# Cycling the single biggest sporting activity for referrals to brain unit in Beaumont



## Brendan Burgess (5 Jan 2021)

Cycling the single biggest activity for referrals to brain unit
					

Of contact sports, Gaelic football accounts for most referrals to Beaumont Hospital centre




					www.irishtimes.com
				






_Of 26 patients with cycling-related head injuries who were transferred to the unit, _[as distinct from referred?] _only two were recorded as wearing a helmet at the time of injury. Eighteen did not have helmets and no information about helmet status was available for the other six cases.

The two patients with helmets suffered minor injuries while two-thirds (67 per cent) of those not wearing a helmet suffered intercranial haemorrhage, with five requiring surgical intervention.

The four patients who died were all cyclists, two of whom were involved in collisions with cars._

I find this confusing, but this is what I think they are saying:


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (5 Jan 2021)

To put this in perspective: 56,000 people reported commuting by bicycle in Census 2016, up from 39,000 in 2011. It is almost certainly higher now.

If you add in leisure cyclists you will get maybe 65,000 regular cyclists. The number of regular rugby players and horse riders is probably an order of magnitude lower.

The academic literature certainly shows much less head injury in helmeted cyclists. But there could be confounding factors such as more risky behaviour, non-functional brakes, no lights, etc.



> Data on cycle helmet use were available for 6621 of the 11 192 cycle-related injuries entered onto the TARN Database in the 66 months of this study (93 excluded as not pedal cyclists). There was a significantly higher crude 30-day mortality in un-helmeted cyclists 5.6% (4.8%–6.6%) versus helmeted cyclists 1.8% (1.4%–2.2%) (p<0.001).
> 
> Cycle helmet use was also associated with a reduction in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) 19.1% (780, 18.0%–20.4%) versus 47.6% (1211, 45.6%–49.5%) (p<0.001), intensive care unit requirement 19.6% (797, 18.4%–20.8%) versus 27.1% (691, 25.4%–28.9%) (p<0.001) and neurosurgical intervention 2.5% (103, 2.1%–3.1%) versus 8.5% (217, 7.5%–9.7%) (p<0.001).



I wear a helmet but I wouldn't make it compulsory. There are other health benefits to cycling and compulsory helmets will just put some potential cyclists off cycling at all.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Jan 2021)

So 86 head injuries per annum  out of 65,000 cyclists 

About 18 serious injuries per annum. 

4 died, but all were in collision with cars - so their injuries were probably catastrophic anyway.  The helmet does protect the head when going through a windscreen but doesn't do much for the rest of the body.  

Overall, cycling is very safe and  as it's very good for the health, the benefits far outweigh the risks. 

I would also imagine that with the development of cycle lanes, it's getting safer.   The increase in the numbers cycling also make drivers more aware of cyclists. 

Brendan


----------



## Gordon Gekko (5 Jan 2021)

I think that a lot of the cyclists I see had the brain injuries before they got on the bike.


----------



## Cervelo (5 Jan 2021)

As some of you know I cycle a lot but up until 2017 I never wore a helmet, never saw the need, didn't like the feel or look of a helmet
That all change in 2017 when I went to Spain to cycle, In Spain it is mandatory that you wear a helmet when out cycling except when in a city 
So I had no choice and now I don't even think twice about putting it on when going out for a spin

But it was this year when I actually saw and realised the benefit of wearing a helmet after having four crashes
one was hitting a pedestrian on Vico road, two were hitting kerb stones that I should have seen but didn't and the fourth was a front tyre blow out 
Those were the first accidents that I've had in at least a decade but in each of them my head or at least my helmet hit the ground
And in those moments of contact there were lightbulb moments where helmets made complete and utter sense to me
But I wouldn't have known this only for, Spain has a mandatory policy on helmet wearing when cycling in the country side

So you can thank Spain that I'm still able to post here, you lucky dogs!!!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Jan 2021)

Hi Cervelo

I wear a helmet when going on a long cycle up the hills, but not around town. 


Brendan


----------



## shweeney (5 Jan 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Cervelo
> 
> I wear a helmet when going on a long cycle up the hills, but not around town.
> 
> ...



same here - it's really down to relative risk. Helmet will protect you in some circumstances, but the main risk on the roads is bad drivers (or worse aggressive drivers who want to "teach you a lesson"). Countries introduce mandatory helmet laws because they can't be bothered to make the necessary infrastructural changes to make cycling safer - hardly anyone wears a helmet in the Netherlands...


----------



## elcato (5 Jan 2021)

shweeney said:


> hardly anyone wears a helmet in the Netherlands...


It's the pedestrians that need to wear a helmet ....


----------



## Cervelo (5 Jan 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I wear a helmet when going on a long cycle up the hills, but not around town.



I can't believe I'm doing this after all my years of refusing to wear a helmet 

But I find this statement a little ironic and a wee bit discombobulating and similar to a car driver saying
"I only wear my seatbelt on long journeys but don't bother on shorter journeys like popping down to the shops"
An accident can happen anywhere but I'd hazard a guess and say that you're more likely to have one in the city than the countryside
and if your going to wear a helmet then you should wear it all the time or none of the time


----------



## PGF2016 (5 Jan 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Cycling the single biggest activity for referrals to brain unit
> 
> 
> Of contact sports, Gaelic football accounts for most referrals to Beaumont Hospital centre
> ...


Seems like it's anti cycling click bait from IT.


			https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1346386100907073536?s=19
		




"The @IrishTimes has just published a rehashed version of an article from September 2019.
It's the same study, from the same author, using the same data set."


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Jan 2021)

Cervelo said:


> "I only wear my seatbelt on long journeys but don't bother on shorter journeys like popping down to the shops"



Hi Cervelo

It's completely different. 

If I am coming down a mountain at speed and come off the bike, I would have serious injuries.

Around the city, I don't go fast at all.  I have come off the bike but the injuries are minor.


As you point out: 



Cervelo said:


> Spain has a mandatory policy on helmet wearing when cycling in the country side



That seems to make sense to me.

Brendan


----------



## Blackrock1 (5 Jan 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Cervelo
> 
> It's completely different.
> 
> ...



i dont cycle, personally i value my life too much... but isnt the risk in the city being hit by a car or bus or crashing into a jay walker, surely the relative impacts would be similar.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (5 Jan 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Around the city, I don't go fast at all. I have come off the bike but the injuries are minor.


Yes but you're not likely to get pulled under a truck turning left at the Sally Gap.

Likewise in the city there are more hard vertical surfaces to the thrown against like cars, the sides of trucks, and walls.


----------



## dereko1969 (5 Jan 2021)

PGF2016 said:


> Seems like it's anti cycling click bait from IT.
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/dublincycling/status/1346386100907073536?s=19
> ...


It's sadly not surprising from the IT, they've been on this for quite some time. Also the study is referencing sporting injuries rather than transport injuries, the data set will show cycling as a very low percentage of transport head-related injuries, yet no-one is suggesting car drivers or passengers wear helmets.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Jan 2021)

67% of those not wearing helmets (12 individuals) had Intracranial haemorrhage, with 5 requiring surgical intervention.

So that is 5 per annum.

4 cyclists died - 2 were involved with cars and 2 were on their own.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Jan 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Yes but you're not likely to get pulled under a truck turning left at the Sally Gap.



A helmet is not going to be much use in those circumstances. 

And, people wearing helmets probably feel a sense of security. 

It's far more important to cycle carefully and to be fully alert than to wear a helmet.

Brendan


----------



## Cervelo (5 Jan 2021)

Brendan, 
I don't wish to turn this into a debate about how and when you should or should not wear a helmet
but in my opinion there are many types of accidents that you can have on a bicycle
they really all fall into two main types ones that you cause and ones that happen to you 
and its the latter where the real issue lies, it doesn't matter what speed your cycling at in the city
It's the speed of the car that hits you is the major concern here


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Jan 2021)

This is an extract from the Conclusions 

In 2017, traumatic brain injuries accounted for 18% (n = 1357)
of all major trauma injuries in Ireland, of which 20% (n = 175) of
road trauma patients were cyclists [9]. Despite cycling being considered
the healthiest and most environmentally sustainable
means of transport in urban area [10] as well as having signiﬁcant
health beneﬁts [11–13], a cyclist is one of the most vulnerable road
user in Ireland. Recently, Dublin’s cycling infrastructure was
demonstrated to be inferior to that of its European counterparts,
leading to an increased risk of injury [14,15]. At present, there is
no legal requirement enforcing the mandatory use of cycling helmets
in Ireland. Strong evidence exists illustrating the protective
nature of helmets on brain injuries internationally [16–19] and
within an Irish cohort [20]. Our study demonstrated that 69% of
cyclists transferred to our service were not wearing a helmet and
all 4 mortalities were associated with cycling. A recent metaanalysis
demonstrated that the positive effects of helmets are
greater in single bicycle crashes compared to collisions with motor
vehicles [19]. However, making helmet use mandatory maybe
associated with high risk behaviour [21] as well as reducing
the overall number of cyclists thereby increasing the risk to the
remaining cyclists [22]. The current debate regarding helmet
legislation should not be used in isolation but in conjunction with
a concerted effort to signiﬁcantly improved the cycling
infrastructure.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Jan 2021)

Cervelo said:


> It's the speed of the car that hits you is the major concern here



Yes, and when you are hit by a car at speed, you get some protection for your head from wearing a helmet, but none for the other parts.

Two of the 4 deaths were caused by being knocked off the bike by a car. Here is the description :



I don't understand all those words, but the helmet wouldn't have been much good.

I am guessing that the helmet would have saved the lives of the two people whose accident did not involve anyone else.

Brendan


----------



## PGF2016 (5 Jan 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I am guessing that the helmet would have saved the lives of the two people whose accident did not involve anyone else.


Hmmm.... if an accident is bad enough to kill someone then would a helmet have saved them? Are helmets that good? 

Like yourself I wear one when outside urban areas but I don't think they are of much use for anything over relatively slow speeds.


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2021)

Comparing all cycling injuries (commuting and sport related) to other sports is flawed and smacks of someone looking to portray cycling as something that is dangerous and to be discouraged. 

Car crashes cause far more head injuries, so if mandatory helmet wearing while cycling is being considered, then it should follow that helmet wearing while in cars would be too, as that would prevent more injuries. 

I'd be strongly against compulsory helmet wearing as it's proven to reduce cycling, particularly in children, when we need to encourage the opposite from both traffic congestion and health perspectives. With the move towards 30km/h speed limits in most urban areas, these should be safe environments to cycle in without the need for a helmet.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Jan 2021)

Leo said:


> smacks of someone looking to portray cycling as something that is dangerous and to be discouraged.



I really don't think that the authors have any ulterior motive.  

They did an analysis of their admissions over the last 30  months and produced the results. 

They are definitely not discouraging cycling nor horse riding for that matter.

Brendan


----------



## _OkGo_ (5 Jan 2021)

I'm honestly flabbergasted by the general attitude towards helmets and cycling on AAM. Why do so many believe helmets are a bad thing?

The study refers to Beaumont only and for TBI (traumatic brain injuries). These aren't bumps on the head or concussions. These are life threatening or potentially life changing brain injuries. If anything in the study shows the benefit of helmets it is the comparison of hurling and football (8 vs 30). Two almost identical sports in terms of contact, physicality and risk of injury. Granted participation in football is higher but accounting for that, football still has at least twice the TBI's as hurling.

The RSA Report report clearly highlights urban areas account for 86.7% of cyclist injuries (and Dublin suburbs in particular have a disproportionately high percentage if injuries). These are not all head injuries obviously and unfortunately the RSA's data only comes from reported traffic incidences from An Garda. It's a pity that data and incidences such as @Cervelo are not reported or compiled by the RSA. Many cyclists will get up and brush themselves off but that does not mean that they don't later present to a GP or to an A&E.



Cervelo said:


> But it was this year when I actually saw and realised the benefit of wearing a helmet after having four crashes
> one was hitting a pedestrian on Vico road, two were hitting kerb stones that I should have seen but didn't and the fourth was a front tyre blow out
> Those were the first accidents that I've had in at least a decade but in each of them my head or at least my helmet hit the ground



It is an instinctive reflex to protect the head, despite the views of so many on AAM, the human body knows that it is much safer to break a wrist, arm, shoulder, collarbone than to risk a head injury. It beggars belief that a cyclist would not wear a helmet to protect against the likelihood that you can't reflexively protect yourself as Cervelo found out the hard way.

And before it descends into a cyclist vs motorist debate (of which I'm in both camps), all of the solutions are not mutually exclusive. Yes road infrastructure should be improved, motorists should be more careful. But cyclist also need to take a little personal responsibility for their own safety and wear a helmet.


----------



## losttheplot (5 Jan 2021)

Are we missing the number that weren't referred to Beaumont because the helmet prevented an injury?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Jan 2021)

losttheplot said:


> Are we missing the number that weren't referred to Beaumont because the helmet prevented an injury?



A very good point.


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2021)

_OkGo_ said:


> I'm honestly flabbergasted by the general attitude towards helmets and cycling on AAM. Why do so many believe helmets are a bad thing?



Do you wear a helmet while driving? 

The data says that overall helmets make little or no difference to injury numbers or outcomes. Look at the studies referenced in the Beaumont paper and look at the results where helmet use was made mandatory. You'll see little change in cycling injuries but a significant increase in morbidity due to the health implications of fewer people cycling. A neurologist will always tell you everyone should wear helmets all the time and if they did, X% of injuries would be mitigated, but they are the wrong people to assess the overall societal impact of mandating helmet use. 

Also, focusing on a narrative that cyclists who fail to armour themselves as being irresponsible moves the focus away from the actual *cause* of the injuries. We don't tell stab victims that they should be wearing stab vests.


----------



## Leper (5 Jan 2021)

Forty years ago and for about twenty years I cycled 3 miles to and from work every day. I'm using 1980 as the base year and cycling was relatively safe then with less motorised traffic. Almost on a monthly basis after 1980 motorised traffic increased and the feeling of the cyclist was that the cars are getting nearer and nearer. I was pretty fit back then but used to use the rules of the road. Unfortunately, I was in a minority. Cyclists were fewer in 1980 too and even Cork was a relatively safe place for the cyclist. 1990 Cork was becoming a nightmare for the average cyclist. The cars were faster, the driving lines were narrowing and little space was left for the cyclist. The cyclist fought back, jumping every traffic light, cycling on footpaths, failing to give hand signals, refusing to use lights after dark and generally forming the Cork Kamikaze Cycle Club. There were no helmet cameras then. The cyclist had nothing going for him except cost free cycling against buying petrol for vehicles use. 

Nowadays, the cars have got nearer to the cyclist still. The respect for the cyclist has died; much of it self earned. Still I cycle but not on any public road. I put our bikes up on the car bike-rack and drive to wherever and use the bikes in greenways and the like. 

Hospitals come up with statistics and guess what work tool causes most admittances to A+E etc (Answer:- Screwdriver). The statistics and occurrences of cycle situations change all the time. There is a solution but we as a people are not open to it and probably never will be. 

Watch the hospital stats for the electric scooters though - Sin Scéal Eile!


----------



## Cervelo (5 Jan 2021)

I could be wrong here but IIRC there was a study done 10 years after Australia made it a  legal requirement to wear helmets while cycling
and as far as I remember they looked at head injuries in the previous 10 years and compare it to the next 10 years,
the data as Leo says showed "little or no difference to injury or outcome"

Foe me there is no right or wrong answer here, all you can do is assess what level of risk you are prepared to take with your brain
and act accordingly but remember (while you can) that you might not be the only author of the situation that unfolds


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2021)

losttheplot said:


> Are we missing the number that weren't referred to Beaumont because the helmet prevented an injury?



It's also missing the non-helmet wearers who weren't hit or didn't take one risk too many as helmet wearing is associated with significantly increased risk tolerance and also greater risk of being hit by drivers (multiple studies confirm that drivers perceive non-helmet wearing cyclists as a risk and give them more space when over-taking).


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Jan 2021)

It's also missing the non-cyclists who die early because of lack of exercise.

Brendan


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2021)

Cervelo said:


> howed "little or no difference to injury or outcome"



Read about Australia's "Helmet Law Disaster" [broken link removed].


----------



## _OkGo_ (5 Jan 2021)

Leo said:


> Also, focusing on a narrative that cyclists who fail to armour themselves as being irresponsible moves the focus away from the actual *cause* of the injuries. We don't tell stab victims that they should be wearing stab vests.



It's not changing the focus, its a valid part of the solution. Preventing incidences by improving infrastructure and motorist behavior is one part. Protecting yourself if/when those incidences occur is the other. I find your use of 'victim' interesting, it certainly plays towards the perceived victimization of cyclists. And as for stab vests, I'm pretty sure armed response units, security, bouncers etc wear them because of the increased risk associated with the activity. I don't see much risk of getting stabbed on a bike but if I did I'd probably still be wearing a helmet  

It's easy to find reports and published literature both for and against pretty much any topic but in the case of cycling, it is very hard to get information on self inflicted injuries from cycling because the reported incidences are mostly reported traffic incidences. There is no record or stats for accidental falls or cyclists crashing into pedestrians.  Why is it so hard to see that a helmet could be the difference between a headache/concussion or stitches/bruising.



Leo said:


> Do you wear a helmet while driving?



 Now that is changing the focus   

It all boils down to your perception of health & safety. Every activity has an acceptable level of safety, you can be a competent swimmer and still wear a life vest while in a boat, you can be a competent DIY'er and still wear goggles and gloves when wearing power tools and you can be a competent cyclist and still wear a helmet on the off chance that you either fall or get knocked off your bike.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Jan 2021)

_OkGo_ said:


> There is no record or stats for accidental falls or cyclists crashing into pedestrians.



There are thousands of falls every day and they rarely do much damage.

Pedestrians crash into cyclists a fair bit as well, but they rarely injure themselves or the cyclist seriously.

Likewise, we don't collect stats on children falling when they are learning to walk. 

Brendan


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2021)

_OkGo_ said:


> Why is it so hard to see that a helmet could be the difference between a headache/concussion or stitches/bruising.



Perhaps it's because I've read the reports that show mandating helmet use is a bad idea overall, the data doesn't back up your assertion. 



_OkGo_ said:


> Now that is changing the focus



It isn't really. If you want to lower the number of head injuries, mandating the wearing of helmets in cars would yield far greater results than mandating them for cyclists.


----------



## PGF2016 (5 Jan 2021)

_OkGo_ said:


> It's not changing the focus, its a valid part of the solution. Preventing incidences by improving infrastructure and motorist behavior is one part. Protecting yourself if/when those incidences occur is the other. I find your use of 'victim' interesting, it certainly plays towards the perceived victimization of cyclists. And as for stab vests, I'm pretty sure armed response units, security, bouncers etc wear them because of the increased risk associated with the activity. I don't see much risk of getting stabbed on a bike but if I did I'd probably still be wearing a helmet
> 
> It's easy to find reports and published literature both for and against pretty much any topic but in the case of cycling, it is very hard to get information on self inflicted injuries from cycling because the reported incidences are mostly reported traffic incidences. There is no record or stats for accidental falls or cyclists crashing into pedestrians.  Why is it so hard to see that a helmet could be the difference between a headache/concussion or stitches/bruising.
> 
> ...


Why is the focus on helmets? 

If you want safe and healthy cycling then put the infrastructure in place to segregate the traffic. 

If you want mandate the use of helmets then prepare for a reduction in cycling (and presumably an increase in congestion, air pollution, less healthy population etc).


----------



## Purple (5 Jan 2021)

We already mandate the use of lights when it is dark but a sizable proportion of cyclists don't use them. Maybe apply that rule first.


----------



## Purple (5 Jan 2021)

Leper said:


> Forty years ago and for about twenty years I cycled 3 miles to and from work every day. I'm using 1980 as the base year and cycling was relatively safe then with less motorised traffic. Almost on a monthly basis after 1980 motorised traffic increased and the feeling of the cyclist was that the cars are getting nearer and nearer. I was pretty fit back then but used to use the rules of the road. Unfortunately, I was in a minority. Cyclists were fewer in 1980 too and even Cork was a relatively safe place for the cyclist. 1990 Cork was becoming a nightmare for the average cyclist. The cars were faster, the driving lines were narrowing and little space was left for the cyclist. The cyclist fought back, jumping every traffic light, cycling on footpaths, failing to give hand signals, refusing to use lights after dark and generally forming the Cork Kamikaze Cycle Club. There were no helmet cameras then. The cyclist had nothing going for him except cost free cycling against buying petrol for vehicles use.
> 
> Nowadays, the cars have got nearer to the cyclist still. The respect for the cyclist has died; much of it self earned. Still I cycle but not on any public road. I put our bikes up on the car bike-rack and drive to wherever and use the bikes in greenways and the like.
> 
> ...


I cycled everywhere in the late 80's and early 90's. I stopped for about 20 years but having started to cycle through Dublin city center again in the last few years I find it much safer than the 90's. Motorists are far more considerate and the infrastructure is much better. The big change it the behavior of the motorists though; I used to get clipped by wing mirrors a couple of times a week. It never happens now.


----------



## _OkGo_ (5 Jan 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> There are thousands of falls every day and they rarely do much damage.
> 
> Pedestrians crash into cyclists a fair bit as well, but they rarely injure themselves or the cyclist seriously.
> 
> Likewise, we don't collect stats on children falling when they are learning to walk.



They rarely do until they do...the nature of accidents.

Cyclist/Pedestrian, pedestrian/cyclist, cyclist/cyclist, solo cyclist - I just mean incidences that are not reported by as road traffic incidences, I'm not pointing fingers at cyclists. Someone who falls because of ice or slippery conditions can easily present with injuries to a GP or A&E but it is never captured as part of the bigger picture of cycling injuries. All of the statistics, in Ireland at least, come from road traffic incidences so it is always the 'cyclist vs motorist' debate which isn't helpful to anyone

There's a pretty big difference between a child falling and an adult cyclist falling so I don't see how it is relevant



Leo said:


> Perhaps it's because I've read the reports that show mandating helmet use is a bad idea overall, the data doesn't back up your assertion.



I'm not disagreeing with the overall idea and long term health benefits, rather pointing out that I can find and read published reports that are both for and against mandatory helmet use.

I'm happy to have a difference of opinion but I still don't see why someone would be so against wearing a simple piece of protective gear but each to their own I suppose.


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2021)

_OkGo_ said:


> I'm not disagreeing with the overall idea and long term health benefits, rather pointing out that I can find and read published reports that are both for and against mandatory helmet use.



Can you point to a report on the impact of mandatory helmet use that suggests they have an overall positive impact?




_OkGo_ said:


> I'm happy to have a difference of opinion but I still don't see why someone would be so against wearing a simple piece of protective gear but each to their own I suppose.



The data says it's a bad idea and the negatives outweigh the positives. It's as simple as that for me.


----------



## PGF2016 (5 Jan 2021)

_OkGo_ said:


> I'm happy to have a difference of opinion but I still don't see why someone would be so against wearing a simple piece of protective gear but each to their own I suppose.



Who is against helmets? Are they not against mandatory helmets?

Edit: Looks like Leo might be.


----------



## David_Dublin (5 Jan 2021)

There are lots of people against helmets. And high vis. I think some like to call it victim blaming. Check out a thread on Boards.ie about it. Some fantastic stuff as the thread evolves.

I know if I fall that I would like to have a helmet on my head. I know I like to know my kids wear their helmets. Data and surveys and all sorts of stuff can show what they want.


----------



## Firefly (5 Jan 2021)

Purple said:


> The big change it the behavior of the motorists though; I used to get clipped by wing mirrors a couple of times a week. It never happens now.


I've been working from home


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2021)

PGF2016 said:


> Who is against helmets? Are they not against mandatory helmets?
> 
> Edit: Looks like Leo might be.



No, I'm absolutely not against helmets, I've replaced a couple after falls mountain biking and was glad I was wearing them them. Any time I've gone road biking where high speeds are going to be involved, I'd always wear one. Those are the scenarios where head injuries are much more likely rather than commuting in urban settings. 

I am absolutely against mandatory helmet laws as they have been proven to have the opposite effect. People looking at a single facet of the argument can easily conclude they are good/bad, but basing legislation on a just one element of the puzzle makes for bad policy. 

Cycling is a very safe activity, injury and accident rates are very low. Mandating safety equipment that will put large numbers off participating would be an own goal.


----------



## _OkGo_ (5 Jan 2021)

Leo said:


> Can you point to a report on the impact of mandatory helmet use that suggests they have an overall positive impact?



Even though I know you are more than capable of finding it yourself,  you go. They point to your reference in Australia as decreasing participation while also pointing to increased participation in Canada. So the overall societal impacts are not as clear cut as you may believe. 

_"One potential explanation for a decrease in head injury after helmet legislation is that children are cycling less. A time series study in Victoria, Australia, reported such a reduction in cycling after the introduction of mandatory helmet legislation. Another similar study, conducted in 1 health district in Canada, found no reduction in cycling postlegislation. "_



Leo said:


> Those are the scenarios where head injuries are much more likely rather than commuting in urban settings.



That goes against the RSA's data where almost 87% of injuries occur in urban settings where speed limits are less than 60km/h.


----------



## fidelcastro (5 Jan 2021)

I found this observation Interesting. In Ireland& of course the US & UK for safety reasons the vast majority of primary and secondary kids use motorised transport to go to school.
In Finland, they do the exact opposite. For safety reasons parents are strongly advised to let their kids go to school by bicycle. Nearly all do, and hence the school sheds are stuffed full of bikes every day.


----------



## Hooverfish (5 Jan 2021)

It's not compulsory to wear helmets for horse-riding but almost all horseriders wear them all the time. It's a culture thing...  and of course, in Ireland, it's also an insurance thing. Interestingly, most Germans, normally very safety-conscious, because of a very different culture regarding horseriding and a different insurance situation, do not wear helmets day to day, although they are required to for higher level competitions. This fascinates me. I think you'd be barking mad not to wear one on a horse, and yet I personally will quite happily cycle about on quiet country roads without a helmet.


----------



## Leper (5 Jan 2021)

Purple said:


> I cycled everywhere in the late 80's and early 90's. I stopped for about 20 years but having started to cycle through Dublin city center again in the last few years I find it much safer than the 90's. Motorists are far more considerate and the infrastructure is much better. The big change it the behavior of the motorists though; I used to get clipped by wing mirrors a couple of times a week. It never happens now.


For the first time in my life Purple I am agreeing with you. Dublin is a doddle in which to cycle or use the car. People there use the indicators and are far more considerate. In Cork we have motorists who think their indicators are Christmas lights because they flash occasionally. The average Cork motorists drives fast through Red lights and seldom uses the indicators. The Cork Driver always has the right of way and couldn't give a whit about any road users, cyclists or pedestrians. It appears they can do with immunity. Middle age men are the main culprits.


----------



## joer (5 Jan 2021)

And you don"t have to be a cyclist to notice that indicators are a difficult thing for motorists to be able to use. 
I do not agree that it is just middle aged men either . The drivers that I find are the main culprits are people in , so called , big cars, SVUs, Mercs, BMWs etc. They seem to think that they might get penalty points if they use them........ they should get them when they don"t.....


----------



## Brendan Burgess (5 Jan 2021)

Leper said:


> In Cork we have motorists who think their indicators are Christmas lights because they flash occasionally. The average Cork motorists drives fast through Red lights and seldom uses the indicators. T



Well then, I must meet a lot of Cork drivers in Dublin. 

I am forever, stopping cars , to tell them that their indicators aren't working.  They don't find it funny.  But I don't recall many of them having Cork accents .

Brendan


----------



## SPC100 (5 Jan 2021)

Low lips are lethal, and if they are really low (e.g 1-2cms), they are an invisible danger. Most cyclists don't appreciate the danger, if they touch the ledge with the front wheel (while traveling in parallel to the edge) they will fall.

I haven't been on any main cycling routes recently, how low are the lips?


----------



## moneymakeover (5 Jan 2021)

About an inch high
I've seen them South Dublin, between The Goat pub and Milltown


----------



## horusd (5 Jan 2021)

I’m cycling in Dublin 30 odd yrs and I've had several scrapes. Twice a passenger opened a door and I either went over it or stopped but came off the bike. Another time I bumped a grid and came off, and a few years ago someone with a few kids in the car, got distracted, didn’t see me, hit me whilst pulling out into the main road and sent me flying into oncoming traffic. Luckily they were able to stop. Fractured y shoulder so bad they couldn’t operate. In all but the earlier accidents, I was wearing a helmet. Now I go out also lit like a Christmas tree. All accidents occurred in day light. A few months ago, I saw a cyclist go over a door as a passenger in a taxi tried to get out. He had a helmet. I wouldn’t cycle without one anywhere.


----------



## seamless (5 Jan 2021)

Leo said:


> I am absolutely against mandatory helmet laws as they have been proven to have the opposite effect. People looking at a single facet of the argument can easily conclude they are good/bad, but basing legislation on a just one element of the puzzle makes for bad policy.



I would likewise be against mandatory laws but after nearly 50 years of racing and riding all types of bikes, I now always wear a helmet for every ride, be it up to the shops or the Wicklow 200. I've seen too many crashes to be persuaded otherwise.


----------



## Leo (6 Jan 2021)

_OkGo_ said:


> Even though I know you are more than capable of finding it yourself,  you go. They point to your reference in Australia as decreasing participation while also pointing to increased participation in Canada. So the overall societal impacts are not as clear cut as you may believe.



I'm not sure if you're deliberately ignoring or misunderstanding the point. That report focusses only on the impact of legislation on head injuries, and then only in children. It does not address the epidemiological or societal affects. 



_OkGo_ said:


> That goes against the RSA's data where almost 87% of injuries occur in urban settings where speed limits are less than 60km/h.



How are you drawing the conclusion that most head injuries occur in urban settings when the RSA report doesn't even mention 'head' once?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (6 Jan 2021)

_OkGo_ said:


> That goes against the RSA's data where almost 87% of injuries occur in urban settings where speed limits are less than 60km/h.



Yes, but what's your denominator?

Outside of leisure cycling, there is very little inter-urban cycling.


----------



## Purple (6 Jan 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Yes, but what's your denominator?
> 
> Outside of leisure cycling, there is very little inter-urban cycling.


I think it's also fair to say that there's very little urban cycling over 60Km/h.


----------



## Leper (6 Jan 2021)

I think we must all agree that the number of bicycle related accidents are on the up in most A+E's. That's a given with the increase of bicycle traffic on our roads. However, it's the recording of the associated accidents inclusive of body/head injuries. Most hospitals probably would have different criteria in the way bicycle type accidents are recorded.

There's no point in debating one injury against another as the cause and situation may be different. But, ignoring the problem is probably the worst we can do as we have all to share the road safely.


----------



## _OkGo_ (6 Jan 2021)

Leo said:


> I'm not sure if you're deliberately ignoring or misunderstanding the point. That report focusses only on the impact of legislation on head injuries, and then only in children. It does not address the epidemiological or societal affects.
> 
> How are you drawing the conclusion that most head injuries occur in urban settings when the RSA report doesn't even mention 'head' once?



Leo you clearly did not read the the DL Robinson paper on which your 'Australia's bicycle helmet Law' article refers to. If you did, you will see that all of NSW participation data is for children and half of the Victoria data is for children. But as NSW is a bigger data set, it's roughly 83% based on participation rates for children. The references are #18 (Australia) and #19 (Ontario) showing participation levels which contradict each other. I am not arguing that the opposite of what you believe is true, merely pointing out how easy it is to find literature to refute your very adamant claims. But on balance, the Ontaria study is 3years pre/post legislation while the Aus study is 1 year pre, 2 years post legislation so it's not a resounding conclusion from either

I didn't mention head injuries as part of the 87%. Head injuries make up a relatively consistent portion of all injuries and most injuries happen in urban areas. The severity of head and other injuries increase with speeds >60km/h. You have decided that head injuries are more likely to happen in non-urban areas but that is not correct



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Yes, but what's your denominator?



I don't quiet understand what you mean here??


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (6 Jan 2021)

_OkGo_ said:


> I don't quiet understand what you mean here??



You say 87% of injuries occur in an urban setting.

I am simply asking if this is roughly proportionate to where cycling takes place.

I suspect that it is, but open to correction.


----------



## _OkGo_ (6 Jan 2021)

Ah I see, that is also my presumption but it is not explicitly stated either way by the RSA. 

But that is my point, if injuries are proportionate to the amount of cycling in any setting, then the risk of injury is proportionate to whatever setting you use. If your cycling behavior is 80/20 urban/other, then your injury risk is 80/20 urban/other. It makes the often used line of ''I only wear my helmet when on a big country road" a bit ridiculous in my opinion


----------



## dereko1969 (6 Jan 2021)

_OkGo_ said:


> Ah I see, that is also my presumption but it is not explicitly stated either way by the RSA.
> 
> But that is my point, if injuries are proportionate to the amount of cycling in any setting, then the risk of injury is proportionate to whatever setting you use. If your cycling behavior is 80/20 urban/other, then your injury risk is 80/20 urban/other. It makes the often used line of ''I only wear my helmet when on a big country road" a bit ridiculous in my opinion


There have, thankfully, been very few deaths of people cycling in Dublin in recent years. Dublin is where the vast majority of cycling kilometres in the country occurs. There are millions of bicycle journeys per annum carried out solely on Dublin Bikes within the canal cordon which aren't counted in the NTA/DCC Canal Count, though the latter https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Canal_Cordon_Report_2018.pdf showed nearly as many people cycling as using the LUAS every day.
You are much more likely to die whilst cycling on a country road, you are much more likely to die cycling in Kerry than Dublin in recent years for one thing. Helmets would likely have prevented very very few of the deaths in the past decade as most are crush or catastrophic impact injuries causing death. Some information on 2019 here








						IrishCycle.com -- 8 people killed in collisions while cycling on Irish roads in 2019
					

Eight people lost their lives while cycling on Irish roads in 2019, according to a record of Garda press releases as reported by this website. According to data published on the Garda website &#821…




					irishcycle.com
				



I'm not bothered searching for all the information but I know Dublin is one of the most successful bike hire schemes in the world and similar schemes in Vancouver and Seattle have failed, partially due to the requirement to wear a helmet.
I wear a helmet most of the time whilst cycling, but not always. Mandating the use of helmet wearing is counter-productive and is totally tied in with victim blaming.


----------



## PGF2016 (6 Jan 2021)

_OkGo_ said:


> Ah I see, that is also my presumption but it is not explicitly stated either way by the RSA.
> 
> But that is my point, if injuries are proportionate to the amount of cycling in any setting, then the risk of injury is proportionate to whatever setting you use. If your cycling behavior is 80/20 urban/other, then your injury risk is 80/20 urban/other. It makes the often used line of ''I only wear my helmet when on a big country road" a bit ridiculous in my opinion


I only wear my helmet when on a big country road. Otherwise I'm probably on a cycle lane in suburbia with toddlers going very slowly. There's more chance of an elderly person or a drunk falling over and hitting their head. Don't see anyone suggesting they wear helmets. 

I still consider the issue of helmets and the article about head injuries far less important than proper segregated infrastructure and the many benefits of same.


----------



## Cricketer (6 Jan 2021)

Gordon Gekko said:


> I think that a lot of the cyclists I see had the brain injuries before they got on the bike.


I'm guessing you see them while out for a cycle?


----------



## Cricketer (6 Jan 2021)

SPC100 said:


> Low lips are lethal...


Jeez, I used to find them quite attractive. You've put me right off them.


----------



## Leo (6 Jan 2021)

_OkGo_ said:


> Leo you clearly did not read the the DL Robinson paper on which your 'Australia's bicycle helmet Law' article refers to.



Oh I read it, but you clearly didn't understand the question, so I'll repeat:



Leo said:


> Can you point to a report on the impact of mandatory helmet use that suggests they have an overall positive impact?



Surely you understand focusing only on children does not give you a comprehensive overview of the impact on the population as a whole. Also, where does the Robinson report cover the effects on overall population health or other societal impacts?




_OkGo_ said:


> I didn't mention head injuries as part of the 87%. Head injuries make up a relatively consistent portion of all injuries and most injuries happen in urban areas. The severity of head and other injuries increase with speeds >60km/h. You have decided that head injuries are more likely to happen in non-urban areas but that is not correct



Where is the dats to support that? The report you referenced doesn't even mention head injuries.


----------



## Leo (6 Jan 2021)

_OkGo_ said:


> But that is my point, if injuries are proportionate to the amount of cycling in any setting, then the risk of injury is proportionate to whatever setting you use. If your cycling behavior is 80/20 urban/other, then your injury risk is 80/20 urban/other. It makes the often used line of ''I only wear my helmet when on a big country road" a bit ridiculous in my opinion



Your point is flawed. You're assuming that chances of suffering a head injury are the same for someone falling in an urban setting where speeds are more frequently in the 20-30km/h range as someone suffering a fall while doing 45km/h+  in the country.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (7 Jan 2021)

Leo said:


> Your point is flawed. You're assuming that chances of suffering a head injury are the same for someone falling in an urban setting where speeds are more frequently in the 20-30km/h range as someone suffering a fall while doing 45km/h+ in the country.



I don't see huge differences in the relative risk. 

Urban cycling is slower but has hard vertical hazards like walls and vehicles. Rural cycling is faster but a fall is more likely to mean a slide along the road or into a hedgerow.

If you're going to wear a helmet, I don't know why you would in one context but not the other.


----------



## Leo (7 Jan 2021)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Rural cycling is faster but a fall is more likely to mean a slide along the road or into a hedgerow.



Cycling at any reasonable speed, your momentum carries you forward, you do not fall to the side. 



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> If you're going to wear a helmet, I don't know why you would in one context but not the other.



The argument against mandatory helmets isn't based on individuals who wear them in one scenario and not the other, it focuses on those who will not cycle if they are forced to wear one.


----------



## Cervelo (7 Jan 2021)

I mentioned in an earlier post about four crashes that I had this year while out cycling
One of those was a front tyre blow out where the sidewall of the tyre developed a slit which was to big for the sealant to seal
so I had a rapid deflation of the front tyre which lucky for me was on a flat stretch of road where I was able to slow down quickly and pull over
and that's when the front wheel lost all grip and down I went on my right side, I think the cycling term is called skating
I was probably doing about 5 to 10 k max but it was the most painful of all my accidents 
By chance when I was out later that day with my bike mechanic @ Fatbike adventures there was a fella there who I got talking to
Turns out he's a retired professional stuntman who has worked on many Irish films including the just released " The Racer"
According to him you sometimes can do more damage to yourself in slower accidents than faster ones
IIRC something to do with how the body absorbs the force of the impact and then dissipates that force 

I don't buy into a lot of the arguments here about why not to have a mandatory policy for helmets while cycling 
I'm not necessarily saying we should make helmets mandatory but I don't think arguments like the number of people cycling will decrease 
or that car drivers behave differently to a cyclist who wears a helmet to one who doesn't, that's not my experience both as a cyclist and as a person who worked in a bicycle shop for five years

The thing about a helmet for me is that it is not the be all or end all of cycling safety, its just a small element of the whole picture, another layer 
I can survive road rash, broken bones and the embarrassment of coming off your bike in public, sometimes you even wear it as a badge of honour
but what I can't survive with any certainty is a brain injury that's not something you can wear as a badge of honour in any shape or form


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (7 Jan 2021)

Leo said:


> Cycling at any reasonable speed, your momentum carries you forward, you do not fall to the side.



Of course. When I was young and foolish I used to tailgate buses. I rarely broke 30km/h, but there was a hard vertical surface in front of me if something went wrong. Less of these in rural areas.



Leo said:


> The argument against mandatory helmets isn't based on individuals who wear them in one scenario and not the other, it focuses on those who will not cycle if they are forced to wear one.



Indeed. I don't support mandatory use. 

At the individual level I don't understand someone who would wear one in one setting and not the other. It's like saying you'll spend 55 minutes in the presence of someone infected with Covid but not an hour.


----------



## mathepac (7 Jan 2021)

dereko1969 said:


> Mandating the use of helmet wearing is counter-productive and is totally tied in with victim blaming.


These points have been made singularly a few times in the thread and for me the first one begs a few questions

If mandating helmet-wearing is in fact counter-productive, what outcome(s) was helmet-wearing intended to produce?

Fewer head injuries in cyclists involved in accidents/incidents or
Fewer risk-taking cyclists in the cycling population or
Fewer cyclists on the roads or
Something else entirely.

What is victim-blaming in this context? Is it:

Blaming the vehicle or the operator when a cyclist rides into an open vehicle door and in the resulting fall, dies from head-injuries due to the lack of a helmet?
A cyclist hits a raised drain-cover or  cycles over a speed-ramp too fast and the outcome is as above?
A cyclist hits a kerb in an attempt to ride on a footpath and the outcome is as 1. above?
A cyclist gets a wheel stuck in a tram-track and is hit by a light-rail vehicle, gets knocked to the ground and the outcome is as 1. above?


----------



## Purple (7 Jan 2021)

Leper said:


> For the first time in my life Purple I am agreeing with you. Dublin is a doddle in which to cycle or use the car. People there use the indicators and are far more considerate. In Cork we have motorists who think their indicators are Christmas lights because they flash occasionally. The average Cork motorists drives fast through Red lights and seldom uses the indicators. The Cork Driver always has the right of way and couldn't give a whit about any road users, cyclists or pedestrians. It appears they can do with immunity. Middle age men are the main culprits.


What do you expect; Cork is full of Cork people.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (7 Jan 2021)

mathepac said:


> If mandating helmet-wearing is in fact counter-productive, what outcome(s) was helmet-wearing intended to produce?



It's not about whether helmets are effective when you crash (they are).

It's about whether the benefits of a mandatory law outweigh the costs (debatable).


Everyone knows smoking is bad, but we all know that banning it would produce lots of unintended consequences too.


----------



## PGF2016 (7 Jan 2021)

Even if helmets were made mandatory the rules would, to a large degree, neither be followed or enforced. 

Who has a bell on their bike?


----------



## Leo (7 Jan 2021)

mathepac said:


> If mandating helmet-wearing is in fact counter-productive, what outcome(s) was helmet-wearing intended to produce?
> 
> Fewer head injuries in cyclists involved in accidents/incidents or
> Fewer risk-taking cyclists in the cycling population or
> ...



Experiences vary somewhat across different locations, but in general, mandatory helmet use results in:

Fewer head injuries among cyclists
More risk-taking by cyclists* and less precautions among motorists overtaking them (studies show drivers pass on average 8.5cm closer to cyclists wearing helmets) increasing the risk of injury to remaining cyclists
Most cases result in fewer cyclists on the road, then more cars and worse traffic congestion 
Reduced numbers cycling and reduced activity among those who continue to cycle resulting in poorer health and increased mortality directly for former cyclists and indirectly for the larger population as a result of increased air pollution. 

* Multiple studies show that wearing helmets increases risk-taking. Indeed, it has been show that the wearing of a helmet increased the risk appetite of study participants in activities where the helmet could have no possible effect on the outcome. Multiple studies have concluded that motorists are less cautious around helmeted cyclists and so a helmeted cyclist is more likely to suffer from dangerous overtaking. Unhelmeted women were given the most space. So mandating wearing of a long blonde wig might have a more positive impact than helmet wearing.


----------



## elcato (7 Jan 2021)

I use Dublin bikes and the bleepers a lot. I tend not to have a helmet in my back pocket when I decide to use them as many others I would think. Making helmets compulsory  would probably result in me stopping this altogether.


----------



## Cervelo (7 Jan 2021)

Leo said:


> So mandating wearing of a long blonde wig might have a more positive impact than helmet wearing.



And would you recommend over or under the helmet


----------



## Leo (7 Jan 2021)

Cervelo said:


> And would you recommend over or under the helmet



Definitely over to disguise that you're wearing one so motorists give you more space. Ideally with a nice long beard (fake of otherwise) to confuse them as they check you out in their mirrors after passing


----------



## Purple (7 Jan 2021)

PGF2016 said:


> Even if helmets were made mandatory the rules would, to a large degree, neither be followed or enforced.
> 
> Who has a bell on their bike?


I have a bell on my bike. I also have lights. I always wear a helmet. I am against making their use mandatory. It would kill the urban bike schemes.


----------



## dereko1969 (7 Jan 2021)

mathepac said:


> These points have been made singularly a few times in the thread and for me the first one begs a few questions
> 
> If mandating helmet-wearing is in fact counter-productive, what outcome(s) was helmet-wearing intended to produce?
> 
> ...


There was a particular inquest where it seemed obvious to me that the person was attempting to commit suicide (the partner of the deceased seemed to indicate same), had cycled very erratically and directly at a number of motor vehicles - the coroner asked a doctor giving evidence if a helmet might have saved their life, the doctor i think was shocked by the question and gave a non-committal reply. I'm fairly certain that the issue of helmet wearing also came up in a court case when the victim was legally turning right and a car smashed into them having gone through a red light. It has also been raised by Garda when cyclists have been reporting near misses or actual collisions.


----------



## MrEarl (7 Jan 2021)

Why any cyclist could possibly think that not wearing a helmet, while cycling, is a good idea... I just don't understand.

Then again, I've seen (adult) cyclists do so many stupid things over the last few years, that I suppose nothing should come as a surprise - other than the surprise that comes from how few cyclists are killed, every year.

With a push to promote more cycling, and no sign of new regulation, law enforcement, or compulsory training for cyclists, I fear that when the brain injury statistics are next updated, the number of injured cyclists will have increased.


----------



## Purple (7 Jan 2021)

MrEarl said:


> Why any cyclist could possibly think that not wearing a helmet, while cycling, is a good idea... I just don't understand.


 I find it strange that grown-ups cycle on the footpath all the time. Many cyclists also cycle the wrong way down cycle lanes. There's no shortage of stupid people out there.




MrEarl said:


> With a push to promote more cycling, and no sign of new regulation, law enforcement, or compulsory training for cyclists, I fear that when the brain injury statistics are next updated, the number of injured cyclists will have increased.


 Well if the numbers of people cycling increases then you'd expect a pro-rata increase in the injuries unless cycling is becoming safer.


----------



## PGF2016 (7 Jan 2021)

Purple said:


> I find it strange that grown-ups cycle on the footpath all the time.


In the town where I live the cycle paths are marked by 2 faded white lines on the path on the main street. I'm sure half the people walking on the cycle lane think I'm a nuisance on a bicycle on the footpath when in reality they're on my turf! 

Again it's the infrastructure that's the problem. The helmet issue is a distraction.


----------



## _OkGo_ (7 Jan 2021)

Leo said:


> Oh I read it, but you clearly didn't understand the question, so I'll repeat:
> 
> Surely you understand focusing only on children does not give you a comprehensive overview of the impact on the population as a whole. Also, where does the Robinson report cover the effects on overall population health or other societal impacts?



Leo now you have lost me, I haven't answered your question because I am not advocating for mandatory helmet use. I simply don't understand why people are so vehemently against the wearing of helmets in urban areas and I don't think a mandatory law would actually have an impact on participation. You are making claims that mandatory helmet use has a negative societal/health impact on cycling based on a random article "Australia's Helmet Law Disaster" which is based on the Robinson paper. The Robinson paper is supposed to support your argument (not mine) but it doesn't, it's a very poor paper in my opinion. I've pointed out that in other countries, similar studies showed no impact on cycling participation so I don't believe it is possible to say that mandating helmets will result in a reduction in cyclist followed by an unhealthy population from lack of exercise.



Leo said:


> I'd be strongly against compulsory helmet wearing as it's proven to reduce cycling, particularly in children, when we need to encourage the opposite from both traffic congestion and health perspectives. With the move towards 30km/h speed limits in most urban areas, these should be safe environments to cycle in without the need for a helmet.



As I said, this has never been proven. Cycling participation has increased/decreased in various countries that have no helmet laws so it is impossible to draw a  sweeping conclusion on it.



Leo said:


> The data says that overall helmets make little or no difference to injury numbers or outcomes. Look at the studies referenced in the Beaumont paper and look at the results where helmet use was made mandatory. You'll see little change in cycling injuries but a significant increase in morbidity due to the health implications of fewer people cycling. A neurologist will always tell you everyone should wear helmets all the time and if they did, X% of injuries would be mitigated, but they are the wrong people to assess the overall societal impact of mandating helmet use.



Again this is simply not true, helmets will not change the number of injuries but they will reduce the severity of head/facial injuries.



Leo said:


> More risk-taking by cyclists* and less precautions among motorists overtaking them (studies show drivers pass on average 8.5cm closer to cyclists wearing helmets) increasing the risk of injury to remaining cyclists



That study, by Dr Ian Walker has a number of major flaws, most importantly the fact that he cycled the bike for all of the collected data points so there is an inherent bias in what he was doing. If he dons a wig and changes his cycling behaviour then it not really a reliable study. This study re-analysed the same data and debunked Walkers conclusions. They acknowledged there was a difference in overtaking distance (5.8cm rather than 8.5cm) but that it occurred when the overtaking distance was sufficiently safe, well above 1m so it is not really significant. Other factors such as distance to the kerb are more important to cyclist safety.



Leo said:


> * Multiple studies show that wearing helmets increases risk-taking. Indeed, it has been show that the wearing of a helmet increased the risk appetite of study participants in activities where the helmet could have no possible effect on the outcome.



The best one yet...Dr Ian Walker (again) tested 80 participants, 39 with 41 without helmets all from the comfort of an office chair while inflating an imaginary balloon on a computer screen. If you genuinely believe that helmet/no helmet while completing a computerized questionnaire and inflating a computerized balloon has any relevance to risk taking while actually cycling then I don't know where to go from here. It is a shockingly poor test procedure. Of course people will behave differently when you put a helmet on their head while sitting at a computer, it is an illogical thing to do. It is akin to putting socks on a cat and expecting them to walk normally

Anyway, my last thoughts on it:

Improving infrastructure, motorist and cyclist behaviour will reduce frequency of injuries
Promoting the wearing of helmets will reduce severity of head injuries at all speeds but significantly at lower speeds. A RTA above 70/80kph will more than likely result in a serious head injury or fatality so the benefit of a helmet irrelevant. The impact forces are far too great for the helmet to make a difference.


----------



## Purple (7 Jan 2021)

PGF2016 said:


> In the town where I live the cycle paths are marked by 2 faded white lines on the path on the main street. I'm sure half the people walking on the cycle lane think I'm a nuisance on a bicycle on the footpath when in reality they're on my turf!
> 
> Again it's the infrastructure that's the problem. The helmet issue is a distraction.


I agree with you. I don't use cycle paths that are just lines on a footpath. I find pedestrians too dangerous.
I'm talking about cyclists that cycle on the footpath, even when there's a cycle lane on the road.


----------



## Cervelo (7 Jan 2021)

I live down the road from New Park Comprehensive School and every morning I see the pupils cycling to school 
the majority of the ones I see are cycling on the footpath and not on the road or the "not in use" bus lane 
Some cycle slowly others quite fast but the majority at least have their helmets on
Fast forward to when school finishes I see the opposite, most are on the road/bus lane and a sizeable number now have their helmets hanging from their handle bars which presumably will be back on the head just before they arrive home 

I often wonder who tells them to cycle on the path and if I happen to be leaving my driveway and one of these kids collides with my car am I going to be held 100% responsible for it, I presume that I will be??


----------



## dereko1969 (7 Jan 2021)

MrEarl said:


> Why any cyclist could possibly think that not wearing a helmet, while cycling, is a good idea... I just don't understand.
> 
> Then again, I've seen (adult) cyclists do so many stupid things over the last few years, that I suppose nothing should come as a surprise - other than the surprise that comes from how few cyclists are killed, every year.
> 
> With a push to promote more cycling, and no sign of new regulation, law enforcement, or compulsory training for cyclists, I fear that when the brain injury statistics are next updated, the number of injured cyclists will have increased.


Where to start.

Compulsory training for cyclists? Worked a treat for all those motor vehicle drivers who obey all rules, never speed, never go through red lights, always have their lights on at night, never drink and drive etc etc ad infinitum. There is cycling training rolled out in schools around the country, numbers increasing every year. Not compulsory and shouldn't be made compulsory.

Have you not seen lots of people do lots of stupid things, including people in cars or vans or lorries?

What new regulation should there be? The Garda enforce very few of the existing laws with regard to bus lane driving, illegal parking, speeding, red light running. Better to start there than add new laws.


----------



## dereko1969 (7 Jan 2021)

Cervelo said:


> I live down the road from New Park Comprehensive School and every morning I see the pupils cycling to school
> the majority of the ones I see are cycling on the footpath and not on the road or the "not in use" bus lane
> Some cycle slowly others quite fast but the majority at least have their helmets on
> Fast forward to when school finishes I see the opposite, most are on the road/bus lane and a sizeable number now have their helmets hanging from their handle bars which presumably will be back on the head just before they arrive home
> ...


Do you think they might be cycling on the footpath because they feel safer? Did you think about the times - more cars when they cycle to school much fewer when they cycle home from school. Spot the common denominator?
Many joggers go at a similar pace to people cycling so I'm really not sure of your point.


----------



## Leo (7 Jan 2021)

_OkGo_ said:


> I simply don't understand why people are so vehemently against the wearing of helmets in urban areas and I don't think a mandatory law would actually have an impact on participation. I've pointed out that in other countries, similar studies showed no impact on cycling participation so I don't believe it is possible to say that mandating helmets will result in a reduction in cyclist followed by an unhealthy population from lack of exercise.



Multiple studies show participation rates drop when mandatory helmet use is introduced. They're the reason that mandatory helmet use is usually dropped when assessed or even reversed at times. Using a study that only focused on Children suggests you were deliberately trying to find the data to suit your perception.


----------



## Leo (7 Jan 2021)

dereko1969 said:


> What new regulation should there be? The Garda enforce very few of the existing laws with regard to bus lane driving, illegal parking, speeding, red light running. Better to start there than add new laws.



Indeed, Dublin Council free speed surveys show the vast majority breaking urban limits particularly the lower urban limits and traffic wardens and clampers are looked upon as some evil force out to get the poor innocent motorist.


----------



## Leo (7 Jan 2021)

MrEarl said:


> With a push to promote more cycling, and no sign of new regulation, law enforcement, or compulsory training for cyclists, I fear that when the brain injury statistics are next updated, the number of injured cyclists will have increased.



4 times as many pedestrians are killed on our roads as cyclists, surely funds on mandatory training would be better spent there?

There is a percentage of all road users who behave like idiots. Cyclists acting the muppet are far more likely to suffer the consequences of their actions themselves, some will learn and improve so it might be that cyclists as a whole are more considerate road users than others. 

Ultimately though, cycling isn't a dangerous activity, injury rates are very low, and as someone who drove to work way back when we were allowed in to the office, I much preferred the good weather days when more would cycle and traffic was lighter.


----------



## Cervelo (7 Jan 2021)

dereko1969 said:


> I'm really not sure of your point.



And I'm struggling to see yours!!
But for the sake of clarity teenagers cycling on a path AFAIK is against the law (Could be wrong maybe you could enlighten me please)
and cycling along a footpath is an accident waiting to happen, that much should have been clear from my post


----------



## Cricketer (7 Jan 2021)

Purple said:


> What do you expect; Cork is full of Cork people.


"De ting I luv aboud dis ciddeh - no madder where you goah, you're still in Cork."


----------



## Purple (8 Jan 2021)

dereko1969 said:


> Do you think they might be cycling on the footpath because they feel safer? Did you think about the times - more cars when they cycle to school much fewer when they cycle home from school. Spot the common denominator?
> Many joggers go at a similar pace to people cycling so I'm really not sure of your point.


They may feel safer but it's dangerous and against the law. If you lack the skills, confidence or coordination to cycle on the road or in a cycle lane/path then you shouldn't cycle. My 11 year old cycles on the road. Adults and teenagers cycling on footpaths are embarrassing themselves.


----------



## dereko1969 (8 Jan 2021)

Purple said:


> They may feel safer but it's dangerous and against the law. If you lack the skills, confidence or coordination to cycle on the road or in a cycle lane/path then you shouldn't cycle. My 11 year old cycles on the road. Adults and teenagers cycling on footpaths are embarrassing themselves.


To be clear, I don't think anyone *should *be cycling on a footpath, particularly adults, however I can understand how a child might feel safer doing so. How did your child get the confidence to cycle on the road? Fair play.
I would disagree that it's inherently dangerous, if done at a slow speed it's no different to someone jogging.
For a child, trying to make progress on the inside of cars that leave very little room for people to pass on the left can be frustrating and dangerous, added to the frequent exits without looking of passengers, it may make them feel safer to go on the footpath.
Every time someone tries to promote segregated cycling infrastructure that would make everyone safer, people tend to focus on their needs as car drivers rather than the good of the community. Sandymount and Kill Avenue being recent cases in point, the amount of people who are of course supportive of cycling but just not at my expense is staggering.


----------



## Purple (8 Jan 2021)

dereko1969 said:


> How did your child get the confidence to cycle on the road? Fair play.


I went cycling with her and over a few weeks showed her what to do.


----------



## Hooverfish (8 Jan 2021)

I grew up in Cambridge, a cycling city, in the 60s. You weren't allowed ride your bike to school until you had passed a practical riding and road safety course given in the school playground by a local police person. Worked.


----------



## odyssey06 (8 Jan 2021)

Hooverfish said:


> I grew up in Cambridge, a cycling city, in the 60s. You weren't allowed ride your bike to school until you had passed a practical riding and road safety course given in the school playground by a local police person. Worked.



I have fond memories of the traffic school beside what is now Clontarf DART station, as am sure so do many other pre-Celtic Tiger era school kids


----------



## Baby boomer (8 Jan 2021)

Leo said:


> Indeed, Dublin Council free speed surveys show the vast majority breaking urban limits particularly the lower urban limits and traffic wardens and clampers are looked upon as some evil force out to get the poor innocent motorist.


Well, there's two ways of looking at that!  Perhaps it's the case that the speed limits are ridiculously low, particularly the lower urban limits.  I mean 30kmh, less than 19mph in old money, is farcical.  Having a law that unrealistic only succeeds in lowering respect for the law and driving a wedge between citizens and law enforcement.  

As for clampers!  The penalty is totally disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.  Start a fight outside a pub or chip shop that requires breaking up by the Gardai and - if you're prosecuted at all - you'll get the probation act.  You're far more likely to be sent on your way home with a telling off.  But get inadvertently delayed and overstay your parking meter?  That's serious enough to earn you a massive fine!  No wonder clampers are seen as evil incarnate.  (Although in fairness, the ire would be better directed at the anti-motorist bureaucrats in the city council.)


----------



## AlbacoreA (9 Jan 2021)

H


odyssey06 said:


> I have fond memories of the traffic school beside what is now Clontarf DART station, as am sure so do many other pre-Celtic Tiger era school kids



Clontarf Traffic School. 








						Clontarf Traffic School
					

Passing Clontarf Dart Station the other day I could see where bushes were trimmed giving a view of the Traffic School. I don`t know if its still in use but t...




					www.youtube.com


----------



## AlbacoreA (9 Jan 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Well, there's two ways of looking at that!  Perhaps it's the case that the speed limits are ridiculously low, particularly the lower urban limits.  I mean 30kmh, less than 19mph in old money, is farcical.  Having a law that unrealistic only succeeds in lowering respect for the law and driving a wedge between citizens and law enforcement. ...



It based on how survivable an accident between a pedestrian and car is. 






						Page not found
					






					www.rsa.ie


----------



## AlbacoreA (9 Jan 2021)

Hooverfish said:


> I grew up in Cambridge, a cycling city, in the 60s. You weren't allowed ride your bike to school until you had passed a practical riding and road safety course given in the school playground by a local police person. Worked.



There is a cycling programme in Primary schools.  I forget the name of the programme.


----------



## AlbacoreA (9 Jan 2021)

Purple said:


> They may feel safer but it's dangerous and against the law. If you lack the skills, confidence or coordination to cycle on the road or in a cycle lane/path then you shouldn't cycle. My 11 year old cycles on the road. Adults and teenagers cycling on footpaths are embarrassing themselves.



Since there are cycle lane on shared paths, its can't be both dangerous and not dangerous due a line of paint.


----------



## AlbacoreA (9 Jan 2021)

MrEarl said:


> Why any cyclist could possibly think that not wearing a helmet, while cycling, is a good idea... I just don't understand.
> ...



Maybe ask these guys...where are their helmets and hiviz?









						Dutch Cycling
					

[652] The way the Dutch cycle has improved their quality of life. See how society in the Netherlands benefits from cycling in this video. More information an...




					www.youtube.com


----------



## AlbacoreA (9 Jan 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Cycling the single biggest activity for referrals to brain unit
> 
> 
> Of contact sports, Gaelic football accounts for most referrals to Beaumont Hospital centre
> ...



Last time i looked at hospital and cycling stats, there was no way of knowing if it was someone mountain biking, a cyclist commuting, or child falling off in their garden or a public park. These stats also don't give any context. 

I wear a helmet, and so does my family. At least when I can see them. I also split a helmet in an accident. 

My problem with these articles, is the weird way they are presented. I mean why use total number.  Why compare cycling with horse riding. One has a massive total number of participants the other a tiny % of the population. Why is there no skateboarding. How about sky diving, how about motor-cross bikes. Why are so many people who don't cycle giving advice about cycling. 

On boards there are two massive threads on "Journalism and cycling" about the constant negative reporting about cycling. 
The media are populist, the majority of people don't cycle. You can join the dots there.


----------



## AlbacoreA (9 Jan 2021)

Leo said:


> Do you wear a helmet while driving?
> 
> The data says that overall helmets make little or no difference to injury numbers or outcomes. Look at the studies referenced in the Beaumont paper and look at the results where helmet use was made mandatory. You'll see little change in cycling injuries but a significant increase in morbidity due to the health implications of fewer people cycling. A neurologist will always tell you everyone should wear helmets all the time and if they did, X% of injuries would be mitigated, but they are the wrong people to assess the overall societal impact of mandating helmet use.
> 
> Also, focusing on a narrative that cyclists who fail to armour themselves as being irresponsible moves the focus away from the actual *cause* of the injuries. We don't tell stab victims that they should be wearing stab vests.



That's the other issue with it. It used to deflect blame from the actual cause of many accidents to cyclists.


----------



## Baby boomer (9 Jan 2021)

AlbacoreA said:


> It based on how survivable an accident between a pedestrian and car is.



That's not a reasonable approach to safety.  Primary safety management is taking steps to avoid accidents, not making them survivable.  Secondary safety management is harm reduction.  

Mickey Mouse safety management is writing ridiculous and implementable laws to pretend you're doing something about it.  Utterly useless, but it has the advantage of being easy and cheap.  Ideal for lazy bureaucrats.


----------



## AlbacoreA (9 Jan 2021)

The claim was that the speed set was arbitrary. It's isn't. End of. 

People also have less accidents at slower speeds. It also encourages people to use a different route. 

If people are unable to follow simple rules they can do other things to force traffic out of an area.


----------



## AlbacoreA (9 Jan 2021)

Most of these things are based on long studies and recommendations from experts and long experience in other countries.

What is common in threads on these kinds topics is drivers posting utter nonsense about  cycling because have no experience, no research, no reading in the subject. They are just reacting to click bait articles that are either poorly written or distorting figures because the media know many people will be too lazy to question the "data" or see how flawed the article is. People will accept all sorts of rubbish as true if it re-enforces their existing bias.

Another common trait in these threads is to get dig in at public servants (which includes frontline workers).

What they really need to do is hide a speed camera and build up a good few tickets on habitual speeder then send them out all at once.


----------



## Cricketer (9 Jan 2021)

AlbacoreA said:


> There is a cycling programme in Primary schools.  I forget the name of the programme.


Cycle Right


----------



## Purple (10 Jan 2021)

AlbacoreA said:


> Since there are cycle lane on shared paths, its can't be both dangerous and not dangerous due a line of paint.


You aren’t meant to walk in a cycle path. You aren’t meant to cycle on a footpath.
If you are old enough to wear big boy pants you shouldn’t be cycling on a footpath.
When I commute I cycle at relatively high speed so I don’t use cycle paths that are on a footpath as I find pedestrians to be utterly unaware of the danger they put me in when they walk in the cycle path. I don’t care if they get hurt due to their own stupidity.


----------



## AlbacoreA (10 Jan 2021)

Purple said:


> You aren’t meant to walk in a cycle path. You aren’t meant to cycle on a footpath.
> If you are old enough to wear big boy pants you shouldn’t be cycling on a footpath.
> When I commute I cycle at relatively high speed so I don’t use cycle paths that are on a footpath as I find pedestrians to be utterly unaware of the danger they put me in when they walk in the cycle path. I don’t care if they get hurt due to their own stupidity.



Cyclists have been killed colliding with pedestrians I wouldn't assume the cyclist will always come off better.

I don't know why you quoted me. I was specially talking about shared paths and your are specifically not. There are often places where your only choice is the shared path like the canals and greenways. But even in urban and city area there are often places which are only accessible by using a using a shared path due to design.

The point is they are designed to be shared. If people are going to deliberately travel too fast on them the problem isn't the path its the person. There is a fine specially for cycling dangerously just for those special people.

There are all types of cyclists. Slow and fast. All should be considered. If you are cycling at car speeds go on the road. If you are cycling at walking or similar speeds there is nothing intrinsically dangerous about cycling on a shared path if people use common sense.

I use a lot of shared paths. Our cycle to school is a shared path. I've never had an issue with pedestrians on it. Probably because we're not cycling too fast for the conditions. Some places the road is better than the cycle lane or shared paths. In which case I use the road.

My point was simply that shared paths exist and work. The idea that you can only cycle on a road is wrong.


----------



## joer (10 Jan 2021)

Shared paths are fine ....if they are designed to suit. In Carlow the shared paths are narrow but fine only if the pedestrians are walking in single file , otherwise you cannot help but be in on the cycle lane. If the cyclists are only out "for a cycle" its fine they will ring the bell  or shout. If the cyclist is out cycling then they should be on the road , in my opinion.


----------



## PGF2016 (10 Jan 2021)

Shared paths are ridiculous. My 5 year old is full of beans and can get up to 20kmph. I'm always banging on about going slow around pedestrians but my fear is some day he'll bump into an elderly person as he's easily distracted. The paths we use are relatively new (less than 5 years old). Can't believe they are not segregated.


----------



## Purple (11 Jan 2021)

AlbacoreA said:


> The point is they are designed to be shared. If people are going to deliberately travel too fast on them the problem isn't the path its the person. There is a fine specially for cycling dangerously just for those special people.
> 
> There are all types of cyclists. Slow and fast. All should be considered. If you are cycling at car speeds go on the road. If you are cycling at walking or similar speeds there is nothing intrinsically dangerous about cycling on a shared path if people use common sense.
> 
> ...


I'm not talking about shared paths where there is a cycle path specifically marked out. I'm talking about footpaths, where it is illegal to cycle. 
I repeat; you should not cycle on a footpath. It is dangerous for you and for pedestrians and it is illegal. Small children learning to cycle are the exception but if you are old enough to be let out on your own then you should not be cycling on the footpath.


----------



## Leper (11 Jan 2021)

I note in parts of New York it is legal to cycle on footpaths no matter how crowded they are. It's only a matter of time before cycling on footpaths is deemed legal here such is the strong influence of the Cycling lobby.


----------



## PGF2016 (11 Jan 2021)

Leper said:


> I note in parts of New York it is legal to cycle on footpaths no matter how crowded they are. It's only a matter of time before cycling on footpaths is deemed legal here such is the strong influence of the Cycling lobby.


I doubt it's something the cycling lobby is interested in. 

Why do you say strong influence given the pathetic infrastructure and minimal funding for cycling?


----------



## Leper (11 Jan 2021)

PGF2016 said:


> I doubt it's something the cycling lobby is interested in.
> 
> Why do you say strong influence given the pathetic infrastructure and minimal funding for cycling?


The cycling infrastructure in Ireland is anything but pathetic especially in the main cities. There is a strong cycling lobby in Ireland too. I'm not saying it's a bad thing.


----------



## Purple (11 Jan 2021)

Leper said:


> I note in parts of New York it is legal to cycle on footpaths no matter how crowded they are. It's only a matter of time before cycling on footpaths is deemed legal here such is the strong influence of the Cycling lobby.


It's already illegal.

From [broken link removed];
*Cycling on Footpaths:*_ We believe that competent cyclists should not cycle on footpaths. It is against the law to do so, and can carry a fine. There are challenges with this law that we would like to see addressed, the main one being with regard to children. If the roads are dangerous and narrow, we would prefer to see children cycling on footpaths than not cycling at all. _


----------



## Purple (11 Jan 2021)

PGF2016 said:


> I doubt it's something the cycling lobby is interested in.
> 
> Why do you say strong influence given the pathetic infrastructure and minimal funding for cycling?


I think the infrastructure is great. I cycle through Dublin city center regularly.


----------



## dereko1969 (11 Jan 2021)

Leper said:


> The cycling infrastructure in Ireland is anything but pathetic especially in the main cities. There is a strong cycling lobby in Ireland too. I'm not saying it's a bad thing.


You're not a cyclist, presume you've never been to the Netherlands or Denmark. I think you are saying it is a bad thing.


----------



## Leo (11 Jan 2021)

AlbacoreA said:


> That's the other issue with it. It used to deflect blame from the actual cause of many accidents to cyclists.



That's exactly it! People don't want to acknowledge they may be part of the problem.


----------



## Leo (11 Jan 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> That's not a reasonable approach to safety. Primary safety management is taking steps to avoid accidents, not making them survivable. Secondary safety management is harm reduction.



In not reduced speed, what measures do you think would be better at stopping motorists hitting other motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists within the constraints of our existing infrastructure?


----------



## Leo (11 Jan 2021)

Leper said:


> It's only a matter of time before cycling on footpaths is deemed legal here such is the strong influence of the Cycling lobby.



Any evidence of the cycling lobby ever suggesting that?


----------



## Baby boomer (11 Jan 2021)

Leo said:


> In not reduced speed, what measures do you think would be better at stopping motorists hitting other motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists within the constraints of our existing infrastructure?


Bit of a trick question, eh?  Attaching the condition "within the constraints of our existing infrastructure" is not a reasonable approach.  Why would you exclude infrastructure improvement when it can obviously reduce accidents?  Here's some ideas.

1.  Motorways are statistically the safest roads and we need more of them, particularly the M20 Cork Limerick route and an outer orbital route for Dublin.  This will save lives as the M1, M3 and M7 in particular did.  

2.  A lot of pedestrians who get hit are under the influence of alcohol and stagger or stumble into the path of cars. Not the drivers fault, in most cases. Absence of hi-vis is also a contributory factor.  Should be compulsory for pedestrians especially on unlit roads.   Divert anti-motorist policing and RSA propaganda towards encouraging sensible safe behaviour by pedestrians.    

3.  Zero tolerance for cycling on footpaths.  It'll stop cyclists hitting pedestrians.  (Not what you asked for but every little helps.)

4.  Remove VAT from car repairs, tyres and servicing to encourage motorists to keep their cars in good condition.  

5.  Abolish VRT to encourage sales of new cars.  Newer = safer when it comes to cars.

6.  Basic roads maintenance.  Fill the bloody potholes! Less potholes = less damage to suspensions = safer cars.  Improve lighting, signage and road markings. 

7.  Driver, cyclist and pedestrian education in schools.  

Ok this is a nice somewhat tongue in cheek wish list and obviously it won't happen.  Particularly with the idiot greens in government.  But it's worth recognising that driver behaviour isn't the only thing that causes accidents.  Other road user behaviour, road infrastructure and vehicle condition is also relevant.  We've had enough of the punitive approach to motorists - let's look at the other factors too.


----------



## Baby boomer (11 Jan 2021)

Leo said:


> Any evidence of the cycling lobby ever suggesting that?


You see it constantly on social media.


----------



## PGF2016 (11 Jan 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> You see it constantly on social media.


Then there must be loads of evidence. Care to provide some?


----------



## Leper (12 Jan 2021)

dereko1969 said:


> You're not a cyclist, presume you've never been to the Netherlands or Denmark. I think you are saying it is a bad thing.


Confrere Dereko my fellow poster on this forum I can categorically say that I've used and worn down several bicycles in my plight to cycle to work for many years (every day from 1980 to 2000 and less before and after that). Certainly, five days per week I cycled from Cork's south side into the city centre starting at 8.15am, cycled home to lunch and back to work again and later cycled home again. I delivered a child every morning to school while she sat on the bar of the bike. I can safely say that I probably was as fit as Eddy Mercxx (famous cyclist if you are not aware). In the first few months of my retirement I reconstructed three bikes that had been rusting in the shed. I bought a bike rack for the car and during some weekends there are 6 or 7 bikes placed on it while we bring our grandchildren off to some greenway or beach location. We're not candidates for Ireland's Fittest Family but the Swiss Family Robinson would have to work hard to catch up with us in our defensive cycling techniques.

I'm not blind either. I can see the terrific improvements that have been made over the years for cyclists. I spent a few weeks in Amsterdam and Copenhagen too and to be honest while their cycling infrastructures are excellent I'm glad I don't have the same outlook on life as most of the inhabitants of those two cities. Anybody who thinks there is no cycling lobby probably has the same eyesight as Ray Charles with no offence to the great performer. I'm approaching a very important birthday (three score and ten) and still I use the bike, but confining my cycling to off road because motorists are getting closer and faster and many other cyclists ignore the rules of the road and the laws of the land too.

I love the cycling but hate what many cyclists have become. Spare me from those fools who cycle through Cork looking for problems rather than enjoying the ride and at every opportunity wave their fists (while cycling) at whatever pedestrian/motorist who'll bow to their stupid bullying.

When the Covid restrictions are lifted our aim to to spend a couple of days between Dungarvan and Waterford and finally cycle the whole greenway there. So, confrere Dereko, you're welcome to join us and perhaps Purple can come along too? With Tim Severin gone (died over Christmas) perhaps we could televise the event as confrere Askaboutmoney Explorers?

. . . and Dereko my New Year's Message to you:- When it comes to Lepers, never assume anything. Looking forward to many more years of cycling.


----------



## dereko1969 (12 Jan 2021)

I may have been a little short and presumptuous in my reply, apologies for that. 

However, with the greatest respect, there has been a massive increase in the number of motor vehicles since 2000 when you stopped cycling on roads here. You even state yourself that drivers are getting closer and faster, that's why there's a need for more cycling infrastructure, on a scale of that available in Denmark and the Netherlands, I'm not sure what you're getting at with your comments on the Dutch and Danish outlook on life, could you extrapolate?

There are muppets using all types of transport, I know the Cork youtuber you're talking about and some of his videos are stupid but there are quite a few where his life is endangered and where he has not received justice when the Garda have been shown his videos which quite clearly show dangerous overtaking. It is was me, I'd try to find a different route but maybe that's not possible, I don't know Cork that well.

I've cycled the Waterford Greenway a few times now, it's truly excellent and we're building a lot more so you'll have lots of options in the future but in order to address congestion in our cities, air quality and quality of life we need much more infrastructure that's attractive for children to use (not everyone is as lucky as Purple's child to have a father showing them how to cycle confidently on the road) and that will be used by as many people as possible, that will actually make it easier for the remaining people driving.


----------



## Leo (12 Jan 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> Bit of a trick question, eh?  Attaching the condition "within the constraints of our existing infrastructure" is not a reasonable approach.  Why would you exclude infrastructure improvement when it can obviously reduce accidents?  Here's some ideas.



Yeah, in fairness it was as really, I wanted ideas excluding infrastructure improvement because we simply can't afford it unless it's all PPP with significantly increased tolls, and it does nothing to address speed and alcohol, the two most significant factors in fatalities here. 

This question boils down to is the amount of 'interference' or control we're willing to put up with in order to save lives. Many motorists perceive speed enforcement and alcohol limits as some sort of attack on their freedoms. That attidude often mellows over the years, and pretty much always does when a loved one is killed as a result of someone else ignoring those rules.



Baby boomer said:


> 1.  Motorways are statistically the safest roads and we need more of them, particularly the M20 Cork Limerick route and an outer orbital route for Dublin.  This will save lives as the M1, M3 and M7 in particular did.



Absolutely motorways are very safe, but look at where the fatalities are happening. Two thirds of fatal collisions occur on local and regional roads, you can't put motorways everywhere and we can't afford to convert all national routes.



Baby boomer said:


> 2.  A lot of pedestrians who get hit are under the influence of alcohol and stagger or stumble into the path of cars. Not the drivers fault, in most cases. Absence of hi-vis is also a contributory factor.  Should be compulsory for pedestrians especially on unlit roads.   Divert anti-motorist policing and RSA propaganda towards encouraging sensible safe behaviour by pedestrians.



The RSA report on 2008-1012 fatal collisions states that 9% of these involved a pedestrian who was 'deemed in full or part to have contributed to the collision.' So certainly an issue that demands attention, but not an easy fix. More has been invested in awareness and education since, I haven't seen anything on whether that is having an effect. 

With so little enforcement of road traffic legislation, it's hard to make a case for the existence of anti-motorist policing. 



Baby boomer said:


> 3.  Zero tolerance for cycling on footpaths.  It'll stop cyclists hitting pedestrians.  (Not what you asked for but every little helps.)



Agreed, it is illegal after all. Though that would do nothing for deaths. The only cyclist/pedestrian collision resulting in a death that I'm aware of in recent years resulted in the death of the cyclist. 



Baby boomer said:


> 4.  Remove VAT from car repairs, tyres and servicing to encourage motorists to keep their cars in good condition.
> 
> 5.  Abolish VRT to encourage sales of new cars.  Newer = safer when it comes to cars.



We can't afford it and there's no evidence to suggest it would make any difference, our vehicle fleet is young. Tyres aren't expensive yet the RSA say worn tyres are a factor in ~10% of fatalities.



Baby boomer said:


> But it's worth recognising that driver behaviour isn't the only thing that causes accidents.  Other road user behaviour, road infrastructure and vehicle condition is also relevant.  We've had enough of the punitive approach to motorists - let's look at the other factors too.



Drivers have a responsibility to drive with due care and attention, at a speed that is appropriate to the conditions, and in a manner where they can react safely to risks as they arise. You can't blame a pothole for an accident if you're driving too fast to see it.


----------



## dereko1969 (12 Jan 2021)

@Baby boomer : But it's worth recognising that driver behaviour isn't the only thing that causes accidents. 

Collision might be a better word than accident as the latter implies it just happened, the stats would disagree. Obviously driver behaviour isn't the only thing but it is the most important element.



			https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Contributory_Factors_in_Fatal_Collisions/Fatal%20Collisions%202008%20to%202012_Excessive_Speed%20.pdf
		


"Over the time period 2008 to 2012, 983 fatal collisions occurred on Irish roads claiming the lives of 1,077 people. This report examines 867 of the fatal collisions which occurred during this time period specifically focusing on the vehicle and associated *behavioural *factors which may have contributed to the collision.
Of the 867 collisions analysed, *274 (32%) were cited as having excessive speed *for the road and conditions as a contributory factor to the collision. This may not have been the sole cause of the collision but contributed in either full or part to the final outcome. *Of this number 19% cited excessive speed as the sole contributory factor*. Therefore, for the purpose of gaining a better insight into the use of excessive speed on our roads, 274 collisions were analysed where there was clear identification of excessive speed on its own or in combination with other *poor road use behaviours*. In this report, when discussing the 274 collisions, the term speed always refers to Excessive Speed."


----------



## Cricketer (12 Jan 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> we need more of them, particularly the M20 Cork Limerick route


Boomy, there is data in the Dept. of Transport to refute this. It says that such a motorway will encourage development in towns along the route and discourage the further development of Cork as a larger urban centre with attendant economies of scale; a sustainable public transport system in the city for example. I'm not saying I belong to that school of thought, just pointing out that there is an alternative view.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Jan 2021)

Apparently John Wayne hated cyclists 









						John Wayne takes on Le Tour De France
					

John Wayne vs Cyclists




					www.youtube.com


----------



## Cervelo (12 Jan 2021)

Yes but "Get off your bike and drink your milk" just doesn't sound right


----------



## Baby boomer (12 Jan 2021)

Cricketer said:


> Boomy, there is data in the Dept. of Transport to refute this. It says that such a motorway will encourage development in towns along the route and discourage the further development of Cork as a larger urban centre with attendant economies of scale; a sustainable public transport system in the city for example. I'm not saying I belong to that school of thought, just pointing out that there is an alternative view.


Indeed, I'd agree with that data.  But what's wrong with that?  I'd suggest the towns on the route could benefit greatly from development.  Not everybody wants to live in a city!


----------



## AlbacoreA (13 Jan 2021)

Purple said:


> I'm not talking about shared paths where there is a cycle path specifically marked out. I'm talking about footpaths, where it is illegal to cycle.
> I repeat; you should not cycle on a footpath. It is dangerous for you and for pedestrians and it is illegal. Small children learning to cycle are the exception but if you are old enough to be let out on your own then you should not be cycling on the footpath.



This is shared path along the canal and there is no cycle path marked out separating pedestrians from cyclists. 








						Royal Canal Cycle May 2017 Part 1
					

Cycled the Royal Canal from the Liffey on Sunday 21st May stopped off in Mullingar Kerrigans B&B for the night then on to Cloondara and Longford and the trai...




					www.youtube.com
				











						Royal Canal Way Ireland. Maynooth to Phibsborough #4
					

Royal Canal Way27 Jan 2019Coolmine, Castlenock, 12th Lock, Blanchardstown, Ashtown




					www.youtube.com
				




Also here..








						Dublin's new bike Greenway on the Royal Canal | North Strand to Guild Street
					

Dublin's most recent bike laneGreenways can be very effective, but the area its in can be a little off putting from using it.Instagram @ the.cycledelic.exper...




					www.youtube.com
				




What happens here..








						Google Maps
					

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




					www.google.com
				




or here...








						Google Maps
					

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




					www.google.com
				




There is a reason cycling on a footpath isn't one of the new fixed charges. 



> lthough it is widely accepted that cyclists who use footpaths can prove to be a nuisance for pedestrians, the offence of cycling will now not be brought under the fixed-charge notices system.
> Instead, the offence of 'Cyclist driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration' is to be brought under the FCN system.
> This will allow gardaí to deal with those who are cycling in a reckless or aggressive manner on footpaths without consideration for pedestrians.
> 
> It's believed that Mr Donohoe has taken the decision to exclude the offence of cycling on footpaths after consultations with gardaí and road safety chiefs.











						Cyclists who use footpaths will not be fined
					

Cyclists will be able to continue using footpaths when the new fixed-charge notices system is introduced, the Irish Independent has learned.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## AlbacoreA (13 Jan 2021)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Apparently John Wayne hated cyclists
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Marion the Duke didn't like a lot of things...








						Why john wayne didn't serve in military
					

No one was more a hero in World War II than John Wayne. At least that’s what the aliens will think when they view the historical foota...




					remember70s.blogspot.com


----------



## AlbacoreA (13 Jan 2021)

Yet another thread started with dubious statistics degenerates in to a free for all on cycling. 

If you want less traffic, and better quality of air and life. Less people have to drive. If not cycling, then come up with some thing else other than a car.


----------



## Leper (13 Jan 2021)

Cycling on a footpath is a no-no like standing up at Mass during the sermon and challenging what is being said by the priest. But, nowadays priests know that somebody can verbally challenge them during the sermon or protest by walking out stamping the way out the church door. Cycling on footpaths can be safe for adults as well as children provided due care is provided by the pedestrians and cyclists. I'm not saying all footpaths are safe for pedestrians and cyclists to share but I reckon most are.

It is time to try something different. If you are a cyclist riding in formation and sharing the wind resistance cycling on the footpath is not for you. But, if you are a leisure cyclist and have common sense towards safety, cycling slowly on the footpath can be of benefit. We all must accept change of one kind or other. Cycling on the footpath can be safe but an open mind and common sense and respect are necessary from the pedestrians and cyclists. Sadly, there is a shortage of all these traits in Ireland.


----------



## Cricketer (13 Jan 2021)

Baby boomer said:


> But what's wrong with that?


I think we then basically get ribbon development writ large. Ribbon development brings problems; think of the movement between the centres, none large enough to sustain a public transport system within or between them. More cars, more traffic etc.


----------



## AlbacoreA (13 Jan 2021)

When people take about cycling on a path they mean cycling dangerously or endangering others. Which coincidently is the fixed charge. 

Cyclist and pedestrians mix all day long due to the current infrastructure and rarely is there an accident. Do people think someone's daughter on their way to school cycling at 5mph with their grand parent are really dangerous? Or someone cycling down a paved canal path.

There's always going to some who don't obey the rules, or common sense. The cops are quite happy to ignore them most of the time. Since enforcement is very low.


----------



## AlbacoreA (13 Jan 2021)

Incidentally we think red light breaking is dangerous. But in some places a cyclist turning left on red is legal. 

Its like speeding. Motorways are some of the safest roads in the country. 
The issue really is inappropriate speeding. That not to say you can't drive dangerously on a motorway.


----------



## Leo (13 Jan 2021)

AlbacoreA said:


> But in some places a cyclist turning left on red is legal.



After a successful 3 year trial, Paris is one example where cyclists are allowed to turn right or continue straight at T junctions and treat red lights like yield signs. Easier for the cyclists who save energy, but also for motorised traffic as they don't have to wait behind congregated cyclists moving off slowly when the light goes green.


----------

