For safety, facts need to win over beliefs
April 2009
The College View
By Cian Ginty
Apparent common sense in this country now dictates cycling helmets are reasonably useful. But there’s little evidence to back this, and other academic research points to the idea that motorists drive closer to helmeted cyclists.
Across ‘Road Safety Week’ in DCU recently Dublin City Council helped push high-vis vests, while a helmet was given away as a prize for a quiz.
The council has a bizarre fascination with these two bits of gear. At the last annual Dublin City Cycle it wanted everybody to wear both. But the roads were closed off with a garda escort to the front and rear. So, where was the need for high-vis?
For visibility, promoting the use of front and rear lights – a legal requirement – would be far more beneficial. A reasonable set of bicycle lights (ie not the cheapest in the shop) are more effective in warning motorists, pedestrians and other cyclists.
If cyclists only wore reflective gear there would be nothing to light it up in cases of potential accidents with pedestrians or other cyclists.
Just to be clear: This is not comparable to safety belts. Research which backs cycle helmet use is not only highly controversial, and contradicted by other research, it is very limited. You don’t need to take this writer’s word for it, the pro-helmet research notes its limited scope and methodology.
The pro-helmet research is also flawed due to making no differentiation between accidents from racing and extreme-sport mountain biking, and those by commuters and leisure cyclists. Cycling helmets were first pushed by the cycling manufacturers. In recent decades, these same companies promoted mountain bikes for road use in Ireland, the UK and the US. The move, which pre-dates SUVs in towns and cities, was purely commercially driven. As was their promotion of helmets.
Mountain bikes aren’t needed in urban areas, and helmets are not needed for normal cycling speeds comparable to running, fast or slow.
“But isn’t it better to be safe rather than sorry?” is the typical response to the above. If you’re in agreement with this you may want to note the research which says pedestrians and motorists would benefit just as much, if not more, from helmets.
However, asking pedestrians and motorists to wear helmets is unreasonable. So, why is it reasonable to ask cyclists to do the same? Perception is the likely answer.
The people – cyclists or not – who promote so-called safety gear are normally those who think it is a dangerous mode of transport. It is not. This is backed by research, which is not in dispute. The British Medical Association says health benefits of regular cycling significantly outweigh any increased risk of injury, other research says the benefits outweigh the risks by 20 to 1. So, the perceived dangers of cycling have no solid bases in fact.
Education, training, and enforcement for all road users – pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, and motorists – is the key to road safety. Not only is this based in theory, but this is also the experience in Europe – cycling helmets and yellow reflective vests are only used by a tiny minority of people in countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, or France.
It is not normal or natural for cyclists to wear such gear. In most of the world, people have cycled for over a century without helmets, and are continuing to do so. It has not been a major issue and it still is not one now. In a minority of countries, however, something done in the name of ‘safety’ is often unquestionable. Parts of the media and some politicians are all too willing to lap up anything pushed in the name of ‘safety.’
Often the story will be “helmets save lives.” Science, research, and evidence, all go out the window and emotion takes over. That’s fine if it’s a case of one person’s beliefs or choice. But it is nonsense when emotion is taken above facts when it comes to taxpayer’s money, in general, and the backing of an academic institute in way of DCU’s Road Safety Week.
Abuse of DCU mailing lists is worse than spam
Monday, June 29th, 2009Abuse of DCU mailing lists is worse than spam
March 2009
The College View
By Cian Ginty
The phrases “sorry to people this does not concern” and “apologies to those for whom this is of no concern” probably sound familiar to DCU students and staff.
Under Irish spam laws the sender of such messages could be opening themselves up to fines of up to €5,000 if treated as a less serious offence.
When treated as a criminal offence, this amount jumps to a maximum of €50,000 for an individual and up to €250,000 for corporate bodies.
Sending unwanted emails over DCU’s mailing list system, however, seems to be a grey area that is outside the law. Or, at least, it’s untested in court.
At the time of writing, the Data Protection Commission was unsure if spam laws apply to email sent within the system. Companies who send unsolicited emails are the main target of spam legislation.
Sending spam is ruled in the DCU code of conduct for use of computer resources. It says: “It is prohibited to… send or forward chain letters, junk mail, spam and viruses.”
But if the definition of spam used in law was applied then there is a serious lack of reporting and enforcement of the anti-spam policy.
The mailing list system is invaluable, that’s exactly why it should be treated with respect. Class lists should be restricted, automatically or in written and enforced rules. The main function should be for sending mail to the class, directly related to the same.
Clubs and societies – including the College View – should be limited to one email per week to the class and other mass lists. Or maybe even less? There are separate mailing lists for these, so why do a club or soc need to annoy people who have shown no interest in their group?
The same goes for emails to the undergraduate and post graduate lists. Why are religious and campaigning emails being sent to people with little interest in such? It is nonsense that a scatter gun approach is used for emails which most students don’t want. It’s unsolicited email. It’s spam.
No, it’s not central to people’s education, or social life, or health etc. Corporation spammers could use the same excuses. By having large volumes of unwanted email in their inboxes, it’s more likely students will miss or accidentally delete important emails.
The societies’ mailing list set-up is a good one. It’s pretty much spot on for what the law allows companies to do. People sign up and then they get updates.
Why can’t this be used as a rule for the vast majority of emails sent out? Then there’s no need for meaningless notes like “apologies to those for whom this is of no concern”.
Some of the emails sent using the mailing list system – although in the minority – are very much like marketing messages from companies, and that’s maybe something the Data Protection Commissioner could look into.
A spokesman from the office said: “In relation to the sending of marketing messages promoting commercial products, companies can only send you direct marketing if there is an existing relationship between the company and the recipient and the product / service being marketed is of a similar nature.”
By enforcing stricter rules now, such a move could stem the need for expensive cases that state agencies would need to take against future spammers.
At least marketing spam is illegal, but, for now, DCU students suffer with spam clogging their inboxes, wasting their time and energy.
Tags: comment, DCU, tech, The College View
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off