[C&T's very own] cycling helmet thread

coylemj wrote: »

Probably because they have dedicated cycle lanes so there is little opportunity for a motorist to smash into a cyclist.

What exactly is your point?

I think you've proven my point there. While Foggy thinks we should be asking Irish politicians to make helmets mandatory, the Dutch are asking politicians for more cycling lanes. The whole helmet debate serves as a distraction against provision of real cycle safety IMO.

coylemj wrote: »

A & E surgeons in all the Dublin hospitals have said over the years that nobody should get on a bike in an urban environment without a cycling helmet.

With all the head injuries coming into Irish A&Es from motor crashes, pedestrians tripping etc. why aren't they asking those people to wear helmets? If health professionals, the RSA etc spent more time on lobbying for safer cycling infrastructure and less time on helmets and hi-viz the hospitals would see less injuries overall.

It is surprising to note how common sense flies out the window on cycling issues. The wearing of a helmet is just common sense, not because your head will hit something but it could hit something !!!

There are many issues I note whilst out either cycling or walking but the one which recently gobsmacked me the most was whilst crossing O'Connell St on foot at a pedestrian crossing, a cyclist pushed his way through the crossing pedestrians. He not only broke the red light but forced his way through the pedestrians as well, even though the green man was clearly showing. This guy was no 'Dublin Bike' amateur judging by the expensive bike and gear to match.

What would be a good idea IMO would be to introduce a comprehensive 'cycling course' into the Primary School curriculum and so impart such a necessary and useful life skill. Kids don't seem to have a clue as to how to cycle safely, or indeed cycle at all. The modern kid gets bussed around in 4X4's with an Iphone in hand and it doesn't bear thinking about that later on in life he or she will just jump on board a 'Dublin bike' and all will be fine.

BenShermin wrote: »

I have to agree with you. Why would town planners paint cycle lanes that put cyclists directly into drivers blind spots at junctions? Why would motorists park on cycle lanes outside schools forcing children cycling to school into dangerous traffic? Why do parents wheel their buggys on the Grand Canal cycle lane? Yep common sense goes out the window alright;)!!

According to the RSA 40% of cyclists in Ireland wear a helmet, yet 0% of motorists have any common sense it seems. After all motorists could also hit their head!!

Indeed there are many issues, but really I'm referring to the 'hinting' here by some cyclists that helmets aren't necessary. Bringing motorists into the argument is only blurring the focus. Simply put - if a cyclist is tossed off a bike for whatever reason and is likely to suffer a bang to the head then is that cyclist better off wearing a helmet or not ? Its a no brainer to me and I hope to others.

The point was made there that rally drivers wear helmets, similarly in my experience anyway, the vast majority of road bike (racing bike) users in Ireland also wear helmets. Too often people who are not cyclists can't make the distinction between racing cyclists and utility cyclists and they think that everyone on two wheels needs protection. There's a huge difference between somebody riding a 20KG Dutch style bike in their normal clothes at an average of 17km/h through city centre traffic and/or on quiet cycle lanes and somebody on a 5KG racing bike in Lycra going down the Wicklow mountains at 35km/h.

As a cyclist I would consider all cyclists should use whatever protection they can. I don't know of any regular cyclist in Dublin who hasn't been physically parted from their bike at some stage or other and I fail to see how Dublin bike users can avoid it either.

An average of 5,000 Dublin Bike trips are taken every day (huge majority of trips are without helmets I might add). The injury levels are extremely low, this would suggest that actually, all is fine!

I often see these bikes also en route to Howth and Malahide - no helmets and God only knows what their cycling skill level is and I make no apologies for advocating that all these cyclists should be wearing helmets for their own safety. That injury levels exist at all is an indicator that all is not fine so what's wrong with playing safer ?

hardCopy wrote: »

What's more important, that more people cycle, or that the minority of people who do cycle wear a Styrofoam hat?

The only question that matters in any decision on cycling policy is "Would this encourage more people to cycle?"

Helmet laws do not encourage cycling, hence they a are dreadful idea.

Safety has to enter the equation somewhere as there is little point in encouraging more people to cycle unless they do so safely and abide by the Rules of the Road. Only the other day I was in the cycle lane on the Howth Road just past Killester heading in the city direction, when a cycling looper came whizzing along on the adjacent footpath in the opposite direction. Absolutely no need for this as there was a cycle lane available on the far side of the road. Anyone walking out of their house at that point would have been skulled ! Advocating that cyclists wear helmets and making it mandatory are not quite the same thing but people should be able to see for themselves the common sense of wearing helmets.

PS - on my bike I have a bulb type horn, which has saved my bacon twice from cars reversing out blindly from driveways. I also use a mirror to continually scan approaching traffic from the rear, without losing vision of the road ahead. Again these are two pieces of safety equipment which are totally optional but make for a safer riding experience.

monument wrote: »

...I often see these pedestrians walking around town - no helmets and God only knows what their street walking skill level is and I make no apologies for advocating that all these pedestrians should be wearing helmets for their own safety. That injury levels exist at all is an indicator that all is not fine so what's wrong with playing safer...

Is it too much to expect that the moderator, at least, would avoid the hysterics that infects most others who contribute to these increasingly ridiculous threads? Do you want to be taken seriously?

rp wrote: »

This thread was started to elicit suggestions around making cycling safer.
A poster suggested that making helmets mandatory would make cycling safer.
A number of posters, myself and monument included, argue that mandatory helmets would be of marginal benefit, and monument's ironical statement that you quote is drawing a valid comparison to the benefits of making helmets mandatory for pedestrians.
If you can offer a counter-argument, please do, it will benefit the discussion, but using terms like 'hysterical' and 'ridiculous' and appealing to the ref, is not helpful.

I couldn't care less whether cyclists wear helmets. That is their own choice. I can understand why they should. I can also understand why they might not want to.

I do think they should wear hi-viz, if they are sharing the road with heavy vehicles. People walking across busy industrial yards or shunting areas wear hi-viz, to be seen by drivers of heavy vehicles. Those same drivers on the road may have poor visibility depending on prevailing conditions. Hi-viz is a courtesy to those drivers, even if the cyclist cares not for their own safety. But I think it is a waste of time legislating for it. It is practically unenforceable.

There are good, valid arguments on both sides. Unfortunately, on all these similar threads, there are far more hysterics than reason. That is to be expected on an internet forum. I am far more likely to read and take in the reasonable ones than the hysterical ones. When people start talking about pedestrians wearing helmets, then that to me is hysterics, whether serious or in jest.

Pedestrians and cyclists are two very different things. Pedestrians are expected to spend most of their time on a footpath, seperated, if precariously, from traffic. Cyclists are expected, generally, to spend most of their time sharing the same road space with traffic, and are more vulnerable. Wearing a helmet shouldn't be law. It should, however, be simple commonsense.

If people would apply more reason and commonsense, then there would be no need for bloody laws dictating everyone's lives. It is precisely because some are more hysterical and reactionary than others, or just plain stupid, that we need law.

NoelRockDublin wrote: »

Personally, I think that cycle lanes along the lines of those on the Grand Canal are close to what we should be looking at, with an initial demand of having such built - where practical - on routes going to and from the City Centre. Maybe six trial routes like this and then an impact assessment of how much it has increased cycling as a viable commute option and going from there.

The Grand Canal, The Royal Canal, Sutton to Sandycove, The Dodder, The Quays are five projects that could be easily completed without affecting motorised traffic. Rathmines to the City Centre via Camden Street and possibly northbound via the new Luas alignment would be a very worthwhile sixth route imo, these areas see huge numbers of cyclists and the lanes are useless along this route.

NoelRockDublin wrote: »

Finally, as a Cllr, have they ever cycled to City Hall from their home and, if not, why not?

Can't speak for cllrs. but Green Party TDs seemed to be the only ones that cycled. Trevor Sargent used a fold up bike on the Skerries to Dublin commuter train, and Ciaron Cuffe cycled from the Sandycove area into Merrion Square. I doubt many other "decision makers" would cycle tbh.

Welcome to the forum btw:).