is reader-funded journalism. To keep it going and free-to-view, it takes people like you to act now and subscribe today for €5, €10, or €20 per month.

Cycling advocates armed with facts are trying to empty a stream with a bucket

Today I got out of bed upset. I shouldn’t be. And I should be. Let me explain.

I’m wading my way through the sentiment behind more than 2,000 statements from more than 1,400 social media comments related to cycling and cyclists. One of the most striking realisations I’ve had so far is that people’s convictions about cycling are immovable objects.

Cycling advocates presenting facts are trying to empty a stream with a bucket. People presented with the facts about cycling seem not to change their minds. I know this. I shouldn’t be surprised by this. And still I am.

My undergraduate thesis examined the effect of the clothing in which cyclists are depicted in RSA multimedia on perceptions of safety. As part of the literature review, I discussed the helmet debate. I discussed the massive health benefit of good cycling uptake. I discussed the main barrier to cycling uptake: perceptions of both physical and psychological safety.

I conducted research and found when people see cyclists in helmet and hi-vis they are more likely to rate cycling as dangerous and socially unacceptable than when the cyclist is shown in everyday clothes. I discussed the likely impact of this on cycling uptake, and the consequent negative impact on health.

This morning before I got out of bed I read a tweet from a very sweet former lecturer. This person had supervised my undergrad thesis, had read said thesis with attention.

I will not embed or link to the tweet as this is not about my former lecturer, it is about the nature of the task facing cycling advocates. The tweet said that people don’t wear helmets while cycling because “it doesn’t look the part and they are uncomfortable. Safety is often the third consideration when it really should be the primary one.”

If this intelligent, thoughtful person, exposed to such detailed examination of the issues, still ends up broadcasting a message that cyclists are more concerned with their looks than their safety, and don’t prioritise safety, what chance do we have to get anyone to understand the issues? Because what the tweet said is not false, but it is also not true.

The beliefs standing between Ireland and good cycling uptake are simple, while the arguments against them are complex. This is only a small part of what makes these beliefs immovable objects.

My dad loved to challenge me with word games and mind puzzles. One of these was “What happens when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object?” For years, this question awed and fascinated me. One day, in my teens, it hit me: the unstoppable force goes around. Maybe the answer to the cycling advocacy problem is the same.

You're read this much of the article... So, if you value our journalism, please subscribe today for €5, €10, or €20 per month.


WANT TO READ MORE ABOUT BICYCLE HELMETS?: Take a look at our article 6 reasons bicycle helmets shouldn’t be any government’s policy and, if you think we’re just mad cycling people, please have a read of this BMJ article written. It’s written by Ben Goldacre, who is known for his writing about misuse of science and who is a epidemiology researcher at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and David Spiegelhalter, who is a professor for the public understanding of risk at the University of Cambridge. is reader-funded journalism. That means it's funded by readers like you.

Subscription drive update: reached its target of 270 subscribers by the end of August -- thank you to all who have helped! Our new target is to have 300 subscribers by the end of 2022 -- originally this was hoped to be exceeded by the first year of running the site full time (end of October).

If you can help push above 300 subscribers, please subscribe today for €5 or more. If you have already done so -- thank you!

Please remember, every month there's a natural drop-off in subscriptions due to people getting new cards, cards stolen, Revolut not topped up etc.

*** is a reader-funded journalism publication. Effectively it's an online newspaper covering news and analyses of cycling and related issues, including cycle route designs, legal changes, and pollical and cultural issues.

There are examples, big and small, which show that the reader-funded or listener-funding model can work to support journalism -- from the Dublin Inquirer and The Guardian to many podcasts. To make it work for, it just needs enough people like you to believe!

Monthly subscriptions will give's journalism a dependable base of support. But please don't take free access for granted. Last year had an average of 15,800 readers per month and we know our readers include people who cycle and those who don't, politicians, officials and campaigners.

I know only a small percentage of readers will see the value of keeping this open enough to subscribe, that's the reality of the reader-funded model. But more support is needed to keep this show on the road.

The funding drive was started in November 2021 and, as of the start of June 2022, 250 readers have kindly become monthly subscribers -- thank you very much to all that have!

But currently, it's only around 1.6% of readers who subscribe. So, if you can, please join them and subscribe today via

Cian Ginty


  1. There have been at least two large meta-analyses of cycling helmet safety studies and the results of both indicate that cycling helmets reduce both the frequency and severity of head injuries.
    Cycling helmets may be uncomfortable and unattractive but they are, from the perspective of an active cyclist, good for your health.
    It’s deeply unfortunate that in a country like Ireland, where protected cycling lines are the exception and road surfaces are poor, that many cycling advocates continue to campaign against helmets.

    • Hi Micheál… if you find it so easy to dismiss advocates etc, I have to ask: How did you miss the link to the BMJ article written by Ben Goldacre and David Spiegelhalter?

      Goldacre is known for his writing about misuse of science and is a epidemiology researcher at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and Spiegelhalter is a professor for the public understanding of risk at the University of Cambridge.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.