RTE News: Brain injury groups call for compulsory helmet use

flickerx

Surprised nobody has put this up yet. Its Friday, so I thought it would be appropriate.

javascript:showPlayer('/news/2009/1007/6news_av.html?2624499,null,230')

I dont know if that link will work directly, but the link is up on the front RTE page at the moment. Andrew Montague is in there.

I cant believe the woman from the brain injury group used the term "no-brainer" in relation to the safety implications from wearing a helmet.

tomasrojo

Saw that yesterday.

The irony was that the next news item under that on the website was about obesity and inactivity.

I asked this before, but have Acquired Brain Injury Ireland made any prominent public statement that isn't about cycling in the last few years? Don't they have professional boxing, excessive drinking or any larger source of brain injuries to think about?

Capt'n Midnight

As long as they also insist on helmets for the two other high risk groups that would benefit equally from them.

Pedestrians and Motorist deaths would also be reduced by wearing helmets and by a similar % as cyclists.



Really the money should go into prevention / separating cyclists from motorists on high speed roads and general traffic calming measures on slower roads.


Haven't they heard of risk equalisation ?

If you want road safety , insist on harpoons in the centre of steering wheels, and airbags / seatbelts only for passengers.

Doctor Bob

I've been gathering material on ABII for a while now as a result of their misinformed press releases on Bike Week, the Dublin Bikes and other cycling matters.

Might be time to get in touch.

Edit:

Re comments on other sports/pursuits, how about this gem-

The brain is a very delicate organ which must be protected when partaking in leisure activities such as cycling, contact sports (rugby, hurling, etc), motorcycling, quad biking and skiing.

http://www.abiireland.ie/docs/pressreleaseDarrenShanahanapril09.pdf

Time to get in at the ground floor on the rugby helmets. Who's with me?

tomasrojo

They even list cycling first there, before motorcycling and contact sports. I'm starting to get the impression that they are somewhat obsessive on this issue.

petethedrummer

They can go and sh!te.

ullu

I saw that, on Six One I think, and promptly forgot about it.

The no-brainer comment reminds me of the England football squad at the 1998 World Cup. They had a thing where they had to fit as many song titles as possible into their interviews so perhaps the brain injury spokeswoman was dared to do it by her colleagues.

The reporter was doing her bit to camera at the end when the camera panned to a man cycling the wrong way down Exchequer Street with his son sitting precariously on the top tube.

At least they were both wearing helmets.

niceonetom

I fear that they will eventually get their way. It just feels inevitable.

tomasrojo

The Dublin Bike scheme really seems to have provoked them anyway.

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

I fear that they will eventually get their way. It just feels inevitable.

Resistance is not futile.

tomasrojo

Anyone know whether Fine Gael has any interest in this topic? They'll be the ones to drive it through if anyone does. Fianna Fail isn' interested, judging by this sentence in the cycling framework document:

There must be a clear message that cycling is a readily accessible form of transport, not requiring unnecessary encumbrances such as
specialised cycling attire.

tomasrojo

Imagine the mish-mash of token crackdowns and lackadaisacal non-compliance if they passed a law anyway.

Do we really need the police getting involved in this?

tomasrojo

Also, do ABII get public funding to carry out the constant lobbying on this issue? It's a misuse of funds if so. There are much bigger problems in general, and even in the arena of brain injuries.

martyc5674

Still in all would it be such a bad thing?

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

Resistance is not futile.

No, but it is tiring, and I just think that the hysterics have more stamina. In a fist fight between right and crazy, crazy usually wins.

Their argument is also easier to understand (that does not equate to it being correct by the way) so, from the point of view of a public that doesn't really give a crap either way, it will someday just be easier to give them what they want so they move on to whatever's next on the ban-list. Ladders, or fruit with stones in, or whatever.

tomasrojo

martyc5674 wrote: »

Still in all would it be such a bad thing?

Yes. The Dublin Bike scheme would be effectively useless. Kids' parent would be brought to court for their kids cycling in the park without a helmet, just as the parents themselves used to do, with no harm to anyone. The percentage of cyclists getting head injuries wouldn't change, and the numbers of cyclists would drop by maybe 25% (look at what happened in Australia and New Zealand).

tomasrojo

niceonetom wrote: »

No, but it is tiring, and I just think that the hysterics have more stamina.

I don't think they have more stamina. The anti-compulsion side has to go to work. This IS work for the pro-compulsion bunch. They don't do this lobbying in their spare time, you know.

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

Their argument is also easier to understand

"Piss off and leave me alone, you interfering busybody" is not a complicated message.

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

"Piss off and leave me alone, you interfering busybody" is not a complicated message.

Simple, yes. Compelling? Not really.

And it didn't work for seat belts, and nannyism is much stronger now than it was 20 years ago.

tomasrojo

Nannyism is definitely stronger now. I wish I could have bought shares in it twenty years ago. I'd be a rich man now.

Shroud-waving also would have been a good investment.

tomasrojo

Seat belt laws never caused a massive drop in driving though. Not that ABII care whether cycling drops. I imagine, from their general tenor, they'd be quite pleased.

Captain Havoc

I think wearing of helmets should be made compulsory for the following reasons a) we wouldn't ever have to hear "should the wearing of helmets be made compulsory" again b) when I don't wear my helmet I would get that rush you get when breaking the law thus making my cycling more enjoyable c) you can carry on not wearing your helmet because in all fairness who is actually going to enforce it?

petethedrummer

tomasrojo wrote: »

Anyone know whether Fine Gael has any interest in this topic? They'll be the ones to drive it through if anyone does. Fianna Fail isn' interested, judging by this sentence in the cycling framework document:

Fine Gael are the only party that haven't publicly endorsed the document. They are planning writing one of their own (for some bizarre reason).

petethedrummer

jerseyeire wrote: »

c) you can carry on not wearing your helmet because in all fairness who is actually going to enforce it?

It will be enforced willy nilly by guards and judges who care and not by others. Leaving us all in a limbo as to what to do.


The only way they'll get me to wear a helmet is if they buy me a helmet cam.

Chips Lovell

For what it's worth, there's a mandatory use law in Spain that is honoured as much in its breach as anything.

tomasrojo

petethedrummer wrote: »

Fine Gael are the only party that haven't publicly endorsed the document. They are planning writing one of their own (for some bizarre reason).

That's what I thought. They are definitely the likeliest candidate to push a law through.

axer

martyc5674 wrote: »

Still in all would it be such a bad thing?

Yes, I have read into the studies that have been done regarding wearing helmets and cycling (I believe there is a law in california regarding this). Many of the findings have shown that the numbers cycling is reduced by such laws and there is no decrease in the percentage of brain injuries. Surely the brain injury group should have looked into the studies before making such a stupid argument.

Cycling has a much more positive effect on the health of Irish people than any brain injury protection has.

tomasrojo

el tonto wrote: »

For what it's worth, there's a mandatory use law in Spain that is honoured as much in its breach as anything.

There's a little discussion of that law here:

http://ww.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055597148

It only applies between cities anyway (though according to a document linked to in the thread, the cops have ticketed cyclists in Madrid erroneously).
http://www.ecf.com/files/2/12/16/071203_three_years_of_mandatory_cycle_helmet_use_in_spain-ECF.pdf

Chips Lovell

tomasrojo wrote: »

There's a little discussion of that law here:

http://ww.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055597148

It only applies between cities anyway (though according to a document linked to in the thread, the cops have ticketed cyclists in Madrid erroneously).
http://www.ecf.com/files/2/12/16/071203_three_years_of_mandatory_cycle_helmet_use_in_spain-ECF.pdf

That's correct yes. There are also exceptions for professional cyclists and amateur racing cyclists, whether racing or in training. So in theory, even if you only did one race a year, you could claim that exemption. You are also exempted "on prolonged ascents or for proven medical reasons or in conditions of extreme heat", the latter of which is hilarious given the country.

In short, it's practically unenforceable, but could have consequences perhaps in terms of accident liability, e.g. yes motorist may be at fault for running over cyclist but cyclist was neglient for not wearing a helmet.

Doctor Bob

tomasrojo wrote: »

Also, do ABII get public funding to carry out the constant lobbying on this issue? It's a misuse of funds if so. There are much bigger problems in general, and even in the arena of brain injuries.

This might shed some light. ABII attended the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children, on 20th May 2008:

Mr. Kieran Loughran: We need €132,000 to break even. That figure is based on audited and agreed staffing levels and scales. Even within that, we are dependent on fund raising and once-off grants. We pay paltry pensions. The HSE has undertaken a core deficit review and a review of adult day services. Last year, we had a deficit of €34,000 and the HSE now proposes a 1% cut across the board.

In political circles, much is made of the fragmentation of the voluntary disability sector. We work with our colleagues here and continually propose ways to do that. Much of this view is born of the history of how funding came about and organisations came into being. In 2007, the HSE acknowledged that services were inadequate and at the recent Private Members’ debate in the Dáil, the Minister of State, Deputy Devins, said the Government recognised the need for improved services for those with ABI. Recognising that funding is short, we are merely asking that our funding level stand still at present, with a plan for the future. In January 2007, we provided the HSE with a plan, which, I understand, is in the HSE think tank. That plan dealt with integrated services rather than Headway.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=HEJ20080520.xml&Page=1&Cp=32#N32

JMJR

@ mods
can we have a helmet sticky please as we seem to generate a 'new' thread at least once per week!

Marvinthefish

JMJR wrote: »

@ mods
can we have a helmet sticky please as we seem to generate a 'new' thread at least once per week!

Can we have a helmet forum?

Chips Lovell

Right, I was thinking of writing an article about this, so I rang Barbara O'Connell from ABII, who featured on that news item and asked her if the organisation also supported a law obliging motorists to wear helmets, since research shows that wearing one in a car can help reduce the severity of brain injuries in the event of an accident.

She said that the organisation wasn't singling out cyclists and that they had also been active in promoting helmet use in sports etc. The reason they made this call now was the cyclists were particularly vulernable, road surfaces were terrible and cycle lanes appalling, which in made the risk of accident higher, she said. So they wanted to start with cyclists "first".

I then read out some of the findings of an Australian study and asked her straight out if they supported a mandatory use law for car helmets. She responded by saying they "simply want to start the debate".

She also said that the organisation had received a number of abusive phone calls after the item appeared on the news, which is pretty disgusting.

Anyway, probably not enough for a story, but thought I'd post it here given the discussion.

Lumen

el tonto wrote: »

She also said that the organisation had received a number of abusive phone calls after the item appeared on the news, which is pretty disgusting.

Whilst I would never condone abusiveness, the problem with campaigning organisations started as a result of personal tragedy is that anyone who disagrees with their stance is at risk of appearing insensitive.

This smacks of human shielding to me.

tomasrojo

el tonto wrote: »

Right, I was thinking of writing an article about this, so I rang Barbara O'Connell from ABII, who featured on that news item and asked her if the organisation also supported a law obliging motorists to wear helmets, since research shows that wearing one in a car can help reduce the severity of brain injuries in the event of an accident.

She said that the organisation wasn't singling out cyclists and that they had also been active in promoting helmet use in sports etc. The reason they made this call now was the cyclists were particularly vulernable, road surfaces were terrible and cycle lanes appalling, which in made the risk of accident higher, she said. So they wanted to start with cyclists "first".

I then read out some of the findings of an Australian study and asked her straight out if they supported a mandatory use law for car helmets. She responded by saying they "simply want to start the debate".

She also said that the organisation had received a number of abusive phone calls after the item appeared on the news, which is pretty disgusting.

Anyway, probably not enough for a story, but thought I'd post it here given the discussion.

The abusive calls are just wrong.

However, she's being dishonest. They're not just calling for a debate. They are explicity calling for mandatory helmet laws. There's no ambiguity there.

opinion guy

I'm sorry I don't get why you all have a problem with helmets. Speaking as someone who fell off a bike and was unconscious for 20 mins with a few residual effects (weird stuff like the foods i liked changed etc) I would always wear a helmet. Having had that experience once I consider myself lucky to have not come off worse. I do not give a f**k what it looks like. Please tell me there is more than "helmets look dorky" behind your objections.

tomasrojo

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't get why you all have a problem with helmets. Speaking as someone who fell off a bike and was unconscious for 20 mins with a few residual effects (weird stuff like the foods i liked changed etc) I would always wear a helmet. Having had that experience once I consider myself lucky to have not come off worse. I do not give a f**k what it looks like. Please tell me there is more than "helmets look dorky" behind your objections.

I'm sorry you had a bad fall.

There are several posts here that explain why people object to mandatory helmet laws. None of them mention dorkiness.

Chips Lovell

tomasrojo wrote: »

However, she's being dishonest. They're not just calling for a debate. They are explicity calling for mandatory helmet laws. There's no ambiguity there.

They are calling for a mandatory cycling helmet law, she was clear about that. But my understanding of her "debate" comment was that they wanted to start a debate on preventing all brain injuries, i.e. that preventative measures in other areas were at least worthy of discussion.

tomasrojo

el tonto wrote: »

They are calling for a mandatory cycling helmet law, she was clear about that. But my understanding of her "debate" comment was that they wanted to start a debate on preventing all brain injuries, i.e. that preventative measures in other areas were at least worthy of discussion.

But they never call for helmets for anyone else. They ARE singling out cyclists. And they never address the Australian experience.

niceonetom

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't get why you all have a problem with helmets. Speaking as someone who fell off a bike and was unconscious for 20 mins with a few residual effects (weird stuff like the foods i liked changed etc) I would always wear a helmet. Having had that experience once and consider myself lucky to have not come off worse. I do not give a f**k what it looks like. Please tell me there is more than "helmets look dorky" behind your objections.

petethedrummer

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't get why you all have a problem with helmets.

Have a look at all these lovely ladies (you'll have to scroll down a bit), should they be forced to wear helmets?

Chips Lovell

tomasrojo wrote: »

But they never call for helmets for anyone else. They ARE singling out cyclists. And they never address the Australian experience.

In fairness to her, she said they have campaigned on other sports. Just looking at their website, they've items on quad biking and winter sports.

I did point out the Australian experience to her and said there was a lot of interesting researching stemming from it that she should consider looking at.

Chips Lovell

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't get why you all have a problem with helmets. Speaking as someone who fell off a bike and was unconscious for 20 mins with a few residual effects (weird stuff like the foods i liked changed etc) I would always wear a helmet. Having had that experience once I consider myself lucky to have not come off worse. I do not give a f**k what it looks like. Please tell me there is more than "helmets look dorky" behind your objections.

Read back over other threads because it's been discussed at length here before, but nobody has a problem with helmets. They have a problem with being obliged to wear one.

tomasrojo

Honestly though, I've never heard them make a public pronouncement on any other issue than this.

I did point out the Australian experience to her and said there was a lot of interesting researching stemming from it that she should consider looking at.

She probably should consider it BEFORE going public with a several-year-long campaign to repeat their mistakes.

(I'm not having a go at you, @el tonto, just to be clear; I just really don't see any logic or sense in their helmet campaign; and it's relentless.)

opinion guy

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm sorry you had a bad fall.

There are several posts here that explain why people object to mandatory helmet laws. None of them mention dorkiness.

Oh right sorry. I don't really use the cycling forum I just saw the link on the main page.

@niceonetom
really don't get what your photos are supposed to mean

Canis Lupus

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't get why you all have a problem with helmets. Speaking as someone who fell off a bike and was unconscious for 20 mins with a few residual effects (weird stuff like the foods i liked changed etc) I would always wear a helmet. Having had that experience once I consider myself lucky to have not come off worse. I do not give a f**k what it looks like. Please tell me there is more than "helmets look dorky" behind your objections.

You shouldn't have landed on your head.

Chips Lovell

tomasrojo wrote: »

Honestly though, I've never heard them make a public pronouncement on any other issue than this.

She probably should consider it BEFORE going public with a several-year-long campaign to repeat their mistakes.

(I'm not having a go at you, @el tonto, just to be clear; I just really don't see any logic or sense in their helmet campaign; and it's relentless.)

Ah no, I know you're not having a go at me. While I would disagree with their position, I don't want to misrepresent what she said to me.

As for public pronouncements, I should add the caveat that it depends on the media to pick on them. So while RTE etc might feel cycling helmets is a big enough story, they may not feel the same for quad biking or skiing.

tomasrojo

@niceonetom
really don't get what your photos are supposed to mean

Face plant.

Welcome to the Cycling forum, @opinion guy.

Canis Lupus

tomasrojo wrote: »

Face plant.

Welcome to the Cycling forum, @opinion guy.

See I thought you meant face palm which is slightly different.

tomasrojo

My mistake. Face palm it is.

petethedrummer

Canis Lupus wrote: »

See I thought you meant face palm which is slightly different.

it was Face Palm.