ctesiphon

weehamster- with the greatest of respect and sympathy, I will take hard evidence (‘wafffle’ and ‘spiel’? No.) over personal experience any day. It is precisely the prizing of personal experience over facts that causes so many problems when it comes to policy making and legislation. Personal experience simply has no place in that arena. The death of anyone in the circumstances you mention is certainly a tragedy, but to use that as the basis for legislation or policy is plain wrong.

And Yes- I certainly am promoting cycling without a helmet. I promote it every day by my actions, every time I mount my bike. I am proud to do so, and I will not change.

Sorry if this seems harsh, or disrespectful to your own circumstances, but it is a matter of great importance to me.

As I said upthread, this debate has been had, repeatedly. I didn’t want to go into it, but you called those of us who choose to go without helmets ‘irresponsible’ and I couldn’t let your subjective post go unchallenged.

Feel free to wear a helmet, by all means, but please do not try to dictate to me how I should dress as I go about my life.

More of the same ill-informed tosh from the Irish Daily Mail, 25.ix.08:

1) Cycling one-handed is not dangerous- it’s one of the first skills a rider should learn. How otherwise can hand signals be made?

2) Cycling in an overcoat is about as dangerous as cycling in a skirt. Skirt guards are available for back wheels, but serve to protect the skirt/coat from dirt more than to keep it from catching in the ‘wheels, cogs and gears’ (cogs and gears?:confused:)- unless Mr Cuffe is actually wearing one of those floor-length Matrix type coats, but it doesn’t look like it from here.

3) See my last post for the helmet stuff. This point by the IDM is blatant scare-mongering, borne from a total ignorance of anything other than a desire to sensationalise.

4a) Does the absence of lights during daylight hours even need to be addressed?
4b) Who says he doesn’t have lights in his bag?
4c) But what’s that you say? Ther are lights on his bike? Where? Oh, right- attached to the front axle. And guess what- they look like the fancy Danish ones that require no batteries. What’s next? “Cuffe undermines national economy by refusing to buy batteries”?

The palpable concern for Mr Cuffe’s welfare is so touching. If only there was as much concern for the trees that died in order to produce the paper on which this crap was printed. Such a waste of life…

weehamster- did you have a look at the link I posted above?

All you need and then some can be found at: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

Seriously- it’s impossible to have this debate without knowledge of the content of that site.

@weehamster wrote:

I do have a problem when someone is seen not wearing a helmet, especially one who is famous face (and in this case, the influential world of fashion). This is seen as it is ok not to wear helmets (or probably in this case ,not fashionable to wear one). Do you think it is a positive message to send out.

Absolutely. This is the most positive message it is possible to send out. The more people realise that it is not necessary to have any special equipment – aside from a bike and night gear – the better. I was delighted to see the photos of Elle Macpherson – and Agnes Deyn (regularly) and Pixie Geldof (see yesterday’s edition of the Star [go on- just this once]) – riding a normal bike in a normal way as part of her normal day.

And in the last week I’ve seen Gordon D’Arcy and Denis Hickie both riding bikes in Dublin city- neither one wearing a helmet. (Doing Leinster proud!)

I’m not saying I would carry a toddler on my handlebars as Elle did, but your objection to the photo was on the grounds of the absence of a helmet on her own head.

@weehamster wrote:

This same irresponsible reaction by people occurred during the law for mandatory helmet wearing was brought in for users of Motorbikes. Helmets help to greatly reduce head trauma. This is the reason why everyone should wear one, not because someone is tell you to do so.

What do you mean ‘greatly reduce head trauma’ [my emphasis]? That’s a statement bordering on the meaningless, and typical of the groundless generalisations proffered by the promoters of helmets when all fact-based research and analysis indicates otherwise. In a relatively limited number of cases, helmets will prevent such an injury (incidents that are generally high speed crashes that don’t involve other vehicles, i.e. a road racer who becomes unseated when descending a mountain at speed, for example). In a higher number of cases in other situations – falling down at home; driving a car; walking to the shops – a helmet would prevent similar injury types. I presume, for the sake of consistency, you advocate the wearing of helmets in all such situations?

Furthermore, your statement ignores the fact that, in some situations, helmets can actually reduce a cyclist’s safety. Admittedly, these incidents are not all that common (rotational force applied to the neck being the most usual), but they do exist.

However, notwithstanding all of the above, there is another, more important dimension at work here that must be acknowledged. The collective or cumulative aspect of this debate is the critical one and, in essence, it is a textbook illustration of the fact that the common good is not just the sum of all individual goods. Even allowing for the fact that helmets can occasionally protect the individual in limited cases, it has been conclusively proven that the promotion of helmet wearing – the introduction of mandatory helmet laws, for example – results in a reduction in cyclist numbers (the reasons are numerous, but perceptions of the safety of the mode is the most significant one). When you consider that the accident rate for cycling actually rises as cycling numbers fall, this leads to the conclusion that promotion of helmets is a counter-productive measure which ultimately reduces the overall safety of cycling.

In addition, there is evidence to show that a car overtaking a cyclist will leave more room if the cyclist is not wearing a helmet, demonstrating again – though for different reasons – that helmet wearing actually increases risk for cyclists.

Finally, it has been calculated that, for every life year saved by the wearing of a helmet (someone who hits their head in an accident that would probably have killed them without the helmet [can never be conclusively proven, obviously]), 20 life years are lost through a variety of other means directly linked to the reduction in the number of cyclists- obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, etc.

What this all points to is the conclusion that the promotion of helmet wearing is a well-meaning exercise (probably- we can’t ignore the fact that many promoters happen to be manufacturers of the products, so the purity of their motive is, at best, questionable) that has the opposite effect from that which is intended.

Given the fact, mentioned above, that risk goes up as numbers go down, the opposite is obviously also true- as numbers increase, the accident rate falls. (This is different from, say, the accident rate for cars, where there is a relatively proportional relationship between the number of cars on the road and the number of people killed or seriously injured.) Therefore, I would argue that the best way of increasing the safety of cyclists is to get more people cycling, an objective which is not achievable by the promotion of helmets and which is, in fact, undermined by that very act. Otherwise, you are not just treating the symptoms rather than the disease, you are actually preparing petri dishes for the spores.

The Copenhagenize website has been following the debate in detail for some time. I would suggest having a look at the posts on helmets for a balanced perspective.

(Lastly – honest, I’m nearly finished! – this is an interesting article on mandatory motorcycle helmets that gave me pause for thought: http://www.forbes.com/fyi/1999/0503/041.html)

That would appear to be the view of many.

Nous n’avons pas des amants du pont neuf?

😀

From: http://www.dublintattoocompany.com/

@gunter wrote:

So where’s the bloody 1903 building?

…stayed on canal until Harrold’s Cross Bridge, right to Clanbrassil St., left at Malpas St., right at Blackpitts, left to Mill St. right to Mill Lane, left to Newmarket, Chamber St. into Weaver Square (poked around) right to Ormond St., right onto Cork St., (took photo of possible Billy), left up Ardee St., Pimlico…

Over your left shoulder as you’re facing the redbrick Billy on Mill Street, set into a roughcast warehouse wall. (Possibly not original to building, etc,)

Hint?

I’m supposed to be hanging curtains and painting the pipes in the bathroom, dammit! The things I do for you people…

I don’t know if any shop here stocks either of these, but you could always treat yourself to a trip to Leipzig or Copenhagen. 😉

http://www.retrovelo.de/ (Review.)

http://velorbis.com/ (The Scrap Deluxe would get my vote- Review.)

@hutton wrote:

Now why have I chosen that view in particular?

Something to do with JCDecaux? 😀 Or misleading road signage?

I got A & B, but C eludes me. Possibly Temple Bar Square?

While I’m here:

(gunter- I’m giving the others a 24 hour head start over you, if you don’t mind. 😉 You could presumably answer this one in your sleep.)

The right kind of brick is going to be absolutely crucial for this.

Is it planned to be built with traditional techniques, I wonder, or will it be modern? Those look suspiciously like brick jack arches in the third image.