Should Cycle Helmets and fluorescent PPE be made cumpulsory by law?.

Run_to_da_hills

In the near future we are going to have a flood of thousands of "born again" cyclists in our capital with the introduction of the JC Decaux bicycles.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0211/planning.html?rss Many commuters may have not cycled a bicycle for years and would be totally inexperienced with modern Dublin traffic. Australia has already a mandatory cycle helmet law.

In Paris the amount of cycle deaths have dramatically increased since they introduced the Decaux bicycle. Should the government fast track new law for the mandatory use of cycle helmets and fluorescent ppe before these rental bikes are introduced?

penexpers

No to both really. The bikes will be equipped with lights which are much better for visibility than fluorescent ppe. And helmets should still be personal choice. I'm familiar with a couple of the Paris accidents and having a helmet would not have made a damn bit of difference.

Gavin

Search the forum for the previous threads about helmets. Read the stats. Return with a factual, referenced post seeking debate.

Run_to_da_hills

Verb wrote: »

Search the forum for the previous threads about helmets. Read the stats. Return with a factual, referenced post seeking debate.

Facts on the Paris situation.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4289943.ece

blorg

...to this thread as much as the question! (and learn how to spell while you're at it!)

daymobrew

penexpers wrote: »

The bikes will be equipped with lights which are much better for visibility than fluorescent ppe.

I always encourage wearing hi-viz and reflective stuff.
The hi-viz portions are visible by day when lights are useless.

The reflective stuff harnesses the power of vehicle lights, which is much more powerful than (most) bike lights. I realise that they are no substitute for lights when vehicles approach from the side.

Basically I would always have hi-viz/reflective gear all year around. I have lights when I expect to be out after dark.

Dirk Gently

I wouldn't be against a health and safety course for cyclists tbh, especially if a lot of people decide to start commuting by bike who previously didn't. rules of the road, safety, road awareness, basic maintenance etc. Pay a small fee, which then gets put into a city cycling fund.It could be a useful feedback forum too, maybe with members having imput on how the budget should be spent. People with a cycling "licence" then get to use the new bikes.

Gavin

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Facts on the Paris situation.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4289943.ece

There are no facts relevant to the effectiveness of helmets and high viz in that article.

niceonetom

no
and
no

your poll doesn't even provide an appropriate button for me to tick. i suppose you expect "They should lay off and leave Cyclists alone" to cover what you think some of us would say, but it really doesn't. how about "I am unconvinced of the efficacy (or acceptability) of the use legislation in the promotion of safe behaviour"?

the second two buttons are (more or less) irrelevant and the third is slightly petulant.

thought experiment: replace "helmet and ppe" with "condom", and "cycling" with "having sex" in this argument. do you come to the conclusion that legislation should be passed banning unsafe sex? after all, lives would be saved.

or do you see the issue more clearly? it's an issue of personal choice and responsibility.

there are many more specific counterarguments to this specific idea, but i don't see the point getting into them when i believe the underlying logic to this whole area of nannyish legislation is so flawed anyway.

fergalr

So, neither the original post or the article seem particularly useful to me...

First off, neither the post nor the article say whether the increase in cycle related accidents is greater than would be expected, given the increase in cyclists.

The post seems to assume it is, but the article says
"The authorities are blaming the cyclists as well as the city’s notoriously aggressive drivers, although the overall accident rate has declined by 20 per cent. "

Did more people get hurt, or die, than would have been the case if the scheme wasn't introduced?
In other words, perhaps more people got injured/killed cycling (which makes sense as there were more cyclists on the road), but less people overall got injured/killed, as there was a corresponding decrease in injuries from driving cars, as the people were using bikes instead?
Ie, perhaps the overall injury rate could have went down? I'm not saying this is the case, but just that we need to see a figure for this as well as a figure for the cycling related accidents before it's useful.

So it's important to clarify, did the overall traffic injury rate go up or down? Was the increase in cycling accidents proportional to the increase in cyclists? I think it's a bit remiss of the article to not make these figures clear.

In Paris the amount of cycle deaths have dramatically increased since they introduced the Decaux bicycle. Should the government fast track new law for the mandatory use of cycle helmets and fluorescent ppe before these rental bikes are introduced?

The next issue I have with the original post, is that it assumes that the way to solve any potential problems with inexperienced cyclists in dublin traffic is to give them high vis vests and helmets. This seems rather unlikely. If the scenario painted is correct, with loads of careless newbie cyclists blundering around the city centre, then helmets and high vis aren't going to help them very much, as their main threat will probably be getting run over by HGVs and hit by cars...

As others have said, you shouldn't just assume helmets and viz will help issues off the bat, as there's a lot of debate about it. (or at least, a lot of debate about helmets, I think being visible is generally considered to be a good thing!)

Asking if the government should fast track such a law, based on such specious logic, makes me wonder if perhaps the original post is just a troll?

Bicyclegadabout

I spoiled my vote because I thought that was the best idea.

This is an area which is more complicated than people like to think. And it can be made as complicated as quantum physics if you want it.

Basically, there's better and more effective things we can be doing than compelling ourselves to wear styrofoam on our heads and building site apparel on our backs (over the backpack or under the backpack???).

As a side note those new JC Decaux posters have been put up in the daftest, most dangerous of places.

Chips Lovell

First of all, the JC Decaux scheme isn't going to generate a flood of thousands of "born again" cyclists. While the Paris scheme introduced 16,000 bikes, the Dublin one will only involve 450.

As for being legally obliged to wear helmets, my instinct is to say no. As niceonetom said, it's an issue of personal responsibility. It's up to you to look after your own safety.

Having said that, there is legislative precedent for obliging people to take personal safety measures. For example, you can't drive without a seatbelt or ride a motorbike without a helmet.

You could say that this amounts to nannying by the state. But politicians often make laws not because they think they are right, but because voters often are clamouring for "something to be done". Road deaths are always big news. Just check out the papers after a bank holiday weekend.

Anyway, what's the point of making new laws for cyclists when most of the existing ones aren't enforced? Just go out on any winter evening and see the amount of people cycling without lights, breaking lights, cycling on the wrong side of the road etc.

Run_to_da_hills

Bicyclegadabout wrote: »

As a side note those new JC Decaux posters have been put up in the daftest, most dangerous of places.

Im sure that the company that is advertising on these offending bill boards are not complaining with all the media and photo attention they are getting.

doozerie

Any approach that focuses on only one group of road users is unlikely to ever address the real problems of road safety. Oblige all drivers to cycle for a month while all cyclists are obliged to drive during that time, and you might generate some empathy and understanding amongst all road users about the actual existence of other road users and the need for everyone to adhere to the same set of basic rules.

In the meantime, you may as well use the hi-viz vests to cover up the traffic lights, road traffic signs, etc. 'cos lots of people from the full range of road user groups already ignore them anyway.

kincsem

The poll wording is loose and does not cover all the possible opinions. Legislation on seat belt use and motorcycle helmet use was probably driven by fatality statistics. My guess is few cyclist deaths would be prevented by helmet use. I believe wearing a helmet would probably be useful in a minor accident or fall.

Fion_McCool

kincsem wrote: »

My guess is few cyclist deaths would be prevented by helmet use. I believe wearing a helmet would probably be useful in a minor accident or fall.

Agreed... The only thing that mandatory helmet laws are proven to do is to reduce the number of cyclists on the road. Fewer cyclists on the road means that motorists get less used to copeing with cyclists, making the roads more dangerous for the remaining cyclists.

A good review of the supposed cycle helmet benefits from IMT 2004 by an Irish doctor.

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/keating.htm

monument

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Facts on the Paris situation.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4289943.ece

Sorry for asking this, but, how exactly would a helmet have helped these people?...

the (London) Times wrote:

...Three vélib riders have been crushed under the wheels of heavy vehicles...

And is this what you call facts?...

the (London) Times wrote:

However, the pedal boom has been attended by a jump in cycle deaths and injuries...

.....

The authorities are blaming the cyclists as well as the city’s notoriously aggressive drivers, although the overall accident rate has declined by 20 per cent. Many accidents involve inexperienced riders or careless tourists.

A jump in "deaths and injuries", but a decline in the over all "accident" rate.

That looks like a contradiction to me.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

In the near future we are going to have a flood of thousands of "born again" cyclists in our capital with the introduction of the JC Decaux bicycles.

With only 450 bikes in the bike rental system, I think thousands is a bit much. They wouldn't be on the road at the same time anyway.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Many commuters may have not cycled a bicycle for years and would be totally inexperienced with modern Dublin traffic.

With the removal of a bulk of HGVs for at least most of the day, Dublin's roads may well be safer for cyclists.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

In Paris the amount of cycle deaths have dramatically increased since they introduced the Decaux bicycle.

Any stats to back that up?

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Should the government fast track new law for the mandatory use of cycle helmets and fluorescent ppe before these rental bikes are introduced?

How do you suggest that an automated street bike rental system (primarily but not solely aimed at tourists) and mandatory helmet and fluorescent clothing law could work side by side?

Install helmet and clothing dispensers as well???

Cabaal

oh no not another can of worms...if people want to be safe let them be safe, if people want to cycle around wearibng all black leave them do that...its their life

blorg

Cabaal wrote: »

oh no not another can of worms...if people want to be safe let them be safe, if people want to cycle around wearibng all black leave them do that...its their life

Agree completely on the helmet being a personal choice thing but lights during the hours of darkness are a completely different matter; invisible cyclists are a danger to others as well as themselves. But we already have bike lighting laws, I don't think flourescents need to be made mandatory (indeed it is not for motorcyclists.)

seamus

The only way that it's fair to legislate (in reality) is if the safety measure will prevent deaths. If seat belts simply stopped you getting a sore head, there's no way they would be compulsory.

With that in mind, extract the cyclist deaths over the last few years and show what proportion of those people would have been saved by wearing a helmet.

Then perhaps you'll have a seedling of a debate.

Chips Lovell

The OP hasn't been back since he started the thread so at this stage we're all practically arguing with no one.

blorg

el tonto wrote: »

The OP hasn't been back since he started the thread so at this stage we're all practically arguing with no one.

I disagree.

TinyExplosions

blorg wrote: »

I disagree.

No, tonto's right, you're wrong

unionman

TinyExplosions wrote: »

No, tonto's right, you're wrong

No, you are.:D

niceonetom

cyclists should all be licensed, registered, and neutered.

the_syco

Meh. When you consider most of the accidents will be with drunk people cycling home from the nightclub, and 40 bicycles being thrown into the Liffey, lights won't do much (expect pinpoint where in the Liffey they are). Also, unless the tyres are made of kelver, I can see a further 40 abandoned at various points around the city.

Fion_McCool

seamus wrote: »

With that in mind, extract the cyclist deaths over the last few years and show what proportion of those people would have been saved by wearing a helmet.

Then perhaps you'll have a seedling of a debate.

Perhaps it also might also be interesting to see how many were killed because of wearing a helmet.

If you like being sideswiped by road vehicles... wear a helmet !

see http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/releases/overtaking110906.html

.

niceonetom

Civilian_Target

Velib is awesome. I wholeheartedly support any implementation of such a scheme, and I'm against obligatory helmets and flourescent jackets. I always find drivers give me notably less room when I'm wearing a helmet.

monument

Cabaal wrote: »

oh no not another can of worms...if people want to be safe let them be safe, if people want to cycle around wearibng all black leave them do that...its their life

Oh, yes, another 'can of worms', if people want to talk about safety and cycling on the internet, let them talk about it.

Junior

monument wrote: »

A jump in "deaths and injuries", but a decline in the over all "accident" rate.

That looks like a contradiction to me.

No, it isn't, there has been an increase in the amount of Cycling Death and Injuries in the overall Accident Rate, however the overall Accident Rate itself has decreased.

studiorat

Jaysus on a stick!
Mandatory helmets and a bleeding bicycle licence WTF!
And a 18 month waiting list for the test no doubt! I will personally lead the revolution if anybody tries to bring this in!

Hire bikes are a great idea. Until someone sues the Dublin Corpo or JC Del.. when they loose it across a set of Luas tracks on one. Then they'll end up taking the rest of them off the street, the ones that aren't in the Liffey anyway.
Anyway I'll bet it'll never happen, or I'll eat my back wheel.

I see they gave planning permission on Henry street and Liffey street. Eh? Aren't they pedestrian areas? Twats...

BostonB

I think its good to be seen. Is that not why its sometimes saferto be in the traffic lane rather than the cycle lane?

studiorat

Very true! I tend to stay out a bit, and plenty of eye contact with drivers where possible.
I think I'd rather be run over than wear a high viz vest:D

BostonB

I don't mind the high viz. Its like saying "er like HELLO" to sleepy motorists & cyclists for that matter.

monument

Fion_McCool wrote: »

Perhaps it also might also be interesting to see how many were killed because of wearing a helmet.

If you like being sideswiped by road vehicles... wear a helmet !

see http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/releases/overtaking110906.html

.

It'd be interisting to see the same kind of research done for high vis vests.

NewDubliner

BostonB wrote: »

I don't mind the high viz. Its like saying "er like HELLO" to sleepy motorists & cyclists for that matter.

The argument for high-vis vests is that motorists don't or cannot see cyclists. I think that's incorrect.

They DO see cyclists but they still make incorrect overtaking decisions.

blorg

NewDubliner wrote: »

The argument for high-vis vests is that motorists don't or cannot see cyclists. I think that's incorrect.

They DO see cyclists but they still make incorrect overtaking decisions.

This is certainly true, but there are many who simply don't see cyclists, I was rear-ended by one on a bright sunny day (breaking my arm) who simply had a cyclist-sized blind spot.

Of course whether these people should be on the road is another matter; I don't think this failure is simply passive, it's caused by a lack of active attention to your surroundings.

seamus

NewDubliner wrote: »

The argument for high-vis vests is that motorists don't or cannot see cyclists. I think that's incorrect.

They DO see cyclists but they still make incorrect overtaking decisions.

Technically, yes you can argue that the person's eyes pick up the light reflected from the cyclist and pass that information into the motorists brain.

However, studies have shown that motorists often fail to recognise that cyclists, motorcyclists or pedestrians are approaching/in their field of vision, despite being completely visible.
That is, the person is completely visible and the motorist is looking right at them, but because the motorist is focussing on searching for a particular item, the presence of a motor/cyclist pedestrian doesn't invoke a stimulus response in their brain.

Or to put it more obviously - because they're looking for a car or a bus (or another large moving object), smaller moving objects become part of the background scenery and are ignored.

It's quite a natural method of operating (they reckon it has to do with hunting behaviours) but it's quite difficult to recognise when you do this until you've just done it (i.e. nearly pulled out in front of someone), but it is possible to train yourself to get out of it.

A high-vis vest creates an unexpected distraction in the motorist's field of vision and causes them to focus on the cyclist instead of the cyclist melting into the background.

Mucco

seamus wrote: »

Or to put it more obviously - because they're looking for a car or a bus (or another large moving object), smaller moving objects become part of the background scenery and are ignored.

It's been posted before, but no harm in sticking it up again:
http://www.dothetest.co.uk/

MOH

Junior wrote: »

No, it isn't, there has been an increase in the amount of Cycling Death and Injuries in the overall Accident Rate, however the overall Accident Rate itself has decreased.

So you're less likely to be in an accident, but more likely to die if you are?

Cabaal wrote: »

oh no not another can of worms...if people want to be safe let them be safe, if people want to cycle around wearibng all black leave them do that...its their life

I don't think the new bike scheme is targeted just at priests?

seamus

MOH wrote: »

So you're less likely to be in an accident, but more likely to die if you are?

I think what it means is that overall the number of accidents and deaths has increased, but as a percentage of the number of cyclists, the number is down overall.

That is, if you had ten cyclists last year and 2 died, and you have twenty this year and 3 died, then the number of deaths have increased, but the death rate is down.

MOH

seamus wrote: »

I think what it means is that overall the number of accidents and deaths has increased, but as a percentage of the number of cyclists, the number is down overall.

That is, if you had ten cyclists last year and 2 died, and you have twenty this year and 3 died, then the number of deaths have increased, but the death rate is down.

Ah, OK, ta.

Fion_McCool

monument wrote: »

It'd be interisting to see the same kind of research done for high vis vests.

I am not aware of any similar research on Hi-Vis clothing.

Whereas I disagree with the wearing of helmets for normal road use, because of the lack of evidence for their efficacy, I firmly believe visibility is very important. I nearly always wear a hi-vis jacket and leave my powerful rear light blinking at all times - day and night.

Ian Walker did investigate 'time of day effects' on drivers overtaking bicycles. He found a tendency for drivers to give more leeway when overtaking a bicyclist later in the day than early in the day, with different behaviour in the two rush-hours: drivers seem to get closer in the morning rush-hour than in the evening.

http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=24

He also found that the stereotypical image of “White Van Man” was true, white vans on average passed 10 cm closer to the experimenter’s bicycle than black cars across all the overtaking incidents recorded.

http://philica.com/display_observation.php?observation_id=10
.

cyclopath2001

seamus wrote: »

Or to put it more obviously - because they're looking for a car or a bus (or another large moving object), smaller moving objects become part of the background scenery and are ignored.....
A high-vis vest creates an unexpected distraction in the motorist's field of vision and causes them to focus on the cyclist instead of the cyclist melting into the background.

What about pedestrians, parked cars, mini-roundabouts, chicanes, skips, bends in the road, cones etc? Cars have no problem avoiding them (most of the time).

Any kind of bright contrasting clothing is a good idea, even lurid Lycra. What I don't understand why there are so many silver or black cycle helmets. It's a missed safety opportunity not to make the helmet high-vis.