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

eeeee

pelevin wrote: »

But Gadetra, you are saying that horse-riding is far, far more dangerous than cycling, regardless of the correctness of protection used - accepting for the sake of argument about the worth of helmets. But yet you aren't advising people stop the far more dangerous activity of horse-riding regardless of the significant danger attached. So if horse-riders are allowed accept the danger element involved in the activity, I don't see it shouldn't be a matter for the volition of the cyclist whether he/she chooses to cycle without a helmet, or the statistically marginal or debatably slightly less dangerous act of cycling with the helmet. I don't see it as comparative at all to say that like motorcycling, rather than an act of freewill, this should be imposed on people. I don't know if that is your position but considering you accepted putting yourself into the path of far more danger over the years with horses, I wouldn't see much consistency then in denying other people the right to make a far less dangerous lifestyle choice of cycling without a helmet.

I never, at any point in my discussion, suggested everyone wear helmets. If you look over my posts you will see the words 'people should be free to make their own decisions'. I did say that I personally chose to wear one, I don't think everyone else should, it is their choice. I also said that in my experience hitting your head hurts less when there's a helmet between you and the solid object it connects with.

monument wrote: »

Hopefully nobody is going around thinking they are invincible, but it's maybe just as bad thinking that sooner or later (a) it's inevitable that you will get hit / have a bad fall and (b) that it's inevitable in such a case your head will get hit.

I suppose it's best that people get practice at it when they are a child. It seems some cyclists these days have lost the ability or required reflexes to put their hands and arms out in front of then. (Not talking about you directly)

In your last post you seem to say that you did learn, but never properly: ie "I never mastered curling my neck in." Maybe I'm wrong but it sounds like a key part of the practiced fall.

The tuck and roll is how you fall off a horse. I never broke an arm or leg in years of riding horses, if I didn't know how to fall I'd have way more broken bones to show for myself! The neck out is true, but I never broke my neck or got whiplash (that I remember :pac:!!) so whilst I wasn't great at tucking my neck in I wasn't the worst either. The worst equine injury happened my on Stephen's Day last Christmas, and I was leading not riding!

I actually think the tuck and roll is the best way to come off a bike. Putting your hands and arms out to break your fall at 40+kmph is possibly the worst plan I can think of for falling off a bike! If you tuck and roll, you protect your arms, wrists, etc. and by rolling you dissipate the shock. If you look at parcours/free running, rolling is how they can jump from really really big heights, it dissipates the shock. Putting your arms out in front of you falling off a bike = broken/sprained/hurt arms, hands and wrists. Like boxing or punching something with your thumb out/fingers loose = broken thumb/fingers. Thumb in fist tight protects them.

Beasty

gadetra wrote: »

I actually think the tuck and roll is the best way to come off a bike. Putting your hands and arms out to break your fall at 40+kmph is possibly the worst plan I can think of for falling off a bike! If you tuck and roll, you protect your arms, wrists, etc. and by rolling you dissipate the shock. If you look at parcours/free running, rolling is how they can jump from really really big heights, it dissipates the shock. Putting your arms out in front of you falling off a bike = broken/sprained/hurt arms, hands and wrists. Like boxing or punching something with your thumb out/fingers loose = broken thumb/fingers. Thumb in fist tight protects them.

I'll re-iterate something I mentioned in my previous post in this thread. In my case putting my arms out and letting them "break" (in more ways than one) my fall must have saved me from a much worse fate. Granted flying over the handlebars head first is not the usual way of coming off a bike, but if my arms had not hit the deck first my head would have, and even though the arms did absorb a large amount of the shock I still suffered very serious head injuries

tomasrojo

And it's really great to hear Beasty is recovering so well.

I think Marsh overstated the strength of the data if he left people with the impression that helmets are useless at all times.

I do think as things stand (and I hope I am flexible enough to change my mind if better data or better analysis come out) that helmets aren't making much of a difference in the majority of potentially serious falls/collisions, or else they're causing approximately one serious injury for everyone they're preventing (or they're coaxing people into getting into more serious situations).

I have to say I don't cycle for sport, and I feel very uncomfortable when I exceed 30km/h on the bike. That may be a safety asset to me, though I'm probably missing out on a lot of fun.

pelevin

gadetra wrote: »

I never, at any point in my discussion, suggested everyone wear helmets. If you look over my posts you will see the words 'people should be free to make their own decisions'. I did say that I personally chose to wear one, I don't think everyone else should, it is their choice. I also said that in my experience hitting your head hurts less when there's a helmet between you and the solid object it connects with.

Fair enough, there was only so many posts I could read in the one sitting so that's why I said I didn't know if it was your position on the subject or not, i.e. whether helmets should be compulsory.

dreamerb

tomasrojo wrote: »

I have to say I don't cycle for sport, and I feel very uncomfortable when I exceed 30km/h on the bike. That may be a safety asset to me, though I'm probably missing out on a lot of fun.

Slightly OT, but having recently acquired the lightest fastest bicycle I've ever had and a cycle computer to go with it, I've been hitting some very decent speeds. On the outer reaches of my commute where I'm regularly doing over 30kph, drivers give me more space and are more likely to hang back at pinch points than when I was travelling a bit more slowly on my old bicycle. I think there's a subconscious effect that the higher speeds make them treat me more as though I'm "real" traffic.

I don't think my cycling style has changed other than to speed up a bit, and it's not like I was having a whole lot of incidents, but it is a noticeable effect.

Iwannahurl

gadetra wrote: »

If you look at parcours/free running, rolling is how they can jump from really really big heights, it dissipates the shock.

I appreciate that you are not calling for helmet wearing to be mandatory for cyclists.

Parkour is an example of an "extreme sport" that would appear to have quite a high injury risk. Yet here is a recent German study which found that 88% of the "traceurs" did not wear protective gear and that injuries were "neither severe nor common despite the lack of precautionary measures".

My problem with the constant emphasis on cycle helmets in certain quarters is that it seeks to associate normal everyday cycling with an imminent risk of head injury. That is counterproductive, because it pathologises an inherently safe and healthful activity, the benefits of which outweigh the risks by a huge margin.

In Ireland the image of simple enjoyment below would almost certainly have to be 'doctored' with the addition of hi-vis and helmets.

http://irishcycle.com/2013/08/12/cycling-ads-banned-but-illegal-driving-reflects-heritage/

http://www.ecf.com/news/helmetless-families-are-dangerous-says-irish-advertising-watchdog/

eeeee

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I appreciate that you are not calling for helmet wearing to be mandatory for cyclists.

Parkour is an example of an "extreme sport" that would appear to have quite a high injury risk. Yet here is a recent German study which found that 88% of the "traceurs" did not wear protective gear and that injuries were "neither severe nor common despite the lack of precautionary measures".

My problem with the constant emphasis on cycle helmets in certain quarters is that it seeks to associate normal everyday cycling with an imminent risk of head injury. That is counterproductive, because it pathologises an inherently safe and healthful activity, the benefits of which outweigh the risks by a huge margin.

In Ireland the image of simple enjoyment below would almost certainly have to be 'doctored' with the addition of hi-vis and helmets.

I don't think cycling is being pathologised, it's an emotive issue but ultimately down to personal choice. I certainly don't feel under pressure to wear one, and I don't put my friends under pressure to wear one either, I choose to based on my experience.

On the parcours, the lack of serious injury is more down to the fact that the first, the very first thing you learn to do is how to fall/jump from a height, and you do nothing else until you master that. It would account for the proportionally low injury rate. I don't think it's that extreme a sport either. If you youtube cycling crashes there are shíte loads of vids for that, so I would't take you tube vids as evidence of danger! To liken it to cycling, it would be like when taking up the bike, doing a bike handling course before you are allowed on the road to commute/race etc. That is the difference. It is why jockey's sustain way less injuries, despite falling more and at greater speed surrounded by more animals than leisure riders or amateur eveners/cross country riders. You have to get a license to race, and that is entirely judged on skill, proficiency and control. In the sport horse world, there are no such licenses, 'amateurs' can and do win olympic medals, but the majority of serious injuries occur at the lower levels. This also despite the safety gear in the sport horse world is waay better than what jockey's wear.

Iwannahurl

gadetra wrote: »

I don't think cycling is being pathologised

The link to the parkour videos was to show what the activity looks like. YouTube is of course full of videos of people falling off bikes etc.

However, normal everyday cycling is definitely being pathologied, as the wall-to-wall images of helmets and hi-vis make very clear.

The Advertising Standards "Authority" of Ireland decreed that the above image of a family cycling in the park was unacceptable because it showed "dangerous" behaviour!

A few years ago I tried to organise a photo opportunity to promote cycling and I was told by a HSE health promotion department that they would not participate unless everyone in the picture was helmeted.

According to the RSA, "Ireland has pursued what can be termed a traditional model in road safety strategies over the last decade and a half", ie an approach based on "the road user having a personal responsibility for their behaviour while using the road." While that individualistic strategy is changing towards a systems approach based on shared responsibility, my perception is that the dominant model is still focused on personal responsibility and victim blaming.

In my opinion An Garda Siochana is still sticking to their view that "vulnerable road users must take responsibility for their own actions and behaviour".

The same attitude applies to the promotion of hi-vis, imo.

eeeee

Iwannahurl wrote: »

However, normal everyday cycling is definitely being pathologied, as the wall-to-wall images of helmets and hi-vis make very clear.

The Advertising Standards "Authority" of Ireland decreed that the above image of a family cycling in the park was unacceptable because it showed "dangerous" behaviour!

A few years ago I tried to organise a photo opportunity to promote cycling and I was told by a HSE health promotion department that they would not participate unless everyone in the picture was helmeted.

According to the RSA, "Ireland has pursued what can be termed a traditional model in road safety strategies over the last decade and a half", ie an approach based on "the road user having a personal responsibility for their behaviour while using the road." While that individualistic strategy is changing towards a systems approach based on shared responsibility, my perception is that the dominant model is still focused on personal responsibility and victim blaming.

In my opinion An Garda Siochana is still sticking to their view that "vulnerable road users must take responsibility for their own actions and behaviour".

The same attitude applies to the promotion of hi-vis, imo.

That's mental. Didn't know about the above. That is ridiculous. I can see what they are trying to do but no one should be forced to wear helmets, or high vis, whatever the merits or not of wearing either. It smacks of nannyism, and my personal philosophy on pretty much everything is that you make your own choice and you live with the consequences of it (or those around you. But again it's your choice). No one should have to wear anything actually.

doozerie

This debate seems to be getting heated unnecessarily (again). I guess it’s the nature of the topic to a certain extent, anything to do with safety tends to bring out strong opinions, but it’s probably also a measure of the extent to which there is a lack of (reliable) information and even misinformation available on the merits or not of bike helmets. If it was a simple case of helmets always being extremely effective with no downsides, then we wouldn’t be having this debate, those in favour of helmets could simply point at the evidence and (reasonably) withdraw from any discussion with people who chose to ignore it. Similarly, if it was a simple case of helmets never being effective then we wouldn’t be having this debate either.

My take on the topic is that there is still insufficient reliable scientific data to *prove* that wearing a helmet is necessary, or unnecessary. I believe that in some circumstances a helmet can help a lot, but in others it can make things worse (or at least can introduce new dangers e.g. strangulation). Wear a helmet if you want, don’t wear a helmet if you want, I certainly have no right to judge you or challenge you on either choice. My interest in debating the topic at all only kicks in when I feel that an argument is spreading misinformation, knowingly or not on the part of the person putting it forward, that is something worth arguing about in my view.

I’m going to restate the obvious here and mention that anecdotes are not scientific evidence, so while it is human nature to let personal experience guide your thinking on any topic, that in itself doesn’t qualify it as something upon which to make general claims (or assumptions) for others. I’ve hopped my head off the ground a few times in 30-odd years of cycling, both with and without a helmet, none of those experiences have any relevance to the wider topic of whether helmets are useful or not, not least because my experiences are not consistent - sometimes a helmet probably helped (“probably” implies speculation in reaching that conclusion = not helpful to the discussion), sometimes the helmet caused problems (snagged my helmet on a low branch while mountain biking, leading to a fall - doesn’t mean that helmets are always bad), sometimes the lack of a helmet was fine (bumped un-helmeted head, survived with no obvious harm - doesn’t mean that helmets are unnecessary).

Anyway, the topic arose on Saturday PM, on BBC Radio 4 on Saturday last. They had on a paediatric consultant and the CTC Policy Director to discuss the recent neurosurgeon claim that helmets are useless. The discussion starts 12m22s in (separately, some of the horrendous topics covered earlier in that program put this discussion into the category of quite frivolous, in my view, reminds me that many of us in this part of the world are very lucky to such a good basic standard of living that we have the luxury of being able to debate a relatively unimportant topic like this to death).

The medical professional quotes a review from the Cochrane Library published in 2008 which, he says, contains “definitive evidence” that increased mandatory helmet use leads to decreased head injury rates. He goes on to say that “there is no doubt that in relatively low velocity impacts, [helmets] do save lives”. There are some strong claims in there - “definitive evidence” is a strange phrase to use about any argument within a topic which clearly has strong views on both sides (if it is so definitive then surely there is no argument, nothing to debate); qualifying this later by referring to “relatively low velocity impacts” weakens his earlier “definitive” claim significantly; etc. Take what you will from that, but to my mind all that it shows is that trying to impose black and white on a very grey area leaves you very prone to shooting yourself in the foot.

The presenter himself, who I usually like, I find to be oddly aggressive towards the CTC guy in that discussion - his question of “What do you do for a job?” towards the CTC guy is very odd, it seemed to be an effort to undermine any argument against that put by the medical professional, as if being a medical professional somehow made the doctor’s view unquestionable. Perhaps another example of personal bias from a very different angle in play.

Incidentally, I think the review the doctor was referring to is this one. There is a critique of it here.

doozerie

Further anecdotal non-proof of anything here, but I practiced martial arts for the best part of 20 years. I did a fair bit of sparring in that time, never broke any bones but came close a few times. Looking back over that time it would be easy to conclude that the most risky aspect of it all was the sparring, however in recent years I’ve discovered various long-lasting niggling injuries which I fully believe go all the way back to badly taught stretching and warm-up techniques. As with many things, the things that we fear most are not always those that are most dangerous to us.

One of the guys I trained with has being doing martial arts for longer than me, and before that he played competitive rugby for years, he says himself that the worst injuries he has ever picked up were while playing 5-a-side soccer.

As a society our ability to assess risk is often fundamentally broken, I think that a fixation on bicycle helmets fits into that category too.

tomasrojo

With every respect to RobFowl and any other posters with backgrounds in medicine, I've generally found doctors to have a shaky grasp of statistics. It's notable how many times surgeons and neurologists are approached in these radio debates, but how seldom statisticians are asked.

The Cochrane paper mentioned is I assume the Cochrane review of evidence carried out by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson. It omitted all the studies of head injury rates at the population level to concentrate on smaller case-control studies, mostly TRT's own work. It's very one-sided, but it gives the clarity sought by the road safety lobby. Rune Elvik's meta-analysis of the case-control studies takes TRT to task for their omissions.

(I'm not saying the contribution of medical people is irrelevant, of course not, but neither should TRT be allowed to write all the contradictory data out of the debate. It's a misuse of the privilege the Cochrane Collaboration gave them.)

(A further parenthetical note: the Cochrane Review notes an association between helmet use and a lower rate of injuries of the lower face. They proceed to calculate the percentage of lower facial injuries helmets prevent. Seriously.)

Iwannahurl

gadetra wrote: »

No one should have to wear anything actually.

I wouldn't go that far, personally.

Iwannahurl

tomasrojo wrote: »

The Cochrane paper mentioned is I assume the Cochrane review of evidence carried out by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson. It omitted all the studies of head injury rates at the population level to concentrate on smaller case-control studies, mostly TRT's own work.

In fact Frederick Rivara's Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center (HIPRC) specifically rules out cohort (population) studies for assessing the perceived benefits of cycle helmets: http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffect.html

HIPRC also acknowledges that over 90% of cyclist deaths in the USA are caused by collisions with motor vehicles: https://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/

HivemindXX

On the topic of making cycling seem more dangerous than it actually is I see more and more walkers wearing hi-viz gear. I recently cycled past an organised walk which had dozens of people in it and every single one was wearing a hi-viz vest making me think that the organisers required it. This was in broad daylight.

How soon before people are tutting about the risks of walking without hi-viz gear and the first question someone reporting a hit and run on a pedestrian gets asked is "was the person who was in collision with the car wearing high visibility clothing?"

After that, well if a helmet can protect a cyclist from being hit by a car, then surely it can protect a pedestrian as well. All the same arguments would seem to apply.

pelevin

HivemindXX wrote: »

On the topic of making cycling seem more dangerous than it actually is I see more and more walkers wearing hi-viz gear. I recently cycled past an organised walk which had dozens of people in it and every single one was wearing a hi-viz vest making me think that the organisers required it. This was in broad daylight.

How soon before people are tutting about the risks of walking without hi-viz gear and the first question someone reporting a hit and run on a pedestrian gets asked is "was the person who was in collision with the car wearing high visibility clothing?"

After that, well if a helmet can protect a cyclist from being hit by a car, then surely it can protect a pedestrian as well. All the same arguments would seem to apply.

Way back in the depths somewhere of this thread, I wondered why are we all not required to wear life-jackets or similar life-saving devices when we go swimming. You'd have to be mad not to comply when you think of the potential consequences of not doing so.

CramCycle

pelevin wrote: »

Way back in the depths somewhere of this thread, I wondered why are we all not required to wear life-jackets or similar life-saving devices when we go swimming. You'd have to be mad not to comply when you think of the potential consequences of not doing so.

Drowning related deaths (taken from IWS):
Year 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
Accidental 65 56 33 54 45 54
Suicide 49 44 51 45 50 75
Undetermined 33 28 28 45 62 27
Assault 0 0 0 1 1 0
Total 147 128 112 145 158 156

Excluding suicides and undetermined, it is still 50+ a year. While I cannot find the number of swimmers in Ireland, due to the fact that the numbers drop in winter and the number of pools available are small or geographically not suitable to many, I can guess there are less daily swimmers than there are daily cyclists but am willing to stand corrected.

The RSA statistics have cyclist deaths as
2012: 8
2011: 9
2010: 5
2009: 7
(taken from a post by hivemindxxx but the numbers are here: http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/)

Oldlegs

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In fact Frederick Rivara's Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center (HIPRC) specifically rules out cohort (population) studies for assessing the perceived benefits of cycle helmets: http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffect.html

HIPRC also acknowledges that over 90% of cyclist deaths in the USA are caused by collisions with motor vehicles: https://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/

@Iwannahurl @tomosrojo - I think these links/comments illustrate some of the huge challenges associated with the application of large scale statistical analysis to a debate that appears to be attracting some very polarised and (unintentionally) biased viewpoints.
Neurosurgeons, for example are approaching the debate from a background of having to deal with sever head trauma. Leisure cyclists are coming to the table with experience of 'easy' cycling in non-competitive (combative) environments. Sports cyclists are bringing a lot more mileage (at much higher speeds) but with more road-handling expertise.
So far - not enough unbiased participants are taking part to look at the various types of cycling (MTB vs. parkland vs. commuting for example). A purely economic/statistical analysis might be the best approach - but maybe there are just too many factors to consider (Weather, speed, experience, other road-users, age, personal risk-profile, tiredness).
At the most basic level - is there any answer to where/when are most head-trauma/fatalities likely to occur ? What are the common factors ? In this situations is a helmet likely to offer any protection ?

From a personal perspective - I always wear a helmet when out on a spin. But that said, if I were not wearing a helmet I am sure I would go slower down hill from Sally Gap - for example. So in this case, I am definitely consuming, at least part of the economic benefit of wearing a helmet.
So logic might me to leave the helmet at home and go slower - but my desires make me do otherwise.

Just one to mull over ...
Are more people involved in urban cycling accidents because of crap driving or because there are more cyclists or because there are more cyclists who don't wear helmets. I feel that it is because there are more cyclists susceptible to crap drivers.
Are the cyclists who are involved in the serious accidents poor road users, or are they more likely to be more experienced road users who happen to ride more urban KMs and therefore have more 'opportunity' to be involved in an accident.

doozerie

HivemindXX wrote: »

How soon before people are tutting about the risks of walking without hi-viz gear and the first question someone reporting a hit and run on a pedestrian gets asked is "was the person who was in collision with the car wearing high visibility clothing?"

I think that we may already be there, this post refers to a newspaper article back in February. It’s hard to select just one or two examples of wild hysteria in the article, there are so many of them to choose from, so I’ll quote a few paragraphs:

As I journey home each evening there is a long stretch of footpath just outside my home town which measures perhaps a third of a mile. It is a mecca for people out exercising and is always busy until 10pm. Once I turn the corner to begin this stretch, I can immediately spot somebody wearing reflective material or a high-viz up to 600 metres in the distance.

Every night I also come across people – the majority – who refuse to wear reflective clothing to highlight their presence. As a result, they are invisible to me until I am within 30-40 metres of them. That means that with the same line of sight where I can see people at 600 metres, I cannot make out people who are at the next lamp post.

Not only is it foolish, it is selfish. It has no regard for the consequences that might occur, were any kind of a freak occurrence to happen, which happens somewhere every single day.

It has no regard for other road users or the people who might be in my car, the car behind me or anybody else in the vicinity. I have been driving for nearly 30 years and have seen or been made aware of hundreds of unexpected occurrences on our roads. An unexpected manoeuvre, a driver taking unwell, poor road conditions, to name but three. All can impact a driver's behaviour.

We have a duty of care not to be a hazard – if not to help ourselves – then surely to those around us. By slipping on a reflective vest or jacket you are as bright as an illuminated Christmas tree. Surely it's not too much to ask.

All this from someone described in the article as “a motivational speaker and endurance athlete” so probably someone that others may listen to and heed.

CramCycle

doozerie wrote: »

All this from someone described in the article as “a motivational speaker and endurance athlete” so probably someone that others may listen to and heed.

Why would the car be on the footpath, he makes it clear there is a foot path, where the car should not be. If the car is on the footpath and travelling at speed that it cannot stop before hitting a pedestrian, all the hi vis in the world will do absolutely jot for the ped.

doozerie

CramCycle wrote: »

Why would the car be on the footpath, he makes it clear there is a foot path, where the car should not be. If the car is on the footpath and travelling at speed that it cannot stop before hitting a pedestrian, all the hi vis in the world will do absolutely jot for the ped.

That's a logical question, which couldn't possibly survive in the logic vacuum of that article.

eeeee

CramCycle wrote: »

Drowning related deaths (taken from IWS):
Year 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007
Accidental 65 56 33 54 45 54
Suicide 49 44 51 45 50 75
Undetermined 33 28 28 45 62 27
Assault 0 0 0 1 1 0
Total 147 128 112 145 158 156

Excluding suicides and undetermined, it is still 50+ a year. While I cannot find the number of swimmers in Ireland, due to the fact that the numbers drop in winter and the number of pools available are small or geographically not suitable to many, I can guess there are less daily swimmers than there are daily cyclists but am willing to stand corrected.

The RSA statistics have cyclist deaths as
2012: 8
2011: 9
2010: 5
2009: 7
(taken from a post by hivemindxxx but the numbers are here: http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/)

That made me think of this, 1.48 mins in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob1rYlCpOnM&feature=kp

As a swimmer, I had no idea it was so lethal! And swimming gets busier over the winter, most pool racing takes place over winter. Sea swimming is the opposite. That's for a select few extremely hardy winter souls!

eeeee

This is just scary:
http://road.cc/content/news/120591-make-pedestrians-wear-reflective-clothing-says-mr-loophole-lawyer-who-defended

doozerie

gadetra wrote: »

This is just scary:
http://road.cc/content/news/120591-make-pedestrians-wear-reflective-clothing-says-mr-loophole-lawyer-who-defended

It should just be a matter of utterly dismissing that story as ridiculous (and offensive) nonsense, as that's what it clearly is. What makes it scary and disturbing is that some people would likely agree with the stupid suggestion that it's essentially entirely the responsibility of pedestrians to ensure that a motorist doesn't run them over. It's a mindset that sees nothing wrong with casually blaming the victim.

The newspaper article that I referenced in an earlier post does exactly that, it basically puts the responsibility for the safety of drivers and their passengers entirely on pedestrians. That article made it into a magazine sold with a national newspaper, so presumably an editor read it and considered it worthy of publication. Scary is right, there are some very deluded people out there apparently trying to shed themselves of all sense of responsibility while driving on the roads.

CramCycle

doozerie wrote: »

That article made it into a magazine sold with a national newspaper, so presumably an editor read it and considered it worthy of publication. Scary is right, there are some very deluded people out there apparently trying to shed themselves of all sense of responsibility while driving on the roads.

I think you misunderstand. No doubt it was known that it wasn't worthy but it gets the mass stupidity agreeing and the rest of us publicising it. Either way the advertising space is sold.

tomasrojo

Dallas bike helmet rules now apply only to cyclists under age 18

Cyclists who are 18 years or older no longer have to wear a helmet in Dallas.

The City Council on Wednesday partially repealed its bicycle helmet ordinance, which required all cyclists to wear one. Officials have debated for weeks whether to loosen the requirements as a way to encourage more cycling and launch a bike sharing program.

http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/dallas-bike-helmet-rules-now-apply-only-to-cyclists-under-age-18.html/

Same logic and outcome as in Tel Aviv (except the upper age limit for compulsion there is 12 rather than 17).

droidus

HivemindXX wrote: »

On the topic of making cycling seem more dangerous than it actually is I see more and more walkers wearing hi-viz gear. I recently cycled past an organised walk which had dozens of people in it and every single one was wearing a hi-viz vest making me think that the organisers required it. This was in broad daylight.

This actually makes perfect sense. Bright jackets/Hi vis when hillwalking are generally recommended in case you fall, get separated from a group or suffer any of the many possible accidents that end up with you being the object of a search and rescue.

buffalo

droidus wrote: »

This actually makes perfect sense. Bright jackets/Hi vis when hillwalking are generally recommended in case you fall, get separated from a group or suffer any of the many possible accidents that end up with you being the object of a search and rescue.

I've not seen many search and rescues happen in Harold's Cross, where I regularly see phalanxes of hi-viz walkers.

monument

Bike share and head injuries: researchers (one referred to as already helmet-focused) misleadingly focus on an proportional increase in head injuries when all injuries, including head ones, are down... Washington Post journalist jumps on the story and make it sound worse again...

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/13/wapo-is-wrong-head-injuries-are-down-not-up-in-bike-share-cities/

ednwireland

droidus wrote: »

This actually makes perfect sense. Bright jackets/Hi vis when hillwalking are generally recommended in case you fall, get separated from a group or suffer any of the many possible accidents that end up with you being the object of a search and rescue.

mountain rescue wear red for a reason, stands out better in the hills against the background in day light. thats what they told me when i did some search and rescue training with them