Why a helmet, lights and hi-vis clothing don't necessarily make you a safe cyclist...

MrEarl said:
Are there more strict rules / laws for users of electric bikes ?
Click to expand...

Legislation here restricts motor power to 250W, and the motor must cut out at a top speed of 25kmph, or when you stop peddling. Anything outside those criteria, including all the bikes with the small petrol engines attached, are classed as mechanically propelled vehicles and must be taxed and insured accordingly.

MrEarl said:
I have also noticed a few electric bike users in the bicycle lanes and doing significantly faster speeds than those being achieved by peddle powered bikes
Click to expand...

The compliant pedal assist bikes are allowed in cycle lanes, any others are not.
 
Cervelo said:
When you where in Amsterdam did you happen to notice how many cyclists were wearing helmets because any time I've been there the majority dont were helmets
I must admit it's been about five years since I've been there so things might have changed
Click to expand...

I didn't see anyone wearing a helmet to be fair, but there are so many cycling, anyone driving was well aware. Also, where we were staying, I didn't see any buses, lorries or anything else that could kill a cyclist. The city is just so safe for cyclists, that there really isn't a need to wear a helmet. Here however, our infrastructure is completely inadequate for cyclists, hence my comment about wearing a helmet.
 
Leper said:
We can have discussions here until the cows come home Cyclists -V- Motorists -V- Pedestrians. We can even bring in the Gardaí, Senior Counsel, Cycling Clubs and argue more. But, really all we need is Common Sense and a recognition that all of us must share the roads/paths.
Click to expand...

Just on this.

Pedestrians have no business on the road, except when crossing.
Cyclists and cars (obviously) have no business on Footpaths.
Motorists and Cyclists should share roads and obey the laws.
 
Firefly said:
I...It's a real pity we don't have better infrastructure. I was in Amsterdam recently and it's a cycling utopia with everyone from students, to the elderly to professionals in suits all cycling around the place...it just looked like such an efficient way to get around. On a canal cruise we even say a multistory for bikes!...
Click to expand...

I read a comment about the lack of cycling infrastructure in Ireland from a Dutch person. That they started with no infrastructure same as everywhere else.

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/how-the-dutch-got-their-cycling-infrastructure/
 
Firefly said:
I didn't see anyone wearing a helmet to be fair, but there are so many cycling, anyone driving was well aware. Also, where we were staying, I didn't see any buses, lorries or anything else that could kill a cyclist. The city is just so safe for cyclists, that there really isn't a need to wear a helmet. Here however, our infrastructure is completely inadequate for cyclists, hence my comment about wearing a helmet.
Click to expand...

A helmet won't save you from a bus or a truck. And Hi Viz won't save from the blind spot of a large vehicle.

A helmet saves you from injuries from a fall, or a low impact strike. They are useful for that. You'll find a lot of head injury stats are not related to collisions in traffic at all.

Helmets are useful in limited situations as is Hi Viz and lights. (Lights are more useful). But they aren't the magic cloak you are suggesting.

I say that as someone who split my helmet open after being knocked off my bike..
 
AlbacoreA said:
Helmets are useful in limited situations as is Hi Viz and lights. (Lights are more useful). But they aren't the magic cloak you are suggesting.
Click to expand...
Lights are critical.
I bought a front light with a separate battery pack that is as powerful as a motorbike light. My back light is also very strong.
I have as additional red light on my helmet.
 
Lights are a legal requirement.

While there are limits to what is a dipped light on a car/motorbike, there doesn't seem to be any for a bicycle.
You can usually run these more powerful bicycles in different brightness modes .
Cyclists should be aware if they run that too bright they are actually blinding other traffic.
 
AlbacoreA said:
You can usually run these more powerful bicycles in different brightness modes .
Cyclists should be aware if they run that too bright they are actually blinding other traffic
Click to expand...
True, but just point them down.
 
Which is what dims on Cars and Bikes do. There not much awareness of it for bicycles though.
 
AlbacoreA said:
A helmet won't save you from a bus or a truck. And Hi Viz won't save from the blind spot of a large vehicle.

A helmet saves you from injuries from a fall, or a low impact strike. They are useful for that. You'll find a lot of head injury stats are not related to collisions in traffic at all.

Helmets are useful in limited situations as is Hi Viz and lights. (Lights are more useful). But they aren't the magic cloak you are suggesting.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that except the underlined bit - I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that helmets provide safety for the head in some situations and in these situations wearing a helmet is better than not wearing a helmet. If I am driving my car and have a head on collision with a lorry at speed, my seatbelt won't be much use to me...it doesn't mean I should stop wearing my seatbelt every time I get into the car though..
 
Actually you are saying that where the cyclists mix with traffic they need helmet. That a helmet in some mitigates for infrastructure, or pro cycling laws and policies. But there is no evidence to support this. Why is a helmet or hi viz more important, than focusing on other stuff. Why ignore decades of experience in other countries and just bang on about helmets and Viz as a priority when there is no experience to support that it should be the priority.

Also a seatbelt does not equate to a helmet on a bicycle. It more equates to wearing a helmet in a car or as a pedestrian.
Is wearing a helmet in a car more important than a seat belt. Is wearing a helmet as a pedestrian so important it needs to made law?
Because that's what commonly implied for cyclists.

Helmets are a good idea. However you risk throwing out the baby with the bath water if you over emphasis their importance.
The baby in this case is that we need to encourage cycling and reduce car use. That is the bigger picture.

Do I force my kids to wear helmets, if it that means they stop cycling to school (on a cycle path in my case) and look for lifts everywhere. Especially if the person, or kids needs exercise.
 
AlbacoreA said:
Actually you are saying that where the cyclists mix with traffic they need helmet. That a helmet in some mitigates for infrastructure, or pro cycling laws and policies. But there is no evidence to support this. Why is a helmet or hi viz more important, than focusing on other stuff. Why ignore decades of experience in other countries and just bang on about helmets and Viz as a priority when there is no experience to support that it should be the priority.
Click to expand...

I think you have me all wrong. I totally accept there are cases where helmets provide little or no safety (say in a collision with a lorry). However I do think helmets provide safety in other areas (such as falling off you bike) and therefore it's a no brainer for me to wear a helmet.
 
AlbacoreA said:
That a helmet in some mitigates for infrastructure, or pro cycling laws and policies.
Click to expand...

Just on this. No, that's not what I am saying at all. I would love to see cyclist itself being a no brainer! I would love to live in a city where the vast majority of people cycled to school and world. Apart from Amsterdam though, I am not aware of many other cities able to pull this off.
 
You may not be aware that's the end result.

If someone is stopped for having no motortax. They don't always mention if they were wearing a seat belt.

If someone robbed a phone on a bicycle they be sure to mention Hi Viz and helmets.

On some forums if you mention either on a cycling thread that's about something else you get a warning. That how prevalent is it.
 
Last edited:
AlbacoreA said:
You may not be aware that's the end result.

If someone is stopped for having no motortax. They don't always mention if they were wearing a seat belt.

If someone robbed a phone on a bicycle they be sure to mention Hi Viz and helmets.

On some forums if you mention either on a cycling thread that's about something else you get a warning. That how prevalent is it.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I don't follow this at all.

I'm saying I think wearing a helmet is a no-brainer as it can provide safety in a lot of cases which is better than nothing. For a head-on collision with a lorry at speed, a helmet is going to do a cyclist no good, just like a seat belt will do the driver of a car no good.
 
You implied they don't need a helmet in Holland because of good infrastructure.
But in Ireland you always need a helmet regardless of infrastructure.

Which is contradictory. Which doesn't make any sense. Because falling off your bike is the same regardless where you do it.

So the fact you need a helmet in Ireland should mean its a good idea in Holland also.

So why don't you think you don't need a helmet in Holland...
 
Last edited:
AlbacoreA said:
You implied they don't need a helmet in Holland because of good infrastructure.
But in Ireland you always need a helmet regardless of infrastructure.

Which is contradictory. Which doesn't make any sense. Because falling off your bike is the same regardless where you do it.

So the fact you need a helmet in Ireland should mean its a good idea in Holland also.

So why don't you think you don't need a helmet in Holland...
Click to expand...

I think the infrastructure in Holland is miles better than here. They also have a critical mass (which is chicken & egg) which means there is little or no cars on the roads. I would doubt there is a single pothole in the centre of Amsterdam either. It's just a safe place to cycle. I imagine people do fall off their bikes in Amsterdam too but I would imagine the liklehood to be a lot lower than here. When you look at the lack of cycle lanes here, coupled with potholes and and ratio of cars:cyclists I think wearing a helmet (to offer some protection) is a no brainer.
 
Lots of imagining going on. Lots more cyclists means there are going to a lot of people falling off bicycles.

Although the Netherlands is probably the safest country in the world for cycling, helmet wearing among Dutch cyclists is rare. It has been estimated that only about 0.5 percent of cyclists in the Netherlands are helmeted.

However, according to Dutch Government data (Rijkswaterstaat, 2008), 13.3 percent of cyclists admitted to hospital were wearing helmets when they were injured. Why does wearing a helmet appear to increase the risk of being injured so substantially?

The answer is probably related to another statistic. Of the injured cyclists wearing helmets, 50 percent were riding mountain bikes and 46 percent were riding racing bikes (Rijkswaterstaat, 2008). In other words, most helmeted cyclists in the Netherlands are engaged in a competitive activity, with very few making utility trips on the traditional style of Dutch bicycle.
Click to expand...

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html


I mention this because in Ireland cycling stats for head injuries also include cycling not related to commuting or using a bicycle as transport.
Head injuries in car accidents are very common also. Also with pedestrians. no suggestion to make helmets compulsory there though.

I have nothing against helmets. But the arguments for only cyclists, and only cyclists not in Holland wearing them are not logical. The physics of cycling and gravity are not different in Holland.
 
AlbacoreA said:
no suggestion to make helmets compulsory there though.
Click to expand...

I have always wondered why they are not compulsory for pedestrians.

I was cycling along the north quays towards O'Connell Bridge yesterday at lunch time.

As there was no car coming at that time, 20 or 30 pedestrians thought it was quite ok to walk across the red light in front of a cyclist.

Some of them on mobile phones.

They should all have got points from the Gardai and should have been banned from walking for 6 months.

Brendan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top