Ben Goldacre - Helmet 'Bad Science'

[ufkacbln]

I think though that the point has been proven that the decision by Linford to use Headway as a source was unwise.


Headway onthe same page as Linford quoted states that:

The number of pedal cyclists killed or seriously injured (KSI) in road accidents in 2007 was 2,564. This included 136 deaths. 522 children were among the KSI total. (Cycle Helmets, Lee AJ, Mann NP, Arch Dis Child 2003)

Linford now states that this about the content of the Headway page that he introduced:

You Headway (my correction) 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 Headway (my correction) have by method or madness attempted to misconstrue a true representation of the size of the problem...)

Thank you for recognising that Headway is unreliable and deliberately misrepresenting the facts

 

[ufkacbln]

The RoSPA figures suggest that there were 2,198 child injuries of all types attributed to cycling

The total of children's accidents is quoted by RoSPA as 477.500 so cyclists are a mere 0.04% of childhood injuries


The NHS also reckons on over a million childhood episodes, so assuming that all the injuries quoted iby RoSPA required a hospital episode that would put cycling as responsible for 0.2% of hospital episodes

Now compare that with RoSPA's figures for:
Children falling from windows (4,000) 0.4%
Children falling on stairs (4,200) 0.4%
Poisoning (25,000) 2.5%


The RoSPA figures clearly put the safety of cycling in its correct context and demonstrate unequivocally how other areas are far more dangerous for children

 

[Linford]

The RoSPA figures suggest that there were 2,198 child injuries of all types attributed to cycling

The total of children's accidents is quoted by RoSPA as 477.500 so cyclists are a mere 0.04% of childhood injuries


The NHS also reckons on over a million childhood episodes, so assuming that all the injuries quoted iby RoSPA required a hospital episode that would put cycling as responsible for 0.2% of hospital episodes

Now compare that with RoSPA's figures for:
Children falling from windows (4,000) 0.4%
Children falling on stairs (4,200) 0.4%
Poisoning (25,000) 2.5%


The RoSPA figures clearly put the safety of cycling in its correct context and demonstrate unequivocally how other areas are far more dangerous for children

Well the numbers are clearly low as represented in the Killed stats (13), but low risk doesn't mean no risk....and little comfort could be drawn from the numbers published if your nearest and dearest are among them.

Do we have any numbers on the voluntary percentage of uptake for regular lid wear among children ?

 

[ufkacbln]

Well the numbers are clearly low as represented in the Killed stats (13)

But still a small percentage of child deaths. ( I note you are not commenting on injury any longer)

I also agree fully with your statement that:

......low risk doesn't mean no risk....and little comfort could be drawn from the numbers published if your nearest and dearest are among them.

Exactly my point from the start.... Which is why the need for the Thudguard is so evident, as so succinctly put by David Jenkins from RoSPA ...

The Thudguard should make a valuable contribution to risk reduction in a similar way to cycle helmets...

What comfort can possibly be drawn by the parents of a child killed or injured in a fall where the injury could have been lessened by a Thudguard

Do we have any numbers on the voluntary percentage of uptake for regular lid wear among children ?

Unlikely as most surveys are of passing transport at a junction or check point - children do not cycle these routes, or at the survey times.

Where we do have figures it is for the adults and consistently show that the increase in helmet use is not reflected in a decrease in head injuries.

The paper you quoted earlier is a prime example of this, where as pointed out the decline was independent of helmet use and in fact when pedestrians were included as a control group the change was shown to be nowhere near that claimed by Headway and the authors.

Interestingly the BMJ also concurs with this and reviews the Ontario (and other Canadian states), coming up with the conclusion that

Conclusions Reductions in the rates of admissions to hospital for cycling related head injuries were greater in provinces with helmet legislation, but injury rates were already decreasing before the implementation of legislation and the rate of decline was not appreciably altered on introduction of legislation. While helmets reduce the risk of head injuries and we encourage their use, in the Canadian context of existing safety campaigns, improvements to the cycling infrastructure, and the passive uptake of helmets, the incremental contribution of provincial helmet legislation to reduce hospital admissions for head injuries seems to have been minimal.

 

[theclaud]

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.

I sympathize, Linf, as someone who is often obliged to listen to the ignorant mindsplurging that often goes on in pubs. You should have told these idiots to f**k off.

 

[Wobblers]

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.

Er, no. He "chose" to quote published data to refute a particular interpretation.

And I wouldn't complain about "balance" to assertions... you have heard the one about stones and glass houses?

And I'm still waiting for your full statistical analysis to back up your claims. Any chance of seeing it?

 

[ufkacbln]

Er, no. He "chose" to quote published data to refute a particular interpretation.

And I wouldn't complain about "balance" to assertions... you have heard the one about stones and glass houses?

And I'm still waiting for your full statistical analysis to back up your claims. Any chance of seeing it?

As always, claiming it is an "anti-helmet" website and dismissing the content out of hand is far easier than actually recognising that the information you have posted is simply wrong!

 

[Linford]

I sympathize, Linf, as someone who is often obliged to listen to the ignorant mindsplurging that often goes on in pubs. You should have told these idiots to f**k off.

Their biggest bugbears were the no lights, on pavements and rljing. I cannot disagree with them on these, but the rest of it was ill informed nonsense.

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2844932, member: 45"]What about motorbikerlists "giving it beans"? Surely this is more dangerous and antisocial than any permitted behaviours you or your ill-informed friends have an issue with?[/quote]
If bikers were "giving it beans" all the time in town centres and urban environments i've no doubt that they would have been added to the list.....however people on BSO's stand out for demonstrating the notion that rules are made for other people. By and large giving it beans on an empty road in the arse end of nowhere only really exposes the "bean giver" to risk. I can only imagine they see a lot of bso riders taking the pee.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Their biggest bugbears were the no lights, on pavements and rljing. I cannot disagree with them on these, but the rest of it was ill informed nonsense.

I wouldn't even concede these points in an argument. They're all symptoms of our road infrastructure.

Why do people cycle on pavements? Those bollards, in varying states of uprightness, cluttering so many of our pavements are not there for cyclists, they're there for the real danger.

RLJing: show me a traffic light anywhere in the UK which is there because dangers presented by cyclists to other road users and I'll treat it with full respect (rather than grudging respect).

Lights: people expect to be able to drive at speeds where they are unable to clearly monitor the space they are about to enter, be it low sunlight or night time. Cyclists out at night with no lights cause drivers to say ''I could have hit him'' rather than ''I drive at such a speed that I wouldn't be able to see and avoid hitting him.''

 

[snorri]

on an empty road in the arse end of nowhere .

Your arse end of nowhere could well be the centre of the universe to someone else, please remember that when you are thinking of farting beans on your motor bike.

 

[theclaud]

[QUOTE 2845091, member: 30090"]Quite
My usual retort in such circumstances is to quote motorists ksi's...they soon STFU.[/quote]

I might just go on the offensive and start treating motorists the way people treat cyclists. The minute someone mentions driving I'll start haranguing them about the last twenty idiots in cars I've seen, and insist that the whole lot of them are a pain in the arse who shouldn't be on the road. Which is not a million miles from the truth, as it happens, given that some redress is long overdue...

 

[ufkacbln]

It is all a matter of perception. If anyone were actually to stand and watch, they would see loads of red light offenses being committed by drivers. It is just that we barely notice it.

After the London Cabbie video, I looked at the junction between the A32 and Wych Lane.

Using the same premise, that any vehicle crossing the line after it had truned red was in the wrong.

EAsch time the lights turend 4 or 5 vehicles would carry on to joint the A32 ignoringthe lights before one stopped



At this junction the "RLJ rate" for cars is over 80%!!!!

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2848779, member: 1314"]Found this posted by Crackle some years back:

View attachment 35422 [/quote]

Ah..number 6 appears to be a vindication that cycle lids work....even in cars.
I've worn my full face motorbike lid in a car before, but it does get in the way when you are trying to do a lifesaver