Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Campaigning
Ireland's transport minister rules out making cycle helmets compulsoryLondon cyclist approaching junction.jpg

Ireland's transport minister rules out making cycle helmets compulsory

Research indicates helmets are beneficial when cyclists are hit at less than 50km/h but are of minimal use at speeds above that
by Alex Bowden
Tue, Oct 06, 2015 10:24
13

Ireland’s Minister for Transport, Paschal Donohoe, has echoed the words of British cycling minister, Robert Goodwill, in saying that cyclists should be free to decide whether or not to wear a helmet.

The Irish Times reports that Donohoe encouraged all cyclists to wear helmets, but said that making them compulsory would have an “instant and very negative effect” on the various city bicycle schemes being rolled out across the country.

Speaking at the Road Safety Authority’s (RSA) annual academic lecture, he said:

“The policy of this week is to encourage everybody who’s on a bike to wear a helmet. It’s not something I’m considering making mandatory at the moment through use of law, and the reason is because if I do so, it would have an immediate and negative effect on the roll out of the city bike schemes.”

Goodwill expressed similar sentiments earlier in the week, saying: “To make helmets compulsory would make systems such as the Boris bike system very difficult to deliver.” He pointed to Australia in explaining his position, arguing that mandatory use of cycle helmets had deterred people from riding bikes.

Professor Michael Gilchrist, from UCD’s School of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, also spoke at the RSA lecture. He has used data from 37 fatal collisions involving cyclists over a ten-year period to stage computer reconstructions to determine whether a helmet would have offered more protection. His conclusion was that helmets make a difference when cyclists are hit by cars moving at 50km/h or less, but that protective capability reduces as speed increases. He said that helmets were of ‘minimal’ use in collisions where the car is moving at more than 50km/h.

RSA chief executive, Moyagh Murdock, said that more than 80 per cent of Ireland’s cycling collisions take place in built-up areas. “Drivers need to respect that cyclists have less protection and therefore they should reduce their speeds accordingly and give cyclists plenty of room. Cyclists also need to take responsibility for their safety by wearing a helmet and high-vis clothing, and by behaving appropriately on the roads.”

helmet debate
Paschal Donohoe
Michael Gilchrist
Alex Bowden

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

13 comments

Avatar
congokid | 9 years ago
0 likes

It's still very unsettling that the RSA chief executive is caught up in the mindset that people in cars can somehow be persuaded to drive more carefully and people on bikes need to wear helmets and hi-vis clothing, but completely ignores the need for proper infrastructure that would make cycling more appealing to everyone and safer all round.

Avatar
Critchio | 9 years ago
0 likes

This is a little refreshing. Most politicians deciding on legislation on things like cycle helmet use normally demonstrate their complete lack of knowledge on how 200 grams of compressed Styrofoam is tested and the real world protection it offers. For those that don't know, these safety test consists of (but is not limited to) a static drop from 1.5 metres up.

The impact velocity equates to real world protection consistent with falling off ones bike at about 12mph if memory serves me correctly. That is where protection lies; falling off yer bike and your head hitting the ground. There is very limited protection in collisions with vehicles. The protection rapidly tapers off when vehicles come into play. Roads dont impact your helmet coming at you at 40mph.

I wear a helmet most of the time, but I am realistic about the level of protection offered and I'd never berate anyone that chooses not to wear one.

The Aussie law is just plain daft and I think there's hidden agendas behind legislation.

Avatar
Mark By | 9 years ago
0 likes

Yet again, a set of comments that do not seem to take into account the most significant danger to cyclists on the road; motorists. As Dr. Ian Walker pointed out (Accident Analysis and Prevention 39 (2007) 417–425), if drivers treat a helmet-wearing cyclist with less care then donning a helmet increases the risk to the cyclist.

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to Mark By | 9 years ago
0 likes
Mark By wrote:

As Dr. Ian Walker pointed out (Accident Analysis and Prevention 39 (2007) 417–425), if drivers treat a helmet-wearing cyclist with less care then donning a helmet increases the risk to the cyclist.

Whilst the broad results are extremely likely to be partially valid, road position seems far more important according to him. The data in that singular study also shows an increased passing difference when helmeted at one particular distance. What do you think these things, and their normal lack of mention, might imply ?

Avatar
Mark By replied to fukawitribe | 9 years ago
0 likes

Wilful ignorance of the real safety issues facing road cyclists and "victim blaming".

Avatar
tatsky | 9 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

Angry "helmets work!"..."helmets don't work!" posts incoming...

Thankfully I don't think they are needed (the angry quotes that is) as this offers some substance, and a "they work in this situation, but not in this situation" clarity.

I like how the quote above puts the responsibility back on the motorist, i.e. "you're driving a big metal box on wheels with safety features coming out of every cubby hole, but none of those are going to protect the cyclist you hit.... so wise up!"

Avatar
Simmo72 | 9 years ago
0 likes

"protective capability reduces as speed increases"

Wow, this guy is smart. There was me thinking this was just limited to motorbike helmets. Who would have thought basic physics would apply here as well?

Avatar
giff77 replied to Simmo72 | 9 years ago
0 likes
Simmo72 wrote:

"protective capability reduces as speed increases"

Wow, this guy is smart. There was me thinking this was just limited to motorbike helmets. Who would have thought basic physics would apply here as well?

Yep. But the key thing is the 50kph. We all know that motorists that maintain this speed in built up areas when not caught up in heavy traffic are few and far between. And the vast majority of motorists are opposed to 30kph speed limits being implemented.

Avatar
Paul M replied to giff77 | 9 years ago
0 likes
giff77 wrote:
Simmo72 wrote:

"protective capability reduces as speed increases"

Wow, this guy is smart. There was me thinking this was just limited to motorbike helmets. Who would have thought basic physics would apply here as well?

Yep. But the key thing is the 50kph. We all know that motorists that maintain this speed in built up areas when not caught up in heavy traffic are few and far between. And the vast majority of motorists are opposed to 30kph speed limits being implemented.

Actually, it is not true that the vast majority of motorists oppose 30kph or 20mph limits. It depends on how you pose the question. The great majority (between 2/3rd and 3/4) support 30k/20mph limits in residential areas, ie as householders, and it is only when the road in question is someone else's residential area that they oppose, although even then most motorists, being reasonable people when peeled off the steering wheels of their cars, acknowledge that sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.

Avatar
cdamian | 9 years ago
0 likes

I hate it when politicians are talking sense, it destroys my preconceptions.
What next? Reasonable comments?

Avatar
Spiny replied to cdamian | 9 years ago
0 likes
cdamian wrote:

I hate it when politicians are talking sense, it destroys my preconceptions.
What next? Reasonable comments?

I always wear a helmet but would defend the individual's choice on whether to wear one or not.

1

Avatar
Accessibility f... | 9 years ago
0 likes

Angry "helmets work!"..."helmets don't work!" posts incoming...

Avatar
farrell replied to Accessibility for all | 9 years ago
0 likes
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

Angry "helmets work!"..."helmets don't work!" posts incoming...

If we're lucky, we may even get some thinly veiled xenophobia thrown in as a bonus.

Latest Comments