Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

Tombo2001

Its so depressing.

Why would you be arsed to bring it to court.

If you want to get away with killing someone in this country, do it by car.

Hurrache

It'll be interesting to see what comes of this, theft and assault, or a form of aggravated burglary. The only thing a lock would have aided with in such a situation is a few smacks around the scumbags head.
https://twitter.com/VirginMediaNews/status/1396770390014406659

tomasrojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Looks as if that bike storage shed in the UK might be able to stay:

https://road.cc/content/news/leicester-mayor-planning-officers-got-it-wrong-shed-283293

The bike shed in the UK got planning permission in the end:
https://road.cc/content/news/shedgate-bike-shed-application-approved-283565

Lumen

Is this the right thread? Don't know. It's about e-scooters and proposals for compulsory "protective equipment". Should this be in the e-scooter legislation thread? Don't know.

More than half injured on e-scooters were not wearing helmet
https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2021/0524/1223683-escooter-injuries/

Consultant orthopaedic surgeon Dr Ciara Fox said the injuries were "quite extensive, complex injuries and even after surgical reconstruction patients had a high risk of post-traumatic arthritis".
...

The analysis shows that 68% of those treated at the hospital sustained fractures in the accidents.
...
Dr Fox said almost half of the patients had some form of head injury and one in ten required a CT brain scan to assess for intracerebral bleeds.

She said 60% of patients had not been wearing The analysis shows that 68% of those treated at the hospital sustained fractures in the accidents.a helmet at the time of the accident.

"It is quite serious and something as simple as a helmet and the education for people to be aware that a helmet can be life-saving," she said
...
The report authors believe now is the time for action to ensure the safety of e-scooter users, calling for the enforcement of protective gear, including helmets along with the introduction of speed limits

Wait, what? Arthritis? In your head?

<searches article for reference to gloves>...<not found>

Right, so let's reduce this to some obvious assumptions.

Scooterists crash when their tiny front wheel hits something. They put their hands out to protect their face, suffer serious hand injuries and broken collarbones.

So why isn't this article titled "More than X injured on e-scooters were not wearing gloves"?

Because the glove wearing was not studied. Or was it?

The research, entitled An Analysis of E-Scooter Related Trauma, looked at 22 patients treated at Connolly Hospital after being involved in an e-scooter accident between October 2019 and November 2020.

Thanks RTE for including a hyperlink to that research. Oh, you didn't? Do I need to explain hyperlinks to you in 2021, or is that included in my €160 a year compulsory license? Did you think to ask where it was published?

Let me Google that for myself.

"An Analysis of E-Scooter Related Trauma"

...finds a lengthy webinar and not much else. So it is published or not?

It's a slippery slope I tell ye! SLIPPERY SLOPE.

Ciara Fox needs to get back in her box.

buffalo

^^ Scooterists are having accidents: enforce "helmets along with the introduction of speed limits"!

Drivers are having accidents because of "high volumes of vehicles travelling at speed": lower speed limits make the road bigger!
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/traffic-accidents-four-times-more-likely-to-be-fatal-on-n20-cork-limerick-road-1.4573929

magicbastarder

Reality_Check1 wrote: »

Yeah I think you're right in relation to banning them outright but I would feel very strongly about banning them from cycle lanes. I was talking to the person who wrote it so don't have all the facts to hand but some things they mentioned

1. apparently the speed restrictor was "cut" in a lot of cases

2. Nearly all lone riders who would never have been on a bicycle (nearly exclusively in the 30-50 age bracket)

3. The type of injuries sustained were far more complicated than typical injuries i.e. wrists and ankles were absolutely smashed compared to simple breaks

4. despite only a smaller % of the population using them they account for a 4 fold increase in attendance to ED compared to cyclist and motorbikes combined!!

i'd have a few comments about it, but i'm conscious that some of my comments may be based on the reporting rather than on the paper itself. the first comment would obviously be that it's a small cohort - 22 people, and by the very fact they were admitted to hospital, of course it makes the figures look bad. it's hard to draw any conclusions from the report without it (seemingly) not having compared against other modes of transport.

also, 'one in ten' people needed a CT scan - i.e. two. if it had been one by sheer fluke, it'd have been one in twenty.

magicbastarder

Lumen wrote: »

Is this the right thread? Don't know. It's about e-scooters and proposals for compulsory "protective equipment". Should this be in the e-scooter legislation thread? Don't know.

i moved it to this thread because the report had been mentioned and some preliminary conclusions discussed a bit here a few weeks ago.

Type 17

The report authors believe now is the time for action to ensure the safety of e-scooter users, calling for the enforcement of protective gear, including helmets along with the introduction of speed limits.

They said e-scooters make very little noise so users should be encouraged to make themselves as visible as possible with reflective clothing and lighting.

(Assuming that these statements are actually in the report,) the report authors appear to have a medical background, and may not have the relevant experience to make statements such as these. :rolleyes:

While wearing a helmet will undoubtedly help with a lot of the reported head injuries, they won't do much to prevent the ankle/wrist injuries - I wonder how many of these accidents are the result of the scooters' small front wheel getting stuck in poor road surfaces and flipping the rider over the bars? - my bikes have 700mm wheels and I've come close a few times...

magicbastarder

the main issue with a paper like this is that of *course* the report is going to look bad. they're not looking at the issue from end to end, they're looking at it in a context where of course the outcomes will be bad. i've yet to find if there's a comparison with any other modes of transport - e.g. '12% of cyclists admitted to hospital presented with broken wrists, vs. 43% with scooterists' for example.
and no 'per capita' research mentioned in the RTE report unfortunately.

Grassey

God I hate it when reports mix percentages, total numbers, and X in Y to detract and sensationalise the story.

How hard is it to say:
There was a sample size of 22 admitted.
13 of the 22 (60%) were not reported as wearing a helmet
15 of the 22 (68%) sustained fractures
2 of the 22 (10%) required a precautionary CT scan to assess for internal bleeds.

There - factual, non-emotive, not misleading, can have a balanced discussion about it.

Hurrache

Lumen wrote: »

Wait, what? Arthritis? In your head?

First thing that struck me alright when I heard the report on RTE this morning. Loads of talk about injuries requiring surgery but no mention of head injuries (unlike in their web version) and yet they jump to the recommendations of speed limits and mandatory helmets.

tomasrojo

Injuries to arms is exactly what I'd have expected, just based on the high centre of gravity and small wheels and the head protection reflex of raising your arms when you fall.

This seems like quite a slender reed on which to start making things compulsory. The speed limitation already applies anyway, doesn't it?

I'm intrigued by the framing that your comeuppance for not creating noise pollution is to be forced to dress like a binman.

tomasrojo

Type 17 wrote: »

While wearing a helmet will undoubtedly help with a lot of the reported head injuries

Haven't read the study, but were there any head injuries among the 22?

Hurrache

Yeah, arms, fingers, collar bones, knees. Anyone who has messed about on a kids scooter will know how easy it is to come flying off at the sight of a pebble and you go rolling Colt Seavers style. Only the lack of any real momentum that you'd have on an electric one saves anything being damaged other than pride in front of your kids.

tomasrojo

https://twitter.com/ccferrie/status/1397111339466768387

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

The speed limitation already applies anyway, doesn't it?

don't think so - they're not accounted for in legislation which is the issue, so there's no legislation to stipulate speed.

i think the one thing we can all agree on from this report, that is unequivocal: 100% of scooterists admitted to hospital with injuries, were injured.

it's a report, it's not research.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

don't think so - they're not accounted for in legislation which is the issue, so there's no legislation to stipulate speed.

Ah right. I thought they were set up for the motor to cut out at 20km/h or something like that.

tomasrojo

Interesting that NZ, if this is to be believed doesn't have a mandatory helmet law for e-scooters, but, famously, is one of the few (used to be only; not sure it still is) place in the world with a universal, no-exceptions helmet law for cyclists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorized_scooter

Seth Brundle

tomasrojo wrote: »

Haven't read the study, but were there any head injuries among the 22?

Apparently not - just BS reporting by RTE...

https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1397115694597255169


Edit: reading the article on rte.ie, it says:

Dr Fox said almost half of the patients had some form of head injury and one in ten required a CT brain scan to assess for intracerebral bleeds.

She said 60% of patients had not been wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.

"It is quite serious and something as simple as a helmet and the education for people to be aware that a helmet can be life-saving," she said.

https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2021/0524/1223683-escooter-injuries/

tomasrojo

As already said, one in ten is ... two. It's really quite a small study. "Some form of head injury" could include cuts and bruises. I'd be surprised if it didn't, in fact, as they're the most common head injuries that people seek treatment for.

tomasrojo

My eyes are starting to glaze over now:
https://twitter.com/CoryHendersonG/status/1397122038368776199

JimmiesRustled

tomasrojo wrote: »

Interesting that NZ, if this is to be believed doesn't have a mandatory helmet law for e-scooters, but, famously, is one of the few (used to be only; not sure it still is) place in the world with a universal, no-exceptions helmet law for cyclists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorized_scooter

New Zealand is a bit of a strange one to be fair. Car insurance is optional. Some of the rules of the road are also a bit strange. Only recently have they passed a "give way rule" which makes cars turning right give way to those turning left. You'll still find a few that don't or at least I did when on the bike over there.

buffalo

JimmiesRustled wrote: »

New Zealand is a bit of a strange one to be fair. Car insurance is optional. Some of the rules of the road are also a bit strange. Only recently have they passed a "give way rule" which makes cars turning right give way to those turning left. You'll still find a few that don't or at least I did when on the bike over there.

I think this is misleading. NZ has a general accident insurance scheme covering all vehicles for injuries, so the optional part is for individual insurance for things like third party property damage.

This scheme is managed by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), and is partially funded by a levy paid as part of your motor vehicle registration fee and also by some of the tax you pay each time you fill your car with petrol. The scheme provides 'no-fault cover', meaning that any person injured as a result of an accident is covered.

https://www.aa.co.nz/insurance/car-and-vehicle-insurance/third-party-car-insurance/third-party-insurance/

edit: I like aspects of it, because it increases the cost of your insurance with the amount of mileage you do. I wonder what they'll do when EVs become the majority though.

JimmiesRustled

buffalo wrote: »

I think this is misleading. NZ has a general accident insurance scheme covering all vehicles for injuries, so the optional part is for individual insurance for things like third party property damage.



https://www.aa.co.nz/insurance/car-and-vehicle-insurance/third-party-car-insurance/third-party-insurance/

edit: I like aspects of it, because it increases the cost of your insurance with the amount of mileage you do. I wonder what they'll do when EVs become the majority though.

To be honest, I wasn't trying to be misleading just more pointing out that they do things a good bit differently in New Zealand to most places so a mandatory helmet law wouldn't be the strangest thing you'd find.

The Whanguanui river for example has the same rights as a human but I digress.

magicbastarder

sure in the states, don't corporations have the same rights as a human?

edit: not completely:
https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution?t=1621940484977

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

sure in the states, don't corporations have the same rights as a human?

edit: not completely:
https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution?t=1621940484977

Yeah, the 14th amendment, which began as an attempt to protect civil rights for freed slaves, now applies to "corporate personhood".

I keep meaning to read up about it. I guess I'm hoping someone on one of my feeds will do a podcast about it.

Thelonious Monk

buffalo wrote: »

I think this is misleading. NZ has a general accident insurance scheme covering all vehicles for injuries, so the optional part is for individual insurance for things like third party property damage.



https://www.aa.co.nz/insurance/car-and-vehicle-insurance/third-party-car-insurance/third-party-insurance/

edit: I like aspects of it, because it increases the cost of your insurance with the amount of mileage you do. I wonder what they'll do when EVs become the majority though.

Yes I worked for ACC in Wellington for a while. Even if you're a blow in tourist and you fall and slip you're entitled to accident insurance, same in cars.
They are ridiculous about bike helmets though. I got ticketed twice but as I was only there for a year I usually didn't bother wearing one, but people look at you like you're going around waving a machine gun or something, the horror of no helmet. A couple of times I got concerned people coming up to me at work saying they drove past me and I wasn't wearing a helmet and that I need to be very careful.
Whatever brainwashing they did down there they did it well.

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

My eyes are starting to glaze over now:
https://twitter.com/CoryHendersonG/status/1397122038368776199

What kind of world do we live in that we have to watch a multi hour webinar to consume the results of a study.

Research PAPER. The clue is in the title.

I feel old.

Mundo7976

https://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/irish-farm-group-reminds-cyclists-of-their-responsibilities-to-tractors-large-vehicles/

CramCycle

Mundo7976 wrote: »

https://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/irish-farm-group-reminds-cyclists-of-their-responsibilities-to-tractors-large-vehicles/

It may not be practical but legally it is the farmers responsibility, same as it is for builders, council workers etc. I say this as someone who grew up on a farm and whose father made him sweep the road on occasion. At the very least it should be done on the last occasion you leave the field for the day,