Ben Goldacre - Helmet 'Bad Science'

[mcshroom]

Interesting article in the BMJ co written by Ben Goldacre of 'Bad Science' and 'Bad Pharma' fame. IMHO he sums the position up well: -

... the current uncertainty about any benefit from helmet wearing or promotion is unlikely to be substantially reduced by further research. Equally, we can be certain that helmets will continue to be debated, and at length. The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk.

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref

 

[mickle]

That is the most intelligent thing wot I have I've read all week.

 

[Spinney]

Interesting article in the BMJ co written by Ben Goldacre of 'Bad Science' and 'Bad Pharma' fame. IMHO he sums the position up well: -

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref

Good article, thanks for posting.

 

[srw]

Yes, I thought it was a very sane and rational piece indeed. But it's a bit technical - unsurprising given its audience. Has anyone done a version for Joe Bloggs in the street who may not have the statistical and epidemiological background Goldacre assumes?

Actually, come to think of it there's a way of seeing whether Goldacre would be willing to do it: http://www.badscience.net/2013/12/b...fect-teaching-case-for-epidemiology/#comments. You need an account set up to comment, unfortunately.

It's interesting how far his blog commenters (a bunch of technocratic geeks) miss the point of his article.

 

[Spinney]

I registered and posted this in the comments:
---------------------------

Great article. As a helmet wearing cyclist, I have to say that at least one reason I wear the thing is to help keep my hair out of my eyes!

To Greg Hill - the case of teaching a 7-year-old to ride is significantly different to an experineced cyclist. The former is far more likely to fall off and have the kind of low-speed accident for which a helmet may well provide useful protection. The latter is more likely to come into conflict with a moving car or turning lorry - for many accidents of this type a helmet will make little difference.

Anyway - Ben, if you read the comments - a bunch of us on a cycling forum were wondering if there was any chance you could write a similar article aimed at 'Joe Bloggs' in the street, who has never heard of epidemiology - the same stuff, but in complete layman's language.

 

[srw]

I've followed Goldacre since the days of Bad Science in the Guardian, and I don't remember anything about helmets before. Entirely possible I've missed it, of course.

 

[Linford]

All I see in reality is people slagging of the quality of the current cycling hat technology and the core of the argument appears to be stated as this, but the reality of the objections when reading between the lines comes across very much as 'They make me look like a knob' which is mitigation for saying that they will suppress the desire to cycle ...there is little doubt that properly spec'd and made safety headgear saves many lives each year in the motorcycling world, and has no bearing nowadays on the take up rate of this particular mode, so it kind of rubbishes the notion that headgear has no value.

If the core of the argument is this protection level being currently offered, then the lid manufacturers need to be given specific protection level targets before they can market a lid to cyclists. Jeez, if the govs are good for nothing else, they should provide legislation to get this bit right.

 

[Linford]

That's pretty irrelevant. Research into motorcycle helmet efficacy doesn't transfer across to bicycle helmets, as you very well know.

And if cycle hats delivered the same levels of protection which motorcyclists are enjoying now, would you still say that they have no value ?

A motorcycle helmet is now an object of desire. I know plenty of people who will happily spend £500 every 3 years for a new Shoei, Arai, Schuberth, Bell, etc motorbike lid...and only use it a dozen times a year. They had exactly the same response when brought in back in the 70's. People accept them now and the tech has moves on to make them lightweight and stylish.

 

[Dan B]

The core of "the argument against" is that the promotion of helmets distracts from the promotion of cycling safety

 

[srw]

It's about epidemiology and the popular debate about risk though - seems to me he writes about almost nothing else, in essence. I thought that was what was being asked for - a layperson's version of that.

It is, but the debate about bike helmets is a particular illustration of that debate, a simplified version of which would be useful for all cyclists, other road users and politicians.

I employ risk experts. One of them, a very keen cyclist, was horrified when I explained why I don't wear a helmet for my commute - because I've done the risk analysis* and realised it's not actually that useful a risk mitigation. If even a risk specialist doesn't get it, what hope has the rest of humanity?

*You think I'm joking? It's not actually written down, but I've certainly done it.

 

[theclaud]

I've done the risk analysis*

*You think I'm joking?

Nope! No one thought that.

 

[Linford]

So why has cycle helmet development become so static and the current product so inadequate if motorcycle helmet is so vibrant?

I'm not an industry expert, but my opinion is that because the legislation is there to wear them, subsequently then standards in construction and protection have followed suit.

If the gov introduced legislation for lid wear fofr cyclists, then they would have to introcuce these tested standards. How well lids performed was black art back in the day, but it certainly isn't now due to the massive amount of research done since.

If the gov demanded a standard of protection which was ineffective, then they would leave themselves wide open to compensation claims as the ones who set the standards of requirement.

 

[Linford]

It is, but the debate about bike helmets is a particular illustration of that debate, a simplified version of which would be useful for all cyclists, other road users and politicians.

I employ risk experts. One of them, a very keen cyclist, was horrified when I explained why I don't wear a helmet for my commute - because I've done the risk analysis* and realised it's not actually that useful a risk mitigation. If even a risk specialist doesn't get it, what hope has the rest of humanity?

*You think I'm joking? It's not actually written down, but I've certainly done it.

so your risk analysis consists of 'yup, nobody has run me over yet on this route so i'll keep chancing it'

Simple question...have you personally ever witnessed an accident or been involved in one where there has been a serious injury from vehicles moving at speed ?

 

[User482]

All I see in reality is people slagging of the quality of the current cycling hat technology and the core of the argument appears to be stated as this, but the reality of the objections when reading between the lines comes across very much as 'They make me look like a knob' which is mitigation for saying that they will suppress the desire to cycle ...there is little doubt that properly spec'd and made safety headgear saves many lives each year in the motorcycling world, and has no bearing nowadays on the take up rate of this particular mode, so it kind of rubbishes the notion that headgear has no value.

If the core of the argument is this protection level being currently offered, then the lid manufacturers need to be given specific protection level targets before they can market a lid to cyclists. Jeez, if the govs are good for nothing else, they should provide legislation to get this bit right.

Did you read the article? What did you think of its conclusions?

 

[mcshroom]

so your risk analysis consists of 'yup, nobody has run me over yet on this route so i'll keep chancing it'

Simple question...have you personally ever witnessed an accident or been involved in one where there has been a serious injury from vehicles moving at speed ?

Linf, what you believe and what is actualy stated is rather different I expect. Can you explain why cycling srw's exact commute is 'chancing it'? What are the exact hazards on srw's route? What the probability of each of these risks occurring? How are these mitigated by a helmet?

It's the sort of thing the article in this post covers if you fancy reading it.