Journalism and cycling

plodder

Presumably, the percentage of pedestrians and motorists who present with head trauma, without a helmet, must be close to 100%.

Macy0161

CramCycle wrote: »

it was told over a coffee, there is no doubt in my mind that the number was not 100% accurate, it was an off the cuff estimation but it certainly indicates that for people in that area, in this case particularly young, mainly male, workers whose pay would have been at or below the median industrial wage, being insured was something that they may get around too. There certainly was minimal risk of getting caught by the understaffed Gardai, and like many things, certain cultures can breed contempt if not outright ignorance. I imagine most of those flagged did not drive the same car into town on a Friday or Saturday night where there would be an elevated chance of getting stopped, nor do i imagine they ever sped in any of the known camera zones. All I can repeat is the number given, it is likely to be inaccurate, most likely in a certain direction for the sake of the story but I sincerely doubt it was anywhere close to 7% either.

That's just the cars without visible insurance. You can pretty sure a lot of those with disks weren't insured as well (i.e. insured in parents name, without them actually being in the policy). The waste of resources checkpoints just wave you through once an in date tax and insurance disk are there.

Duckjob

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd also have a quibble with cycling being lumped entirely in with the 'sports and exercise' category. you can bet that a significant number of the cyclists captured in this report were injured while cycling neither for sporting or exercise reasons.

That attitude is endemic in Ireland.

Look even at where on boards.ie this forum is located. It ain't anywhere near Commuting and Transport.


Anyhow I don't think stating that more cyclists in an accident suffer head trauma without helmet than those with helmet is going to be of any surprise to anyone. It's the surrounding issues around making helmets mandatory that most folk would take issue with.

magicbastarder

that point has come up before, but it'd be unworkable to have one forum for sports/leisure cycling, and another for commuter cycling.

blackwhite

hesker wrote: »

Yes without background stats on helmet wearing it’s meaningless.

Was spun on newstalk this morning as definitive proof

To be fair to the presenters on Newstalk - they also stated that making helmets compulsory is a bad idea, based on the evidence that it always results in a reduction in numbers cycling (think it was Coleman made the point)

hesker

blackwhite wrote: »

To be fair to the presenters on Newstalk - they also stated that making helmets compulsory is a bad idea, based on the evidence that it always results in a reduction in numbers cycling (think it was Coleman made the point)

True but the overriding message was that cyclists who don’t wear helmets are being irresponsible and show little regard for their own safety

blackwhite

hesker wrote: »

True but the overriding message was that cyclists who don’t wear helmets are being irresponsible and show little regard for their own safety

Coleman stated that he usually doesn't wear a helmet.

I've a medical professional in the family, and from her time in A&E she is fairly militant about wanting to see helmets as widespread as possible. Her - anecdotal, but still first-hand - experiences were that helmets didn't do much in serious collisions, but made a massive difference in the smalls "bumps" and falls where the collision itself is relatively minor, but the fall from the bike resulted in the head hitting the ground first.
But even she wouldn't advocate making them mandatory - because she's also seen the evidence that such measures ultimately result in decreased cycling numbers

Seweryn

blackwhite wrote: »

I've a medical professional in the family, and from her time in A&E she is fairly militant about wanting to see helmets as widespread as possible.

Just for cycling or for other (more dangerous) activities also?

beauf

You'd need to see what the median head injuries from cycling, are above the median in other activities.

But we won't see those stats in the media.

blackwhite

Seweryn wrote: »

Just for cycling or for other (more dangerous) activities also?

As always the whataboutery is easier than addressing the substance :rolleyes:


She was fairly adamant about anything where the instance of serious head injuries presenting in A&E was high (in her experience). Cycling was the most common in her experience, but she had similar views on skateboards, scooters (e-scooters weren't a thing when she was in hospitals) and basically anything that involved the risk of falling over at speed and hitting your head

Macy0161

In fairness, single impact falling over is what bicycle helmets are designed for. My big issue is when they're seen as protection against multi impacts with vehicles.

CramCycle

blackwhite wrote: »

As always the whataboutery is easier than addressing the substance :rolleyes:

Not whataboutery, several areas helmets would be more useful

She was fairly adamant about anything where the instance of serious head injuries presenting in A&E was high (in her experience). Cycling was the most common in her experience, but she had similar views on skateboards, scooters (e-scooters weren't a thing when she was in hospitals) and basically anything that involved the risk of falling over at speed and hitting your head

And in no way would she be biased because all she would see are the serious injuries, how many could she say had or did not have a helmet at the time of injury, how many EMTs removed helmets before she got to see the patent. The truth is that meta data does not support her view point but I can see why she has it.

Far better putting time and effort into the cause of the crashes than PPE.

ED E

Head of the AA cycles nearly every day and never wears a plastic hat #justSayin

beauf

blackwhite wrote: »

As always the whataboutery is easier than addressing the substance :rolleyes:

She was fairly adamant about anything where the instance of serious head injuries presenting in A&E was high (in her experience). Cycling was the most common in her experience, but she had similar views on skateboards, scooters (e-scooters weren't a thing when she was in hospitals) and basically anything that involved the risk of falling over at speed and hitting your head

That doesn't make a sense unless cyclists are more common in the population than say drivers or pedestrians. But they are tiny % of the overall population.

Even less in the US where this is from.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4717651/

In cases of traffic-related head trauma where the precipitating cause of injury was documented, 78.0 % of all injuries occurred when the patient was in a motor vehicle (Table 2). A greater proportion of males were involved in motorcycle-related (9.4 %) and pedal-cycle-related (11.1 %) head traumas than females (2.0 and 3.4 %, respectively). Among children ≤11 years of age with a traffic-related head trauma, pedal-cycle-related and pedestrian-related traffic injuries accounted for 13.4 and 10.6 % of head traumas, respectively. In 18–24-year-olds with a traffic-related head trauma, 5.2 and 4.1 % of head traumas were attributed to pedal-cycle-related and pedestrian-related traffic injuries, respectively.

https://golfsupport.com/blog/sports-related-injuries-golf-more-dangerous-than-rugby/

Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument..

If anyone has more relevant stats, please post them.

rubadub

check_six wrote: »

I wonder how the numbers compare to helmet adherence. Like if 40% of cyclists wear helmets then 70% of injuries to non helmet wearers could be a significant positive result for helmets, but if only 20% wear helmets then it's the opposite. I suspect that this headline suggests that helmet adherence could be around 30%.

Even then it would not be clear, there is a presumption that people are identical and the only difference being helmets.

I remember seeing some stat about womens health and getting stats from people who drink or don't. It was ignoring the fact that I expect it is likely that a tee-total person may lead a healthier lifestyle in general, no smoking, healthy food, exercise more.

blackwhite wrote: »

she had similar views on skateboards, scooters (e-scooters weren't a thing when she was in hospitals) and basically anything that involved the risk of falling over at speed and hitting your head

what about people in vehicles? I'd expect a fair few turn up in A&E with head injuries -even though people bizarrely try and ignore this and fob it off saying "oh don't be ridiculous, we have seatbelts and airbags".

Fian

I always were a helmet when I cycle, or nearly always. Not if I hop on a Dublin bike but i wear one when commuting and if I am heading out on the weekend.

Why not basically - why wouldn't I? I am under no illusion it will save me if i go under a truck, but if I fall off my bike it may well make a big difference if my head hits the ground. My helmet is light, has plenty of venting and is comfortable, basically there is little or no downside to wearing it.

Should never be made mandatory but I am puzzled occasionally by those who get highly offended and annoyed at people making the point that it is generally a good idea to wear them.

magicbastarder

rubadub wrote: »

It was ignoring the fact that I expect it is likely that a tee-total person may lead a healthier lifestyle in general, no smoking, healthy food, exercise more.

in general, i think it's the opposite - that people are often teetotal because of health issues, which skew the stats in the opposite direction.

CramCycle

Fian wrote: »

Should never be made mandatory but I am puzzled occasionally by those who get highly offended and annoyed at people making the point that it is generally a good idea to wear them.

My view has always been wear it if you want it but don't get annoyed if someone doesn't. I wear mine some of the time, mainly because racing and visiting my mother in laws I have too, the rest of the time it is a case of I simply don't. Certainly not offended by anyones choice to wear them but defensive against anyone who claims I am being reckless or unthoughtful of my family if i don't. The added weight could lead to increased risk of rotational spinal injuries, I might not be able to wrap my head correctly when I fall. It maybe the difference between my head hitting or not hitting the ground or similar due to the increase in circumference. I have no issue with anyone wearing one, I have an issue with people dressing me down because I don't as if somehow I have not made an educated or reasoned decision, I have and I shouldn't have to spell it out to every muppet who cuts me up and then shouts at me for not wearing a helmet as if I am the dangerous one, when they are the one who put me in danger, a danger that a helmet is unlikely ot have mitigating effects.

Life is a series of risk analysis and acceptance exercises, i have done mine and feel that any risk, increased or decreased, does not affect others immediately in my vicinity to a degree that the other option would have made it better (or worse) for them, and in my opinion me.

Stats (not anecdotes) would seem to suggest that I am on the right path, that no matter what choice you make in regards helmets, at a higher level, it really makes no odds. This is counter intuitive but also be wary that those who choose to wear or not to wear may behave differently, may have various reasons, all of which could change if they are forced into the other group. Since cycling is so safe, I think its best if we don't force people in this regard to do or not to do anything other than what they feel is the right choice for them, particularly not before we sort out the other messes on the road first.

tomasrojo

check_six wrote: »

I can't view the article. I wonder how the numbers compare to helmet adherence. Like if 40% of cyclists wear helmets then 70% of injuries to non helmet wearers could be a significant positive result for helmets, but if only 20% wear helmets then it's the opposite. I suspect that this headline suggests that helmet adherence could be around 30%.

The usual thing would be to calculate a relative-risk ratio (or an odds ratio, which is similar).

Basically, divide the fraction of the head-injured who were wearing helmets by the fraction of the general cycling population wearing helmets. The closer the ratio is to 1, the less likely the helmet had an effect.

You'd usually work out a 95% confidence interval for the ratio, and if your interval "includes" 1, then you'd say the study didn't show a statistically significant effect.

Sometimes in these hospitlatisation studies they estimate the background population rate of wearing by looking at the non head-injured admissions. This is a flawed methodology, according to a Dutch paper, because you're assuming that wearing a helmet doesn't change your chance of acquiring a lower-body injury.

These hospitalistion studies have problems with confounding, especially things like social class and inebriation at time of collision.

Fundamentally, the stat.s suggest that cycling isn't especially productive of serious head injuries and (more contentious this one) helmets aren't especially good at preventing serious head injuries. So it's up to you whether you think it's worth it. Just spare other people your opinion in general, I guess.

MG_2013

Neil Prenderville on Red FM early on Tuesday morning had another dig at cyclists. He was commenting on a piece about enhanced facilities for cyclists and pedestrians in Cork city, and wondered whether it would stop cyclists continually going through lights.

Not near as bad as him saying in 2017 that there would be far more cyclist deaths and injuries but for the goodness of drivers.

CramCycle

MG_2013 wrote: »

Neil Prenderville on Red FM early on Tuesday morning had another dig at cyclists. He was commenting on a piece about enhanced facilities for cyclists and pedestrians in Cork city, and wondered whether it would stop cyclists continually going through lights.

Not near as bad as him saying in 2017 that there would be far more cyclist deaths and injuries but for the goodness of drivers.

Your big mistake was listening to him, he is like a weed, you cannot give him sunlight, just cover him over and let him die away slowly but naturally. A bit like Paul Williams, once he was starved off the attention via dropping listener-ship, he actually went away. It was possibly the most dignified thing he ever done, not that i think it was his decision.

Stark

Would better airline seats stop him from masturbating?

AndrewJRenko

Stark wrote: »

Would better airline seats stop him from masturbating?

Possibly, though that wouldn't stop him from being a wank3r ironically.

Macy0161

Neil Fox was on Matt Cooper last night https://www.todayfm.com/podcasts/the-last-word-with-matt-cooper/brother-cyclist-killed-dublin-wants-make-roads-safer

He's organised a cycling vulnerability event, 3 October at Buswells.

Obviously sparked a load of whataboutery comments about red lights. I can't think of one junction on my commuting routes that doesn't have multiple cars breaking lights at every junction every day I'm on them, but apparently it's only cyclists...

Duckjob

Macy0161 wrote: »

Neil Fox was on Matt Cooper last night https://www.todayfm.com/podcasts/the-last-word-with-matt-cooper/brother-cyclist-killed-dublin-wants-make-roads-safer

He's organised a cycling vulnerability event, 3 October at Buswells.

Obviously sparked a load of whataboutery comments about red lights. I can't think of one junction on my commuting routes that doesn't have multiple cars breaking lights at every junction every day I'm on them, but apparently it's only cyclists...

I've great respect for Neil. He always speaks very eloquently on the topic.

I think with these pieces it's better for sanity to listen back to the podcast and miss the moronic comments that inevitably start flooding in afterwards. They only wind me up because apart from any other argument, i know the majority of people who make those sort of comments are complete hypocrites who are completely blind to their own rule breaking.

Matt Cooper to his credit spoke well also.

Macy0161

I do normally turn off, but just wasnt in a position to at the time!

magicbastarder

Women cyclists on harassment: ‘They think it’s sexy interaction. I’m just going to work’
Only one in every 250 teenage girls gets to school by bike. And it has nothing to do with school skirts
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/women-cyclists-on-harassment-they-think-it-s-sexy-interaction-i-m-just-going-to-work-1.4024995

There is one girl I see regularly cycling to school, she stops on the green area in our estate before hitting the final stretch to home to put on her helmet and high vis for mammy and daddy

She's probably the only girl in a school of 1k+ students who cycles. Theres probably only ever about 10 bikes in the racks there on any given day too.

beauf

Schools in my area have lots of bikes in the racks.

Maybe other schools are hard to get to by bicycle due to poor urban planning.

tomasrojo

Deleted User wrote: »

There is one girl I see regularly cycling to school, she stops on the green area in our estate before hitting the final stretch to home to put on her helmet and high vis for mammy and daddy

It did occur to me before that if you force your teenager to leave the house wearing a helmet to cycle to school, they will be riding with it hanging off the handlebars most of the time. This, even if you think helmets are fantastically effective, is worse than leaving without a helmet, in that they're not wearing it anyway, and hanging stuff off the handlebars is generally not a great idea.

There are clearly teenagers who are happy enough to wear them, obviously. I'm just talking about the ones that are forced to wear them.