Compulsory Helmet Wearing

TinyExplosions

They kept it quiet it seems, but there was a motion brought before Dublin City Council last night to introduce the compulsory wearing of helmets (heard it on Newstalk this morning)

Was defeated 20 against, 10 for

david

Wonderful!

Raam

I wear a helmet, but I must confess that my heart skipped a beat when I saw this thread title. I'm all for personal choice.

Diarmuid

While I don't support mandatory helmet wearing (it's your head after all) I don't really understand why one wouldn't wear one.

Cabaal

It should be an option, as already highlighted in a previous thread they are only rated for 12mph impacts so if your going anything over this or whatever you hit is going faster then this I don't think there's much hope.

TinyExplosions

Please lets not turn this into our weekly debate of should you wear 'em or not... Personal choice FTW regardles!

Raam, my heart nearly skipped a beat when I heard it on the radio!

Lumen

Cabaal wrote: »

It should be an option, as already highlighted in a previous thread they are only rated for 12mph impacts so if your going anything over this or whatever you hit is going faster then this I don't think there's much hope.

That's a misrepresentation, since it's obviously possible to survive a crash at more than 12mph. The 12mph is supposed to simulate the closing speed between your head and the ground, which is (for flat surfaces) largely independent of ground speed.

If I were to push you off your bike at 30mph, would you rather be wearing a helmet or not?

Still, I don't support compulsion.

Morgan

Diarmuid wrote: »

While I don't support mandatory helmet wearing (it's your head after all) I don't really understand why one wouldn't wear one.

It ruins a fabulous hairstyle for a start.

Raam

Morgan wrote: »

It ruins a fabulous hairstyle for a start.

Indeed. No one picks up chicks with a melon on their head.

Canis Lupus

Diarmuid wrote: »

While I don't support mandatory helmet wearing (it's your head after all) I don't really understand why one wouldn't wear one.

Someone had to say it.....

the_syco

Having gone through a car window, flown over the handlebars, went sidways, backways, and all the time just causing dents in the helmet, I think there should be compulsory helmet hearing if you're on a public road. Sure, if you're going fast enough, and you hit a pot hole, your chance of surviving is slim, but with no helmet, I'd say your chances are none.

Lumen

the_syco wrote: »

Having gone through a car window, flown over the handlebars, went sidways, backways, and all the time just causing dents in the helmet, I think there should be compulsory helmet hearing if you're on a public road.

Because you're incapable of cycling without crashing everyone else should be forced to wear a stupid hat?

Lumen

Raam wrote: »

Indeed. No one picks up chicks with a melon on their head.

Also, chicks dig the drawl you pick up from a serious head injury.

TinyExplosions

I knew I shouldn't have posted this.... *yawn*

Look everyone knows someone/was themselves involved in a crash where they died/survived/was horribly injured purely and only because of the helmet/lack of helmet (delete as applicable) -and all the other factors were totally and completely irrelevant, therefor their stance is that everyone should/shouldn't be forced to wear a magic hat at all times

Can we change the record, for gods sake!

Raam

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Look everyone knows someone/was themselves involved in a crash where they died/survived/was horribly injured purely and only because of the helmet/lack of helmet (delete as applicable) -and all the other factors were totally and completely irrelevant, therefor their stance is that everyone should/shouldn't be forced to wear a magic hat at all times

I agree/disagree. Delete as appropriate.

TinyExplosions

Raam wrote: »

Indeed. No one picks up chicks with a melon on their head.

This guy would, he's sexy!

bcmf

I have had many spills.The worst was on a mountain bike where without a crash hat (it split in 2) I was dead or something worse.
I only wear a crash hat NOW around 50% of the time.

Raam

TinyExplosions wrote: »

This guy would, he's sexy!

Those glasses make him look a little bit like someone we all know.

bcmf

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Please lets not turn this into our weekly debate of should you wear 'em or not... Personal choice FTW regardles!

Raam, my heart nearly skipped a beat when I heard it on the radio!

too late!!!!!!!!!!!

TinyExplosions

Raam wrote: »

Those glasses make him look a little bit like someone we all know.

I noticed that too....

blorg

Article here and like Tiny says lets stick to the topic and not turn it into the weekly "my life was saved" helmet debate.

My #1 question with all this would be- does the city council have the legal authority to make helmet wearing compulsory in Dublin city? If so, I am surprised.

Some bad mis-information there from David Maher of Dublin Cycling Campaign:

"In the Tour de France, professional cyclists are going at high speeds and they don't wear helmets. There's no statistical basis to make helmet wearing mandatory,"

Given that helmets have been mandatory in pro cycle races since 2003. Was much resisted when it was first brought in; he would have a point if he said that pros don't all use them when training.

Also, I'm pretty sure that it was cycling that decreased by 40% in Australia, not helmet wearing, although that one sounds like he was misquoted.

Good quote from Ciaran Cuffe at the end, seems he has a reasonable understanding.

yoshytoshy

I'm getting back into cycling and don't wear my helmet at the moment.
Mostly because I'm so fat ,I look like a proper sport billy when I wear the thing and people laugh.

sy

Jesus Tiny never ever mention the two words "Helmet" and "Compulsory" in the same sentence, especially in a thread heading!

By the way crashed heavily last Thursday and hit the deck, head arm and hip in that order...........?

AstraMonti

Yeap thats the question, in what scientific data are they going to base their arguments so they can make the helmets compulsory? Or they going to keep regurgitating folktales?

TinyExplosions

sy wrote: »

Jesus Tiny never ever mention the two words "Helmet" and "Compulsory" in the same sentence, especially in a thread heading!

By the way crashed heavily last Thursday and hit the deck, head arm and hip in that order...........?

I know, I know, I know, I thought about not posting, but the vote is relevant and am surprised wasn't mentioned on here before, and not the can is open, and it's worm central and there's nothing I can do...

Hope you're ok after the spill though!

RobFowl

2 comments
1) Dublin city council don't have the authority to introduce compulsory helmet wearing so they were only debating it to make themselves feel more relevant than they actually are.

2) I always wear one mainly because I am convinced it saved my life at a race some years ago when I crashed in a bunch at 48KPH. Lots in my club don't. The evidence is equivocal but leans towards a strong protective effect (but not when hit by a car). Compulsory helmet wearing in New South Wales only had the effect of decreasing the numbers actually cycling.

xz

personal choice should prevail, but with the advances in bikes these days, you dont have to be super fit to get get a good head of steam up and travel at speed, my personal choice is to wear one, even though I am more likely to break my arm(s) and or collar bones in a crash, than hit my head, but personally, I am not willing to take that risk, whether or not I am actually safer with a helmet is a debate I would rather not get into, but ,I say again, personally, I feel safer wearing one and it's purely out of habit at this stage

steinone

Thanks Tiny, if nothing else came out of this thread it has reminded me to get my helmet sorted:D.

petethedrummer

Yes, broken collar bones are the most common cycling injury, so you are a TOTAL IDIOT for not wearing one of these.

I would never cycle in Dublin with out one.

kincsem

I am in favour of Dublin City Council wearing helmets at committee meetings.

Jawgap

I wear a helmet, but I'm dead set against it being compulsory..........

..........except for kids.

Saying that, it would be a stupid law, even if the evidence did support it being compulsory for children.

The simple fact is it would be unenforceable therefore it would be a stupid law to bring in.

xz

petethedrummer wrote: »

Yes, broken collar bones are the most common cycling injury, so you are a TOTAL IDIOT for not wearing one of these.

I would never cycle in Dublin with out one.

how is that going to stop an impact shock going up through my arm and snapping my collar bone, that's only going to help if I actually land on my shoulder, ............although, looking as bulked up as you do, wearing one of those ,would sure make some motorists think twice about giving the verbal abuse.

Jawgap

xz wrote: »

how is that going to stop an impact shock going up through my arm and snapping my collar bone, that's only going to help if I actually land on my shoulder, ............although, looking as bulked up as you do, wearing one of those ,would sure make some motorists think twice about giving the verbal abuse.

Wear it and practice a clipped German accident so when a motorist does something not nice you can walk up to him and in your best Schwarznegger say "Get Out"

tpedoussaut

xz wrote: »

would sure make some motorists think twice about giving the verbal abuse.

I rarely get VERBAL abuse by motorists, usually a more savage 1.5 ton of metal abuse.

On the helmet front btw, many more lives are saved by not preventing people of doing moderate exercise.
For the struggling finances of the HSE, you would prefer instant death by concussion, rather than 20 years of obesity, diabetis, heart issues. And it makes you a good organ donor as well.

(The truth is hiding)

Canis Lupus

xz wrote: »

how is that going to stop an impact shock going up through my arm and snapping my collar bone, that's only going to help if I actually land on my shoulder, ............although, looking as bulked up as you do, wearing one of those ,would sure make some motorists think twice about giving the verbal abuse.

What happens if I fall off a bike and land on my coccyx? What's to stop the shock travelling up my spine and making my head fall off :P

petethedrummer

xz wrote: »

how is that going to stop an impact shock going up through my arm and snapping my collar bone, that's only going to help if I actually land on my shoulder, ............

Right I take your point, you're a TOTAL IDIOT if you don't wear one of these.

I'd never cycle around Dublin without one.

Raam

I'd never cycle around Dublin without being in a car to protect me.

dub_skav

xz wrote: »

how is that going to stop an impact shock going up through my arm and snapping my collar bone, that's only going to help if I actually land on my shoulder, ............although, looking as bulked up as you do, wearing one of those ,would sure make some motorists think twice about giving the verbal abuse.

So what you're saying is that it would not prevent the most likely type of collar-bone injury, but would only (not particularly effectively) protect against an unlikely scenario. Hmmmmmm

Bunnyhopper

Is there any way of finding out who voted in favour of this proposal? The minutes don't seem to be online yet. According to the Herald article it was proposed by FG Councillor Pat Crimmins.

http://www.finegael.ie/representatives/councillors/index.cfm/type/person/pkkey/912/ikey/20

I'm going to email him and say that I understand that his proposal was well-intentioned and that I'm glad to see consideration being given to cyclists' safety. However, I'll also say that although I'm a regular cyclist who always wears a helmet, I oppose compulsory helmets.

I'll suggest he have a look at

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

and will point out that the arguments in learned journals such as the BMJ are ongoing and that the evidence is not sufficiently clear to justify compulsion.

I'll add that I believe there are many better ways to address the needs of those who already cycle in Dublin, to encourage more people to cycle in Dublin, and to help them all do so safely.

I'll be polite, because I think the man does have good intentions and any councillor who gives a hoot about cyclists is not someone I wish to insult.

niceonetom

That herald article is a festival of stupid.

Observe the locking technique



Stupid.

vinylbomb

Raam wrote: »

I agree/disagree. Delete as appropriate.

+1. Agreed/Disagreed.


They may look thick, but I'm all for it. Thing is if it was compulsory it'd just be one more thing to get pulled over for really, I don't think there would be a uniform uptake of it either.

xz

dub_skav wrote: »

So what you're saying is that it would not prevent the most likely type of collar-bone injury, but would only (not particularly effectively) protect against an unlikely scenario. Hmmmmmm

It would if i'm wearing it, have you seen how big I already am? i only got into cycling last year, but my previous sport of choice was playing as both loose and tight head prop forward, that's as in rugby for the un-initiated

Gavin

It's a bit annoying that this guy, off his own back, suddenly came up with the fantastic idea of making helmets mandatory. I am sure he didn't actually research the issue.

"I don't wear it because it's a nuisance. If I go into the shop I've to take it off. If the cycling helmets could be made compulsory, it could be a showcase to the country.

"If it didn't decrease the number of deaths, surely the injuries might be less and the overworked hospitals might have less to do."

The country would not be a showcase, helmets having been made mandatory in other countries. He might know that if he'd read up on the issue

I wonder what percentage of injuries attending our overworked hospitals are as a result of not wearing helmet. I don't know and I bet this councillor doesn't know and didn't attempt to find out either.

The unilateral nature of the attempted decision really annoys me. The arrogance of the guy to assume he knows what's best without any research or consultation.

RedPlanet

Well intentioned?
I doubt it.
Behind the mask is an anti-cycling mindset.
I suspect they are motorists whom want cyclists out of their way.
Compulsory helmets would go some way toward seeing a lot of "undesirables" off the road, ie: only "real cyclists" are allowed on our roads.
No doubt the gards would find the time to enforce the rules too.

Capt'n Midnight

Helmets won't do much if you get run over by a truck or bus , which is the main cause of cyclist death in Dublin.

Helmets will reduce the death rate in motorists by 17% so why aren't they being asked to wear them ?

Should we have seat belts on all buses ?

If they have a budget of €1m to save a life which should they spend it on
- advertising helmets
- free helmets to regular commuters
- improving cycleways
- educating motorists about cutting across a bike lane when turning left
- enforcing the five axle ban
- other

Turbulent Bill

Both David Maher and Pat Crimmins muddy the waters by going on about the inconvenience and nuisance of helmets - what has that got to do with safety? This draws the argument away from the real issue (whether helmets improve cyclist safety or not) and makes it look like a fashion/image/lazyness problem. As we know the pro-/anti-helmet evidence is conflicting, so even the sleekest, most comfortable, most portable helmet won't appeal to everyone.

For the record, I wear a helmet but would be against compulsory use until the benefits are proven.

Lumen

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

For the record, I wear a helmet but would be against compulsory use until the benefits are proven.

If the benefits were proven, why would compulsory use be necessary?

Cycling is provably good for your health. Why not make cycling compulsory too?

And whilst we're at it, ban smoking, alcohol, meat eating, casual sex and bad thoughts.

Run along and be a good little German, won't you? :pac:

oh, Christ, I've just Godwinned a helmet thread

Bunnyhopper

RedPlanet wrote: »

Well intentioned?
I doubt it.

When I say it's well intentioned I mean that I think he thinks it's a proposal that's good for cyclists and cycling. In that sense it's well intentioned: well informed and well considered are a very different matter.

RedPlanet wrote: »

Behind the mask is an anti-cycling mindset.

I think I know where you're coming from and I suspect we actually agree on that point. However, I'm not sure how true it is of this particular individual. My suspicion is that he genuinely thinks that this is a good pro-cycling proposal. You and I might see the agenda behind it, but I'm not sure that it's his agenda: I'm not sure that he even sees it. I think he just hasn't done the research and it's a case of well-meaning naivety rather than anti-cycling malice on his part.

Vitamin C

TinyExplosions wrote: »

I knew I shouldn't have posted this.... *yawn*

Delete the thread then?

Even if such a law came in it'd be more or less unenforceable, like cycling on the footpath...people will always do it and get away with it.

Also...the vast majority of cyclist killed on on the road are killed by HGVs, a little styrofoam hat is not going to save anybody from these bicycle gobblers.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0211/1233867931746.html

Bunnyhopper

Lumen wrote: »

ban alcohol, meat eating, casual sex and bad thoughts.

Run along and be a good little German, won't you? :pac:

No beer? No sausages? No buxom Fräulein carrying six flagons of fine lager??

That's going to make the Munich Beer Festival great fun...

Stark

Whatever about personal choice, a motion like that will only serve to discourage people from cycling and that's not good.