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

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.
 
PGF2016 said:
Who is against helmets? Are they not against mandatory helmets?

Edit: Looks like Leo might be.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Leo said:
Can you point to a report on the impact of mandatory helmet use that suggests they have an overall positive impact?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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
 
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?
 
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.
 

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.
 

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.
Click to expand...

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

Yes, but what's your denominator?

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

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?
Click to expand...

I don't quiet understand what you mean here??
 
_OkGo_ said:
I don't quiet understand what you mean here??
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register