dereko1969
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,046
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.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.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'm guessing you see them while out for a cycle?I think that a lot of the cyclists I see had the brain injuries before they got on the bike.
Jeez, I used to find them quite attractive. You've put me right off them.Low lips are lethal...
Leo you clearly did not read the the DL Robinson paper on which your 'Australia's bicycle helmet Law' article refers to.
Can you point to a report on the impact of mandatory helmet use that suggests they have an overall positive impact?
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
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.
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.
Cycling at any reasonable speed, your momentum carries you forward, you do not fall to the side.
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.
These points have been made singularly a few times in the thread and for me the first one begs a few questionsMandating the use of helmet wearing is counter-productive and is totally tied in with victim blaming.
What do you expect; Cork is full of Cork people.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.
If mandating helmet-wearing is in fact counter-productive, what outcome(s) was helmet-wearing intended to produce?
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.
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
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.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?
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.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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?