Cycle helmets still optional as road death toll rises THE Government has no plans to legislate to make cyclists wear helmets, the Junior Transport Minister said
Iwannahurl wrote: » At least your head is covered.
HivemindXX wrote: » Yeah. I crashed my bike the other day. Luckily I was wearing a cap otherwise I would certainly have been killed.
tomasrojo wrote: » http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cycle-helmets-still-optional-as-road-death-toll-rises-30403506.html Misleading headline, as the road death toll for cyclists is not rising (unless you mean people are occasionally dying at the same low rate as the last few years).
check_six wrote: » ...or worse!
Oscar Gateaux wrote: » "Minister opens new motorway less than 24 hours after death of motorist!"
No Pants wrote: » Turned into a Zombie? Developing a taste for Justin Bieber's music?
check_six wrote: » Yeah, it's disturbing that the actual story is that a shared bike scheme is starting up in Cork, Galway, and Limerick, and the headline mentions death and implies that it's wrong that helmets have not been made mandatory. Some serious editorial shenanigans going on there. Doing dome weird agenda setting. The story should be positive, but they're adding in the tragic (and highly rare, can't remember another one where a vehicle wasn't involved) accident of that poor fellow the other day and using it to knock the scheme, or at least frighten people away from it. Don't think it will work, however, as they mention the 6,000,000 trips on Dublin Bikes, so far, down the bottom. Seems to indicate they are pretty darn popular.
buffalo wrote: » Seems like if you were a helmet you're more likely to be killed? </dubious and dodgy statistical analysis>
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Has anyone done any studies of how wearing helmets with loose straps / too far back on the head affects their performance ? Maybe helmets save lives if worn correctly ? But we'd never know since so many people were them like hats so that they couldn't possibly offer any protection to the forehead or possibly even the temple region.
It is important that a helmet fit the cyclist properly – in one study of children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years, 96 %[12] were found to be incorrectly fitted. Efficacy of incorrectly fitted helmets is reckoned to be much lower; one estimate states that risk is increased almost twofold.[13]
Iwannahurl wrote: » A mixed-up story for sure. It's as if the journalist a freelance was looking for an opportunity to do some helmet-related sh1t-stirring. There's more to the story, but it can't be related here and it's highly unlikely that it will be mentioned in the local or national press now or perhaps ever. Meanwhile helmetophilia can be given free rein.
JoeLeogue wrote: » Second of all the question about helmets was raised by another journalist, and I wasn't the only one to include the minister's comments on helmets when covering the story.
I myself am a cyclist and regularly cycle to jobs I have here in Cork. However, the death of a cyclist on our streets is a story that needs to be covered, as do all cycling and motor deaths.
Local media in Cork had accounts from many witnesses who said that the deceased hit his head and was not wearing a helmet. In that context it is perfectly reasonable question to ask the Minister who oversees this mode of transport if it is a safety measure that should be introduced. As you read, he suggested it's not a clear cut issue. As I said, I didn't ask the question, but I would have anyway.
So it wasn't so much a case of "helmet related sh1t-stirring" as reporting on the Minister's thoughts on a cycling safety question put to him when launching a cycling scheme.
CramCycle wrote: » But your headline has nothing to do with the story, the story was about the Coca Cola bikes, your headline is relates to government inaction on an issue that does not need action. I thought your article was fine but the headline was nothing short of ridiculous.
CramCycle wrote: » Indeed but as another posted here on a different thread asked, how come when there is a bit piece about a motorway opening or a by pass, the headline isn't "speed limiters still optional as a driver died in a speed related accident last night" Were there any other contributing factors to the cyclists death? I have heard where the cyclists was coming from and other important news related bit pieces but the only thing that anyone comes up with in the media is he should have been wearing a helmet, not that he should or should not have been doing a, b or c while on the bike. Unfortunately we can only discuss what is released in the media here as anything else is hearsay.
CramCycle wrote: » Why did no one ask him what were his perception on benefits to the HSE 35 years down the line as the nation gets fitter, not why aren't helmets compulsory despite its negative impact with no corroborating evidence that it is beneficial to the population in other legal districts eg parts of Canada and Australia.
JoeLeogue wrote: » Journalists don't write the headlines that appear in the newspapers.
The man had died less than 24 hours before the press conference. It was a relevant news story. At that stage the only information available was from eye witnesses who called local radio stations with their accounts, and they said he wasn't wearing a helmet. No other information was revealed. Perhaps we will learn more when the inquest is heard, but that is a while away yet.
JoeLeogue wrote: » The man had died less than 24 hours before the press conference. It was a relevant news story.
Oscar Gateaux wrote: » Why are you singling out cycling like this? Is it the overall number of head injuries? Is it the proportion of head injuries to journeys taken? I'd like to hear the reasoning behind it.
CramCycle wrote: » No, it wasn't. It was relevant to a bike scheme opening, whose only link to the deceased was that there was a bike in both. It's like you had two different stories and they were merged into one. I realise you probably have to do things like this to get an editor to publish, that's the business, I just think its a bit pointless, why not have two smaller, more internally relevant articles, with facts and points of interest, rather than two stories that are loosely (and I mean very loosely related) merged into one half story.
CramCycle wrote: » As a journalist were you able to ascertain any facts about the mans accident that were publishable other than what you overheard on the local radio. How was the man at the time of the accident, where was he coming from, was he tired, did something force him off the road eg pothole/road surface. Was there any indication form his story at the time of the accident that indicates why the accident occurred rather than what he wasn't wearing at the time? How did he hit a stationary object while cycling? His lack of a helmet surely did not cause the collision but yet is the only thing anyone in the media have mentioned bar his age and location.
No Pants wrote: » Relevant - bit of a stretch there. If the journalist doesn't write the headline, what's your excuse for the opening line? I see that only at the end of the article do you mention how many journeys have been made on the existing bike scheme. That might have been more relevant.
JoeLeogue wrote: » The opening line is “THE Government has no plans to legislate to make cyclists wear helmets, the Junior Transport Minister said.” I fail to see the problem with it. It reflects what he said, and further on in the piece he outlines why he is against making the wearing of helmets mandatory.
No Pants wrote: » "The article was published by Joe Leogue, less than 24 hours after the newspaper was forced to apologise and pay damages over another article." Do you think the above sentence would be a good opener to an article or a bad opener? Regardless, thanks for taking the time to come on here and discuss this.
JoeLeogue wrote: » I have absolutely no idea what your point is here.
