Dublinbikes Users - no cycle helmets?

athtrasna

Something that's occurred to me in the past three days since the Dublin bikes scheme came into operation - I've seen about 30 of the in use and not a single rider has been wearing a helmet!

Surely this is a recipe for disaster, cyclists who may be inexperienced around the city and lacking vital safety equipment?

stopped_clock

wiki:
http://wiki.boards.ie/wiki/CommonDebates

This week:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055682283

Others:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055614004
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055523256
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055151680

Oh and IBTL!

Better link to this before blorg does.

DualFrontDiscs

athtrasna wrote: »

Something that's occurred to me in the past three days since the Dublin bikes scheme came into operation - I've seen about 30 of the in use and not a single rider has been wearing a helmet!

Surely this is a recipe for disaster, cyclists who may be inexperienced around the city and lacking vital safety equipment?

Just for fun/ clarity; what are you attempting to articulate?

Cyclists: Inexperienced city
Inexperienced cyclists: Inexperienced city
Inexperienced cyclists: City
Cyclists: City

DFD.

athtrasna

Sorry - didn't realise it was such a big issue on here (I don't cycle) but I still stand by my concern, so many of the people I've seen on Dublinbikes look like they haven't been on a bike since they were kids. I was a researcher on a news story about head injuries hence my concern.

DualFrontDiscs

athtrasna wrote: »

<snip> cyclists who may be inexperienced around the city and lacking vital safety equipment?

athtrasna wrote: »

I was a researcher on a news story about head injuries hence my concern.

You're a 'researcher' and you phrase questions like that? How does one spell 'agenda'?

DFD.

athtrasna

No....nothing like that. Honestly!! I've helped out on stories from Barack Obama's Irish roots...to head injuries...to Northern Ireland...and all kinds of things in between.

The head injuries one is a story that has stayed with me that's all.

stopped_clock

athtrasna wrote: »

Sorry - didn't realise it was such a big issue on here (I don't cycle) but I still stand by my concern, so many of the people I've seen on Dublinbikes look like they haven't been on a bike since they were kids. I was a researcher on a news story about head injuries hence my concern.

Without wishing to appear like we're ganging up on you, if you put "cycle helmets" into at least one popular search engine, the first link is www.cyclehelmets.org which I'd have thought a better place to start researching the topic.

DualFrontDiscs

athtrasna wrote: »

No....nothing like that. Honestly!! I've helped out on stories from Barack Obama's Irish roots...to head injuries...to Northern Ireland...and all kinds of things in between.

The head injuries one is a story that has stayed with me that's all.

You know, I can almost see the link

DFD.

athtrasna

DualFrontDiscs wrote: »

You know, I can almost see the link

DFD.

Was trying to think of stories that were very different from each other...without recognising a possible connection

athtrasna

stopped_clock wrote: »

Without wishing to appear like we're ganging up on you, if you put "cycle helmets" into at least one popular search engine, the first link is www.cyclehelmets.org which I'd have thought a better place to start researching the topic.

I'm not researching the topic now..unless there's somehow a connection to the Theatre Festival Just making an observation, sorry.

stopped_clock

I think our posts crossed there athtrasna.

Didn't mean to come across as jumping down your throat there. The "helmet debate" comes up from time to time and tends to get emotive. On the one hand you've got "you'd be stupid not to wear one" and on the other "you're stupid not to look at the research". It happened to come up again yesterday or the day before, hence the links! Plus I get cranky after midnight...


I was thinking the same myself DFD. It conjured up a funny image.

DualFrontDiscs

athtrasna wrote: »

Was trying to think of stories that were very different from each other...without recognising a possible connection

Very good. Now that we've got that sorted. A couple of things......

Working backwards through your initial post.

1. Is a helmet a vital piece of safety equipment?
2. 'Disaster' is an emotive 'hand wringing' word.
3. This is a new service, the city is potentially as inexperienced as the cyclist.
4. The whole idea is to promote cycling as a healthy form of transport (or something like that). If you're into cycling already, then you're with the programme already. By it's nature, you're going to get people who are inexperienced using the service. If the 450 bikes get taken every morning and perform synchronised cycling through Dublin, that kinda misses the point.

DFD.

athtrasna

Fair enough...sounds like the "to recline or not to recline" debates on travel fora I frequent

stopped_clock

DualFrontDiscs wrote: »

1. Is a helmet a vital piece of safety equipment?

That's what I meant to say...

Húrin

in b4 da lock!

athtrasna wrote: »

Sorry - didn't realise it was such a big issue on here (I don't cycle)

would I be right in suspecting that like most non-cyclists you consider helmet wearing to be "common sense" because cycling is "extremely dangerous"?

Jumpy

I stand by my opinion that the human race needs to evolve. Natural selection is the best way to do this. Fashion sense vs Broken skull.

cyclopath2001

athtrasna wrote: »

Something that's occurred to me in the past three days since the Dublin bikes scheme came into operation - I've seen about 30 of the in use and not a single rider has been wearing a helmet!

Have you been to Amsterdam or Copenhagen? You might be really shocked.

athtrasna wrote: »

lacking vital safety equipment?

Don't believe all the hype from the manufacturers who seize on every anecdote to push their products. Helmets play a very small insignificant role in cyclist safety.

For the cycling scheme to succeed, cycling has to become as spontaneous as walking and the need to dress up in 'vital safety equipment' has to be removed. This means tackling the hazards.

JMJR

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Have you been to Amsterdam or Copenhagen? You might be really shocked.

Don't believe all the hype from the manufacturers who seize on every anecdote to push their products. Helmets play a very small insignificant role in cyclist safety.

For the cycling scheme to succeed, cycling has to become as spontaneous as walking and the need to dress up in 'vital safety equipment' has to be removed. This means tackling the hazards.

I cant speak for Copenhagen but I have cycled in Amsterdam and even if we had comparable numbers of cyclists here there would be no comparison.
In Amsterdam it is possible to be physically separate (in dedicated lanes) from pedestrians and motor vehicles for large parts of your journey. You might also say that in Dublin one cycles defensively expecting to be hit by motor cars while in Amsterdam its the cars that drive defensively. They certainly travel slower and are very, very bike aware.

DePurpereWolf

There are also no cars allowed in the city centre of Amsterdam.

But then again, they are allowed in Rotterdam, and all the other cities in the Netherlands.
There is obviously a better infrastructure in the Netherlands now for cyclists, but it wasn't always like that.

I see a need for a helmet when you are going for speed. And most road racers in the Netherlands do wear helmets. But the leisurely rider has no use of these things.

Peterx

Húrin wrote: »

would I be right in suspecting that like most non-cyclists you consider helmet wearing to be "common sense" because cycling is "extremely dangerous"?

i had a big pro helmet rant written but cleared it. Somebody said last week that they make their kids wear one until they are old enough to decide for themselves and that makes a lot of sense to me.

Seeing serious head injuries caused from bicycle crashes has influenced my opinions more then statistical research. I'm no doctor, I've just seen them on the street as a passer-by.

I wear a helmet, some don't. I hope neither of us ever needs one.
peace out...

tomasrojo

Peterx wrote: »

Seeing serious head injuries caused from bicycle crashes has influenced my opinions more then statistical research. I'm no doctor, I've just seen them on the street as a passer-by.

??

How many head injuries have you observed as a passerby? It can't be that many, unless you're a walking statistical anomaly. The number of cyclists who suffer serious head injuries in Ireland every year is very small (as it is in every country where they've bothered to do the statistics).

mmclo

There is a distinct issue the OP has brought up, presumably there will unfortunately be accidents involving velib bikes, presumably a head injury will eventually occur. In our litigous society somebody is going to sue and say the City Council or JC Decaux encouraged them to cycle?

Chips Lovell

mmclo wrote: »

There is a distinct issue the OP has brought up, presumably there will unfortunately be accidents involving velib bikes, presumably a head injury will eventually occur. In our litigous society somebody is going to sue and say the City Council or JC Decaux encouraged them to cycle?

Your chances of getting head injury while driving a car are lessened by wearing a helment. Should people sue the City Council for building roads and encouraging them to drive helmetless?

tomasrojo

mmclo wrote: »

There is a distinct issue the OP has brought up, presumably there will unfortunately be accidents involving velib bikes, presumably a head injury will eventually occur. In our litigous society somebody is going to sue and say the City Council or JC Decaux encouraged them to cycle?

You agree to the terms and conditions of the scheme when you sign up. I can't remember all the details, but I'm pretty sure you agree that it's not their fault if you get injured using their bikes.

tomasrojo

http://www.dublinbikes.ie/how_does_it_work/frequently_asked_questions/general_questions/%28offset%29/0#faq1

Is it necessary to take out public liability insurance to use dublinbikes?

You are not insured by the provider to use dublinbikes and you do so entirely at your own risk. We advise you to take out your own public liability insurance if you do not have such a policy already in place.

blorg

Peterx wrote: »

Seeing serious head injuries caused from bicycle crashes has influenced my opinions more then statistical research. I'm no doctor, I've just seen them on the street as a passer-by.

Must say as tomasrojo says this seems bizarre... Also consider that head injuries can look worse than they are, I've had blood seeping down my face from head injuries a few times but only superficial damage. Cut my neck open in a crash a few weeks back, wearing a helmet, luckily missed the arteries but has left permanent scarring; had I not been wearing a helmet I might have escaped with mild bruising on my temple and no sliced neck

Peterx

Jeez, Why the doubt lads?
Statistics are by their nature general, I am by my nature individual.

I'm happy to read to anti helmet posts backed up by statistical analysis and more then happy to respect the thrust of the argument, why can't you be happy that I prefer to wear a helmet then risk unding up in Loughlinstown re-learning how to sip fluids?

I have picked up a dazed, confused and bloodied mountain biker, his broken bike and his broken helmet away from the base of a tree on 3 rock.
As a mountain biker he certainly is statictically more likely to crash on his head then a commuter.

I saw a chinese student inexplicably (presumably he hadn't seen the statistical chances of crashing! ) crashing off his bike and headbutting one of those low bollards outside UCD sportshall. His head ballooned and he was at least concussed.

I landed on my head and shoulders beside the canal after a car rear-ended me. I wasn't wearing a helmet and count myself lucky that the shoulder took most of the impact force. I've headbutted a tree in a MTB race.

My experiences shape my views. simple enough..

tomasrojo

Peterx wrote: »

Jeez, Why the doubt lads?
Statistics are by their nature general, I am by my nature individual.

If someone told me they'd won the lottery three times, I'd be extremely dubious. If you tell me that you frequently witness head-injured cyclists as you casually walk around Dublin, I'd be less dubious, but still very dubious. I don't think even the most helmet-loving poster here as ever made a claim such as yours.

But you've given some details, so if I may, I'll look at them.

Peterx wrote: »

why can't you be happy that I prefer to wear a helmet then risk unding up in Loughlinstown re-learning how to sip fluids?

You're very much over-rating the protective abilities of helmets, but no-one is telling you not to wear a helmet if you so wish.

Peterx wrote: »

I have picked up a dazed, confused and bloodied mountain biker, his broken bike and his broken helmet away from the base of a tree on 3 rock.
As a mountain biker he certainly is statictically more likely to crash on his head then a commuter.

Mountain-biking has nothing to do with commuting, or the Dublin Bike scheme.

Peterx wrote: »

I saw a chinese student inexplicably (presumably he hadn't seen the statistical chances of crashing! ) crashing off his bike and headbutting one of those low bollards outside UCD sportshall. His head ballooned and he was at least concussed.

1) You don't know what injuries he received.
2) This is the first relevant example you've given.

Peterx wrote: »

I landed on my head and shoulders beside the canal after a car rear-ended me. I wasn't wearing a helmet and count myself lucky that the shoulder took most of the impact force.

But this is what nearly always happens; it is, as I said before, quite rare to hit your head, with serious injury being still rarer. In fact, you'd have been more likely to hit your head wearing a helmet, because the effective diameter of your head would have been about 10cm wider.

Peterx wrote: »

I've headbutted a tree in a MTB race.

Again, nothing to do with commuting.

So, leaving out the two examples that are irrelevant to commuting/Dublin Bike scheme, we are left with your incident, where you suffered no serious injury, and the Chinese student, who did suffer a head injury, which we have no way of knowing would have been mitigated by a helmet.

It doesn't really match the original impression you gave of walking around Dublin seeing head-injured cyclists on a frequent basis.

Capt'n Midnight

athtrasna wrote: »

I was a researcher on a news story about head injuries hence my concern.

On the basis that prevention is better than cure wearing a blonde wig would be more effective.

cba looking up the link but something like 1 in 17 motorist deaths could be prevented if they wore helmets, and yet it's not even discussed

also pedistrians would benefit from helmets so again why aren't we recomend them ??

helmets are only of use if you fall from the bike at resonable cycling speeds , they are only designed to take the impact that would reduce a hit at 30-40mph by 5% or so , again cba looking up link but we all know that motorists on the quays will travel over 30mph if the road ahead is clear.

Peterx

super. cool. and thanks.
As I think I said the first time each to his own.
happy cycling.

DirkVoodoo

Last week while playing football I was involved in a challenge whereby I managed to win a header against a 6'3" opponent (i'm 5'10" an not known for my heading ability) but he planted his forehead into my temple. It was sore, I'm pretty sure he meant it (thus me giving the height difference, there was no way I could have won it had he been going for the ball) but I'm still alive.

A helmet probably would have helped here. Maybe we should bring in helmets for football, I mean, they have them in hurling, american football, etc. Surely any contact sport should have mandatory helmet wearing.

And why stop there, why not wear full body armour like in mountain biking.

Actually, they only way to remove the risk entirely is not to play sport, don't shower standing up, never go near an electrical socket, don't leave the house, etc.

I found this little bit on the Velib scheme in Paris, where the peak usage in one day was 179,000 trips with the average being reported at 78,000 trips per day.

The increase in accidents lags
the increase in bicycle usage.
As the number of trips goes up,
so do incidents. There has been
a 37 percent increase in
accidents over the course of
2007. Most of the accidents
were minor injuries, and for the
most part a result of insufficient
preparation on the part of the
people using them for the
special conditions of
cycling in cities.
But the accident rate went down.
As cycling use increases and
traffic adjusts, there are less
accidents per capita. In Lyon,
incidents increased by 6 percent
– but bike usage had increased
by 80 percent.
A friend in Paris reported that
the only fatal accident so far was
caused by a turning truck. A
helmet wouldn’t have helped.

Surely, with no helmets the number of accidents should be skyrocketing with such a dangerous activity?

Peterx

Agghhhhhh!!!!

And I had decided to stop after tomasrojo had debated me into submission..

I don't get the over the top anti helmet bias on this thread.
Fair enough, you don't want to wear one and maybe the reason for the vehemence shown is the fear the nanny state will force one onto your head?

Yes a helmet would have helped you in the heading the tall man competition game and still staying unhurt - pointless game though.
Yes a helmet will help me if my head hits something at commuting speeds.
Yes my head is statistically unlikely to hit something (god bless shoulders)
Yes helmets are mandatory where bike crashes are likely (racing, MTB)
Yes hemlets are optional in commuting cases.
Everyone happy - NO

DirkVoodoo

I do wear a helmet*, I just don't go around telling everyone else to wear one.


*mountain biking and road biking, not commuting...no reason really.

delta720

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

A helmet probably would have helped here. Maybe we should bring in helmets for football, I mean, they have them in hurling, american football, etc. Surely any contact sport should have mandatory helmet wearing.

And why stop there, why not wear full body armour like in mountain biking.

Actually, they only way to remove the risk entirely is not to play sport, don't shower standing up, never go near an electrical socket, don't leave the house, etc.

I play ice hockey, the chances of getting hit in the balls with the puck are so small that you'll probably never even know someone who it happened to. However I NEVER go out on the ice without a cup.

Chances are (no stats) if you cycle every week your going to have a few big shunts in your life time. Everyone knows someone whos been tipped by a car, crashed into an opening door etc. The way i see it is theres no point protecting my balls if I'm not going to be around to use them.

DePurpereWolf

That must be one of the most convincing arguments I have heard to date.

Wear a helmet, because ice-hockey players wear a cup.

Do your fellow ice-hockeyrs look at you funny when you come on the pitch without a cup? Or would they say, "hey, it's your choice but don't come to me if you need a sperm donor for your wife".

Húrin

Peterx wrote: »

I don't get the over the top anti helmet bias on this thread.
Fair enough, you don't want to wear one and maybe the reason for the vehemence shown is the fear the nanny state will force one onto your head?

I don't mind if you wear a helmet thus I haven't made arguments against you. However I take umbrage when people, especially non-cyclists, tell me I should wear a helmet. It's the same as telling me that my chosen mode of transport is very dangerous. This is annoying and insulting not only because it is untrue but because it states that I am irresponsible.

DualFrontDiscs

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

"hey, it's your choice but don't come to me if you need a sperm donor for your wife".

I can't see ice hockey players putting it quite so politely

DFD (not an acronym, just a signature).

ED E

I'm in the middle, sort of. I wear a hat. Stopped me losing most of the skin on my forehead before, but wouldnt stop a tree as above.

TBH, padded gloves will do more good than a helmet in most crashes. Instinct dictates that they'll take the brunt of most falls. Ask my brothers wrists if you dont beleive me.

Edit: If you want danger, take Dublin Bus!

cosman9373

I can't believe the some of the comments on this thread about not wearing a helmet. there's a lot of talk about statistics but no actual statistics.

from my experience, i've crashed twice. both while wearing a helmet. once i didn't need it once I was very glad I had it. hit a pothole, went over the bars head first or should i say helmet first into the ground.

I wouldn't cycle anywhere without it. rather have it on and never need it than not. No one is saying anyone must wear them but obviously some do believe in it more than others.

rubadub

athtrasna wrote: »

Something that's occurred to me in the past three days since the Dublin bikes scheme came into operation - I've seen about 30 of the in use and not a single rider has been wearing a helmet!

Surely this is a recipe for disaster, cyclists who may be inexperienced around the city and lacking vital safety equipment?

Dublin bus is around donkeys years, and the luas is out a good while too. I have yet to see a person wear a helmet on their transport or the more "trendy" seatbelt.

mmclo wrote: »

In our litigous society somebody is going to sue and say the City Council or JC Decaux encouraged them to cycle?

I wonder if there will be a call for seatbelts on the buses & luas after the recent crash. Of course helmets would probably afford people more protection, -"but sure what nutcase would wear a helmet sitting on a bus"

Peterx wrote: »

why can't you be happy that I prefer to wear a helmet then risk unding up in Loughlinstown re-learning how to sip fluids?

I think most are fine about you preferring to wear helmet, it is the subtle (or blatant) inference that not to wear a helmet is idiotic or stupid that gets to many people in these threads. I don't think I have seen any "non-helmet" wearers branding or inferring wearers idiots or stupid.

Peterx wrote: »

I don't get the over the top anti helmet bias on this thread.
Fair enough, you don't want to wear one and maybe the reason for the vehemence shown is the fear the nanny state will force one onto your head?

It is a fear yes, that a misguided politician could force people to wear one, which many believe is more dangerous. The vast majority of people are ignorant about the subject, they cannot see any reason why they could make cycling more dangerous.

Now what if it was the other way around, and for some reason the layman's general consensus was that helmets were unsafe and should be banned. Then I expect the pro-helmet people might appear more OTT in their posts, trying to get the point across even more so that the "nanny state" did not ban the helmets which they believe afford them protection.

If I had posted "why can't you be happy that I prefer not to wear a helmet then risk unding up in Loughlinstown re-learning how to sip fluids?"
I expect you would have considered that OTT

blorg

Lethal_Bullet wrote: »

TBH, padded gloves will do more good than a helmet in most crashes. Instinct dictates that they'll take the brunt of most falls.

This is true and I always wear gloves racing or on the MTB but don't do otherwise- but there is more potential for serious injury related to the head.

ED E

blorg wrote: »

This is true and I always wear gloves racing or on the MTB but don't do otherwise- but there is more potential for serious injury related to the head.

Agreed, its all personal choice. I hate wearing a helmet, but gloves dont bother me:) Some people think its stupid not to use a helmet, but I a teenager, as they say "I know everything":p

delta720

DePurpereWolf wrote: »

That must be one of the most convincing arguments I have heard to date.

Wear a helmet, because ice-hockey players wear a cup.

Do your fellow ice-hockeyrs look at you funny when you come on the pitch without a cup? Or would they say, "hey, it's your choice but don't come to me if you need a sperm donor for your wife".

No if you say oh **** man i forgot my cup. They's say your insane dont go on the ice.

My point being that it's not worth the risk. A helmet might not prevent most bike injuries and a cup prevents equally few hockey injuries. But I wouln't want to be found wanting in either situation....understand?

Raam

Ice hockey is a contact sport, commuting to work is not.

delta720

Raam wrote: »

Ice hockey is a contact sport, commuting to work is not.

7 people haven't died playing ice hockey this year....

Chips Lovell

delta720 wrote: »

7 people haven't died playing ice hockey this year....

63 drivers, 21 passengers and 20 pedestrians died in the first half of this year. How many of them were wearing a helmet?

rubadub

delta720 wrote: »

No if you say oh **** man i forgot my cup. They's say your insane dont go on the ice.

My point being that it's not worth the risk. A helmet might not prevent most bike injuries and a cup prevents equally few hockey injuries. But I wouln't want to be found wanting in either situation....understand?

I understand, and do you understand the reasons/theories as to why cycling helmets could prove more dangerous when commuting?

To use your cup example, if I handed out cups to a bunch of young lads in a schoolyard I think there would be a bigger likelihood of one of them going home with a sore crotch than if they had never got the cups.

Raam

delta720 wrote: »

7 people haven't died playing ice hockey this year....

I couldn't help searching!
http://blogs.usatoday.com/gameon/2009/02/two-ice-hockey.html

irishpeloton

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Don't believe all the hype from the manufacturers who seize on every anecdote to push their products. Helmets play a very small insignificant role in cyclist safety.

I'd have to strongly disagree with this. I remember reading a very thorough article by Chris Boardman expressing the same in one of the cycling magazines a couple of years back. He conducted a study involving people who had been in a bicycle accident and whether they would have sustained less injury had they been wearing a helmet. The results were that wearing a helmet didn't seem all that important.

But in my opinion, the study that was conducted should have only included bicycle accidents where there was a resulting head injury, not just any injury. The bottom line is, you could go through your whole life having ridden a bicycle and never sustain a head injury, but if you ask the person that falls off and whacks their head whether they would have preferred to be wearing a helmet at the time? I think I know what I'd prefer.

rubadub

irishpeloton wrote: »

The bottom line is, you could go through your whole life having ridden a bicycle and never sustain a head injury, but if you ask the person that falls off and whacks their head whether they would have preferred to be wearing a helmet at the time? I think I know what I'd prefer.

And the other bottom line is many think wearing a helmet makes it more likely that they will fall off and whack their head in the first place.

That is what I was getting at with my comment on hockey cups.

If I was stuck in a burning house I would rather be with a fireman than a layman. But if I was following around with a fireman 24/7 I would probably be more likely to get burnt than if with a layman 24/7.

Cadex

OK my penny's worth on this - it comes up so often...

I do cycle - commuting, sportives, spins and the occasional race. Thankfully my crash to succesful trip ratio is fairly low (I've probably jinxed myself now!) but in the crashes that I've had, good mitts have probably helped most (no good for knees, hips, elbows though). However, in a couple of crashes including one which involved skidding along sideways (head, shoulder and hip) and several which involved the over the handle-bar type scenario (typically head and shoulder impact), I've been grateful for the helmet each time. I have a couple of broken ones if anybody wants to see and what would have happenned without them is anybody's guess. The incident in which I broke the last one had me concussed for a good bit and with headaches for a week. The last good demonstration was not myself but Empty who had a horrendous impact with a tree and wall following a skid (right in front of me) and he was well dazed, when he sat up,his helmet fell apart and a piece the size of an apple fell out altogeher.

I don't think there should be any compulsion (other than organised events which have various rules anyway), but I wouldn't let my kids out and never go out without one myself. They may not get as much use as seatbelts in saving lives/ avoiding injury but that debate went in favour of using them. I think it's up to the individual (at least for now) but can't see why one wouldn't wear one.