Yeah, looks like a crock alright. To be honest, once someone says that helmets prevent 80% (or similar proportion) of head injuries, I stop reading, as they clearly haven't looked into the matter in any detail at all.
Also cycling is more than 1 or 2% of trips. Not sure what it is these days, but it used to be 3 or 4% nationwide, and 10+% in Dublin city centre.
I suspect there is conflation of serious and minor head injuries in his stats (assuming they're at least broadly accurate). Cycling isn't especially productive of serious head injuries. Public policy shouldn't take too much interest in scrapes and bruises, which are most "head injuries".
That's what I wondered too, he didn't give a source for his figures and mountain biking, a cycle race or a sportive are rather different from a toddle to the shops. i wonder does the RSA here just have generic "cycling collision" stats. The other thing I wonder about re these recent letters is the "Dr"title. We don't know if the writers are doctors of medicine, philosophy, statistics or software engineering so can't tell whether their academic and professional experience deserves more weight than that of the (wo)man on the Clapham Omnibus.
Saw this shared on cyclist.ie and Dublin Cycling Campaign's FB page. It's a lot more imaginative re cycling than anything in our Draft National Mitigation Plan, published on 15th March . Of course the lead in is 20+ years so easy to make promises. Some of the comments are funny though especially the one that building more roads is the solution to congestion! Lots of anxiety re how older people will manage, someone should tell them re ebikes
Irish Times letters today, from 1) Brian O'Brien in Kinsale, 2) Michael A Carroll of Mount Merrion and 3) Leslie Lawless of Dublin 4
Also a lovely piece by Laura Laker in the Guardian about why we cycle:
For those of you playing Helmet Debate Bingo, you can cross off "Let me propose an experiment; hit yourself in the head".
It occurred to me this morning while looking over the threads since the AGSI proposal is that the only thing I find stressful about cycling is thinking about how it's going to be ruined by people with authoritarian tendencies and simplistic arguments.
That was a two for one. You get to tick off "I'm a medical professional so my opinion is more important".
Interesting that Michael Carroll links in helmets/hi-vis and praying to his guardian angle - equal degrees of proven effectiveness for all three.
I jumped to the conclusion he was claiming to be a "medical professional" too, until I read further, hopefully nobody apparently that stupid is taking care of people.
I have talked to many intelligent people who might say similar to him -BUT -they have certainly not been aware of the "perennial debate about the pros and cons of cycling helmets", most are ignorant about it, and so it is fair enough that they think it is all "pro". This guy sounds like he should be well aware of the "cons", but then talks like he is totally unaware. So maybe "intensive-care specialist" simply means he has spent a lot of time in intensive care, perhaps after carrying out his brick experiment one too many times on himself.
there's a simple issue with all these 'i'm a medical professional and i've held the brains of cyclists in my hands' sort of letters - the presumption that the accident has already taken place.
in the limited context of their experience, yes, a helmet is more likely to do good than harm, but they are judging cycling based purely on the - thankfully very rare - moments when things have gone wrong, and in a specific way.
i wouldn't claim to have cycled a tenth as much as some people on this forum, but i can tell you this - my couple of injuries - six stitches in my chin and a bit of glue in my top lip in one accident, a sprained ankle in another - are dwarfed by the pleasure and health benefits i've received from cycling.
(that said, i've heard enough about injuries in actual cycle racing to make me think twice about ever trying it).
Today's batch, from Mark Fox of Shankill and Patricia O'Riordan of Rialto.
...still quite puzzled with the hype on air pollution in Ireland...looking at the following links from the EEA and EPA... Ireland seems to be better than good in the stats/graphs.
Not sure if i'm reading you correctly if you're talking about the emissions reference, but air pollution and emissions aren't the same thing. Air pollution covers particulate matter (e.g. soot/smog), nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, lead etc... Mainly things that are a short to medium term risk to health rather than the gases that contribute to climate change.