RTE News: Brain injury groups call for compulsory helmet use

Marvinthefish · 09-10-2009 2:43pm

JMJR wrote: »

@ mods
can we have a helmet sticky please as we seem to generate a 'new' thread at least once per week!

Can we have a helmet forum?

Chips Lovell · 09-10-2009 3:22pm

Right, I was thinking of writing an article about this, so I rang Barbara O'Connell from ABII, who featured on that news item and asked her if the organisation also supported a law obliging motorists to wear helmets, since research shows that wearing one in a car can help reduce the severity of brain injuries in the event of an accident.

She said that the organisation wasn't singling out cyclists and that they had also been active in promoting helmet use in sports etc. The reason they made this call now was the cyclists were particularly vulernable, road surfaces were terrible and cycle lanes appalling, which in made the risk of accident higher, she said. So they wanted to start with cyclists "first".

I then read out some of the findings of an Australian study and asked her straight out if they supported a mandatory use law for car helmets. She responded by saying they "simply want to start the debate".

She also said that the organisation had received a number of abusive phone calls after the item appeared on the news, which is pretty disgusting.

Anyway, probably not enough for a story, but thought I'd post it here given the discussion.

Lumen · 09-10-2009 3:26pm

el tonto wrote: »

She also said that the organisation had received a number of abusive phone calls after the item appeared on the news, which is pretty disgusting.

Whilst I would never condone abusiveness, the problem with campaigning organisations started as a result of personal tragedy is that anyone who disagrees with their stance is at risk of appearing insensitive.

This smacks of human shielding to me.

tomasrojo · 09-10-2009 3:28pm

el tonto wrote: »

Right, I was thinking of writing an article about this, so I rang Barbara O'Connell from ABII, who featured on that news item and asked her if the organisation also supported a law obliging motorists to wear helmets, since research shows that wearing one in a car can help reduce the severity of brain injuries in the event of an accident.

She said that the organisation wasn't singling out cyclists and that they had also been active in promoting helmet use in sports etc. The reason they made this call now was the cyclists were particularly vulernable, road surfaces were terrible and cycle lanes appalling, which in made the risk of accident higher, she said. So they wanted to start with cyclists "first".

I then read out some of the findings of an Australian study and asked her straight out if they supported a mandatory use law for car helmets. She responded by saying they "simply want to start the debate".

She also said that the organisation had received a number of abusive phone calls after the item appeared on the news, which is pretty disgusting.

Anyway, probably not enough for a story, but thought I'd post it here given the discussion.

The abusive calls are just wrong.

However, she's being dishonest. They're not just calling for a debate. They are explicity calling for mandatory helmet laws. There's no ambiguity there.

opinion guy · 09-10-2009 3:29pm

I'm sorry I don't get why you all have a problem with helmets. Speaking as someone who fell off a bike and was unconscious for 20 mins with a few residual effects (weird stuff like the foods i liked changed etc) I would always wear a helmet. Having had that experience once I consider myself lucky to have not come off worse. I do not give a f**k what it looks like. Please tell me there is more than "helmets look dorky" behind your objections.

tomasrojo · 09-10-2009 3:30pm

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't get why you all have a problem with helmets. Speaking as someone who fell off a bike and was unconscious for 20 mins with a few residual effects (weird stuff like the foods i liked changed etc) I would always wear a helmet. Having had that experience once I consider myself lucky to have not come off worse. I do not give a f**k what it looks like. Please tell me there is more than "helmets look dorky" behind your objections.

I'm sorry you had a bad fall.

There are several posts here that explain why people object to mandatory helmet laws. None of them mention dorkiness.

Chips Lovell · 09-10-2009 3:31pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

However, she's being dishonest. They're not just calling for a debate. They are explicity calling for mandatory helmet laws. There's no ambiguity there.

They are calling for a mandatory cycling helmet law, she was clear about that. But my understanding of her "debate" comment was that they wanted to start a debate on preventing all brain injuries, i.e. that preventative measures in other areas were at least worthy of discussion.

tomasrojo · 09-10-2009 3:32pm

el tonto wrote: »

They are calling for a mandatory cycling helmet law, she was clear about that. But my understanding of her "debate" comment was that they wanted to start a debate on preventing all brain injuries, i.e. that preventative measures in other areas were at least worthy of discussion.

But they never call for helmets for anyone else. They ARE singling out cyclists. And they never address the Australian experience.

niceonetom · 09-10-2009 3:32pm

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't get why you all have a problem with helmets. Speaking as someone who fell off a bike and was unconscious for 20 mins with a few residual effects (weird stuff like the foods i liked changed etc) I would always wear a helmet. Having had that experience once and consider myself lucky to have not come off worse. I do not give a f**k what it looks like. Please tell me there is more than "helmets look dorky" behind your objections.

petethedrummer · 09-10-2009 3:34pm

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't get why you all have a problem with helmets.

Have a look at all these lovely ladies (you'll have to scroll down a bit), should they be forced to wear helmets?

Chips Lovell · 09-10-2009 3:36pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

But they never call for helmets for anyone else. They ARE singling out cyclists. And they never address the Australian experience.

In fairness to her, she said they have campaigned on other sports. Just looking at their website, they've items on quad biking and winter sports.

I did point out the Australian experience to her and said there was a lot of interesting researching stemming from it that she should consider looking at.

Chips Lovell · 09-10-2009 3:38pm

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't get why you all have a problem with helmets. Speaking as someone who fell off a bike and was unconscious for 20 mins with a few residual effects (weird stuff like the foods i liked changed etc) I would always wear a helmet. Having had that experience once I consider myself lucky to have not come off worse. I do not give a f**k what it looks like. Please tell me there is more than "helmets look dorky" behind your objections.

Read back over other threads because it's been discussed at length here before, but nobody has a problem with helmets. They have a problem with being obliged to wear one.

tomasrojo · 09-10-2009 3:39pm

Honestly though, I've never heard them make a public pronouncement on any other issue than this.

I did point out the Australian experience to her and said there was a lot of interesting researching stemming from it that she should consider looking at.

She probably should consider it BEFORE going public with a several-year-long campaign to repeat their mistakes.

(I'm not having a go at you, @el tonto, just to be clear; I just really don't see any logic or sense in their helmet campaign; and it's relentless.)

opinion guy · 09-10-2009 3:39pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm sorry you had a bad fall.

There are several posts here that explain why people object to mandatory helmet laws. None of them mention dorkiness.

Oh right sorry. I don't really use the cycling forum I just saw the link on the main page.

@niceonetom
really don't get what your photos are supposed to mean

Canis Lupus · 09-10-2009 3:47pm

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't get why you all have a problem with helmets. Speaking as someone who fell off a bike and was unconscious for 20 mins with a few residual effects (weird stuff like the foods i liked changed etc) I would always wear a helmet. Having had that experience once I consider myself lucky to have not come off worse. I do not give a f**k what it looks like. Please tell me there is more than "helmets look dorky" behind your objections.

You shouldn't have landed on your head.

Chips Lovell · 09-10-2009 3:51pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

Honestly though, I've never heard them make a public pronouncement on any other issue than this.

She probably should consider it BEFORE going public with a several-year-long campaign to repeat their mistakes.

(I'm not having a go at you, @el tonto, just to be clear; I just really don't see any logic or sense in their helmet campaign; and it's relentless.)

Ah no, I know you're not having a go at me. While I would disagree with their position, I don't want to misrepresent what she said to me.

As for public pronouncements, I should add the caveat that it depends on the media to pick on them. So while RTE etc might feel cycling helmets is a big enough story, they may not feel the same for quad biking or skiing.

tomasrojo · 09-10-2009 3:51pm

@niceonetom
really don't get what your photos are supposed to mean

Face plant.

Welcome to the Cycling forum, @opinion guy.

Canis Lupus · 09-10-2009 3:58pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

Face plant.

Welcome to the Cycling forum, @opinion guy.

See I thought you meant face palm which is slightly different.

tomasrojo · 09-10-2009 4:06pm

My mistake. Face palm it is.

petethedrummer · 09-10-2009 4:10pm

Canis Lupus wrote: »

See I thought you meant face palm which is slightly different.

it was Face Palm.

tomasrojo · 09-10-2009 4:12pm

I meant to type Face Palm. Typo. Forgive me, Pete. That made you look insensitive.

opinion guy · 09-10-2009 4:16pm

Face palm it is fair enough....lol

Canis Lupus wrote: »

You shouldn't have landed on your head.

True. Thats a good point. I should indeed not have used my head as a crumple zone. But I could never remember how the fall happened and noone quite saw it completely either so your guess is as good as mine as to what i actually did!!

Capt'n Midnight · 09-10-2009 4:37pm

el tonto wrote: »

In fairness to her, she said they have campaigned on other sports. Just looking at their website, they've items on quad biking and winter sports.

I did point out the Australian experience to her and said there was a lot of interesting researching stemming from it that she should consider looking at.

quad biking is a motor sport, and quite a few of the people who use them are complete beginners.
By comparison , you can't ride a bike until you learn how to balance / control it and speed is limited by fitness in most cases but any muppet can hop on a quad and rev it up.

winter sports are dangerous, most travel insurance exclude cover for it

Lumping cycling with them gives the impression that cycling is intrinsicly dangerous.
In general cycling is intrinsically safe.

Most cyclists are killed by collisions with motorists, and in most cases the motorists are at fault. Wearing a helmet designed to take a 20Kmph impact will only change your odds of survival by about 3-4% if you get hit at 60Kmph - which is the likely speed traffic in a 50Kmph zone will do without congestion or calming.

Driver education would prevent more cycling accidents, and should also reduce pedistarian casualties too.

tomasrojo · 09-10-2009 4:40pm

In that quote from that doc that Dr. Bob found back near the start of the thread, they put cycling first in their list of pastimes where head protection was required, ahead of quadbiking, winter sports, motorcycling and contact sports.

It's telling.

seamus · 09-10-2009 4:41pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

quad biking is a motor sport, and quite a few of the people who use them are complete beginners.

Not to mention (having spoken to a quad biking instructor about it) the vast vast majority of serious injuries in quad biking occur when the bike falls on top the rider. Not such an issue in cycling, we just occasionally get tangled up a bit.

rubadub · 09-10-2009 4:42pm

tomasrojo wrote: »

Seat belt laws never caused a massive drop in driving though. Not that ABII care whether cycling drops. I imagine, from their general tenor, they'd be quite pleased.

When were seatbelt laws introduced? did people have to install them in cars?

A lot of people cycle solely for leisure or exercise, this is not seen as much in cars. If pedestrian helmets were mandatory I would not expect a large drop off in pedestrians, just like I would not expect a large drop off in cars relative to the drop off I would expect in cyclists.

People with an old bike might just abandon it for good if they had to buy a helmet. Whereas if you have a car it is usually a bigger financial comittment and you probably really do need it. It also reinforces the view that cycling is dangerous, so little johnny & mary will not be allowed cycle to school. A bit of rain the other morning and every little runt in the country appearred to be driven to school by mammy, the traffic was horrendous.

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't get why you all have a problem with helmets. Speaking as someone who fell off a bike and was unconscious for 20 mins with a few residual effects (weird stuff like the foods i liked changed etc) I would always wear a helmet.

Do you wear it in the car and out walking or drinking? And if not why not? Perhaps the knock affected your logical rational reasoning, it seems to with many people who crack cycling helmets. Mandatory drinking helmets would be a far more sensible proposal. Just look at A&E it is a very risky activity.

petethedrummer · 09-10-2009 4:58pm

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Time to get in at the ground floor on the rugby helmets. Who's with me?

I know you're not actually advocating this.

But there is a duty of care in rugby not to annihilate your opponent, something which is missing from American football, with its helmets and shoulder pads and war paint. I'd be curious to see does all the safety gear in American football result in fewer injuries relative to rugby.

opinion guy · 09-10-2009 5:39pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

....Wearing a helmet designed to take a 20Kmph impact will only change your odds of survival by about 3-4% if you get hit at 60Kmph - which is the likely speed traffic in a 50Kmph zone will do without congestion or calming.

Driver education would prevent more cycling accidents, and should also reduce pedistarian casualties too.

I rather have the 3-4% on my side thou than not. My accident was a just a fall probably at 25-30kph and i was out for 20mins. I've also seen someone else end up in hospital for weeks with just a simple fall with possibly permanent mental deficits. He wasn't wearing a helmet either......to be fair thou he was locked but thats possibly protective according to the beeb:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8262393.stm

petethedrummer · 09-10-2009 10:00pm

opinion guy wrote: »

I've also seen someone else end up in hospital for weeks with just a simple fall with possibly permanent mental deficits. He wasn't wearing a helmet either......to be fair thou he was locked

Did he fall of a bike or just fall? Do you think we should introduce mandatory helmet wearing in pubs? An awful lot of drunk people fall over. Probably more than people riding bikes.

In fact the more I think of it, you're an idiot if you don't wear a helmet on a night out. I can't think of any other reason not to, other than you might look a bit stupid, but I'm not gonna let looking stupid stop me.

Capt'n Midnight · 09-10-2009 10:30pm

petethedrummer wrote: »

But there is a duty of care in rugby not to annihilate your opponent, something which is missing from American football, with its helmets and shoulder pads and war paint. I'd be curious to see does all the safety gear in American football result in fewer injuries relative to rugby.

Out of curiousity how do either compare to Aussie Rules, no protection and does it have a duty to care ??

The comparison may not be so much about the duty to care but the degree of risk equalisation since american football players probably feel safer in their armour and so take greater risks.

RTE News: Brain injury groups call for compulsory helmet use

Comments