Gardai say cyclists must change attitude

ThisRegard · 12-04-2017 10:28PM

tayto lover wrote: »

You'd need to ask them. They obviously didn't pluck it out of the sky. They must have their reasons.

Personal opinion is what the garda spokesperson used for reasoning. Is personal reasons to be the basis for gardai proposing laws?

Beasty · 12-04-2017 10:31PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Most modern cars have daytime running lights on the front and are very visible from the rear due to clusters of different coloured lights that are also illuminated at night. Also, most cars are brightly coloured and are relatively big compared to a bicycle. Why should a car driver wear a helmet when most modern cars have airbags?

Most cyclists wear helmets. Most use lights at night. Many use hi-viz.....

Oh and if only most modern cars have airbags, perhaps we should legislate that all drivers wear helmets as to pick on those with old, crappy cars may be considered discriminatory, sending out a poor message to the less well off in society

tayto lover · 12-04-2017 10:31PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

Personal opinion is what the garda spokesperson used for reasoning. Is personal reasons to be the basis for gardai proposing laws?

I'm sure it's more than that.
They are the people who attend at accidents involving cyclists.
They interview both the cyclist and the motorist. They hear the reasons given for the collisions.
It's hardly personal.

Chuchote · 12-04-2017 10:32PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Most modern cars have daytime running lights on the front and are very visible from the rear due to clusters of different coloured lights that are also illuminated at night. Also, most cars are brightly coloured and are relatively big compared to a bicycle. Why should a car driver wear a helmet when most modern cars have airbags?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217397/

Motor vehicle crashes continue to remain one of the highest sources of head trauma [Gennarelli et al., 1994]. Frontal airbag systems are intended to provide maximum protection to front seat occupants in full frontal vehicle collisions. The head, neck, and chest body regions have been considered the most vulnerable to severe trauma in frontal impact. Despite the common notions by clinicians and many automotive trauma researchers, the effectiveness of airbag restraint systems in mitigating head injury has not been well documented in the scientific literature.

tomasrojo · 12-04-2017 10:33PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Why should a car driver wear a helmet when most modern cars have airbags?

There was a study done in Australia that suggested that helmets would make a difference for car occupants. There are a few angles that can't be covered by airbags, or at least aren't currently covered. It's a basic "if it saves just one life!" argument, which is usually not an especially good argument

ThisRegard · 12-04-2017 10:33PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Most modern cars have daytime running lights on the front and are very visible from the rear due to clusters of different coloured lights that are also illuminated at night. Also, most cars are brightly coloured and are relatively big compared to a bicycle. Why should a car driver wear a helmet when most modern cars have airbags?

If it makes you that bit more protected from head injury, why not? At worse it'll prevent broken noses and black eyes from the air bags.

ThisRegard · 12-04-2017 10:36PM

tayto lover wrote: »

I'm sure it's more than that.
They are the people who attend at accidents involving cyclists.
They interview both the cyclist and the motorist. They hear the reasons given for the collisions.
It's hardly personal.

They hear the excuses.

The quote is on the first page or two of this thread, personal opinion was explicitly put forward as the reason, no research or statistics were used to back up this opinion, not in any of the stories I've read anyway.

Chuchote · 12-04-2017 10:38PM

Getting back to the GardaÃ - while they're hassling cyclists to dress like scarecrows, are they making any pledges to tackle the scandalous and apparently unchecked level of bicycle thefts?

Professor Moriarty · 12-04-2017 10:38PM

Beasty wrote: »

Most cyclists wear helmets. Most use lights at night. Many use hi-viz.....

Oh and if only most modern cars have airbags, perhaps we should legislate that all drivers wear helmets as to pick on those with old, crappy cars may be considered discriminatory, sending out a poor message to the less well off in society

Nah. If some of the great unwashed are eliminated in their old crocks then society will be the better for it. Pour encorager les autres, dontcha know. The rest of the proles might even take take up cycling instead.

tomasrojo · 12-04-2017 10:38PM

tayto lover wrote: »

And i don't see why less people would cycle because they had to wear a high viz. It's for safety not a fashion show surely.

Because image-conscious people won't wear it and it's inconvenient. It also reinforces the notion that cycling is dangerous.

Basically, rather similar to attitudes towards helmets. Here's what happened to cycling levels in New Zealand and how the injury rate changed after helmet compulsion:

https://roaddangerreductionforum.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/newzealandhelmetsv6.jpg?w=768&h=572

Professor Moriarty · 12-04-2017 10:40PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

There was a study done in Australia that suggested that helmets would make a difference for car occupants. There are a few angles that can't be covered by airbags, or at least aren't currently covered. It's a basic "if it saves just one life!" argument, which is usually not an especially good argument

Some studies should be burnt at the stake alongside the researchers.

Beasty · 12-04-2017 10:40PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

no research or statistics were used to back up this opinion, not in any of the stories I've read anyway.

Think they've got better things to do than worry about this sort of stuff

:pac:

tomasrojo · 12-04-2017 10:42PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Already stated that it doesn't have to be a particular type of jacket

I'm referring to the free hiviz clothing you get from the RSA and the GardaÃ. It costs maybe 50c per unit, so you can give away plenty of it and look as if you're being very serious about road safety, while not addressing the underlying causes of risk, or indeed probably not mitigating the risk itself.

tayto lover wrote: »

once it's reflective and the cyclist can be seen.

Again, in broad daylight pedestrians and cyclists can be seen quite easily. At night, cyclists should have lights.

Lumen · 12-04-2017 10:42PM

@tomasrojo one way to read that is that helmets were introduced just in time to deal with a rising rate of injuries. :pac:

Professor Moriarty · 12-04-2017 10:43PM

Chuchote wrote: »

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217397/

Point?

Beasty · 12-04-2017 10:43PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Some studies should be burnt at the stake alongside the researchers.

So Professor, what research have you done or read on the topic, and what conclusions do you draw?

Regulars in this forum do actually see a lot of this stuff in similar threads, and are able to dispel the "theories" put forward by non-regulars coming in and thinking they know better than anyone else when they have little if any expertise in the subject matter

Fighting Tao · 12-04-2017 10:46PM

So the AGSI met up and the best thing they could think of is "let's use woo to target cyclists to hide the fact that we are generally crap at road law enforcement". It's no wonder they also feel like people respect them less. Scandals and woo really are not heart warmers.

Professor Moriarty · 12-04-2017 10:46PM

Beasty wrote: »

So Professor, what research have you done or read on the topic, and what conclusions do you draw?

Regulars in this forum do actually see a lot of this stuff in similar threads, and are able to dispel the "theories" put forward by non-regulars coming in and thinking they know better than anyone else when they have little if any expertise in the subject matter

Is this an interview? Is this thread exclusively for "regulars"? Must I sit an exam before I post?

tomasrojo · 12-04-2017 10:46PM

Lumen wrote: »

@tomasrojo one way to read that is that helmets were introduced just in time to deal with a rising rate of injuries. :pac:

I believe this argument was actually made!

07Lapierre · 12-04-2017 10:47PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Most modern cars have daytime running lights on the front and are very visible from the rear due to clusters of different coloured lights that are also illuminated at night. Also, most cars are brightly coloured and are relatively big compared to a bicycle. Why should a car driver wear a helmet when most modern cars have airbags?

My car is black, the tyres are black, the seats are black, the interior trim is black. Today I drove to work, i got there in one piece, so I assume everyone could see me. ( I had no lights on)

if the Motor trade/government were really serious about road safety, every car would be fitted with a roll cage, bucket seats, 5 point harness and drivers would be required by law to wear a full face helmet! Airbags, 3 point seat belts are tokens towards safety. Airbags do help prevent serious injury, but they can also cause serious injury if seat belts are used incorrectly. A lot of women admit to wearing the shoulder strap under their arm instead of over the shoulder.

Chips Lovell · 12-04-2017 10:47PM

I wouldn't mind them. Mid-ranking guards making the most of their annual opportunity to say controversial things and get themselves into the papers.

uck51js9zml2yt · 12-04-2017 10:47PM

Melodeon wrote: »

Don't forget the blue strobes and the siren!

5 pages in and I'm still wondering where on my bike i can put my strobes and siren:)

rollingscone · 12-04-2017 10:48PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Is this an interview? Is this thread exclusively for "regulars"? Must I sit an exam before I post?

I like my medical practitioners to be gutsy newcomers too.

tomasrojo · 12-04-2017 10:49PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Some studies should be burnt at the stake alongside the researchers.

You can get a feel for it from this:
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/car-helmets-atsb.html

Professor Moriarty · 12-04-2017 10:50PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

My car is black, the tyres are black, the seats are black, the interior trim is black. Today I drove to work, i got there in one piece, so I assume everyone could see me. ( I had no lights on)

if the Motor trade/government were really serious about road safety, every car would be fitted with a roll cage, bucket seats, 5 point harness and drivers would be required by law to wear a full face helmet! Airbags, 3 point seat belts are tokens towards safety. Airbags do help prevent serious injury, but they can also cause serious injury if seat belts are used incorrectly. A lot of women admit to wearing the shoulder strap under their arm instead of over the shoulder.

I presume it's the bite point at which comfort, cost and safety converge.

tayto lover · 12-04-2017 10:51PM

tomasrojo wrote: »

Because image-conscious people won't wear it and it's inconvenient. It also reinforces the notion that cycling is dangerous.

Basically, rather similar to attitudes towards helmets. Here's what happened to cycling levels in New Zealand and how the injury rate changed after helmet compulsion:

https://roaddangerreductionforum.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/newzealandhelmetsv6.jpg?w=768&h=572

That's interesting but being the devil's advocate the number of cyclists actually doubled so therefore the injured would drastically increase too.
Also it didn't specify the type of injury. Maybe head injuries actually decreased but limb injuries increased.

Professor Moriarty · 12-04-2017 10:52PM

rollingscone wrote: »

I like my medical practitioners to be gutsy newcomers too.

I'm different to you. I don't think that posting on a thread on Boards is the same as attending a doctor.

Chuchote · 12-04-2017 10:53PM

tayto lover wrote: »

That's interesting but being the devil's advocate the number of cyclists actually doubled so therefore the injured would drastically increase too.
Also it didn't specify the type of injury. Maybe head injuries actually decreased but limb injuries increased.

Well, no. The number of cyclists in Dublin has doubled, and the number of injuries hasn't.

Fighting Tao · 12-04-2017 10:53PM

tayto lover wrote: »

That's interesting but being the devil's advocate the number of cyclists actually doubled so therefore the injured would drastically increase too.
Also it didn't specify the type of injury. Maybe head injuries actually decreased but limb injuries increased.

I don't think you read the graph correctly.

PeadarCo · 12-04-2017 10:53PM

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Is this an interview? Is this thread exclusively for "regulars"? Must I sit an exam before I post?

There's a difference between informed opinion and people who don't have a clue and have done no research. "Regular" posters and readers of the forum have seen these arguments countless times. The fact there are megathreads for high vis and helmets says how often the topics come up and how divergent opinion can be. They would good threads for people who have a genuine interest in the topics and aren't just interested in a cyclist bashing exercise. There's a huge amount of good information in the megathreads than can make for some good reading.

Gardai say cyclists must change attitude

Comments