

Weight it up. Brain damage & possibly death or a neck injury which would probably happen along side the brain injury anyway.

You seem to be confusing two seperate questions:

1) Should I wear a helmet?
2) Should helmets be mandatory for everybody?

These are two very different questions. Everybody knows that smokers should give up smoking, but we don't make smoking illegal, for a range of reasons.

Even if you were to accept that wearing a helmet may have safety benefits, that doesn't make it a good idea to make it mandatory.

But we are a little off-topic here. It would be nice to get back to the question of why we're getting hysterical about cyclists breaking red lights, and how your quality of life would improve if they stopped.

smash

For every stat and opinion to say they're useless there's another to say they're not:

"Each year about 2 percent of motor vehicle crash deaths are bicyclists. In a majority of bicyclist deaths, the most serious injuries are to the head, highlighting the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet. Helmet use has been estimated to reduce head injury risk by 85 percent."
http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

Cycle helmets save lives says Neurosurgeon - in ongoing helmet row
Brain surgeon: There's no point wearing bicycle helmets

Anyway I never said I was for or against helmets but if I was out on a bike I'd wear one just to be extra cautious.

Jawgap

smash wrote: »

For every stat and opinion to say they're useless there's another to say they're not:

"Each year about 2 percent of motor vehicle crash deaths are bicyclists. In a majority of bicyclist deaths, the most serious injuries are to the head, highlighting the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet. Helmet use has been estimated to reduce head injury risk by 85 percent."
http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

Cycle helmets save lives says Neurosurgeon - in ongoing helmet row
Brain surgeon: There's no point wearing bicycle helmets

Anyway I never said I was for or against helmets but if I was out on a bike I'd wear one just to be extra cautious.

Brain surgeon who sees people with brain injuries says helmets would save lives? Yeah, that'd be about right.

wonder what his buddy the heart surgeon has to say about people coming in for by-passes?

Chips Lovell

Would you wear one doing other activities, where your risk of suffering a head injury is higher than cycling?

smash

Jawgap wrote: »

Brain surgeon who sees people with brain injuries says helmets would save lives? Yeah, that'd be about right.

wonder what his buddy the heart surgeon has to say about people coming in for by-passes?

Bra's save hearts?

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Would you wear one doing other activities, where your risk of suffering a head injury is higher than cycling?

I'm so accident prone, I should probably be wearing one even going to bed.

Jawgap

smash wrote: »

For every stat and opinion to say they're useless there's another to say they're not:

"Each year about 2 percent of motor vehicle crash deaths are bicyclists. In a majority of bicyclist deaths, the most serious injuries are to the head, highlighting the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet. Helmet use has been estimated to reduce head injury risk by 85 percent."
http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

Cycle helmets save lives says Neurosurgeon - in ongoing helmet row
Brain surgeon: There's no point wearing bicycle helmets

Anyway I never said I was for or against helmets but if I was out on a bike I'd wear one just to be extra cautious.

BTW, I'd recommend never being 'extra cautious' on a bike - if you are too passive you end up 'retreating' into situations that are potentially very dangerous - that doesn't mean cycling around like your hair is on fire, but some assertiveness, with a good dollop of common sense goes an awful long way to making cycling both safe and fun - in my experience.

Jawgap

smash wrote: »

Bra's save hearts?



I'm so accident prone, I should probably be wearing one even going to bed.

No, but regular, moderate activity combined with a reasonable diet, moderate alcohol intake and an avoidance of tobacco means you'll likely not have to have your chest cracked

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

For every stat and opinion to say they're useless there's another to say they're not:

"Each year about 2 percent of motor vehicle crash deaths are bicyclists. In a majority of bicyclist deaths, the most serious injuries are to the head, highlighting the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet. Helmet use has been estimated to reduce head injury risk by 85 percent."
http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

And once again, we're talking about the 2% instead of focusing on the 98% - mandatory driving helmets would be the obvious solution here, surely?

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

And once again, we're talking about the 2% instead of focusing on the 98% - mandatory driving helmets would be the obvious solution here, surely?

There's nothing to suggest that the majority of motorists deaths are related to head injury so you might as well drop that.

Beasty

smash wrote: »

Weight it up. Brain damage & possibly death or a neck injury which would probably happen along side the brain injury anyway.

Brain damage occurs mainly from the brain bouncing off the inside of the skull - most helmets have offer no benefit whatsoever from that (a small number of newer ones do try and offer very limited protection from this). Helmets do though help protect the skull from breaking. A broken skull itself is obviously very serious, and could add to the brain damage. However it could also absorb some of the shock and reduce the extent to which the brain bounces of the inside of the skull, which could (and I'm certainly not saying will) reduce the amount of brain damage

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

There's nothing to suggest that the majority of motorists deaths are related to head injury so you might as well drop that.

Nothing at all? How about this for a start?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2012/04/02/forget-football-car-crashes-are-the-leading-cause-of-fatal-head-trauma-among-teens/

And even if say 1/4 of motorist deaths are related to head injury, that's still about 12 times more deaths than cyclists - but you still want to focus on the 2% - right?

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Nothing at all? How about this for a start?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2012/04/02/forget-football-car-crashes-are-the-leading-cause-of-fatal-head-trauma-among-teens/

And even if say 1/4 of motorist deaths are related to head injury, that's still about 12 times more deaths than cyclists - but you still want to focus on the 2% - right?

You seem to have ignored the part where I said "majority of motorists deaths".

But seriously, if you want to go on and on about motorists then start another thread. This is about cyclists.

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

Generally, changes to public policy require something more than opinion. Perhaps some facts, maybe some research etc

You asked a question and I answered that, stating my opinion based on my experience as a driver in this instance I don't need to provide facts. I could sit here all day penning anecdotes about various times I found the tests stood to me and guided me on road etiquette and rules. Do you drive? What is your opinion on the theory and driving test and its influence on driver behaviour?

Pinch Flat

smash wrote: »

Sure. And full nomex racing suits too

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/australian-helmet-science-for-motorists.html?m=1

The wearing of helmets in cars is recommended as a large proportion of fatalities (30% if I remember correctly) are attributed to head injuries with 50% of car accidents resulting in non-fatal head injuries.

Why is the car industry not promoting these helmets? It's would wipe out a lot of car fatalities at a stroke

CramCycle

Dr Crippen wrote: »

You asked a question and I answered that, stating my opinion based on my experience as a driver in this instance I don't need to provide facts. I could sit here all day penning anecdotes about various times I found the tests stood to me and guided me on road etiquette and rules.

Anecdotes, what a good foundation for public policy :pac:

Dr Crippen

Ha very good (virtual hand clap)

Chips Lovell

Simply put, people have a very bad habit of advocating safety measures on the basis of what looks dangerous rather than on any actual attempt at measuring risk and outcomes.

Some of the worst offenders are cycling advocates.

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

You seem to have ignored the part where I said "majority of motorists deaths".

You seem to have ignored the part where the article says "Car Crashes Are The Leading Cause Of Fatal Head Trauma Among Teens". Ok, so it is US-based, and it looks at one specific age group, but would you really expect the Irish results to be that different? Do you seriously believe that head injuries are not a significant factor in motorist deaths? More significant that the 2% cyclists perhaps?

smash wrote: »

But seriously, if you want to go on and on about motorists then start another thread. This is about cyclists.

This is a thread about a proposed road safety measure that will take resources away from dealing with motorist safety. It is very relevant.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

You asked a question and I answered that, stating my opinion based on my experience as a driver in this instance I don't need to provide facts. I could sit here all day penning anecdotes about various times I found the tests stood to me and guided me on road etiquette and rules. Do you drive? What is your opinion on the theory and driving test and its influence on driver behaviour?

Seriously? Anecdote? You're seen the problem - right? When I sit all day and pen my anecdotes which are different to your anecdotes. That's the problem with anecdotes. They are anecdotal. You might thing about looking for some evidence, or research maybe?

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

You seem to have ignored the part where the article says "Car Crashes Are The Leading Cause Of Fatal Head Trauma Among Teens". Ok, so it is US-based, and it looks at one specific age group, but would you really expect the Irish results to be that different?

The headline might as well be "Dangerous activity is the leading cause of injury".

RainyDay wrote: »

Do you seriously believe that head injuries are not a significant factor in motorist deaths?

Of course they are. That's why you have steering wheel air-bags, side impact air-bags, seat air-bags... air-bags everywhere.... and seat belts, and crumple zones. All in the effort of protection. I don't even know why you ask these kind of questions when I never suggest otherwise.

Pinch Flat

smash wrote: »

Of course they are. That's why you have steering wheel air-bags, side impact air-bags, seat air-bags... air-bags everywhere.... and seat belts, and crumple zones. All in the effort of protection. I don't even know why you ask these kind of questions when I never suggest otherwise.

While there's no doubt that safety measures in cars reduce road deaths from collisions, the number 1 cause of road fatalities in cars are still head injuries.

So why no helmets for the occupants - along with the measures you've outlined above, surely they would dramatically cut the amount of fatal head injuries in collisions

Knasher

smash wrote: »

But seriously, if you want to go on and on about motorists then start another thread. This is about cyclists.

What this thread is about is taking a set of rules that are largely structured to deal with the needs of motorists, and the ways in which cyclists are made comply with them. The practicality of those rules when applied to cyclists, as well as how those strictly rules are applied to motorists is always going to be relevant to the subject.

smash

Knasher wrote: »

What this thread is about is taking a set of rules that are largely structured to deal with the needs of motorists, and the ways in which cyclists are made comply with them. The practicality of those rules when applied to cyclists, as well as how those strictly rules are applied to motorists is always going to be relevant to the subject.

They're called the rules of the road, not the rules of the motorist. As such, cyclists should comply with them.

RobbieTheRobber

smash wrote: »

They're called the rules of the road, not the rules of the motorist. As such, cyclists should comply with them.

Right and in the rules of the road or the Road traffic act there is no requirement for cyclists to wear helmets. So no obligation on them to comply with your personal feelings on mandatory helmet usage.

:rolleyes:

Pinch Flat

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Right and in the rules of the road or the Road traffic act there is no requirement for cyclists to wear helmets. So no obligation on them to comply with your personal feelings on mandatory helmet usage.

:rolleyes:

Anyone any stats how Holland and Denmark are getting in with their head injuries? Must be mayhem over there given their higher population density and proliferation of cycling :rolleyes:

Knasher

smash wrote: »

They're called the rules of the road, not the rules of the motorist. As such, cyclists should comply with them.

Well to give an actual example that I see quite regularly. There is a stretch of road that I cycle daily with a solid white line, it is right after a bridge with a yield sign on it, so when I'm cycling this I'm often not travelling that quickly. The road is narrow enough that to overtake me, the motorists need to cross the white line a little, but they have excellent visibility and are easily able to do so without inconveniencing or endangering any other road user. In situations where the Garda see this happen, do you honestly think motorists should be punished for it. Because I've regularly been passed by Garda on that stretch too, and I've never seen them pull anyone up for it.

Liamario

lickme wrote: »

A lot of cyclists have no concept of the rules of the road and are getting more and more agressive. There acting like they have the right of way the whole time, weaving in and out of traffic, breaking red lights, not adhering and not looking for possible dangers ahead. Stricter and harsher penalties are needed for them. A piece of advice playing chicken with cars will not work well in the long run for ye. Should be made do some sort of simulation test or something. They are some decent cyclists but most are idiots.

I've seen fully licensed drivers have no concept of the rules either. So maybe a theory test is completely valueless?

smash

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Right and in the rules of the road or the Road traffic act there is no requirement for cyclists to wear helmets. So no obligation on them to comply with your personal feelings on mandatory helmet usage.

:rolleyes:

Except I never said I was in favour of mandatory helmet usage.

Knasher wrote: »

Well to give an actual example that I see quite regularly. There is a stretch of road that I cycle daily with a solid white line, it is right after a bridge with a yield sign on it, so when I'm cycling this I'm often not travelling that quickly. The road is narrow enough that to overtake me, the motorists need to cross the white line a little, but they have excellent visibility and are easily able to do so without inconveniencing or endangering any other road user. In situations where the Garda see this happen, do you honestly think motorists should be punished for it. Because I've regularly been passed by Garda on that stretch too, and I've never seen them pull anyone up for it.

If they were out to fill a quota I'm sure they would, but common sense should dictate that they shouldn't. In the same vain, if there was a quota for cyclist fines I'm sure Gardai would ditch their common sense and target cyclists quite heavily.

Liamario wrote: »

I've seen fully licensed drivers have no concept of the rules either. So maybe a theory test is completely valueless?

Let's not forget the still quite large amount of motorists who never even did a test. I'd be in favour of retests every 15-20 years.

Knasher

smash wrote: »

If they were out to fill a quota I'm sure they would, but common sense should dictate that they shouldn't. In the same vain, if there was a quota for cyclist fines I'm sure Gardai would ditch their common sense and target cyclists quite heavily.

Exactly. It is a matter of obeying the spirit of the law and common sense, rather than the letter, which generally is the approach used (apart perhaps when the Gardai are running some campaign). But the fact is that traffic laws are set up with regards to motorists, so are far fewer cases where the law doesn't reflect motorist safety.

Generally I obey traffic lights, but I could quite safely regard them as a motorist would a stop sign with a pedestrian crossing, especially when making a left turn. There are also traffic lights that are triggered by a magnet under the road, which my bike simple cannot trigger. Am I to sit there and wait till a car shows up behind me to let me through, when the road I'm joining is completely clear, or am I to obey the spirit of the law?

RainyDay

smash wrote: »

Of course they are. That's why you have steering wheel air-bags, side impact air-bags, seat air-bags... air-bags everywhere.... and seat belts, and crumple zones. All in the effort of protection. I don't even know why you ask these kind of questions when I never suggest otherwise.

Yes, cars have all those levels of protection, and still 4-5 people are dying each week. So driving helmets would be a great addition to that level of protection - right?

smash wrote: »

They're called the rules of the road, not the rules of the motorist. As such, cyclists should comply with them.

Yes, I agree - in general, they should. I break the law every day on my bike. When I hit a junction with no advance stop line or bike box, I will often move ahead of the stop line to make sure I'm visible to other traffic. This is the approach recommended by most experts in the area. Do you really want to see the Gardai ticketing every cyclist who does this?

smash wrote: »

Let's not forget the still quite large amount of motorists who never even did a test. I'd be in favour of retests every 15-20 years.

Yeah, retests sounds like a good idea to me, though maybe even more frequently than you suggest to be effective. I'd love to hear if this approach has been done anywhere else.

Liamario

smash wrote: »

Let's not forget the still quite large amount of motorists who never even did a test. I'd be in favour of retests every 15-20 years.

I agree with the concept of retests, but I question there value in reality. Clearly a licence to drive is not proof that you CAN drive in a real world scenario.

MadDog76

RainyDay wrote: »

Generally, changes to public policy require something more than opinion. Perhaps some facts, maybe some research etc.





You seem to be confusing two seperate questions:

1) Should I wear a helmet?
2) Should helmets be mandatory for everybody?

These are two very different questions. Everybody knows that smokers should give up smoking, but we don't make smoking illegal, for a range of reasons.

Even if you were to accept that wearing a helmet may have safety benefits, that doesn't make it a good idea to make it mandatory.

But we are a little off-topic here. It would be nice to get back to the question of why we're getting hysterical about cyclists breaking red lights, and how your quality of life would improve if they stopped.

Actually the topic/question is "Should cyclists do a Theory Test?" .........

MadDog76

I think discussing motorists should be banned on threads which are specifically about cyclists ......... Mods?

The threads would have a lot less posts (nonsense) as the "Lycra Legion" wouldn't have much left to say once their go-to "but look at the motorists" argument is taken away from them .........

RainyDay

MadDog76 wrote: »

Actually the topic/question is "Should cyclists do a Theory Test?" .........

So do enlighten us, how would a theory test for cyclists improve your quality of life?

MadDog76 wrote: »

I think discussing motorists should be banned on threads which are specifically about cyclists ......... Mods?

The threads would have a lot less posts (nonsense) as the "Lycra Legion" wouldn't have much left to say once their go-to "but look at the motorists" argument is taken away from them .........

Feeling the pressure eh? Looks like I'll have to come down there and explain 'opportunity cost' and 'same enforcement resources' one more time.

Boom_Bap

No, it's enevitalble that there will be a comparison point in discussion, motorists are the logical one in this type of discussion.

Grayson

MadDog76 wrote: »

I think discussing motorists should be banned on threads which are specifically about cyclists ......... Mods?

The threads would have a lot less posts (nonsense) as the "Lycra Legion" wouldn't have much left to say once their go-to "but look at the motorists" argument is taken away from them .........

If we banned motorists from the road it'd be a lot more peaceful.

MadDog76

RainyDay wrote: »

So do enlighten us, how would a theory test for cyclists improve your quality of life?



Feeling the pressure eh? Looks like I'll have to come down there and explain 'opportunity cost' and 'same enforcement resources' one more time.

Please remain on your High-Chair

MadDog76

Boom_Bap wrote: »

No, it's enevitalble that there will be a comparison point in discussion, motorists are the logical one in this type of discussion.

It also results in a going-round-in-circles discussion ........ "cyclists do x,y but never bother doing z" replied to with "but the motorists also do blah blah blah" which never really answers the question being put to cyclists about cycling specifically.

Anyway I'm just being curious as to what the replies would be if using motorists as an excuse/argument was banned .......... one can dream!

MadDog76

Grayson wrote: »

If we banned motorists from the road it'd be a lot more peaceful.

Ah you would all just turn on eachother ........ remember that no individual cyclist is ever to blame for anything he/she does on the road so if there were no motorists to blame you'd all just start pointing the finger at other cyclists. :rolleyes:

Chips Lovell

Lycra legion? You gotta get the terminology right. It's Lycra Louts

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

Seriously? Anecdote? You're seen the problem - right? When I sit all day and pen my anecdotes which are different to your anecdotes. That's the problem with anecdotes. They are anecdotal. You might thing about looking for some evidence, or research maybe?

No im not seeing any problem, other than i answered the question you had put to me. I have formed MY opinion based on the fact i cycle and drive each and every day, i have also sat a theory test, lessons and a driving test. I see how testing has benefitted me! Is this incorrect?

Also you may not have noticed but i also asked you a question which you have neither addressed or answered, so in your own time.........

MadDog76

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Lycra legion? You gotta get the terminology right. It's Lycra Louts

"Lycra Louts" are a sub-section of the "Lycra Legion" ....... the "Lycra Legion" are all idiots but some of them (the "Louts") are also a**holes

MadDog76

Dr Crippen wrote: »

No im not seeing any problem, other than i answered the question you had put to me. I have formed MY opinion based on the fact i cycle and drive each and every day, i have also sat a theory test, lessons and a driving test. I see how testing has benefitted me! Is this incorrect?

Also you may not have noticed but i also asked you a question which you have neither addressed or answered, so in your own time.........

Let me answer your question for him, it'll save him the effort ........... 200+ motorists die on our roads every year so cyclists are great ......... hope that has addressed your question fully?

CramCycle

MadDog76 wrote: »

"Lycra Louts" are a sub-section of the "Lycra Legion" ....... the "Lycra Legion" are all idiots but some of them (the "Louts") are also a**holes

... we do not forgive, we do not forget, expect us!

MadDog76

CramCycle wrote: »

... we do not forgive, we do not forget, expect us!

......... or I could just drive over you? :cool:

roadrunner16

MadDog76 wrote: »

It also results in a going-round-in-circles discussion ........ "cyclists do x,y but never bother doing z" replied to with "but the motorists also do blah blah blah" which never really answers the question being put to cyclists about cycling specifically.

Anyway I'm just being curious as to what the replies would be if using motorists as an excuse/argument was banned .......... one can dream!

I don't think it would have that big of an impact and don't think it should be implemented for that reason , given the significant cost involved, considering many cyclists would do one when learning to drive any way.

DDC1990

I think pedestrians should have to do a theory test. I was driving through Dublin, 6 people walked across the road in front of me on a red man at one junction alone.

Not one of these people had a high viz jacket or a helmet on, they could have been killed or dented my car if I hit them.

They don't even pay road tax and they cross several roads a day.

Dr Crippen

I like where your going with that