Proposals for parents to be fined if children cycle with no helmet

hardCopy

I know it's not Friday, but apparently the RSA are planning to introduce mandatory helmets for Under 13's.

This was discussed briefly on Newstalk and in today's Irish Independent

Indo wrote:

And cycle safety training for all seven- and eight-year-olds is also to be rolled out in all schools nationwide as part of the school curriculum.

The Road Safety Authority (RSA) is looking at making helmets compulsory for children up to 13 years as part of its next road safety strategy.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/parents-to-be-fined-if-children-cycle-with-no-helmet-3154824.html

I agree with the cycle training but I'm against the helmet law.

I wear my own helmet most of the time but not if I'm popping into town for dinner or something.

I cycled to school every day for 6 years when I was a kid, I wouldn't have bothered if helmets were mandatory at that time. IMO, this will only discourage cycling.

kenmc

Yeah heard it on newstalk, they read out a text along the lines of "mandatory helmets will reduce the numbers of kids cycling, and statistics on their effectiveness are sketchy at best" - the lads in the studio were incredulous - couldn't get their heads around this txt!

I grew up in an era where there was no such thing as helmets, except for the lads on the telly during the easter holidays doing bmx competitions - can't remember the name, great craic though. I learnt to BMX in my back garden building ramps out of old bits of plywood and bricks. I got more cuts and grazes and stitches than I can remember. You very quickly learn what hurts, and what doesn't. You tend to try and avoid the stuff that hurts.

Stupid stupid nanny state.
All that said, I wear a helmet. By choice. Not by law.

Beasty

I've changed the thread title from simply "Helmets"

This is clearly an important issue, and it's quite a long time since we had a "healthy" debate about helmets. I see this as perhaps an opportunity to get some of the issues in a single thread (with a particular emphasis, at least initially, on the possible mandatory helmet use for children)

Thanks

Lumen

It's hardly surprising that someone who spends their days treating children with brain injuries would be in favour of helmets.

I wonder whether the doctors who spend their days treating adults with diabetes and heart disease would agree.

Or those radiographers who have to choose between lubing up the fatties before wedging them into the CT scanner or calling up the local vets.

Like OMG, I just linked to the Daily Fail.

seamus

It would be irresponsible of the RSA to recommend any such law without clear evidence that helmets demonstrably reduce deaths and serious head injuries for cyclists under 13.

Of course, no such evidence exists. Helmets demonstrably reduce impact forces in the small number of scenarios in which helmet actually apply, but we have no evidence if they lower or raise the overall death/injury rate.

Since the vast majority of cyclist deaths in Ireland are not due to head injuries, my suspicion is that helmets have no effect on fatality rates, at best.

dave_o_brien

It's difficult to think of a parallel in another sport or activity where one piece of safety equipment has been as misunderstood by people outside of the sport. Scrum-caps made mandatory for all goalkeepers, Petr Cech style?!

Despite being a helmet wearer most of the time, I'm against mandatory use. I might have one spill every 50,000km, of which 1/100 may involve my head, out of which 1/100 may be aided by a helmet, so the odds are vanishing.

Chips Lovell

I'm continually disappointed in the RSA. Rather than spending time on addressing the most common causes of accidents, it opts to further penalise cyclists.

This is the thin end of the wedge. Mandatory helmets for all will be the next step.

buffalo

*sigh*

hardCopy wrote: »

I agree with the cycle training but I'm against the helmet law.

I agree with that. Why can't we have a law for minimum safe distance when passing? Or just enforcement of existing laws?

kenmc wrote: »

Yeah heard it on newstalk, they read out a text along the lines of "mandatory helmets will reduce the numbers of kids cycling, and statistics on their effectiveness are sketchy at best" - the lads in the studio were incredulous - couldn't get their heads around this txt!

Science! It works, bitches. But I guess irrational fear beats research.

edit: PS anyone got a link to official statement by RSA?

Cookie_Monster

More BS nannyism from the RSA

apart from any of the rest of it why 13, what magically makes you safer/better at cycling from then? If it's for kids then why not 18 like other laws...
:rolleyes:

Sure I suppose it means they're not banging on about how speed kills everyone constantly.

CptMackey

This is just more nanny state stuff. I always wear a helmet when out for a spin but I don't think that it should be mandatory.

Adults should be able toile their own call. Similarly they should be responsible for the own kids without making up more laws.

It seems that you can make up any law you like once u mention safety

kenmc

If this comes to pass, I, for one, will be getting my kids fake ID when I get them a bike. The fact that they can also buy alcohol with this will be an added bonus, save me having to go to the offie myself, can just send them down to get a 6 pack of dutchy on their stabilizers.

-K2-

Lots of disconnected statements in the Independent article:

Other countries that made it compulsory for under-15s to wear helmets include Sweden, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Malta and Iceland.

More than half -- a total of 69 deaths -- could be prevented if Ireland emulated the Netherlands, one of the safest

Questions:

1. The Netherlands doesn't appear in the list of countries with compulsory helmet use. So what do the Dutch do what everyone else doesn't? (Yes, most people on this forum know the answers, the Independent readers most likely don't).
2. What is the comparable reduction in death/injuries in the compulsory helmet use countries?

-PornStar-

Putting aside the debate about whether helmets make a difference or not, for a moment. Is this really a problem that needs to be addressed? Are there a significant amount of under 13's falling off bikes, and causing themselves head injuries? More so than say, falling down stair/off steps, or off furniture? Just seems to me like they are making an issue out of basically nothing. But I cant substantiate that as I don't have the figures.

buffalo

-K2- wrote: »

Lots of disconnected statements in the Independent article

Just about to point out the same. Also, does anyone know the source of this statistic:

The introduction of a bicycle helmet law in the state of Victoria in Australia in 1990 increased the number of cyclists wearing helmets by almost 50pc

b318isp

seamus wrote: »

It would be irresponsible of the RSA to recommend any such law without clear evidence that helmets demonstrably reduce deaths and serious head injuries for cyclists under 13.

Of course, no such evidence exists. Helmets demonstrably reduce impact forces in the small number of scenarios in which helmet actually apply, but we have no evidence if they lower or raise the overall death/injury rate.

Since the vast majority of cyclist deaths in Ireland are not due to head injuries, my suspicion is that helmets have no effect on fatality rates, at best.

I have a few thoughts:

- Regarding children, is it right to await for such evidance?
- Head injuries can be very dangerous in other ways other than fatalities
- What is the negative consequence of the increased wearing of helmets?

I 'm not arguing for or against the proposed changes, but trying to expand the understanding of risk/benefit.

Bunnyhopper

SerialComplaint posted a thread a couple of days ago linking to the RSA's consultation questionnaire on their future road safety strategy. The deadline is 27 July.

If you think this helmet rule is a stupid idea then be sure to tell the RSA.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/About-Us/Our-strategy/Road-Safety-Strategy-2013-2020/Road-Safety-Strategy-Questionnaire/

Cookie_Monster

buffalo wrote: »

Just about to point out the same. Also, does anyone know the source of this statistic:

not a great increase really, means at lest 66% of people must already have been wearing helmets to ensure full compliance. Also no mention of the big decrease in cycling because of it either...

b318isp wrote: »

I have a few thoughts:

- Regarding children, is it right to await for such evidence?

no, lets just wrap them up in cotton wool and ban them from doing anything now, for their own good. If it's wrong we can check it later sure.

What is the negative consequence of the increased wearing of helmets?

read this: http://www.bhsi.org/negativs.htm

smacl

seamus wrote: »

It would be irresponsible of the RSA to recommend any such law without clear evidence that helmets demonstrably reduce deaths and serious head injuries for cyclists under 13.

Hmmm, we just need to round up about 20 obnoxious brats, give 10 helmets, 10 without, send 'em down slieve mann, and have a volunteer tractor driver coming up the other direction. I can think of a few I'd like to volunteer, and for some mad reason I'd like them in the helmet free group.

Of course, no such evidence exists. Helmets demonstrably reduce impact forces in the small number of scenarios in which helmet actually apply, but we have no evidence if they lower or raise the overall death/injury rate.

You just can't find enough charitable types to donate their sprogs to a good cause.

Since the vast majority of cyclist deaths in Ireland are not due to head injuries, my suspicion is that helmets have no effect on fatality rates, at best.

Ah, suspicion on one side versus lack of evidence on the other. I suspect other people suspect differently, hence mandatory helmets on most club spins, sportifs etc... Anecdotal evidence suggests helmets do occasionally provide dramatic benefits, but anecdotal is all it is.

As for kids wanting to use bikes more, if their parents stopped driving them everywhere and the bicycle became the source of their independence, I think they'd put up with helmets. Not saying the need the helmets or anything, just that I have my suspicions. Or maybe if they brought out a bike that would let you cycle and text at the same time.

buffalo

b318isp wrote: »

- What is the negative consequence of the increased wearing of helmets?

Mandatory helmet laws lead to a decrease in number of cyclists overall (due to an increase in perceived levels of fear, and 'dorkiness' of wearing a helmet).
This leads to:
- other road users being less aware of cyclists, causing a greater number of accidents proportionally to the number of cyclists
- the general health of the population decreasing as less people get exercise by cycling
- increasing environmental damage as more people use cars, decreased productivity as traffic congestion increases

This post touches on a lot of the helmet issues: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/09/fear-of-cycling-03-helmet-promotion.html

doozerie

Ah, the RSA. *spit* They've conveyed the image for a long time that none of their decision makers cycle, if they did you'd expect they couldn't possibly make up the sh1te that they peddle. Now they're starting to convey the image that none of their decision makers have small kids either. I have a small kid - well, small in stature being only 3, but large in opinions and determination being only 3. She has a bike helmet, but only because she wanted one on the basis that both of her parents wear them (as per other posters, my wife and I are opposed to making them mandatory). She sometimes even wears it. When she wants to wear it, she wears it and nothing will dissuade her, when she doesn't want to wear it she is equally definitive. I invite the RSA round to my house to try to impress upon my daughter that she wear her helmet when she doesn't want to - they'll need body armour and ear protection but, ironically, much like helmets all that protective gear will likely be of no use whatsoever when the opposing force (an indignant toddler in this case) gets up to speed.

b318isp

buffalo wrote: »

Mandatory helmet laws lead to a decrease in number of cyclists overall (due to an increase in perceived levels of fear, and 'dorkiness' of wearing a helmet).
This leads to:
- other road users being less aware of cyclists, causing a greater number of accidents proportionally to the number of cyclists
- the general health of the population decreasing as less people get exercise by cycling
- increasing environmental damage as more people use cars, decreased productivity as traffic congestion increases

This post touches on a lot of the helmet issues: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/09/fear-of-cycling-03-helmet-promotion.html

My recent experience is the opposite. There has been a surge in BMXing in my area due to a club being set up, despite the rule on mandatory helmets.

kenmc

b318isp wrote: »

My recent experience is the opposite. There has been a surge in BMXing in my area due to a club being set up, despite the rule on mandatory helmets.

BMXing is probably a bit different though - if you don't fall, you're not trying hard enough. You're *supposed* to fall when learning new moves.
Road biking though, you're not. Cycling to the shops, again not. Mountain biking - well you're not *supposed* to, but you tend to a fair bit.

buffalo

b318isp wrote: »

My recent experience is the opposite. There has been a surge in BMXing in my area due to a club being set up, despite the rule on mandatory helmets.

That's a sport, not a mode of transport.

hardCopy

I posted a link to that Copenhagenize article on the RSA facebook page, will be interesting to see what they come back with.

Beasty

b318isp wrote: »

My recent experience is the opposite. There has been a surge in BMXing in my area due to a club being set up, despite the rule on mandatory helmets.

That's a very different situation though (and no different from any cycling club really) - cyclists are required to wear the helmet to allow them to take advantage of the facilities provided by the club (be it racing or training)

Qualitymark

The Dutch mostly don't wear helmets - but they have a very different cycling culture.

For a start, there's a network of universal, excellent cycling lanes largely separated from the roads. Cyclists, small motors for the disabled and mopeds can use these.

Secondly, cyclists have priority - over cars, pedestrians and everything else on the road, though trams can't stop fast enough to respect this, so some cyclists get mashed by them.

In Ireland, cyclists spend their time weaving between cars whose drivers are largely unaware that they're sharing the road with cyclists. You have a much greater chance of being doored and plunging onto your head.

I'm remembering when motorcycle helmets were brought in: there was the same (but greater) fury. But within weeks, every motorcyclist wore a helmet, and the numbers of people killed or turned into drooling paraplegics by head injuries had dropped.

I seldom wear a helmet; basically too stupid and lazy. But if they were compulsory I would.

Oddly, I've noticed that drivers tend to be more careful around helmeted cyclists - perhaps they regard them as people who take their cycling and safety seriously and so are more likely to sue, or something.

AstraMonti

This is not a friday thread, this is very serious but it makes sense, for them. We (we as the human race, not we as individuals) are currently living and promoting an unhealthy way of living, a "culture of fear". A society that has stop relying on common sense and knowledge and is supporting all these stupid rules so someone would fail to make a lawsuit out of it.

Quoting (from here) because this says it much better than I can describe it:

So the impact of fear is determined by the situation people find themselves in, but it is also, to some extent, the product of social construction (20). Fear is determined by the self, and the interaction of the self with others; it is also shaped by a cultural script that instructs people on how to respond to threats to their security. So getting to grips with fear in contemporary society will require an assessment of the influence of culture. Instead of treating fear as a self-evident emotion, a taken-for-granted concept, we should explore the meaning attached to fear and the rules and customs that govern the way in which fear is experienced and expressed.

Parents are being hammered around with hiviz and helmets helmets helmets. RSA does what the majority of the media and the people want. Unfortunately, it's not just only sad, but it recirculates this culture of fear that has no valid substance to exist.

seamus

b318isp wrote: »

- Regarding children, is it right to await for such evidance?

Of course it is.

Mandatory helmet laws may actually increase the risk of death for each child.

The simple fact is we don't know. Some smaller surveys suggest that helmets (and knee and elbow pads) cause children to engage in riskier behaviour because they feel protected.

I'm reminded of the scene from Friends when Joey celebrates the renewal of his health insurance by having his friends beat him over his (helmeted) head with a bat.

It's hard to point to any other example of safety equipment in other activities because it's not really the same as any other type of activity. It's not a "suck it and see" thing because the helmet only provides a limited amount of protection for a very specific type of incident. Body armour is probably a better investment than a helmet because it provides better and more general protection.

More children's lives would be saved if it was compulsory for them to wear helmets while running in the street and riding in the car. Yes, I'm serious.

The main issue as most people have pointed out is that helmet-wearing is not normalised in the same way that it is with motorcyclists. Make it mandatory and less people will cycle. This makes the roads more dangerous for everyone. We have a burgeoning cycle culture in this country, and this is exactly the kind of proposal that will kill it stone dead.

If helmet wearing was normalised, it would be less of an issue.

As other quite rightly point out, helmet wearing is not normalised in the likes of the Netherlands, yet they enjoy exceptionally safe roads for cyclists. That fact alone should tell us that helmets are a red herring in the safety debate.

buffalo

Qualitymark wrote: »

Oddly, I've noticed that drivers tend to be more careful around helmeted cyclists - perhaps they regard them as people who take their cycling and safety seriously and so are more likely to sue, or something.

This study says the opposite: http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf

And personally (subject to confirmation bias), I find this to be the case. When I am helmeted and moving at a fair clip, I think drivers see me as a 'capable' cyclist, and therefore 'able' to cope with being overtaken more closely. Whereas when I'm tootling along carefree with the occasional wobble, I mostly get a wide berth.

b318isp

Beasty wrote: »

That's a very different situation though (and no different from any cycling club really) - cyclists are required to wear the helmet to allow them to take advantage of the facilities provided by the club (be it racing or training)

True, but the point I'm making is that the requirement for wearing a helmet is not a barrier. The kids are happy to wear them, and this has carried over onto the street.

smacl

kenmc wrote: »

BMXing is probably a bit different though - if you don't fall, you're not trying hard enough. You're *supposed* to fall when learning new moves.
Road biking though, you're not. Cycling to the shops, again not. Mountain biking - well you're not *supposed* to, but you tend to a fair bit.

Driving cars on the road, you're not supposed to crash. So why the mandatory use of seat belts? People crash bikes on the road pretty regularly. The question should really be whether helmets are significantly beneficial in this scenario, and whether the benefits outweigh the negatives in terms take up in cycling, cost, etc... I don't know the answer, but I seem to see many more bikes on the road these days than ten years ago.

b318isp

seamus wrote: »

The simple fact is we don't know. Some smaller surveys suggest that helmets (and knee and elbow pads) cause children to engage in riskier behaviour because they feel protected.

I've heard similar stories regarding ABS and safety equipment in cars. There is an arguement that people become less risk sensitive when there are automatic protection in place, and their behaviour alters in a way that works to neutralise the protection.

Hungrycol

My 3 y.o. hits his head more off tables and the floor more than he does flying around on his balance bike. My 4 y.o. hits his head more in his sleep than he does on his bike. They wear helmets on their bike because I wear a helmet on mine and they want to be like daddy. I wear a helmet cos it's better to have it and not need it when commuting through town than not have it at all but more importantly I also have to wear it for racing so I may as well get comfortable with it. In fact my kids hit their head so much around the house I'm wondering if it's more beneficial for them to wear the helmets indoors! Wife wanted to buy the elbow and knee pads for them but I didn't want them to think that cycling was something to be afraid of and required padding the body up!

I think parents should be responsible for their own children not the RSA. RSA should concentrate on drive awareness more. Would hate to see Daddy getting told off/fined by Garda Doogoody in front of their children because their kids weren't wearing helmets in the park!

b318isp

seamus wrote: »

It's hard to point to any other example of safety equipment in other activities because it's not really the same as any other type of activity. It's not a "suck it and see" thing because the helmet only provides a limited amount of protection for a very specific type of incident.

That can apply to any form of protective clothing, e.g. welding goggles, heat resitant gloves, a hard hat.

Chips Lovell

There is one key point that seems to be forgotten by many people when it comes to helmet debates. And that is that safety equipment will, in general, make pretty much any activity safer. Too often, that simple fact will lead to calls for compulsory use of that equipment, which is somewhat nonsensical and will lead us to having people wearing helmets in cars and buses. What needs to be established is how big an impact in terms of safety the equipment will have and whether this justifies making it mandatory.

Cycling is an easy target for such failures in logic. There is a widespread public perception, even among some cyclists that it is a dangerous activity and should therefore be heavily regulated in terms of safety equipment.

jimmycrackcorm

I'm unsure why the objections to this. After all it does no harm to a kid to have a helmet on.

Indeed when I was younger I do remember instances of personal injury and with friends which would have been lessened had helmets been the norm.

As a parent, I insist on my youngling wearing one for my peace of mind.

seamus

b318isp wrote: »

That can apply to any form of protective clothing, e.g. welding goggles, heat resitant gloves, a hard hat.

Well not really, because these aren't safety equipment for leisure activities.
Helmets aren't marketed as "head impact protection", they're marketed as "cycling safety equipment".

Welding goggles and heat resistant gloves have very specific uses and those who wear them, know this. Hard hats are to protect people from incidents outside of their control (i.e. things being dropped on a building site). Plus they are specifically to be used in high-risk cases. If you don't wear your goggles or gloves, you run a high risk of serious injury. There is also a high risk of hard items being dropped from a height on a building site. Hence why you wear a hard hat.

A bike helmet is designed to protect the rider's head in a fall from the bike against the ground at a speed of less than 20km/h. This is a very specific type of incident which has a relatively low risk of occuring.
It provides no protection in any other type of incident, and some quarters will claim that it exacerbates injuries in other cases when the head strikes the ground in a way that the helmet has not been designed to protect.

Remember airbags. Great invention, genius, and very effective for what they do. But when they were first introduced in the US, a number of deaths resulted directly from airbag ignition because many people didn't know what they were or how they worked. Airbags were touted as a great new safety feature, instead of what they actually are: A Supplemental Restraint System (SRS), which only works in conjunction with a seat belt. But they forgot to tell anyone this and many people bought cars and drove without a seatbelt under the impression that the airbag would save them.

Just one example of how a piece of "safety" equipment, incorrectly implemented, caused more deaths and injuries when it was introduced.

dub_skav

Qualitymark wrote: »

The Dutch mostly don't wear helmets - but they have a very different cycling culture.

For a start, there's a network of universal, excellent cycling lanes largely separated from the roads. Cyclists, small motors for the disabled and mopeds can use these.

Secondly, cyclists have priority - over cars, pedestrians and everything else on the road, though trams can't stop fast enough to respect this, so some cyclists get mashed by them.

In Ireland, cyclists spend their time weaving between cars whose drivers are largely unaware that they're sharing the road with cyclists. You have a much greater chance of being doored and plunging onto your head.

I'm remembering when motorcycle helmets were brought in: there was the same (but greater) fury. But within weeks, every motorcyclist wore a helmet, and the numbers of people killed or turned into drooling paraplegics by head injuries had dropped.
I seldom wear a helmet; basically too stupid and lazy. But if they were compulsory I would.

Oddly, I've noticed that drivers tend to be more careful around helmeted cyclists - perhaps they regard them as people who take their cycling and safety seriously and so are more likely to sue, or something.

So the helmets were brought in to reduce the instance of these serious consequences, of which there were large numbers, is that correct? Honest question, I don't know when or why motorcycle helmets became mandatory.

But, to my knowledge we do not have large numbers of "people killed or turned into drooling paraplegics by head injuries" on bicycles, so there is no need for mandatory helmets to fix a non-existant issue.

hardCopy

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I'm unsure why the objections to this. After all it does no harm to a kid to have a helmet on.

Indeed when I was younger I do remember instances of personal injury and with friends which would have been lessened had helmets been the norm.

As a parent, I insist on my youngling wearing one for my peace of mind.

Kid wants to grab their bike and go, kid can't find their helmet, kid doesn't cycle.

That's the harm. Getting kids to cycle is THE priority, anything that discourages or prevents this is bad IMO.

buffalo

-K2- wrote: »

Lots of disconnected statements in the Independent article:

More than half -- a total of 69 deaths -- could be prevented if Ireland emulated the Netherlands, one of the safest

I just realised - maybe the Indo is advocating a duty of care law? Or legalising cannabis? Or speaking Dutch!?

galwaycyclist

Will only be able to check thread intermittantly today.

For an overview of the "academic" debate check out

www.cyclehelmets.org

It is not to everyones taste since it is written by scientists and doctors reviewing other scientists and doctors publications. However, it is good place to find out what you are not being told about helmet legislation.

smacl

hardCopy wrote: »

That's the harm. Getting kids to cycle is THE priority, anything that discourages or prevents this is bad IMO.

Don't let them use the internet or mobile phones so, don't drive them to school, don't for Gods sake drive them to their friends houses. Kids are social, and in a generation, they've acquired loads of technology and tricks to be social without getting off their lazy asses. There are two reasons why kids will cycle more; 1) For the pleasure of cycling, and 2) To get somewhere they want to go, i.e. in most cases a mates house. I think the latter is more important, and helmets play little part in this. Just an opinion, no facts to back it up.

Captain Havoc

Lumen wrote: »

It's hardly surprising that someone who spends their days treating children with brain injuries would be in favour of helmets.

I wonder whether the doctors who spend their days treating adults with diabetes and heart disease would agree.

Or those radiographers who have to choose between lubing up the fatties before wedging them into the CT scanner or calling up the local vets.

Like OMG, I just linked to the Daily Fail.

b318isp

seamus wrote: »

Well not really, because these aren't safety equipment for leisure activities.
Helmets aren't marketed as "head impact protection", they're marketed as "cycling safety equipment".

Not necessarily. Equipment is only there to protect people from something hazardous, whether its leisure or industrial makes no difference.

seamus wrote: »

Welding goggles and heat resistant gloves have very specific uses and those who wear them, know this. Hard hats are to protect people from incidents outside of their control (i.e. things being dropped on a building site). Plus they are specifically to be used in high-risk cases. If you don't wear your goggles or gloves, you run a high risk of serious injury. There is also a high risk of hard items being dropped from a height on a building site. Hence why you wear a hard hat.

That is a case to wear bike helmets then - you know of a danger that may be potentially serious, and it may be outside your control.

Qualitymark

Cycle accidents:

http://www.traceysolicitors.ie/blog/cyclists-in-dublin-facts-figures-on-accidents/

(shows urgent need for proper cycle lanes; by the way, these started in Netherlands because so many children were being killed, and they were rebuilding extensively bombed roads after WWII)

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/

(RSA statistics on crashes in Ireland)

http://www.tipperarynorth.ie/roads/roads_safe_cyc.html


(see quote from Crumlin Hospital doc Sean Walsh)

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx

(says three-quarters of cyclists killed in accidents have head injuries)

By the way, the point about kids not being able to find their helmets - apart from ADHD households, the solution is usually pretty simple: put some cycle-helmet hooks inside the door used to come in after cycling, and make it the norm that helmets are hung there immediately on coming in.

buffalo

Qualitymark wrote: »

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx

(says three-quarters of cyclists killed in accidents have head injuries)

A couple of good links, but this fails to say how many of these were wearing helmets, and if not, would wearing a helmet have made a difference.

Most cycling accidents happen in urban areas where most cycling takes place. Almost two thirds of cyclists killed or seriously injured were involved in collisions at, or near, a road junction, with T junctions being the most commonly involved. Roundabouts are particularly dangerous junctions for cyclists. Not surprisingly, the severity of injuries suffered by cyclists increases with the speed limit, meaning that riders are more likely to suffer serious or fatal injuries on higher speed roads. Almost half of cyclist deaths occur on rural roads.

This to me says that helmets are not the solution, driver and cyclist education is. "Failed to look properly" is the most common cause of collisions. Mandatory glasses for all?

hardCopy

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Will only be able to check thread intermittantly today.

For an overview of the "academic" debate check out

www.cyclehelmets.org

It is not to everyones taste since it is written by scientists and doctors reviewing other scientists and doctors publications. However, it is good place to find out what you are not being told about helmet legislation.

Thanks,

I think this article makes it particularly obvious how bad the law would be as it captures the effect the law would have on casual spontaneous trips. This is what I see as the real drawbacks to helmet compulsion.

I cycle all the time and I mostly wear a helmet because I cycle fast down big hills but we shouldn't be adding barriers to entry for cycling. If parents want their kids to wear a helmet then make them wear one, we don't need a law for this.

doozerie

Qualitymark wrote:

http://www.tipperarynorth.ie/roads/roads_safe_cyc.html

(see quote from Crumlin Hospital doc Sean Walsh)

Here is the bit you are referring to, I presume:

Dr. Sean Walsh, Consultant in the Accident and Emergency Department of Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin said at the launch "As a health professional working in the A & E department of one of the largest children's hospitals nationally, I would come across up to 70 admissions per year for cycle related injuries. At Crumlin Hospital, we would welcome any new initiatives that could help to minimise injuries and fatalities to children and I am sure my colleagues would also support these safety initiatives." The NSC's new bicycle safety booklet 'Cycle Safely' covers the key safety issues when riding a bicycle, with particular emphasis on younger cyclists. The booklet provides advice on how to choose a bicycle that suits, how to keep it in good working order and how to share the road safely with other road users.

That's a very rational quote, he is asking for initiatives that minimise injuries and fatalities and I imagine everyone would support that goal. He makes no mention of helmets though, so I don't see that his quote has any relevance to a discussion of helmets as it neither supports nor counters the claims that helmets will save lives.

Qualitymark wrote:

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advi...s-figures.aspx

(says three-quarters of cyclists killed in accidents have head injuries)

But it says nothing about how many of those that suffered head injuries were wearing a helmet at the time of the injuriy being incurred. Without further data nothing can be inferred from that figure other than that head injuries can be serious, so again the presented data neither supports nor counters the claims that helmets are essential.

seamus

b318isp wrote: »

Not necessarily. Equipment is only there to protect people from something hazardous, whether its leisure or industrial makes no difference.

Industrial safety equipment is there to protect against high-risk incidents. We could probably save a few lives a year by making office workers wear helmets in case they trip and hit their head against a desk.

But that's a low-risk activity. Just like cycling. Welding and working with industrial furnaces are not low-risk. Building sites are not low-risk.

That is a case to wear bike helmets then - you know of a danger that may be potentially serious, and it may be outside your control.

Yep, it's a case alright. But there's also a case for making everyone wear a stab vest while out walking in case one is accosted in the street.

It's a balance thing:

1. Do helmets provide a measurable improvement in overall safety when on a bike? After all, it's no use reducing head injuries if you cause an increase in internal injuries or maimings.

2. Is the occurrence of these injuries frequent enough to warrant legal compulsion to wear helmets? There are tonnes of things we could make mandatory in order to save one or two lives per year. We don't, because of the inconvenience this may cause to the rest of the population.

Qualitymark

I completely agree that we need

a) proper cycle lanes

b) proper driver education

c) drivers who are intelligent and sober

d) proper cyclist education

e) proper cyclist lookit-me wear, for both rider and bike

g) proper mirrors on cars, vans and trucks (and drivers who use them, and who use indicators)

but if I were in the trenches of the Great War and either Our Gallant Allies in Europe or Our Gallant Allies in Britain were fecking explosives at me, I'd reach for a helmet, and it's also sensible to wear one when Our Gallant Allies in Cars are likely to turn right, then left, while opening the passenger door in my face. Not that I do wear one. I really should.

seamus

Qualitymark wrote: »

but if I were in the trenches of the Great War and either Our Gallant Allies in Europe or Our Gallant Allies in Britain were fecking explosives at me, I'd reach for a helmet, and it's also sensible to wear one when Our Gallant Allies in Cars are likely to turn right, then left, while opening the passenger door in my face. Not that I do wear one. I really should.

But that's not a good enough reason for everyone to be required wear one.