Journalism and cycling

Tenzor07

Defo cycling out to Howth later to chase a few KOM's on Strava!

AndrewJRenko

ThisRegard wrote: »

He's playing a blinder against the doctor from the Acquired Brain Injuries organisation anyway, plenty of factual evidence thrown out.

I'd love to know what proportion of ABI clients come from cycling injuries vs motoring injuries? I'd imagine cycling is small in the overall context (if it follows the road death statistics in pattern), so why aren't they calling for mandatory driving helmets for all?

magicbastarder

it's low hanging fruit. because cycle helmets are available but not worn by all, it's easier to push for full compliance than it is to introduce the idea de novo for any other mode.

Chuchote

It's a direct result of the hate-speech on radio.

Moflojo

I have it on good authority that the illegal signs in Howth were part of a guerrilla reverse-psychology marketing campaign by a local coffee shop owner in Howth village. He has hired additional staff to deal with the expected 'bikelash' this weekend.

tomasrojo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'd love to know what proportion of ABI clients come from cycling injuries vs motoring injuries? I'd imagine cycling is small in the overall context (if it follows the road death statistics in pattern), so why aren't they calling for mandatory driving helmets for all?

There was a thread on the CTC forums in the UK where someone mentioned (IIRC) that about 1-2% of their clients were cyclists. I wish I'd bookmarked it, but then again, it's yet another anonymous source on the internet. Sounds like what I'd have expected though.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's low hanging fruit. because cycle helmets are available but not worn by all, it's easier to push for full compliance than it is to introduce the idea de novo for any other mode.

It's really tied up with all sorts of psychology and attitudes.

For example, you can make a very reasonable case that utility cycling has a similar risk profile to walking, but no-one will believe you. Even Tim Harford, the excellent and constructively sceptical "Undercover Economist" journalist, did a More or Less special on BBC Radio 4 (a programme mostly about the use of numbers in the media) about bicycle helmets in 2010, weighed up some of the evidence (Ian Walker on one side, Angie Lee on the other), and just concluded with a personal endorsement of helmets. Funnily enough, David Spiegelhalter is a regular contributor to that show, always deferred to by the presenters, and he co-wrote the BMJ editorial about bicycle helmets ("direct benefit too modest to capture"). He's never been asked about the subject on the show, which, to be fair, doesn't come up that much.

There is an ingrained opinion that cycling is especially productive of serious head injuries, and that's that. And helmets are especially good at preventing serious head injuries, and that's that. And cyclists are very hard to see, at all times, and that's that. And high-visibility clothing is the most effective method to increase conspicuity, night or day, and that's that.

Chuchote

Looking at this tragic story

http://connachttribune.ie/helmet-might-have-saved-cyclist-from-fatal-injuries-987/

of the death of a man who cycled randomly in front of several vehicles from behind bushes before being killed

The driver of the oncoming vehicle said that the cyclist "shot out" into her path from behind bushes. A witness, who was a passenger in an oncoming car, told her that there was nothing she could have done.

"It was literally the blink-of-an-eye stuff," the driver recalled.

She also said that (the cyclist's) fiancee, (named), had approached her at the scene, saying: "You look after yourself, this is part of a bigger picture."

The coroner's response was to ask the pathologist if a helmet might have saved him, and when the pathologist said yes -

The jury also endorsed the Coroner's recommendations about cyclists wearing helmets.

"I would like to advise the general public who cycle - it has become an increasing pastime and hobby - that on roads where they may encounter traffic, to wear safety headgear," (the coroner) said.

TheChizler

How often does the question "could a helmet/roll bar/speed limiter have saved them" get asked in investigations that don't involve cyclists? It's a loaded question, the answer can't be anything but yes.

looie

I love Sean nos wrote: »

From one of the comments:

Is anyone able to confirm that that statement is accurate?

Ditto.

Fighting Tao

Sunshine radio DJ just now going on about the signs in howth. She thought they were out of order but doesn't like cyclists. They are 'the bane' of her life.

Chuchote

looie wrote: »

Ditto.

Only people who can confirm it are the gardaí. They're saying nothing, which is unusual when they'll normally say it's a cyclist's fault because of no-helmet-no-hi-viz. I heard specific references to two of the dead having been wearing helmets.

rubadub

Might have been posted before. Good read

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/cyclists-signal-opposition-to-mandatory-helmets-and-hi-vis-jackets-1.3047890

Cycling campaigner Dr Mike McKillen has described proposals to make cycle helmets and hi-vis jackets mandatory as “silly” and designed to deflect from the failure of gardaí to enforce existing road traffic laws.

National cyclist co-ordinator at cyclist.ie Dr Damien O’Tuama described the proposals as a “complete and utter red herring”.
“A focus on ‘helmets and hi-vis’ distracts the attention of policy-makers, the gardaí and the public from the real issues which make cycling unsafe,” he explained.

Cian Ginty, editor of irishcycle.com, said the evidence on the safety factor involved in helmets was “very mixed” with some studies showing they were of benefit to cyclists; others stating that they may actually make it more dangerous.

Green Party councillor Ciarán Cuffe suggested the Government needed to look at best practice in other more cycle-friendly countries.
“I’m not convinced that hi-vis clothing for cyclists will reduce accident rates,” he said. “I would ask that they [the AGSI] produce evidence-based research to that effect.”

AndrewJRenko

TheChizler wrote: »

How often does the question "could a helmet/roll bar/speed limiter have saved them" get asked in investigations that don't involve cyclists? It's a loaded question, the answer can't be anything but yes.

'Might have saved him' is absolutely meaningless, though it makes a good headline for the local rag. He should really have asked something much stronger, like "Is it likely that a helmet would have saved him?"

rubadub

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

'Might have saved him' is absolutely meaningless, though it makes a good headline for the local rag. He should really have asked something much stronger, like "Is it likely that a helmet would have saved him?"

I cannot see a quote of what was actually asked.

I see this in a local paper, paraphrasing what was said.

http://connachttribune.ie/helmet-might-have-saved-cyclist-from-fatal-injuries-987/

He was struck by a car outside Kinvara last summer, sustaining fatal head injuries.

“This is possible,” was the reply from consultant pathologist, Dr Birgid Tietz, when asked if Mr Smith’s would have survived had he been wearing a helmet.

“Most fatalities are around injuries to the head and neck,” the Coroner added.

I expect "this is possible" would be the answer to the 2 questions you mentioned -if it was a pedestrian, motorist, horserider, rugby player, soccer player, drunk falling down at home, who had "sustained fatal head injuries" then the answer would surely have been "this is possible" too. It's a ridiculously poor headline

Helmet might have saved pedestiran from fatal injuries
Helmet might have saved drunk from fatal injuries
Helmet might have saved motorist from fatal injuries

well d'uh...

Chuchote

Irish Times letter from Michael Redmond of Clongriffin in Dublin

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/on-your-bike-with-a-helmet-1.3049095

I would like to commend Sgt Claire Healy of the Dublin Metropolitan region traffic unit’s for her comments regarding cyclists safety issues (Home News, April 13th).
In particular, her comment, “You wouldn’t send your child out on a bike without a helmet, so why not have the same protection yourself?”
Sgt Healy also stated that while some people felt bicycle helmets would be difficult to police, the same was said about helmets and other safety kit for motorcyclists when they were first made compulsory.
If there is one thing that convinced otherwise stubborn bikers to don a crash helmet back in the day of long hair, denim and clogs, it was the fact that manufacturers made the helmets more appealing by making the helmets look “cool”.
I know it sounds simplistic, but nobody rides motorbikes without a crash helmet on public roads in Ireland nowadays.
Road safety is paramount for those on two wheels and Sgt Healy’s comments are to be welcomed and encouraged. – Yours, etc,

Miklos

I'm sure we would all like to be able to accelerate from 0-100kmh in the blink of an eye, but til then the cyclist and motorcyclist comparisons don't really wash.

Pinch Flat

Michael Redmond of clongriffin has never been on a bike by the sounds of it.

magicbastarder

Chuchote wrote: »

Irish Times letter from Michael Redmond of Clongriffin in Dublin

i've popped off a letter to them myself. probably the worst day to write one, given the long weekend.

HivemindXX

With regard to the "helmet might have saved him" thing that the newspapers like to throw in. You could say the same thing about speed in almost all car crashes. Might the victim have lived if the car had been going 10kph slower? It's possible. Might the collision have been avoided altogether if the car had been going 10kph slower? Of course that's possible.

Of course, so long as you are going under the posted limit, it is very unlikely for the press to call out a motorists speed as a contributing factor. Even though if nobody ever drove above 20kph there would be far fewer fatalities on the road.

The newspapers are understandably reluctant to state that a still living motorist contributed to someones death by the speed they were driving. For some reason they have no problem at all insinuating that a dead cyclist contributed to their own death by not wearing a helmet.

The most repulsive example of this I know of, and the one which finally made me decide that the Irish Times is a rag no better than any of the red tops, was a piece which talked about how dangerous cycling was in the context of a recent death and then finished with the line that the writer would tell their own children that all they needed to do to keep safe on the road was to follow the rules of the road.

tomasrojo

If there is one thing that convinced otherwise stubborn bikers to don a crash helmet back in the day of long hair, denim and clogs, it was the fact that manufacturers made the helmets more appealing by making the helmets look “cool”.

As far as I know, there are far fewer people who travel by motorbike now than in the 60s. Maybe it's balanced out by scooters and mopeds. I suspect most of the difference now travel by car, where they felt safer and more high-status.

That reminds me, where's the call for motorcyclists to be obliged by law to wear hiviz? Worst safety record by a long way, despite obligatory helmets.

rubadub

Sgt Healy also stated that while some people felt bicycle helmets would be difficult to police, the same was said about helmets and other safety kit for motorcyclists when they were first made compulsory.

Was there really much concern about policing motorcycle helmets at the time?

And what is the other compulsory "safety kit" for motorcyclists that he is talking about? or is he talking through his hole

Chuchote

rubadub wrote: »

Was there really much concern about policing motorcycle helmets at the time?

And what is the other compulsory "safety kit" for motorcyclists that he is talking about? or is he talking through his hole

Hole, I think.

The RSA says:

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Pedestrians-and-Cyclists/Motorcycle-safety/

Motorcyclists are over-represented in collision statistics in Ireland: they represent less than 2% of licensed vehicles but 10% of road deaths. They are six times more likely to be killed on Irish roads than any other road user.

According to the road collision factbook (PDF), 29 motorcyclists were killed and 494 injured on Irish roads in 2007. According to OECD figures, a motorcyclist is two to three times more likely to be killed in Ireland than in other European country.

The lack of a protective shell combined with the high speeds means that motorbikes will always be a potentially vulnerable mode of transport. Yet motorcyclists can greatly reduce their risk profile by taking some simple precautions and ensuring that their machines are properly maintained.

Training also plays a key role in improving safety by improving the competence levels of motorcyclists on the roads. Via the RSA’s Approved Driver Instructor programme, motorcyclists can now avail of expert tuition from RSA-approved instructors all around the country.

Motorcyclist Survey

The Road Safety Authority regularly conducts research with different road users. As a motorcyclist, we would like to invite you to participate in an online survey into your motorcycling experiences.The survey will be available to complete online from 3rd – 31st March 2017. The survey can be completed online by clicking here.

Alternatively, you can request a free post paper copy of the survey by emailing researchdept@rsa.ie. Please put ‘Motorcycle Survey’ in the subject field and include your name and address in the email.

The survey is only open to motorcyclists residing in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

The survey is anonymous. As a thank you for your time, there is a free prize draw for a Shoei (Neotec) helmet worth €650 (the prize in the form of a voucher). The draw is open to all who complete the survey. Contact details are required to enter but will not be used for any other purpose.

vs

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Pedestrians-and-Cyclists/Cycling-safety/

As a cyclist, you can reduce your risk of death or injury by following some simple advice:

• Never cycle in the dark without adequate lighting – white for front, red for rear
• Always wear luminous clothing such as hi-vis vests, fluorscent armbands and reflective belts so that other road users can see you
• Wear a helmet
• Make sure you keep to the left. Always look behind and give the proper signal before moving off, changing lanes or making a turn
• Follow the rules of the road, never run traffic lights or weave unpredictably in and out of traffic
• Maintain your bike properly – in particular, your brakes should work properly and your tyres should be inflated to the right pressure and be in good condition
• Respect other road users – don’t get into shouting matches with motorists; stop at pedestrian crossings; don’t cycle on the footpath
• Watch your speed, especially when cycling on busy streets and going downhill
• Steer well clear of left-turning trucks: let them turn before you move ahead

tomasrojo

Chuchote wrote: »

Respect other road users – don’t get into shouting matches with motorists;

Yes, I remember this classic. C'mon, cyclists, you oversensititive cranks. Stop shouting at motorists for no reason!

tomasrojo

It's typical as well, that the emphasis from the proponents of this marvellous initiative is on previous moves to make motorcycle helmets and seat belts mandatory, as if bicycle helmet laws have never been attempted anywhere else (see the stunning bicycling utopia that is Australia and New Zealand, where head injury rates went up).

And you can use reductio ad balteum (or whatever the Latin for seat belt might be) for anything:

Cyclists may be reluctant to use spine protection at all times, but seat belts met resistance at first.
Cyclists may be reluctant to trail helium balloons with strobe lights at all times, but seat belts met resistance at first.
Cyclists may be reluctant to wear robotic exoskeletons at all times, but seat belts met resistance at first.

Tenzor07

Great article!


garda-hi-vis-helmets-plan-cyclists-truly-worrying

flatface

A bit of sense from Eoin O'Malley on the government's push for bad laws to look like they are doing something.

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/doing-nothing-is-better-than-acting-for-the-wrong-reasons-35626512.html

Chuchote

rubadub wrote: »

Was there really much concern about policing motorcycle helmets at the time?

There was - because there was a rash of motorcyclist deaths and manglings, most involving horrific head injuries. Helmets really do save lives for motorcyclists. What saves lives for cyclists is separation from cars, buses, vans, lorries and trucks.

Chuchote

Lead letter in The Irish Times today is from Dr Brian Reddy of the School of Medicine in Trinity College, Dublin:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/hi-vis-cyclists-and-the-garda-s-blind-spot-1.3049254

The Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors (AGSI) has called for hi-vis clothing and helmets to be made compulsory. Evidence from other jurisdictions that have implemented similar laws (such as Jersey and Seattle) suggest that it would have the effect of reducing the number of cycling fatalities – by reducing the number of cyclists.
Vastly more people in Ireland die from being inactive than from cycling accidents. Irish men have the highest body mass index in Europe; women have the third highest. The World Health Organisation expects 89 per cent of the country’s men and 85 per cent of its women to be overweight by 2030, with all the problems of cardiovascular disease, cancer and so on that flow from this (not to mention the reduction in health-related quality of life).
A visit to cities such as Amsterdam or Copenhagen will show an almost complete absence of hi-vis materials on show. And why would there be – safe cycling infrastructure is provided and is therefore used. There is a real common sense business case for investing in such infrastructure in Ireland too from a taxpayer perspective, even before considering the happy by-products of increasing health and well-being while reducing pollution and traffic.
The Garda Síochána appears to be advocating a facile alternative approach so that it can claim to have done “somethingâ€. On its watch, five cyclists have been killed by motorists this year; its solution is to threaten to criminalise cyclists. All the while, there is a genuine crisis brewing in the obesity rates in this country. The AGSI proposals to discourage exercise – seemingly to make drivers feel more comfortable in their cars – speaks volumes about the organisation’s own blind spots, and current issues. If heeded, it will also cost countless lives.

Chuchote

Amanda Brunker #headdesk #needahelmetfortheheaddesk

http://www.independent.ie/life/city-cycling/amanda-brunker-ive-narrowly-avoided-killing-three-cyclists-already-this-week-when-will-they-wise-up-35120681.html