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

[dereko1969]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

Low lips are lethal...

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

 

[Leo]

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:

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?

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

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

1. 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?
2. A cyclist hits a raised drain-cover or cycles over a speed-ramp too fast and the outcome is as above?
3. A cyclist hits a kerb in an attempt to ride on a footpath and the outcome is as 1. above?
4. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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

1. Fewer head injuries among cyclists
2. 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
3. Most cases result in fewer cyclists on the road, then more cars and worse traffic congestion
4. 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 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797615620784 (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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

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

1. 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?
2. A cyclist hits a raised drain-cover or cycles over a speed-ramp too fast and the outcome is as above?
3. A cyclist hits a kerb in an attempt to ride on a footpath and the outcome is as 1. above?
4. 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?

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.