Cyclists should do a theory test!

RainyDay wrote: »

You seem to have ignored the part where the article says "Car Crashes Are The Leading Cause Of Fatal Head Trauma Among Teens". Ok, so it is US-based, and it looks at one specific age group, but would you really expect the Irish results to be that different?

The headline might as well be "Dangerous activity is the leading cause of injury".

RainyDay wrote: »

Do you seriously believe that head injuries are not a significant factor in motorist deaths?

Of course they are. That's why you have steering wheel air-bags, side impact air-bags, seat air-bags... air-bags everywhere.... and seat belts, and crumple zones. All in the effort of protection. I don't even know why you ask these kind of questions when I never suggest otherwise.

smash wrote: »

You seem to have ignored the part where I said "majority of motorists deaths".

You seem to have ignored the part where the article says "Car Crashes Are The Leading Cause Of Fatal Head Trauma Among Teens". Ok, so it is US-based, and it looks at one specific age group, but would you really expect the Irish results to be that different? Do you seriously believe that head injuries are not a significant factor in motorist deaths? More significant that the 2% cyclists perhaps?

smash wrote: »

But seriously, if you want to go on and on about motorists then start another thread. This is about cyclists.

This is a thread about a proposed road safety measure that will take resources away from dealing with motorist safety. It is very relevant.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

You asked a question and I answered that, stating my opinion based on my experience as a driver in this instance I don't need to provide facts. I could sit here all day penning anecdotes about various times I found the tests stood to me and guided me on road etiquette and rules. Do you drive? What is your opinion on the theory and driving test and its influence on driver behaviour?

Seriously? Anecdote? You're seen the problem - right? When I sit all day and pen my anecdotes which are different to your anecdotes. That's the problem with anecdotes. They are anecdotal. You might thing about looking for some evidence, or research maybe?

Simply put, people have a very bad habit of advocating safety measures on the basis of what looks dangerous rather than on any actual attempt at measuring risk and outcomes.

Some of the worst offenders are cycling advocates.

Dr Crippen

Ha very good (virtual hand clap)

CramCycle

Dr Crippen wrote: »

You asked a question and I answered that, stating my opinion based on my experience as a driver in this instance I don't need to provide facts. I could sit here all day penning anecdotes about various times I found the tests stood to me and guided me on road etiquette and rules.

Anecdotes, what a good foundation for public policy :pac:

Pinch Flat

smash wrote: »

Sure. And full nomex racing suits too

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/australian-helmet-science-for-motorists.html?m=1

The wearing of helmets in cars is recommended as a large proportion of fatalities (30% if I remember correctly) are attributed to head injuries with 50% of car accidents resulting in non-fatal head injuries.

Why is the car industry not promoting these helmets? It's would wipe out a lot of car fatalities at a stroke

Dr Crippen

RainyDay wrote: »

Generally, changes to public policy require something more than opinion. Perhaps some facts, maybe some research etc

You asked a question and I answered that, stating my opinion based on my experience as a driver in this instance I don't need to provide facts. I could sit here all day penning anecdotes about various times I found the tests stood to me and guided me on road etiquette and rules. Do you drive? What is your opinion on the theory and driving test and its influence on driver behaviour?

RainyDay wrote: »

Nothing at all? How about this for a start?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2012/04/02/forget-football-car-crashes-are-the-leading-cause-of-fatal-head-trauma-among-teens/

And even if say 1/4 of motorist deaths are related to head injury, that's still about 12 times more deaths than cyclists - but you still want to focus on the 2% - right?

You seem to have ignored the part where I said "majority of motorists deaths".

But seriously, if you want to go on and on about motorists then start another thread. This is about cyclists.

smash wrote: »

There's nothing to suggest that the majority of motorists deaths are related to head injury so you might as well drop that.

Nothing at all? How about this for a start?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2012/04/02/forget-football-car-crashes-are-the-leading-cause-of-fatal-head-trauma-among-teens/

And even if say 1/4 of motorist deaths are related to head injury, that's still about 12 times more deaths than cyclists - but you still want to focus on the 2% - right?

Beasty

smash wrote: »

Weight it up. Brain damage & possibly death or a neck injury which would probably happen along side the brain injury anyway.

Brain damage occurs mainly from the brain bouncing off the inside of the skull - most helmets have offer no benefit whatsoever from that (a small number of newer ones do try and offer very limited protection from this). Helmets do though help protect the skull from breaking. A broken skull itself is obviously very serious, and could add to the brain damage. However it could also absorb some of the shock and reduce the extent to which the brain bounces of the inside of the skull, which could (and I'm certainly not saying will) reduce the amount of brain damage

RainyDay wrote: »

And once again, we're talking about the 2% instead of focusing on the 98% - mandatory driving helmets would be the obvious solution here, surely?

There's nothing to suggest that the majority of motorists deaths are related to head injury so you might as well drop that.

smash wrote: »

For every stat and opinion to say they're useless there's another to say they're not:

"Each year about 2 percent of motor vehicle crash deaths are bicyclists. In a majority of bicyclist deaths, the most serious injuries are to the head, highlighting the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet. Helmet use has been estimated to reduce head injury risk by 85 percent."
http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

And once again, we're talking about the 2% instead of focusing on the 98% - mandatory driving helmets would be the obvious solution here, surely?

smash wrote: »

Bra's save hearts?

I'm so accident prone, I should probably be wearing one even going to bed.

No, but regular, moderate activity combined with a reasonable diet, moderate alcohol intake and an avoidance of tobacco means you'll likely not have to have your chest cracked

smash wrote: »

For every stat and opinion to say they're useless there's another to say they're not:

"Each year about 2 percent of motor vehicle crash deaths are bicyclists. In a majority of bicyclist deaths, the most serious injuries are to the head, highlighting the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet. Helmet use has been estimated to reduce head injury risk by 85 percent."
http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

Cycle helmets save lives says Neurosurgeon - in ongoing helmet row
Brain surgeon: There's no point wearing bicycle helmets

Anyway I never said I was for or against helmets but if I was out on a bike I'd wear one just to be extra cautious.

BTW, I'd recommend never being 'extra cautious' on a bike - if you are too passive you end up 'retreating' into situations that are potentially very dangerous - that doesn't mean cycling around like your hair is on fire, but some assertiveness, with a good dollop of common sense goes an awful long way to making cycling both safe and fun - in my experience.

Jawgap wrote: »

Brain surgeon who sees people with brain injuries says helmets would save lives? Yeah, that'd be about right.

wonder what his buddy the heart surgeon has to say about people coming in for by-passes?

Bra's save hearts?

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Would you wear one doing other activities, where your risk of suffering a head injury is higher than cycling?

I'm so accident prone, I should probably be wearing one even going to bed.

Would you wear one doing other activities, where your risk of suffering a head injury is higher than cycling?

smash wrote: »

For every stat and opinion to say they're useless there's another to say they're not:

"Each year about 2 percent of motor vehicle crash deaths are bicyclists. In a majority of bicyclist deaths, the most serious injuries are to the head, highlighting the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet. Helmet use has been estimated to reduce head injury risk by 85 percent."
http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

Cycle helmets save lives says Neurosurgeon - in ongoing helmet row
Brain surgeon: There's no point wearing bicycle helmets

Anyway I never said I was for or against helmets but if I was out on a bike I'd wear one just to be extra cautious.

Brain surgeon who sees people with brain injuries says helmets would save lives? Yeah, that'd be about right.

wonder what his buddy the heart surgeon has to say about people coming in for by-passes?

For every stat and opinion to say they're useless there's another to say they're not:

"Each year about 2 percent of motor vehicle crash deaths are bicyclists. In a majority of bicyclist deaths, the most serious injuries are to the head, highlighting the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet. Helmet use has been estimated to reduce head injury risk by 85 percent."
http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

Cycle helmets save lives says Neurosurgeon - in ongoing helmet row
Brain surgeon: There's no point wearing bicycle helmets

Anyway I never said I was for or against helmets but if I was out on a bike I'd wear one just to be extra cautious.

Dr Crippen wrote: »

As a driver and a cyclist I would there is, that's my opinion based on the fact I have done the theory and driving test.

Generally, changes to public policy require something more than opinion. Perhaps some facts, maybe some research etc.

smash wrote: »

A brief glimpse of that thread didn't lead me to any reason for not wearing one other than a few saying that compulsory helmet wearing in other countries didn't save lives. This just sounds defiant and in my opinion it still isn't a reason to not wear one. For every person saying no, there seems to be 2/3 saying yes.

smash wrote: »

Weight it up. Brain damage & possibly death or a neck injury which would probably happen along side the brain injury anyway.

You seem to be confusing two seperate questions:

1) Should I wear a helmet?
2) Should helmets be mandatory for everybody?

These are two very different questions. Everybody knows that smokers should give up smoking, but we don't make smoking illegal, for a range of reasons.

Even if you were to accept that wearing a helmet may have safety benefits, that doesn't make it a good idea to make it mandatory.

But we are a little off-topic here. It would be nice to get back to the question of why we're getting hysterical about cyclists breaking red lights, and how your quality of life would improve if they stopped.

smash wrote: »

Weight it up. Brain damage & possibly death or a neck injury which would probably happen along side the brain injury anyway.

I have, and brain damage is not an automatic consequence of a tumble from a bike - neither is spinal chord injury.

Plus, if we're really trying to limit acquired brain injury by modifying or introducing mandatory requirements for sports and leisure activities, let's start with my favourite sport - rugby.

How many kids, teens and adults next year will suffer concussions from playing rugby? Likewise Gaelic football? Soccer? Are we going to make head protection mandatory for those activities?

CramCycle

Jawgap wrote: »

it offers fantastic protection from nagging family members,

It does provide protection from mother in laws.

smash wrote: »

Weight it up. Brain damage & possibly death or a neck injury which would probably happen along side the brain injury anyway.

If you hit the ground hard enough for brain damage without the helmet, you probably were travelling fast enough to cause brain damage with the helmet. You may have a prettier face afterwards though, so swings and roundabouts.
Would you have gotten your arms around your head if you weren't wearing one, would you have travelled as fast without one, would the car that hit you have travelled as close to you without one, would you have noticed whatever took you out if you weren't wearing one, the questions are endless.

The facts on the other hand are simple, at population level, it makes no difference.

If mandatory use is brought in, the negatives far outweigh any perceived positives.

I am neither for or against helmet wearing, just against mandatory use.

Plus, if you've short hair or are bald you get stripy tanlines on your head. Nobody needs that s**t.

CramCycle

smash wrote: »

A brief glimpse of that thread didn't lead me to any reason for not wearing one other than a few saying that compulsory helmet wearing in other countries didn't save lives. This just sounds defiant and in my opinion it still isn't a reason to not wear one. For every person saying no, there seems to be 2/3 saying yes.

Not just defiant but statistically, true. At a population level, in regards cyclists, it does not save lives. Everyone has their anecdotes, some for, a few against, but at a population level, it does nothing.

As for the hair thing, mine is a mess, well, what little remains, if anything my hair is a good reason to wear a helmet.

Anyway, if you had read it more throughly, the big thing was that making it compulsory reduced cyclist numbers, which increases the burden on the healthcare system in years to come as well as in high population density areas, increases traffic congestion.

Jawgap wrote: »

Well we could re-invent that thread here, but unlike air bags and seat belts in cars, the evidence is not as clear cut for helmets.

.....and for the record I always wear a helmet when cycling - I'm totally convinced it offers fantastic protection from nagging family members, ill informed commentators and the general impositions of the nanny state

I'm less convinced it will offer me any protection above about 20km/hr - and could, in preventing one type of injury (imapcts to the head), cause more serious, torsional ones to the neck.

Weight it up. Brain damage & possibly death or a neck injury which would probably happen along side the brain injury anyway.

JamJamJamJam

smash wrote: »

A brief glimpse of that thread didn't lead me to any reason for not wearing one other than a few saying that compulsory helmet wearing in other countries didn't save lives. This just sounds defiant and in my opinion it still isn't a reason to not wear one. For every person saying no, there seems to be 2/3 saying yes.

It's not about opinions, it's about a population-based observation that lives may not be saved overall. The point is that public campaigns for safe cycling may be more harmful than good if they insist that wearing a helmet is necessary. Equally, if it was illegal to cycle without a helmet, that might save no lives. However, for any individual, they should absolutely wear a helmet if they feel safer doing it and that's what they want to do. It's counter-intuitive at first, and it took a bit of reading before I was convinced, but they are some fairly sound arguments worth looking into.

Because of the slight complexity, however, the number of people saying yes or no on that thread has little reflection on what would improve road safety.

smash wrote: »

A brief glimpse of that thread didn't lead me to any reason for not wearing one other than a few saying that compulsory helmet wearing in other countries didn't save lives. This just sounds defiant and in my opinion it still isn't a reason to not wear one. For every person saying no, there seems to be 2/3 saying yes.

Well we could re-invent that thread here, but unlike air bags and seat belts in cars, the evidence is not as clear cut for helmets.

.....and for the record I always wear a helmet when cycling - I'm totally convinced it offers fantastic protection from nagging family members, ill informed commentators and the general impositions of the nanny state

I'm less convinced it will offer me any protection above about 20km/hr - and could, in preventing one type of injury (imapcts to the head), cause more serious, torsional ones to the neck.

[Deleted User]

smash wrote: »

So what your saying is if the law was to actively act upon cyclists breaking the rules of the road because they're identifiable, that people would stop cycling? Instead of you know, stop breaking the law...

Road manners, revenue increase. There's 2 points.

Yes i am saying that introducing registration for cyclists is likely to reduce casual users use of bikes as a transport mode.
Just because someone is registered does not have a direct link reduction in offences.
Look at mobile phone use in cars, is this affected by registration?

Using police resources to enforce the law on cyclists would probably also not be viewed as effective use of those resources by the garda.

Beasty wrote: »

However have a read through this thread and you will start to appreciate it's not as straightforward as that. There are certainly circumstances where wearing a helmet can increase risks, and there are strong arguments each way on this one

A brief glimpse of that thread didn't lead me to any reason for not wearing one other than a few saying that compulsory helmet wearing in other countries didn't save lives. This just sounds defiant and in my opinion it still isn't a reason to not wear one. For every person saying no, there seems to be 2/3 saying yes.