Helmets - the definitive thread.. ** Mod Note - Please read Opening Post **

buffalo

RayCun wrote: »

Able to stop? They don't ever have to start, do they?

Wat?

RayCun

When I have kids, the sooner they can stop wearing helmets, the better. If they're able to stop wearing them at 15 or 16, great. If it's 18, so be it.

You're looking forward to the time when your (hypothetical) kids can stop wearing helmets.
There is no law that says kids have to wear helmets.
They never have to start wearing helmets in the first place.

To return to the earlier analogy, it's like saying "the sooner my kids stop going to mass every Sunday, the better. If they can stop at 15 or 16, great"

buffalo

RayCun wrote: »

You're looking forward to the time when your (hypothetical) kids can stop wearing helmets.
There is no law that says kids have to wear helmets.
They never have to start wearing helmets in the first place.

To return to the earlier analogy, it's like saying "the sooner my kids stop going to mass every Sunday, the better. If they can stop at 15 or 16, great"

That's a ridiculous analogy in this context.

When someone gets to the point where they are physically and mentally able to sufficiently handle themselves on a bike without undue risk of falling over, that's the point at which daily helmet use becomes unnecessary. Like when you trust infants enough not to eat their Lego pieces to let them play unsupervised. Or a teenager has enough cop on that they can go into town with their friends.

When they're able to stop wearing helmets, they'll have achieved a great degree of road skills and awareness, and independence.

RayCun

So we're back to kids being more likely to fall off?
But everyone falls off sometimes and you don't know when you're going out for a cycle if that day will be your lucky day or not.

buffalo

RayCun wrote: »

So we're back to kids being more likely to fall off?
But everyone falls off sometimes and you don't know when you're going out for a cycle if that day will be your lucky day or not.

I don't know if I'm going to fall down the stairs today either, should I wear a helmet in case I crack my head off the bannister? Maybe today is the day that I get a bit too tipsy and trip on the way home and bust my head open. Maybe today I'll get attacked with a knife, so I should wear my stab-proof vest. Maybe today I'll get struck by lightning, so I should carry my portable conductor.

Maybe, maybe, maybe... some of these things are more likely than me falling off my bike, some are less likely. Wear your drinking helmet if you want to - I've already stated I'll take my chances, so I'm not sure what your point is.

RayCun

Your (future) kids could fall down the stairs, trip on the way home, get stabbed or hit by lightning... but you don't make them wear stair helmets, trip helmets, stab-proof vests or Faraday cages. You do make them wear cycle helmets.

fits

I haven't read this whole thread but it seems like an interesting debate.

I have ridden horses all my life. Helmets are not compulsory but I do not know anyone of my friends who would ride without one. I would say the adoption rate of wearing them in Ireland is probably 90%. I don't necessarily agree with making helmet wearing compulsory but education does seem to work. One of my major fears when riding is coming off on the road because the surface is so unforgiving. Anything can go wrong while cycling too and I do know someone who died of a head injury from a seemingly simple fall while cycling home after the pub.

I have just bought a nice bicycle and am looking for a nice comfortable helmet if anyone has some recommendations. Preferably not an awful looking one. I mostly cycle to do errands and to work etc (have no car). In Finland. Would probably need to be able to alter it to fit a hat under in winter.

buffalo

RayCun wrote: »

Your (future) kids could fall down the stairs, trip on the way home, get stabbed or hit by lightning... but you don't make them wear stair helmets, trip helmets, stab-proof vests or Faraday cages. You do make them wear cycle helmets.

There's no bannister to hold while cycling.

magicbastarder

maybe bannisters should be provided in all cycle lanes.

Iwannahurl

fits wrote: »

I have ridden horses all my life. Helmets are not compulsory but I do not know anyone of my friends who would ride without one. I would say the adoption rate of wearing them in Ireland is probably 90%. I don't necessarily agree with making helmet wearing compulsory but education does seem to work. One of my major fears when riding is coming off on the road because the surface is so unforgiving. Anything can go wrong while cycling too and I do know someone who died of a head injury from a seemingly simple fall while cycling home after the pub.

Alcohol is one of the major risk factors for acquired brain injury, and for a lot more societal harm besides. The risk threshold for drinking alcohol is rather low. Many people would take it as a given that the deceased person you refer to should wear a helmet while cycling, but would probably regard it as daft to suggest that the clients of pubs and off-licences should be required to wear helmets while engaging in a far riskier activity.

I don't know what the health effects of horse-riding are, but the population health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks. Any credible evaluation of helmet use, helmet law and risk-benefit trade-off must take that into account.

Iwannahurl

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe bannisters should be provided in all cycle lanes.

OT, but that reminds me of something they have in Copenhagen. It's a banister of sorts (actually an arm and foot rest), provided as a little luxury for the benefit of cyclists.

The slogan reads: "Hello cyclists, rest your foot here ... and thank you for cycling in the city."





Hej-Cyclist-1.jpg

Hej-Cyklist-2.jpg

CramCycle

Just watching Breaking bad (don't worry no spoilers).

One of the less savory characters talks about helmets:

"Nanny state, I see a kid with a bicycle helmet on, I wanna smack the sh1t out of him, you know, for his own good"

Iwannahurl

In which case, the helmet will save the child from the helmet-inspired beating.

Capt'n Midnight

fits wrote: »

I haven't read this whole thread but it seems like an interesting debate.

I have ridden horses all my life. Helmets are not compulsory but I do not know anyone of my friends who would ride without one. I would say the adoption rate of wearing them in Ireland is probably 90%.

Falling off a horse is a bigger drop than falling off a bike. And bikes don't have a mind of their own.

Haven't checked the specs between riding and cycling helmets, but I'd imagine riding helmets to be more effective simply because people wear them correctly. The number of people who wear cycling helmets loosely like hats is ridiculous.

I don't necessarily agree with making helmet wearing compulsory but education does seem to work.

Driver education works

Making helmets compulsory has overall negative health benefits because of the numbers of people it discourages from cycling.

Sidney has a scheme like Dublinbikes. Their most used day was less than our least used day which was during the snow that crippled public transport here.

buffalo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Sidney has a scheme like Dublinbikes. Their most used day was less than our least used day which was during the snow that crippled public transport here.

Was that not Melbourne?

Iwannahurl

Melbourne and Brisbane.

http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/fitness/blogs/on-your-bike/share-bike-schemes-need-to-lose-the-lids-20120920-267wg.html

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bike-share-scheme-disappointing-20110531-1fdto.html

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/bike-hire-schemes.html

There are a number of factors that make Melbourne's bike share scheme a failure, in my opinion.

Mandatory helmet law is one frequently cited reason. They tried $5 helmets for a while, and that didn't work, so in desperation they're now throwing free helmets at people.

However, in my experience Melbourne is not a very cycle-friendly city in general, with its 10,000 sq km sprawl and an 80% modal share for cars.

Somewhat bizarrely, the Melbourne bike share scheme is operated by the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, which in my view practically guarantees a conflict of interest.

The RACV is hugely influential, with a large membership and massive financial resources. Their operation of the shared bike scheme has been criticised as "window dressing", especially given their repeated opposition to major schemes intended to improve conditions for cycling.

Hot off the press:

RACV car-culture politics attacked

The RACV has become a giant in Victoria, rapidly expanding to one of Australia's biggest tourism operators, boasting more than 2 million service members and billions of dollars in assets.

Two out of every three households in Victoria have some form of RACV membership, and what started as a small motoring club in 1903 has boomed to have annual revenue of $430 million.

The organisation's Royal Auto magazine is distributed to 1.5 million properties, making it the highest-circulation magazine in Victoria.

One transport lobbyist noted: ''Politicians have told us they are **** scared of two things, [Neil] Mitchell and the RACV.''

(Neil Mitchell is like an Australian Joe Duffy, though probably a lot more influential.)

buffalo

buffalo wrote: »

Anyone else fancy starting a pool on when the first letter decrying the lack of a helmet on the father will be published? Tomorrow or Monday? Will Ultan Ó Broin be the author!?

Who said Monday? http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/cycling-to-school-1.1510958

Because we were wrong. Have to say I don't know that stretch of seafront at all - is it to be included in the S2S cycleway?

Here's the original piece with the picture again: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/move-from-current-religious-instruction-in-catholic-schools-may-begin-by-2014-1.1510094

check_six

buffalo wrote: »

Who said Monday? http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/cycling-to-school-1.1510958

Because we were wrong. Have to say I don't know that stretch of seafront at all - is it to be included in the S2S cycleway?

Here's the original piece with the picture again: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/move-from-current-religious-instruction-in-catholic-schools-may-begin-by-2014-1.1510094[/QUOTE]

It's Sandymount Strand. They don't cycle on that path to go to school. They are only on that bit of path purely to get the photo. They cycle on the road normally. The path along the beachfront runs out before it even gets to the end of the beach. The road gets narrow further on towards the Merrion Gates where there is nowhere to put a track.

fits

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Falling off a horse is a bigger drop than falling off a bike. And bikes don't have a mind of their own.

True. but most falls from horses are also onto softer surfaces and at a lower speed. But there is no doubt that horseriding is more dangerous than leisure biking.

Haven't checked the specs between riding and cycling helmets, but I'd imagine riding helmets to be more effective simply because people wear them correctly. The number of people who wear cycling helmets loosely like hats is ridiculous.

. Same with many riders. Ideally one should change helmet every two years also. The helmets can be very high spec. I wear a gatehouse hs1 which is the highest spec there is

Driver education works

. I agree (big problem for horse riders too)

Making helmets compulsory has overall negative health benefits because of the numbers of people it discourages from cycling.

Sidney has a scheme like Dublinbikes. Their most used day was less than our least used day which was during the snow that crippled public transport here.

i don't think they should be made compulsory either but would still like to see more wearing them.

du Maurier

rollingscone wrote: »

It's a matter of choice. I choose to wear one.

The idea that it encourages bloatorists to be more careless around you is nonsensical though.

They're just as careless when I'm without a helmet.


Compulsory helmet wearing would be a huge mistake imho. On the basis of discouraging cycling in general.

Just on the last point there, I'd be inclined to think the opposite, and in particular about discouraging cycling.

Too often have I seen the kind of cyclist, albeit casual, that will never wear a helmet (as it's uncool, unnecessary etc) disregarding every rule on the road - cycling for them is a convenient a to b (as it can/should be) but I feel they lack any foresight or respect to other cyclist, motorists and pedestrians.

If it was made compulsory a lot of the cyclists that fall into this category would probably cease from being on the road. Which is a good thing in my opinion.

AstraMonti

^^ These assumptions are that make my blood boil. Wearing a helmet does not automatically make you a good cyclist. The kind of cyclist that does all the above will remain ignorant whether the helmet is there or not. I never wear a helmet when I am commuting and I always follow all the rules of the road and I 've actually seen more idiots with helmets (which btw they wore completely wrong) not stopping to a light.

Grudaire

That's the equivalent of saying :

A lot of bmw drivers are gobsh*tes who regularly break the rules of the road... therefore any measure to reduce the number of motorists is a good thing.

du Maurier

AstraMonti wrote: »

^^ These assumptions are that make my blood boil. Wearing a helmet does not automatically make you a good cyclist. The kind of cyclist that does all the above will remain ignorant whether the helmet is there or not. I never wear a helmet when I am commuting and I always follow all the rules of the road and I 've actually seen more idiots with helmets (which btw they wore completely wrong) not stopping to a light.

My point wasn't to proffer whether one is a more skilled cyclist to the next, helmet or no helmet. The general jist was that those nuisance cyclists without helmets would more than likely call it a day on their cycling careers which I think is a high percentage. Obviously those nuisances with helmets is something to think about for another day. Either way I don't see it as a negative move.

du Maurier

Cliste wrote: »

That's the equivalent of saying :

A lot of bmw drivers are gobsh*tes who regularly break the rules of the road... therefore any measure to reduce the number of motorists is a good thing.

I don't think it is.

Chips Lovell

Some nuisance cyclists wear shorts.
Some nuisance cyclists wear jeans.

If we oblige people to wear shorts when cycling a bike, it may deter most of those jeans wearing nuisance cyclists from cycling.

Obviously those nuisances with shorts are something to think about for another day. Either way I don't see it as a negative move.

du Maurier

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Some nuisance cyclists wear shorts.
Some nuisance cyclists wear jeans.

If we oblige people to wear shorts when cycling a bike, it may deter most of those jeans wearing nuisance cyclists from cycling.

Obviously those nuisances with shorts are something to think about for another day. Either way I don't see it as a negative move.

This kind of response was exactly the sort of obtuse, dismissive one I was looking for. It's the little victories I suppose.

People on here know exactly the sort of cyclists I'm referring to and I'm sure would be pleased if such numbers dwindled on the road. But it seems you're more interested in that exalted pedestal of yours, and snidely remarking on my post.

Chips Lovell

Actually I was more interested in pointing out the logical inconsistency of your position. But if you want to take it personally, go ahead...

du Maurier

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Actually I was more interested in pointing out the logical inconsistency of your position. But if you want to take it personally, go ahead...

Some things aren't so black and white. I felt your process of conclusion is one seen far too often on Boards and felt it somewhat condescending. I really didn't think my point would have rankled so much with the 'blood boiled' poster above.

AstraMonti

Help me understand your thinking. You're putting everyone that doesn't wear a helmet in the same basket as an ignorant prick that needs to be removed from the road and when your logic is challenged you say not everything is black and white

enas

du Maurier wrote: »

If it was made compulsory a lot of the cyclists that fall into this category would probably cease from being on the road. Which is a good thing in my opinion.

And exactly how can that be a good thing, assuming your logic holds its ground?

And just to make it clear. I'm not interested at all in removing those cyclists from the road. It's exactly the opposite, I want to see more and more cyclists, in particular those that you call casual cyclists, those that don't call themselves cyclists but might be interested in using a bicycle if it's a convenient way to perform a particular journey. In other words, making cycling mainstream, as opposed to a niche activity that appeal to a tiny part of the population (2-3% of the population nationally -- just to put that into perspective, that's the same amount of people considered as native Irish speakers).

In order to achieve that, I'm far more interested in making the conditions such that those cyclists can cycle without being a nuisance to other cyclists, pedestrians, or indeed motorists, and vice versa, than in spending any amount of time discussing about helmets, which some people might find useful or reassuring, but have no use at a policy level. Just to make it clear, those kind of changes consist in adopting the measures and approaches that the Netherlands have used in the last few decades for road design and urban planning. But that's for another thread.