Research into helmet compulsion

[Dan B]

If you express the number of pedestrian deaths on pavements caused by cyclists in terms of total miles travelled and then the number of deaths caused by "white vans" with miles traveled you will find that pedestrians are more at risk from cyclists!

As a pedestrian who needs to know whether I should exercise greater caution around cyclists or around motorists, it doesn't matter worth diddly who has ridden further to get to me. The reason for considering "miles travelled", as far as I can see, is to account for cycling being less popular than driving: that is, to attempt to answer the question of which is more dangerous if equal numbers of people practiced both.

But there are a couple of problems with trying to scale the figures this way. First and most obvious is that even if equal numbers of people were driving as cycling, they would not in all probability be cycling the same distances anyway: bikes are typically used for shorter trips. Second is that the "miles travelled" numbers is for the entire road network including motorways (which account for a goodly number of them) and as a pedestrian I'm not allowed to walk on those anyway

Be careful how you read statistics!

Indeed :-)

 

[ufkacbln]

As a pedestrian who needs to know whether I should exercise greater caution around cyclists or around motorists, it doesn't matter worth diddly who has ridden further to get to me. The reason for considering "miles travelled", as far as I can see, is to account for cycling being less popular than driving: that is, to attempt to answer the question of which is more dangerous if equal numbers of people practiced both.

But there are a couple of problems with trying to scale the figures this way. First and most obvious is that even if equal numbers of people were driving as cycling, they would not in all probability be cycling the same distances anyway: bikes are typically used for shorter trips. Second is that the "miles travelled" numbers is for the entire road network including motorways (which account for a goodly number of them) and as a pedestrian I'm not allowed to walk on those anyway


Indeed :-)

The exact point......... dismissing pedestrians on these grounds is equaly flawed.

The far more reliable questions (and answers) are how many go through the Hospital doors, and how many of those would have benefitted from helmets....

 

[MartinC]

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf

Interesting reading

Yes, it is interesting. It's a well managed selection of papers that support their view but omits significant ones that don't (e.g. the full post compulsion picture in Australia). At item 19 they've quoted research from Mayer Hillman that actually contains the reasons why many of the surveys they use are flawed - small and self selecting samples. The reports with less favourable (for the helmet proposition) conclusions or where there are criticisms of the methodology used are to be found towards the end of the selection

 

[MacB]

Yes, it is interesting. It's a well managed selection of papers that support their view but omits significant ones that don't (e.g. the full post compulsion picture in Australia). At item 19 they've quoted research from Mayer Hillman that actually contains the reasons why many of the surveys they use are flawed - small and self selecting samples. The reports with less favourable (for the helmet proposition) conclusions or where there are criticisms of the methodology used are to be found towards the end of the selection

I especially enjoyed the rebuttal of the fact that observed cycling No's had dropped. This was due to the observations being made at different times in different places. Kind of lacks in the scientific method bit that

 

[ferret fur]

Yes, it is interesting. It's a well managed selection of papers that support their view but omits significant ones that don't (e.g. the full post compulsion picture in Australia). At item 19 they've quoted research from Mayer Hillman that actually contains the reasons why many of the surveys they use are flawed - small and self selecting samples. The reports with less favourable (for the helmet proposition) conclusions or where there are criticisms of the methodology used are to be found towards the end of the selection

You mean the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has an agenda?

 

[ufkacbln]

I especially enjoyed the rebuttal of the fact that observed cycling No's had dropped. This was due to the observations being made at different times in different places. Kind of lacks in the scientific method bit that

It also failed to account for the fact that there was a whole bundle of road safety measures such as clamping down on drink driving, speeding, poor driving standards, untaxed and uninsured vehicles. The resulting safer roads could also explain the decrease in head injuries rather than helmets.