Ben Goldacre - Helmet 'Bad Science'

[Linford]

As usual, you're off down a side turning Linford. We all know you know all about horses.

Well you brought in the significance of horse riding helmet design features, and so it is only right if this info is included, that is correct and current with the existing relevant rules and regs. I'm only up to date on this as I have been involved heavily with doing the background legwork with my daughters showjumping and cross country competitions over the last 15+ years which she has been doing on them (both non affiliated, and affiliated), and the rules on protective gear is across the board.....note, I say 'protective gear' as it does serve a purpose and isn't just worn to please the 'elf and safety' brigade. I have also had extensive contact with manufacturers of safety gear for both horses and their riders as various different Equine trade events I attend each year, and so have an understanding of what else the equine industry is doing to protect the people who partake in this....Being a keen motorbiker also, I have also got a very keen interest in the improvement of safety of my fellow bikers and there is a whole industry built up around the protective gear for them/us (suits, boots, jackets, gloves, lids etc etc) which actually is run from shops where the only motorbikes you will see is the ones which the customers turn up on. Horseriders and Bikers to the very greater degree take safety in their chosen pastimes very seriously...this is fact !
If you feel I am giving misleading info on this aspect of safety gear used in a specific leisure pursuit, please feel free to correct me on it. I have broad shoulders.

This is at odds with cycling where we appear to have a committed minority group of individuals who are determined to show the world how common sense in mixing substantial alcohol consumption on the roads with heavy traffic (where do I start with this one ? ah @theclaud ), as well as promoting a total disregard for the value of safety gear in any shape or form for those using bicycles @Adrian , coupled with riding on the pavements @User and RLJing @User30090

I went to a pub with a good friend and a mate of his a couple of weeks ago one evening. Got chatting about various different things...biking, horses, cars etc, and got onto the subject of cycling (as I do)...both rounded on me at this point and started having a rant about what a bunch of knobs cyclists are for many of the reasons above. This took me back a bit, and I stated that I'm not going to try and defend the actions of a few who think that the rules in place to protect society as a whole only apply to others, but some of us do take it seriously and are happy to play by them...so don't tar us all with the same brush thankyouverymuch!

Jeez, I was sorry I mentioned it to them.

 

[ufkacbln]

Ah, you chose and anti helmet website for your reference, and not a pro saving lives one....a fundamental mistake and you will never see any balance to their assertions.

OK - explain that one to me?

I am not looking to see balance to their assertions, just some link to reality!
Balance is achieved by recognising the bias of the authors, weighing up the accuracy and then cross referencing with other sources.

There are several fundamental errors here, and none are mine.

1. This is not a link to an ant-helmet site, it is an anti-compulsion site, your basic assumption is ill informed
2. You were unwise not to have looked into the pro-compulsion Headway's history of misquoting papers to suit their own ends
3. You failed to actually look at the actual paper and see if Headway's biased interpretation stood up - and it simply does not!

Lets substantiate the assertions of Headway that you feel is an upright "pro saving lives" organisation:
Please read the paper here and answer whether it contains the information claimed by Headway.

Remember you are looking for:

2,564 pedal cyclists killed or seriously injured (KSI) in road accidents in 2007
136 pedal cyclist deaths in 2007
522 children killed or seriously injured in 2007

 

[Poacher]

Since we seem to be allowed to digress into the world of horse riding, has anyone else seen Ben Fogle and James Cracknell riding camels through the desert?

I have very limited experience of riding a horse, and none of riding a camel, but it appears to me that camels tend to be higher and less predictable than horses, both of which are higher and less predictable than bikes.

Despite this, James decided not to bother with a helmet (maybe Alpina declined to pay him extra for some reason?), and instead chose "a shemagh, a massive cloth to protect my head from the sun".

Maybe the knock on his head has affected his ability to think rationally?

 

[Linford]

OK - explain that one to me?

I am not looking to see balance to their assertions, just some link to reality!
Balance is achieved by recognising the bias of the authors, weighing up the accuracy and then cross referencing with other sources.

There are several fundamental errors here, and none are mine.

1. This is not a link to an ant-helmet site, it is an anti-compulsion site, your basic assumption is ill informed
2. You were unwise not to have looked into the pro-compulsion Headway's history of misquoting papers to suit their own ends
3. You failed to actually look at the actual paper and see if Headway's biased interpretation stood up - and it simply does not!

Lets substantiate the assertions of Headway that you feel is an upright "pro saving lives" organisation:
Please read the paper here and answer whether it contains the information claimed by Headway.

Remember you are looking for:

2,564 pedal cyclists killed or seriously injured (KSI) in road accidents in 2007
136 pedal cyclist deaths in 2007
522 children killed or seriously injured in 2007

How many of the 522 children killed in 2007 were on bicycles, in cars, on horses, on scooters etc. Sorry mister, but you are fudging the numbers here. These children could have been killed by any number of ways.

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2844043, member: 45"]Yes I'll happily ride on the pavement where permitted and it suits me.

What does this have to do with helmets?[/quote]

It is one of the issues and reasons why cyclists are over represented in the stats.

You have also stated in the past that you were happy to cycle on a the pavements when commuting whilst living in Brum whether it was in a shared space or not IIRC (well we did debate it)

The second most common contributory factor attributed to cyclists was 'cyclist entering the road from the pavement' (including when a cyclist crosses the road at a pedestrian crossing), which was recorded in about 20% serious collisions (and over one third of serious collisions involving child cyclists).

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx

 

[ufkacbln]

How many of the 522 children killed in 2007 were on bicycles, in cars, on horses, on scooters etc. Sorry mister, but you are fudging the numbers here. These children could have been killed by any number of ways.

Sorry that will also need explaining - I made that point clear here some time ago. It is exactly the point that I am still making. Headway are making unfounded claims about the paper they quoted

The only thing being fudged is your answers

Is there any possibility of you actually reading the paper and answering

Is the Headway interpretation of the paper:

1. Correct and accurate?
2. Incorrect and inaccurate?

 

[Linford]

Sorry that will also need explaining - I made that point clear here some time ago. It is exactly the point that I am still making. Headway are making unfounded claims about the paper they quoted

The only thing being fudged is your answers

Is there any possibility of you actually reading the paper and answering

Is the Headway interpretation of the paper:

1. Correct and accurate?
2. Incorrect and inaccurate?

In absence of specific numbers in your representation and looking at as current figures as we can get I've taken the liberty of quoting from ROSPA

Cyclist Casualties, 2012
...........................Child.......Adult........Total
Killed.......................13.........105..........118
Seriously Injured...311......2,911........3,222
Slightly Injured....1,874...13,877.......15,751
Total...................2,198....16,893......19,091
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx

Now Children make up a relatively small percentage of those killed....could it be that they are better protected because their parents insist on them wearing protective gear (including head gear) ?

 

[ufkacbln]

In absence of specific numbers in your representation and looking at as current figures as we can get I've taken the liberty of quoting from ROSPA



Now Children make up a relatively small percentage of those killed....could it be that they are better protected because their parents insist on them wearing protective gear (including head gear) ?

Nicely avoided...


Once again we are talking about your decision to use Headway as an authoritative source:


Is there any possibility of you actually reading the paper and answering

Is the Headway interpretation of the paper:

1. Correct and accurate?
2. Incorrect and inaccurate?

 

[Linford]

Nicely avoided...


Once again:


Is there any possibility of you actually reading the paper and answering

Is the Headway interpretation of the paper:

1. Correct and accurate?
2. Incorrect and inaccurate?

Sorry, I've been reformatting the ROSPA table to make sense of the numbers as CC made a muddle of it.
I have quoted a table of numbers which are current and are representing each group and the severity of the injuries of each. Can we work with these as they are referenced from the DFTs latest paper on Killed, KSI's, Slightly injured etc in the UK ?

You have made a representation that 522 kids were KSI'd on the roads in the UK whilst in the same post stated that 136 cyclists were killed. In doing this, you have by method or madness attempted to misconstrue a true representation of the size of the problem...which I am now attempting to quantify with an accurate set of figures which isn't that far away in raw numbers of killed in 2007 (can we not use KSI and killed together for the sake of the debate please ? )

The KSI is a misnomer as I was seriously injured as a passenger on a motorcycle, and despite having a cominuted fracture of the patela and damage to the quadracep mechanism, have recovered enough, and managed to live a full life for 30+ years past that point to include cycling and ski'ing. Not all serious injuries make basket cases of people (unless they are not wearing a lid )

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2844118, member: 45"]I refer you to my previous post...[/quote]

If you are going to refer, a link would be handy

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2844155, member: 45"]Just scroll up a bit you lazy tinker.[/quote]

You mean this one ?

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/ben-goldacre-helmet-bad-science.145564/post-2843306

Yup, am a bit now....how about a bike ride up one of the local hills...are you up to Chelt soon ?

 

[ufkacbln]

In absence of specific numbers in your representation and looking at as current figures as we can get I've taken the liberty of quoting from ROSPA



Now Children make up a relatively small percentage of those killed....could it be that they are better protected because their parents insist on them wearing protective gear (including head gear) ?

............... or it could be that children cycle less?

 

[ufkacbln]

Sorry, I've been reformatting the ROSPA table to make sense of the numbers as CC made a muddle of it.
I have quoted a table of numbers which are current and are representing each group and the severity of the injuries of each. Can we work with these as they are referenced from the DFTs latest paper on Killed, KSI's, Slightly injured etc in the UK ?

You have made a representation that 522 kids were KSI'd on the roads in the UK whilst in the same post stated that 136 cyclists were killed. In doing this, you have by method or madness attempted to misconstrue a true representation of the size of the problem...which I am now attempting to quantify with an accurate set of figures which isn't that far away in raw numbers of killed in 2007 (can we not use KSI and killed together for the sake of the debate please ? )

The KSI is a misnomer as I was seriously injured as a passenger on a motorcycle, and despite having a cominuted fracture of the patela and damage to the quadracep mechanism, have recovered enough, and managed to live a full life for 30+ years past that point to include cycling and ski'ing. Not all serious injuries make basket cases of people (unless they are not wearing a lid )

Nope - not at all.

Once again we are talking about your decision to use Headway as an authoritative source:


Is there any possibility of you actually reading the paper and answering

Is the Headway interpretation of the paper:

1. Correct and accurate?
2. Incorrect and inaccurate?

 

[Linford]

............... or it could be that children cycle less?

You seem to have spent a good deal of time looking at this issue with cycle specific stats. Perhaps you have something we can use as reference ?

Speaking for nobody else, but I personally spent a lot more time on my bike as a kid as a mode of transport than any other when younger due to absence of choice in other modes.

 

[Linford]

Nope - not at all.

Once again we are talking about your decision to use Headway as an authoritative source:


Is there any possibility of you actually reading the paper and answering

Is the Headway interpretation of the paper:

1. Correct and accurate?
2. Incorrect and inaccurate?

You are clearly rejecting Headways numbers as inaccurate, so debating the accuracy of them is of little relevance for ether side and so pointless pursuing it (me not being Headways representative, but instead being someone who can see value in the overall message of 'protect your head'). I am happy to exclude them from this debate.

Now how do you feel about the DFTs numbers for 2012 which were published this year and referenced on my ROSPA site link ?