Posted by
on 01/05/12
Proposal Statement from Cycling experts:
Cycle training should be widely available. Cycling should be promoted through education and safety in numbers.
Question
Recently there has been discussion in the media about whether cycle helmets are safe or not. Do you wear a bicycle helmet? Do you think making the wearing of helmets compulsory would discourage people from cycling?
What is your opinion?
Some interesting statistics that refute the 'safety in numbers' argument:
If we examine the number of cyclist deaths that occur each year in Ireland and the UK, countries whose infrastructure serves to discourage cycling, we see that proportionately the figures are far lower than those countries who have much higher rates of cyclists. This point may seem obvious but a closer look at the statistics highlight the need for a different approach to promoting cycling.
A research document released by the Road Safety Authority in March 2010 gives a breakdown of all cyclist casualties in Ireland from the period 1998-2008. During this period 144 cyclists were killed on our roads. This figure accounts for just 3.5% of the total road deaths over the same period.
Additionally the most recent figures released by the RSA show that there were only 5 cycling deaths in 2010, representing a mere 2.3% of all road casualties.
The UK turn up similar figures. 111 cyclists died in 2010 accounting for just 4.9% of all road deaths.
If we compare these statistics with cycle friendly countries it puts these figures into context. In 2010 there were 162 cyclists killed on Dutch roads. This figure represents 25.3% of all road deaths in the Netherlands (it should be noted that the number of deaths per 100,000 inhabitants in the Netherlands is considerably lower than in most other countries). Similarly there was 54 cyclist deaths in Denamrk in 2008, representing 13.6% of total road deaths.
When you consider that the Netherlands and Denmark have the highest rate of cycling in the world these figures are hardly surprising. Cyclists are considered paramount when it comes to urban planning in the respective countries.
Contrast this with Ireland whose cycling infrastructure is sub-par in most areas and non-existent in others. Ireland has seen a significant drop in road fatalities over the last number of years with 2010 being the safest year since road deaths first began recording in 1959. This leads to a problem for those wishing to promote cycling in Ireland. Increasing numbers will lead to Ireland's overall casualty rate worsening. The only way to counter this is to make the vulnerable less vulnerable.
The theory that simply increasing the number of cyclists on the road would lower the danger posed to cyclists is a fallacy. Dutch cyclists are safe note merely because they are numerous, but because they have the infrastructure that provides convenience and protects them. Hypothetically, if the number of cyclists in Dublin quadrupled overnight I can say with great confidence that the number of accidents would increase in tandem.
A look at other countries in Europe shows another possible future for Ireland. Belgium, Italy, Austria, Denmark, Germany and Sweden all have higher cycling rates than Ireland though lower than the Netherlands. They also all have worse overall road casualty figures. You can put this down to having infrastructure which is simply not quite so good as in the Netherlands.
If Ireland is to grow its rate of cycling and improve its safety then it needs a radical change to the way that planning is done. Cycling needs to be both attractive and genuinely safe. Reliance on the myth of "safety in numbers" will not make cyclists safe on unsafe roads.
And I'm afraid you don't understand statistics. Nothing that you present refutes the idea of safety in numbers.
Your theory would be true if the exposure to risk was the same, but since the level of cycling in Denmark and Holland is so much greater than the UK and Ireland, the level of risk per cyclist is much lower, despite the apparently greater casualty rate. This would seem to confirm the safety in numbers argument, not refute it.
The mans right. I was thinking if they made a cycle lane to run antagis the traffic to go straight up with the bleeding horse on your left so you can go straight to the rathmines bridge. all that would have to be done is a special bicycle traffic light next to the pedestrian one on the island out side of the bleeding horse similar to the one on the cutom house bridge on the south side that allows you to cross onto the road safley if you where coming to the end of the south side liffey bank cycle lane. Unfortunitly the liffey bank cycle lanes and the ring road cycle lane (on the canal) are aimed at tourist or lesure cyclists and not comuters that actualy have places to go As for the Green I feal a dose of nostalja from my currying days when I come flying around the corner from lower leesons street (the right witch leaves the park on your left) and am left stranded in the middle of the 3 lane road with two lanes of traffic to cross to get to the bicycle lane only to reach the next corner and have 2 dismount and cross the road as a pedestrian in order to join the trafic on merrion row, it's this or swing round the park and take the right down dawsons street fight to cross lanes and take the right onto nassau street fight across lanes again on to clair street and then your at merrion square(a regular visit for me). I think their the only two parks in the world where it quicker to walk slowy to each other than cycle.
Narrow your focus enough and the data will suit your agenda.
The fatality rate per cyclist is higher in NL and DK, but the fatality rate *per km travelled* is not. *That* is the critical metric in this debate.
See: https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/tthose-baffling-and...
And: http://drawingrings.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/no-cycling-is-not-safer-in-br...
And that's before you look more widely at public health data such as rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease, to name just three. As for air quality:
'And yet … there are huge things that are within a mayor's power, and could change London, both as a city and as a lived experience. First is air pollution. From two completely different sources – Ted Reilly, a road safety campaigner, and Alice Bell, a lecturer in science and society and part-time Sack Boris campaigner – I heard astonishing things about air quality in London. They say it correlates, not vaguely but absolutely precisely, with the traffic volume, that it is the largest threat to public health after smoking (seriously!), and that once you get any distance from its source – 20 yards – it vanishes.
'In other words, if you pedestrianised major thoroughfares from 8am til 8pm, if you dropped speed limits, if you made public transport cheaper, if you consolidated deliveries to the periphery and got one provider to bring it all to the centre ("We used to call it the Royal Mail," Reilly remarks, erm, wryly) you could do as much for the health of London as the person who discovered that smoking caused cancer.'
That last line should give pause for thought.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2012/apr/27/boris-ken-london-unpop...
The RSA needs to look at fundamental *causes*, not consequences; to address the disease, not the symptom. (In case it needs to be said, the disease is cycling-inimical road design, excessive vehicular speed, and a largely ignorant judiciary.)
(There should be a rule that citing the RSA in any debate on cycling automatically disqualified you from participating. If the RSA were involved in gun crime, it'd blame the victim of a shooting for not wearing a bullet proof vest.)
And I'm afraid you don't understand statistics either: the fatality rate per cyclist is much lower, not higher, in Denmark and Holland. If there are ten times the number of cyclists and the fatality rate is double, the risk per cyclist is 80% lower, not higher.
The risk per capita is higher, because the number of cyclists is higher, but not the risk per cyclist.
"The fatality rate per cyclist is higher in NL and DK, but the fatality rate *per km travelled* is not."
And I'm afraid you don't understand statistics either. Since there are many times the number of cyclists in NL and DK, the fatality rate per cyclist is much lower.
Dublin Fifth Province
Office of Civic & Global Engagement
Bea Orpen Building, DCU, Dublin 9, Ireland.
Site designed by Designit Creative Consultants Ltd
© Dublin Fifth Province
All the long term, large scale, reliable research shows at best no benefit from helmet wearing, and some research shows an increase in risk. All the short term, small scale, unreliable research shows massive benefits. It is an interesting question as to why so many people believe the second, not the first. My own opinion as to why this should be so is because the media repeats ad nauseum that cycling is dangerous and a helmet will make you safe, neither of which is true, but it is almost impossible to get a misleading story corrected.
The most glaring example of helmet promotion in the media is the BBC, which has been blatantly campaigning on the issue for twenty years, in direct contravention of it's charter, but complaints are futile. Just google for bbc + cycle helmets to demonstrate the point.
The helmet myth is the most enduring of all the urban myths, and is based on bad science and an appallingly biased media.
Richard Burton (not verified)
on 09/05/12