NSC: Helmets should be mandatory for cyclists

Victor

I wonder if they will go the whole hog and recommend them for drivers also (it would save a lot more lives)?

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2004/05/13/story147395.html

NSC: Helmets should be mandatory for cyclists
13/05/2004 - 12:53:31

The National Safety Council has called for the wearing of safety helmets by cyclists to be made mandatory.

The council said such a move would held reduce the number of head injuries sustained by Irish cyclists.

It said more than 2,000 cyclists were killed or injured on Ireland’s roads between 1998 and 2002.

John2002

I agree that they should be made mandatory.

My da is a fairly serious cyclist and came off his bike ~6 months ago because of a dog. He only broke his collar bone but would have sustained serious head injuries if not for his helmet which was completely wrecked.

Imposter

While it would help with safety I would prefer to see more being done on the causes for those 2000 deaths and injuries such as more and better cycle lanes, fining of cyclists for illegally breaking traffic laws, fining of pedestrians for jaywalking etc.

Making them mandatory would also be stupid unless there was going to be some form of enforcment but seeing as traffic regulations can't be enforced I don't hold much hope for that happening.

jank

i thought they already were mandatory but just never enforced as a law

cyclopath2001

If the NSC is successful in making helmets mandatory, Ireland would be one of the few countries in the world where this is the case. Only a few states in the US have such a law, and then only for minors. In the UK, it was considered and the idea dropped. The UK Medical Council was one of the opponents of mandatory helmet laws.

Helmets play no role in preventing accidents and their role in preventing injury is exagerated by the manufacturers.

In Australia, where helmets are mandatory, injuries increased as a result.

The NSC does not offer any evidence as to why mandatory helmet use is necessary. I think they're just looking for an easy option rather than tackling the causes of accidents and injuries: poor training and behaviour of road users, and the dangerous design of motor vehicles.

Mandatory helmet laws would divert scarce Garda resources from more effective measures.

A Mandatory Helmet Law would be as outrageous as forcing non-smokers to wear masks.

Bee

Oh Dear,

Some posters really have neanderthal views on head injuries. Perhaps they fell off their bikes and suffered damage to their gray cells!

I always wear a helmet cycling and so do my children.

Of course helmets should be mandatory for cyclists, especially in Dublin with its idiotically bad designs of joke cycle lanes and lethal footpath extensions at road corners coupled with free standing barriers with multiple edges that result in compound fractures to bones.

Anyone who thinks that helmets are a bad idea should visit the National Rehabilitation Hospital, Rochestown Avenue, Dun Laoghaire and see the results of a head injury.

Anyone who thinks helmets are a bad idea probaly disagrees with car safety belts, motor cycle helmets and body protection,air bags, parachutes and smoke alarms.

Seriously helmets are a must, you might be thinking you are invinceable but you never know when you will be hit with a Luas!

Read for yourself..

www.nsc.ie/whats_new/NewsExtra_Details.cfm?NewsExtraID=32&recordID=106&location=main

Bee

cyclopath2001

It's a pity that when this topic comes up, rational and well-considered arguments are abandoned by some and anecdotes are substituted for research. Ridicule is employed in the place of logic.

I would like to ask the previous poster if he wears a helmet while driving and walking & if not why not? Head injuries occur during those activities too.

Please provide credible evidence that making helmets mandatory will reduce injuries or save lives.

echomadman

In Australia, where helmets are mandatory, injuries increased as a result.

followed by

rational and well-considered arguments are abandoned by some and anecdotes are substituted for research.

and

Some posters really have neanderthal views on head injuries. Perhaps they fell off their bikes and suffered damage to their gray cells!

followed by

Ridicule is employed in the place of logic

you sure proved your own points there cyclopath

dahamsta

Originally posted by jank
i thought they already were mandatory but just never enforced as a law

Ditto. I remember having to wear one of the stupid bloody things on the way to/from school when the law came in. Felt like a right eejit for the 2-3 days that I actually did.

adam

seamus

Originally posted by dahamsta
Ditto. I remember having to wear one of the stupid bloody things on the way to/from school when the law came in. Felt like a right eejit for the 2-3 days that I actually did.

I never thought so....weird.

For anyone who thinks they're a bad idea.....*boggle*. I've broken a couple of helmets in my time, and seen a few mates' lives saved by them. Don't try telling me that it's more dangerous to wear them.

cyclopath, perhaps you would like to give us a source for this increase in injuries in Australia?

Perhaps you think that motorcyclists would be better off without helmets either. It's everyone elses fault that they crash after all :rolleyes:

dahamsta

I don't think it's more dangerous seamus, but if I was a cyclist, which I'm not, I'd prefer not to wear one. And I think it should be a matter of personal choice.

I was a cyclist for four or five years of secondary school, and it was bloody rare that I had an accident. When I did, I got up off the ground, cursed, whined about the scrapes on my hands and knees, and got back on the bike again. There were hundreds of cyclists in my school, and I never heard of anyone being seriously injured off their bike. There were certainly no head injuries, you tend to remember that sort of thing. And I'm not saying the NSC numbers are wrong, just that that's my experience with bikes.

As to motorbikes, well, that's a bit of a lowball argument for you seamus; I think we all know that there's a big difference between bicycles and motorbikes. But for the record, if you've never ridden a motorbike without a helmet, I highly recommend it. In a safe location, obviously.

adam

seamus

Originally posted by dahamsta
I was a cyclist for four or five years of secondary school, and it was bloody rare that I had an accident. When I did, I got up off the ground, cursed, whined about the scrapes on my hands and knees, and got back on the bike again. There were hundreds of cyclists in my school, and I never heard of anyone being seriously injured off their bike. There were certainly no head injuries, you tend to remember that sort of thing. And I'm not saying the NSC numbers are wrong, just that that's my experience with bikes.

I completely agree. It is rare enough to smack your head falling off your bike. I know I have a natural instinct to keep my head raised when coming off, and after hundreds of times coming off, through mountain biking and BMX, I've only ever hit my head twice, and cracked the helmet both those times. Once, I came off backwards - which caused a whiplash-like, effect which gives you no control over whether your head hits the ground or not. The second was a brief superman impression through the air, stopped abruptly by the collision of head and tree.

I admit that it's rare, but it's not worth the risk. It's a little similar to drnk-driving - 999 times out of 1000, you may come home fine, scrape free....but just once, and gone.....

As to motorbikes, well, that's a bit of a lowball argument for you seamus; I think we all know that there's a big difference between bicycles and motorbikes. But for the record, if you've never ridden a motorbike without a helmet, I highly recommend it. In a safe location, obviously.

It is a bit of a lowball, but the same physics apply. If I had the choice between smacking my unprotected head off at wall at 15mph or 40mph, I think I'd go for the 40. Get it over with.

When it comes to safety, you can't really compromise because the helmet looks silly or because there aren't that many death from head injuries. If forcing everyone to wear a helmet saved just one life every 10 years, then it would be worth it.

And yes, I have driven a motorbike without a helmet. On a closed street, in the broad daylight, at 30mph. Very refreshing, but also very weird. Makes you feel naked.

Ideally, if everyone was 100% clear on the risks, and on everything that could possibly go wrong, then leaving it up to personal choice would be the ideal solution. But unfortunately it's not possible to overcome human nature.

cyclopath2001

The discussion is not about motor-cycle helmets, nor do I dispute that in some low-speed accidents, a cycle helmet might be of some benefit depending on the type of impact. (Always read the label!).

The Australian statistics failed to take account that after the introduction of mandatory cycle helmet use for cyclists, the number of cyclists declined significantly & this accounted for the decrease in injuries. When the number of cyclists was factored in, it was found that there had been a real increase in injury.

The NSC does not offer credible scientific evidence from countries where it has been tried. Nor did it look to countries that decided not to implement such a law.

This proposal comes from a body which is funded by the Insurance Industry, I think the idea is really about shifting liability onto the victims.

>>When it comes to safety, you can't really compromise because the helmet looks silly or because there aren't that many death from head injuries. If forcing everyone to wear a helmet saved just one life every 10 years, then it would be worth it.....Ideally, if everyone was 100% clear on the risks, and on everything that could possibly go wrong, then leaving it up to personal choice would be the ideal solution. But unfortunately it's not possible to overcome human nature.<<

Careful there, this kind of argument could mean that pedestrians & motorists should wear them too?

dahamsta

Originally posted by seamus
I admit that it's rare, but it's not worth the risk.

Well, it's not the NSC's body seamus, it's mine. Which is probably going to kick us towards seatbelts, but if so, so be it.

It's a little similar to drnk-driving - 999 times out of 1000, you may come home fine, scrape free....but just once, and gone.....

I'm not trying to get into a flame war here seamus, but seriously, that's an even weaker comparison. You can't possibly compare cycle helmets and drink driving.

It is a bit of a lowball, but the same physics apply.

Maybe. On balance though, the motorbike will be going a lot faster for a lot more of the time. Up hills for example. This is a bad example, but anyway...

I remember coming off my bike one time at the bottom of the Well Road in Cork, must've been going 15-20 mph at the time. A group had gathered at the foot of the hill to watch all the n00bs coming off their bikes at the notorious spot of black ice on the roundabout. (Schoolkids are so sweet.)

I was going up the same hill a few years later on my Cagiva 125, couldn't have been going much faster, and I made the classic noob biker mistake of locking the front brake, and bang, down I went.

On both occasions, my pride was hurt more than anything, but I did more damage on - or should I say off - the motorbike. The point I'm trying to make though, is that it couldn't have happened on a bicycle. The only way you could injure yourself off a bike going up a hill is if you fell under a car.

When it comes to safety, you can't really compromise because the helmet looks silly

And uncomfortable. I hate headwear.

If forcing everyone to wear a helmet saved just one life every 10 years, then it would be worth it.

By that token we should all be wrapped in cotton wool and only allowed leave the house with my newly invented Bubbles Of Personal Space[TM]. And again, it's /my/ life, not the NSC's.

And yes, I have driven a motorbike without a helmet. On a closed street, in the broad daylight, at 30mph. Very refreshing, but also very weird. Makes you feel naked.

Made me feel alive.

Ideally, if everyone was 100% clear on the risks, and on everything that could possibly go wrong, then leaving it up to personal choice would be the ideal solution. But unfortunately it's not possible to overcome human nature.

Human stupidity seamus, let's not beat around the bush. But I'm not stupid, and I don't want to be lumped in with them. I don't want to wear bubble wrap just because my neighbour is a moron. I'd like to make my own choices.

adam

Bee

If any one doubts that a helmet protects the head against head injuries try this

1.Have a friend smack a lump hammer against your head whilst you are wearing a helmet

2. Repeat the above process with a lump hammer against your bare head.

The chance of your survival will be greatly increased with the wearing of a helmet.

The majority of impact injuries result in the following and its not very pretty,
An "epidural hematoma associated with a cracked skull". This injury occurs when a smack to the skull (caused during an impact) passes through the location of a 'meningeal artery', a small artery of which there are many within the skull bone. The artery may be suddenly severed in the creation of a fracture, and bleeding will occur under arterial blood pressure levels. This hemorrhage will force its way between the skull and the 'dura mater', a skin-like liner of the inner skull. The dura mater then separates from the skull and an expanding pocket of blood exerts pressure against the brain itself. The pressure restricts normal vascular supply to the underlying area and results in death of brain tissue.

Now death in brain tissue hurts the body a lot more than a grazed knee or fractured collar bone. It can rapidly lead to death or paralysis due to the associated brain damage. If anyone is still not convinced pay a vist to REHAB (National Rehabilitation Hospital, Rochestown Avenue, Dun Laoghaire) and see the results of needless head injuries.

For Gods sake guys think logically.

Bee

Have a read from my favorite magazine

http://www.ic.ac.uk/P2250.htm

dahamsta

I'm afraid that's typical of the Oirish way of telling people how dey'd all be better off if dey'd only do whats we tells um; like the gross ads telling us how bad the ould fags are, and how it's oh-so-dangerous to speed (which is completely balls btw - bad driving kills, not speed), etc. It's useless scaremongering that goes ignored by target audiences, and offends and disgusts everyone else. I challenge anyone to prove that it achieves anything.

Again, I'm not disputing that helmets can protect against head injuries. I simply believe that on balance, were I a cyclist, I would have as much chance of being seriously injured walking down the street as I would falling off my bike; and I believe that wearing a helmet or not should be a matter of personal choice. My head, my risk.

If we need to continue with the silly comparisons, here another one for you: The building I'm in right now could fall down any second. It's quite an old house and it's effectively built on a bog. There could be a structural defect. Should I be wearing a helmet?

adam

seamus

Originally posted by dahamsta
Well, it's not the NSC's body seamus, it's mine. Which is probably going to kick us towards seatbelts, but if so, so be it.

Well, of course it's going to kick us towards seatbelts. It's a perfect example of Government-imposed "safety".

I'm not trying to get into a flame war here seamus, but seriously, that's an even weaker comparison. You can't possibly compare cycle helmets and drink driving.

It's a tricky one to get the idea across. Basically I'm going on the "acceptable risk" thing. There are many, many things that are safe most of the time, but every time still presents a risk. No, you can't wrap people up in cotton wool, but what's a helmet? It's hardly restrictive or ridiculous.

Maybe. On balance though, the motorbike will be going a lot faster for a lot more of the time. Up hills for example.

Well of course, but the majority of head injuries with motorcycles occur when they hit another vehicle, and flip over the bars. I've gone over the handlebars of a bicycle and landed on my back going as slow as 10mph.

Human stupidity seamus, let's not beat around the bush. But I'm not stupid, and I don't want to be lumped in with them. I don't want to wear bubble wrap just because my neighbour is a moron. I'd like to make my own choices.

I'm exactly the same. I would love to be the person who chooses who can and can't do what in my world, so that the sensible people can roam freely and the idiots are protected from themselves. But in reality, none of us can make this kind of call, and even the most sensible person can end up in the dumbest situation, so I believe that imposed safety laws are, within reason, a good compromise. We're all a fan of Darwin's law when we believe we're on it's good side

I think we should steer clear of the "If cyclists should wear helmets, why shouldn't pedestrians?" argument. It's circular. If pedestrians don't have to wear helmets and have lights at night, then why should cyclists, motorcyclists, and other vehicles? The answer is obvious, but that answer could also be used for the original question. I think pedestrians, while obviously needing to obey the rules of the road, are a special case. Pedestrianism (?) is the default state of being. All others are choices of transport. No-one chooses to be a pedestrian. We've been pedestrians for millions of years. Evolution wants us to be pedestrians, so it only makes sense that it's inherently the safest way to do anything and shouldn't require any extra safety equipment.

Anyway, I shall retire to do some research into some figures, before this goes any further....

Imposter

I spent about 6 years cycling around Dublin. I never came off my bike once. Once I hit a pedestrian who just stepped onto the road and occasionally (2 or 3 times I think) I hit a car which would veer in front of me and then just stop but at all times I had braked enough so as not to fall off the bike.

I'm not so stupid to think that something can't happen where a helmut would be benificial but I agree it should come down to personal decision ideally based on the acceptable risk. My cycling was done on city streets. I'd imagine if I was travelling longer distances with more speed I would have used a helmet. Same goes for mountain biking and the like.

Victor

Originally posted by seamus
I think we should steer clear of the "If cyclists should wear helmets, why shouldn't pedestrians?" argument. It's circular. If pedestrians don't have to wear helmets and have lights at night, then why should cyclists, motorcyclists, and other vehicles? The answer is obvious, but that answer could also be used for the original question.

The problem is the NSC are presenting cycling as a dangerous activity, when it isn't (motoring is 1.5-2.0 times more dangerous). If the NSC were being objective, they would be encouraging motorists to wear helmets before they get around to cyclists.

Helmets create a small number of problems for cyclists - over heating, wind resistence and as that link suggested, they cause some injuries that wouldn't otherwise occur.

Originally posted by seamus
I think pedestrians, while obviously needing to obey the rules of the road, are a special case. Pedestrianism (?) is the default state of being. All others are choices of transport. No-one chooses to be a pedestrian. We've been pedestrians for millions of years. Evolution wants us to be pedestrians, so it only makes sense that it's inherently the safest way to do anything and shouldn't require any extra safety equipment.

Haven't I seen you argue the opposite?

seamus

Originally posted by Victor
Haven't I seen you argue the opposite?

Not exactly. Pedestrians still need to obey the rules of the road.

It would seem, on further investigation that helmets aren't a quick fix solution. Coupled with education, they could be effective, but blanket forced introduction is probably not the best option. A bit like when someone buys a safer car, they are subconsciously more likely to take bigger risks.

The only thing is - every link I found, every study said that fatalities decreased, but serious injuries increased to offset it. Which is the lesser evil?

Oh, and ignore this:

When it comes to safety, you can't really compromise because the helmet looks silly or because there aren't that many death from head injuries. If forcing everyone to wear a helmet saved just one life every 10 years, then it would be worth it.

Mid-hangover rhetoric. I don't really mean that at all.

dahamsta

But... but... you can't stop now seamus! This is BOARDS dammit! Reasonable conclusions are unbecoming.

adam

Victor

Originally posted by seamus
A bit like when someone buys a safer car, they are subconsciously more likely to take bigger risks.

Exactly. Take the doors off a car and see how much people slow down / drive more carefully.

Originally posted by seamus
The only thing is - every link I found, every study said that fatalities decreased, but serious injuries increased to offset it.

Fatalites may have decreased but cyclist number typically also decreased. "Serious injury" includes all hospitalisations (in-patients) and fractures. Serious injury typically better than dead.

dahamsta

Cycle lobby claims NSC peddling wrong campaign
17/05/2004 - 16:12:01

The Irish Cycling Campaign today expressed its total opposition to the mandatory wearing of cycling helmets.

"While the ICC is not opposed to helmet wearing itself, the mandatory use has proven to have a negative effect on cyclist safety," an ICC statement said.

The ICC called for the scrapping of the current NSC board which it claimed was dominated by the motoring industry.

cyclopath2001

Taking my own advice 'always read the label', I read the label inside the helmet that I wear when forced to ride on Dublin City Council's notoious 'cycle tracks'. The usual disclaimers were there but also something I had not seen on other brands, that is:

The manufacturers advise against the wearing of helmets by highly-active children due to the risk of strangulation.