Dublin Bike death: "Helmet plea after man died falling from bike "

monument

Cyclist who died after fall was not wearing helmet, court told
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0809/1224321806074.html

Helmet plea after man died falling from bike
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/helmet-plea-after-man-died-falling-from-bike-3195044.html

I'm gussing the Coroner has made this polictical and it's only a matter of time before a councilor, or TD jumps on this...

Would Westmoreland Street not be better of with some space given over to cyclists, so they don't weave between cars or stay in between lanes as many cyclists do?

funkyjebus

A plea for DB users to not cycle and drink might be a better start.

buffalo

Nothing in the headlines about the fact that he'd been drinking? Poor bloke though.

smacl

RIP, and very sad news. I thought the Times article was pretty balanced, though as expected the helmet (or lack thereof) makes the headlines, rather than the alcohol. I wonder what people would consider safe amount of booze to have on board to still be able cycle safely? I've often cycled home from suburban and rural pups with a couple of pints taken, but I know its not the cleverest.

Lumen

buffalo wrote: »

Nothing in the headlines about the fact that he'd been drinking? Poor bloke though.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/helmet-plea-after-man-died-falling-from-bike-3195044.html

"A BRAZILIAN medical student died when he fell off his bike and hit the rear bumper of a taxi while cycling home after a night out...Friend Pedro Germeno described Mr da Silva as being "not drunk but not sober" when they left the bar after 11pm on June 21."

Which of course doesn't say much about the precise circumstances of the accident.

Jawgap

Poor lad, and for it to happen to him so far away from home and family.

I know it's a complicated issue with a range of factors contributing to the fatal outcome, but surely the alcohol taken was hugely significant - I may be wrong but doesn't alcohol promote bleeding / bruising?

ednwireland

smacl wrote: »

I wonder what people would consider safe amount of booze to have on board to still be able cycle safely? .

none imo, just like driving

ThisRegard

Edit my post after reading the more balanced report in the Times, the Indo is just tabloid crap these days.

Doctor Bob

Dr Mike McKillen of the Dublin Cycling Campaign said after the hearing that what happened to Mr da Silva was “one of the few cases” where a helmet would have saved a cyclist’s life.

Unless Mike McKillen witnessed the incident, he should keep such groundless opinions to himself.

ford2600

Awful sad, young man in foreign country out having a few drinks. Who with a hearbeat doesn't take a risk or two at 21, most of us were lucky and don't die so tragically.

His mother giving permission to turn off machine over phone is tough reading.

I know lads have strong opinions on helmets issue, but chances are he made a few friends who might be on this site so best to keep that in mind

BostonB

The indo usually rewords things to suit what ever agenda they are pushing. Its a real rag these days.

Poor guy, unlucky.

buffalo

Lumen wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/helmet-plea-after-man-died-falling-from-bike-3195044.html

"A BRAZILIAN medical student died when he fell off his bike and hit the rear bumper of a taxi while cycling home after a night out...Friend Pedro Germeno described Mr da Silva as being "not drunk but not sober" when they left the bar after 11pm on June 21."

Which of course doesn't say much about the precise circumstances of the accident.

That's still not the headline.

monument

BTW this was posted on the Cyclist.ie Facebook page this morning:

I attended the coroner's inquest yesterday into the circumstances and cause of death of the young Brazilian medical student (age 21) who had a fall off a rented Dublin Bike on 21 June last year and who subsequently died from head injuries.

Sad to relate that he died from traumatic brain injuries occasioned when his head hit both the rear bumper of a stationary taxi and then the ground. No vehicle collided with him. It is assumed that he skidded and fell off the bike.

The accident raises the questions of cycling while under the influence of alcohol and with no helmet.

You can read an account in today's Irish Times. I am quoted in the report.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0809/1224321806074.html

The enquiry lasted for 3.5 hours.

BostonB wrote: »

The indo usually rewords things to suit what ever agenda they are pushing. Its a real rag these days.

Poor guy, unlucky.

Are you talking about their headline? While I disagree with the pushing helmets, with all the information we have I can't see where the Indo went wrong in their reporting of what was said at the Coroner’s Court. There was a call by the Coroner for helmets. And in The Irish Times article there's a call by another person for helmets too.

galwaycyclist

Alcohol a confounder in helmet research?

http://cyclehelmets.org/1262.html

Frank, Frankel, Mullins and Taylor, 1995, a study in Portland, Oregon, found that alcohol-intoxicated riders are considerably more likely than sober cyclists to be severely injured or killed. While only 15% of killed and hospitalized adult cyclists had elevated blood alcohol levels, half of the adult cyclists whose injuries were fatal had been intoxicated.

More specifically, Olkkonen and Honkanen, 1990 and Andersson and Bunketorp, 2002 found that intoxicated cyclists have a greater risk of head injury. According to Kraus, Fife and Conroy, 1987, over half the brain-injured bicyclists aged 15 and older who were blood alcohol tested were legally intoxicated.

To ask the obvious qustion is this a call for cycling helmets or drinking helmets?

ugsparky

I have to be honest and say I am surprised at some of the comments posted here.

"Dr Mike McKillen of the Dublin Cycling Campaign said after the hearing that what happened to Mr da Silva was “one of the few cases” where a helmet would have saved a cyclist’s life.

Most cyclists die from injuries to their lower bodies after being “crushed under a bus or truck”, he said. A helmet rental scheme was “not feasible and practical” with public bicycles, he added, citing hygiene problems.

Helmets send the wrong signals to drivers because the more cyclists are dressed in protective armour the closer motorists will drive to them, he said".

So first of all the man commenting is a Doctor and presumeably knows what he is talking about when speaking of head trauma/injuries.

I don't get the logic in not making helmets compulsary for cyclists. Firstly, on any an post/club event it's always stated "no helmet no ride - it's compulsary. Secondly, I've read a lot of posts stating/citing cyclists are governed as other vehicle users by the rules of the road. Motorcyclists must wear helmet protection - so why are cyclists different. Thirdly, as road users surely the laws governing alcohol also apply to cyclists - what if someone has a few pints and ploughs into an old lady crossing the road, killing her ?

I don't know if Dr. McKillen is correct or can know the mindset of drivers who see cyclists in protective armour. Most of them who are texting or using the mobile phone wouldn't be paying particular attention to cyclists wearing protective armour anyway.

It's sad to see a young man losing his life (RIP) and so sad for his family back home.

Chips Lovell

Do you think motorists should wear helmets?

PersonalJesus

After going over the handlebars last week (on a cycle path/pedestrianised area) after having to emergency stop to avoid a collision, i can say im pretty glad i was wearing my helmet given the bruising on other areas.

In my mind, the wearing of helmets as a means of protecting against/reducing the severity of head injuries, and the potential crushing risk of HGV's etc, are two separate safety issues. Whilst there should be proper action taken to address the the (more serious) possibility of crushing injuries, should the cyclist not also take action to minimise risk of injury in other accidents, ie being nudged off, falling to prevent collision etc? I know ill continue to wear a helmet due to my own experience.

monument

As far as I'm aware he is not a medical doctor. Even many medical doctors would not be in a position of authority to speak on head injuries and road traffic collisions. And even medical doctors in a position to speak on both of those things are not all in agreement.

It's hard to establish if a helmet would have or would not have saved somebody from brain injury. Even if a helmet protects somebody's skull, the brain can be damaged from the force of the fall and impact.

ugsparky wrote: »

I don't get the logic in not making helmets compulsary for cyclists. Firstly, on any an post/club event it's always stated "no helmet no ride - it's compulsary.

Firstly, somebody else recently posted the stats to show that compulsory helmets in sport cycling has not improved things.

Secondly, but maybe more importantly: Commuting is not a sport and speeds on average are much lower. Comparing both types of cycling on a population level is like comparing motor sports to driving to work.

ugsparky wrote: »

Secondly, I've read a lot of posts stating/citing cyclists are governed as other vehicle users by the rules of the road. Motorcyclists must wear helmet protection - so why are cyclists different.

Motorcyclists wear crash helmets which offer far more protection -- the type which cyclists can't wear.

Motorcyclists are also a more vulnerably road user and travel at far higher speeds.

ugsparky wrote: »

Thirdly, as road users surely the laws governing alcohol also apply to cyclists - what if someone has a few pints and ploughs into an old lady crossing the road, killing her ?

What do you expect? They likely get arrested and go to court.

ugsparky wrote: »

I don't know if Dr. McKillen is correct or can know the mindset of drivers who see cyclists in protective armour. Most of them who are texting or using the mobile phone wouldn't be paying particular attention to cyclists wearing protective armour anyway.

Studies have shown that motorists drive closer to cyclists with protective gear on them.

PersonalJesus wrote: »

After going over the handlebars last week (on a cycle path/pedestrianised area) after having to emergency stop to avoid a collision, i can say im pretty glad i was wearing my helmet given the bruising on other areas.

In my mind, the wearing of helmets as a means of protecting against/reducing the severity of head injuries, and the potential crushing risk of HGV's etc, are two separate safety issues. Whilst there should be proper action taken to address the the (more serious) possibility of crushing injuries, should the cyclist not also take action to minimise risk of injury in other accidents, ie being nudged off, falling to prevent collision etc? I know ill continue to wear a helmet due to my own experience.

Slowing down while on shared paths, or not using such, seems like a far more appropriate response.

Diarmuid

PersonalJesus wrote: »

I know ill continue to wear a helmet due to my own experience.

That's great and all, but it has nothing to do with making helmet wearing compulsory.

Stripey Cat

The Times article states that so far this year seven cyclists have been killed on the roads. How many of them would have been saved by helmets?

PersonalJesus

Diarmuid wrote: »

That's great and all, but it has nothing to do with making helmet wearing compulsory.

Of course not. Im making a choice on my own personal safety, one that I think is fairly rational based on experience. You're free to do the same.

My point is though, that taking a personal interest in your own safety should override whether something is compulsory. Using good road sense etc is another one of those choices we make to ensure our safety.

Caroline_ie

Stripey Cat wrote: »

The Times article states that so far this year seven cyclists have been killed on the roads. How many of them would have been saved by helmets?

And how many were already wearing helmets?

Doctor Bob

ugsparky wrote: »

So first of all the man commenting is a Doctor and presumeably knows what he is talking about when speaking of head trauma/injuries.

Mike McKillen has a PhD in Biochemistry. His doctoral credentials are as relevant to this case as a PhD in English Literature would be to a discussion of isonitriles as ligands for haemoproteins.

ThisRegard

PersonalJesus wrote: »

After going over the handlebars last week (on a cycle path/pedestrianised area) after having to emergency stop to avoid a collision, i can say im pretty glad i was wearing my helmet given the bruising on other areas.

Would you also conclude that bike craft should be compulsory after you going over your handle bars ?

DirkVoodoo

People need to separate their own anecdotal evidence from the wider issue. Compulsory helmet wearing would be a disaster for cycling in Ireland, please just look at Australia and their safety record with cycling.

More cyclists on the roads = safer for everyone.

Compulsory helmets = fewer cyclists.

Unfortunately, there will always be traffic accidents, that's unavoidable.

frankled

Helmets send the wrong signals to drivers because the more cyclists are dressed in protective armour the closer motorists will drive to them, he said.

Is he for real?

PersonalJesus

ThisRegard wrote: »

Would you also conclude that bike craft should be compulsory after you going over your handle bars ?

The reasons for me going over my handlebars in that case, were pretty much unavoidable. A second or two for me to react to another cyclist who had cut across me at a right angle (from a blind corner). In all honesty, I was going a bit too fast, and its definitely something that im addressing in regards my attitude to cycling around a city. Its been my first "serious" incident in 6 years commuting by bike through city centres, and many more years before than as a leisure cyclist.

I went through cycling proficiency as a young teen, and I do think that was of value. I'd say that taught bike handling etc is something that is definitely worthwhile. Again whether it should be compulsory or not is another matter.

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.

seamus

frankled wrote: »

Is he for real?

Yes. Studies suggest that motorists are less cautious around cyclists who appear to be less vulnerable, and more cautious around cyclists who appear vulnerable.

It's actually fairly logical. Imagine you're driving through a street that has hundreds of pedestrians going through it (think of a road after a football match). Think about how slow you'd drive. Now imagine that all of the pedestrians are five-year-old children. Do you think you'd drive even more slowly? Personally I'd probably stop the car and wait for all of the children to disperse rather than risk one of them walking out in front of me.

DirkVoodoo

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

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.

Come to think of it, standing on the bus sounds a bit mental. "Here, grab this dangling plastic hook, it will keep you safe in case we collide with another bus".

Undercover Elephant

Caroline_ie wrote: »

And how many were already wearing helmets?

And how many people prematurely died of heart attacks, strokes or lung problems as a result of not getting enough exercise?

smacl

Doctor Bob wrote: »

Mike McKillen has a PhD in Biochemistry. His doctoral credentials are as relevant to this case as a PhD in English Literature would be to a discussion of isonitriles as ligands for haemoproteins.

My guess is he took the reasonable implication from the statement below that suggests that the coroner believed a helmet would have been of benefit in this case. Now whether or not you agree with coroner's verdict and subsequent action is a different matter.

The jury returned a verdict of accidental death in which alcohol and road conditions may have played a role. Coroner Dr Brian Farrell will write to Dublin City Council recommending they examine the possibility of making helmets available for hire with the Dublin Bikes Scheme.

ford2600

Speaking generally in relation to safety and Personal Protective Equipment, it is generally the last line of defence when assessing any situation where workers are at risk.
Education, training, safe equipment, road/bike lane design etc would all be priorities in reducing bike accidents and their severity.

Making helmets compulsory ignores issues of higher importance in relation to overall safety of cyclists.

For the most part I wear a helmet, but I know my bike skills, awareness of other road users, the danger area to watch for etc play a much higher role in keeping me safe.

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

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.

AstraMonti

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Come to think of it, standing on the bus sounds a bit mental. "Here, grab this dangling plastic hook, it will keep you safe in case we collide with another bus".

You reminded me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAnGYfnFz9I

galwaycyclist

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

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.

In my view the key point to be taken out of this case is as follows: This may be the only death so far involving a Dublin bike after however many accumulated trips - and did not involve a moving motor vehicle - making it a comparatively rare event among what are already rare events for cyclists as a whole.

Stripey Cat

The Dublin bike scheme is an exact replica of the Paris Velib scheme.

Are helmets required in Paris?

frankled

seamus wrote: »

Yes. Studies suggest that motorists are less cautious around cyclists who appear to be less vulnerable, and more cautious around cyclists who appear vulnerable.

It's actually fairly logical. Imagine you're driving through a street that has hundreds of pedestrians going through it (think of a road after a football match). Think about how slow you'd drive. Now imagine that all of the pedestrians are five-year-old children. Do you think you'd drive even more slowly? Personally I'd probably stop the car and wait for all of the children to disperse rather than risk one of them walking out in front of me.

Hardly the same argument though. If studies suggest it fair enough, but to be honest I'm a driver and I would never distinguish between a cyclist with a helmet and one without. I think that's mad to do so. I give cyclists a million miles room (as should they keep to the kerb), helmet or not. Looking to get a bike too, I'd hope drivers wouldn't be less cautious passing me because I'd be wearing a helmet.

cormac_byrne

frankled wrote: »

Is he for real?

Yes motorists pass closer to cyclists with helmets on.

A blond wig is more effective at making motorists give you more room

here's the proof

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

There's a good deal of evidence on cycle helmets at http://cyclehelmets.org

Anyone who reads all of that and still concludes cycle helmets are a good idea is an idiot, not only that, they are a dangerous idiot. (of course that's just my opinion)

smacl

cormac_byrne wrote: »

A blond wig is more effective at making motorists give you more room

Compulsory blond wigs for all!

cormac_byrne

smacl wrote: »

Compulsory blond wigs for all!

Oops I made a mistake, I should have just said long haired wig (maybe I read blond elsewhere) ... anyhow good news for redheads and brunettes too.

Jawgap

The recent study from TCD sums it up nicely (my emphasis added)......

"There also exists much debate in relation to the use of safety accessories (Cameron et al., 1994; Depreitere et al., 2004; Ekman et al., 1997; McIntosh et al., 1998; Povey et al., 1999; Robinson, 2001; Scuffham et al., 2000; Scuffham and Langley, 1997; Welander et al., 1999). Recommending or making their use mandatory has been shown to be unsuccessful in encouraging their use among all cyclists (Ferguson and Blampied, 1991; Hagel et al., 2007; Osberg et al., 1998) and although their use decreases the risk of head injuries, enforcing mandatory use has had a detrimental effect on mode share which does not outweigh the health benefits of cycling. "


Lawson, A.R., et al., Perception of safety of cyclists in Dublin City. Accid. Anal. Prev. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.05.029

Jawgap

cormac_byrne wrote: »

Yes motorists pass closer to cyclists with helmets on.

A blond wig is more effective at making motorists give you more room

here's the proof

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

There's a good deal of evidence on cycle helmets at http://cyclehelmets.org

Anyone who reads all of that and still concludes cycle helmets are a good idea is an idiot, not only that, they are a dangerous idiot. (of course that's just my opinion)

Helmets are a good idea - compulsion is not.

Making people wear them takes it to a whole new level because it suggests there is a level of danger there that the evidence doesn't support.

frankled

Regardless, when I cycle, I know I'll be wearing a helmet.

cormac_byrne

Jawgap wrote: »

The recent study from TCD sums it up nicely (my emphasis added)......

"There also exists much debate in relation to the use of safety accessories (Cameron et al., 1994; Depreitere et al., 2004; Ekman et al., 1997; McIntosh et al., 1998; Povey et al., 1999; Robinson, 2001; Scuffham et al., 2000; Scuffham and Langley, 1997; Welander et al., 1999). Recommending or making their use mandatory has been shown to be unsuccessful in encouraging their use among all cyclists (Ferguson and Blampied, 1991; Hagel et al., 2007; Osberg et al., 1998) and although their use decreases the risk of head injuries, enforcing mandatory use has had a detrimental effect on mode share which does not outweigh the health benefits of cycling. "


Lawson, A.R., et al., Perception of safety of cyclists in Dublin City. Accid. Anal. Prev. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.05.029

"and although their use decreases the risk of head injuries,"

It would be interesting to see how they came to such a conclusion, I would argue the exact opposite. Helmeted cyclists are more likely to suffer head injuries and worse injuries at that, particularly in relation to rotational injuries.

http://cyclehelmets.org/1261.html
http://cyclehelmets.org/1039.html

rp

frankled wrote: »

Regardless, when I cycle, I know I'll be wearing a helmet.

Fine, it's your choice, but on the same basis, I hope you wear one as a car occupant and pedestrian. As quoted in another thread, 48% of hospital head injuries are from car drivers/passengers and 1% from cyclists.

deandean

The poor guy.

From the report, he hit his head twice: once when he went over the handlebars and again when his head whacked off the ground after he collapsed when after trying to stand up.

The latter sounds very much like the many deaths caused when someone is KO'd with a punch, falls back and his head hits the deck.

When I am cycling I see 7 or 8 out of 10 cyclists wearing a helmet anyways; I see no need to make helmets compulsory.

cormac_byrne

Jawgap wrote: »

Helmets are a good idea - compulsion is not.

Making people wear them takes it to a whole new level because it suggests there is a level of danger there that the evidence doesn't support.

Yes helmets are agood idea. (in theory)

Unfortunately currently available helmets are simply not fit for purpose, they create a dangerous illusion of safety, that they simply can't deliver on.

They cause more problems than they fix.

Tonyandthewhale

frankled wrote: »

Hardly the same argument though. If studies suggest it fair enough, but to be honest I'm a driver and I would never distinguish between a cyclist with a helmet and one without. I think that's mad to do so. I give cyclists a million miles room (as should they keep to the kerb), helmet or not. Looking to get a bike too, I'd hope drivers wouldn't be less cautious passing me because I'd be wearing a helmet.

Yes, but that leads us to two possible conclusions.

A) You're a slightly better or more considerate driver than most.

You have a human brain and you don't notice the subtle ways your behaviour changes when confronted with different situations (such as dealing with a helmeted versus non-helmeted cyclist) because it's not based on a fully conscious and logical thought process. The human brain, as I'm sure you're aware, couldn't function if it had to consider everything in detail and weigh up all the consequences logically. That's why you have the occasional over-sight such as misjudgement of risk in over-taking helmeted cyclists and that's why psychology's such a fascinating science.

Anywho, I wouldn't worry too much about stuff like that when it comes to riding your bike. Generally speaking helmets have not been shown to make cycling more dangerous on an individual basis (apart from the risk of strangulation in children, the aforementioned changes in driver perception and behaviour and some evidence pointing to an increased risk of rotational brain injuries).

The real issue, the issue which gets the posters on this forum so hot and bothered is the set of risks posed by mandatory helmet legislation. These are a separate set of issues and should not be confused.

Mycroft H

rp wrote: »

frankled wrote: »

Regardless, when I cycle, I know I'll be wearing a helmet.

Fine, it's your choice, but on the same basis, I hope you wear one as a car occupant and pedestrian. As quoted in another thread, 48% of hospital head injuries are from car drivers/passengers and 1% from cyclists.

Again people are warping statistics.

48%? Does that take into account that there are far more drivers then cyclists?

Jawgap

cormac_byrne wrote: »

"and although their use decreases the risk of head injuries,"

It would be interesting to see how they came to such a conclusion, I would argue the exact opposite. Helmeted cyclists are more likely to suffer head injuries and worse injuries at that, particularly in relation to rotational injuries.

http://cyclehelmets.org/1261.html
http://cyclehelmets.org/1039.html

It's impossible to conclude that "helmeted cyclists are more likely to suffer head injuries and worse injuries at that, particularly in relation to rotational injuries" because it's impossible to know how many injuries were prevented.

If I fall (either with or without my helmet) and smack my head and I end up in hospital - that's recorded.

If I fall, smack my head or don't smack my head and don't end up in hospital it's never known about.

Maybe 98% of everyone who comes off a bike and smacks their head ends up needing some form of hospital treatment - maybe it's only .0000098% (truth is, it's probably somewhere in between).

I wear a helmet because intuitively it seems like a good idea - I'd encourage other people to wear helmets, but I wouldn't agree that cycling is so dangerous that you must have one on before going on a bike!

Cases like this one are very bad examples - they're news not evidence - you'll never see the Irish Times run a story that says "10,000 cyclists travelled into Dublin today. Of the 40% not wearing helmets none of them ended up in hospital":)

check_six

Is it even legal to wear a helmet while driving a car?
I seem to remember something about it being illegal unless you were taking part in organised motorsports.

Perhaps someone can set me straight. I wouldn't like to launch a mandatory car helmet campaign and get my laws mixed up!