Skiing vs cycling

[thom]

Incidentally… this is an extract from the first of Eurosafe's reports on vulnerable road users here...

4.2.3.1 Helmet use for cyclists in general

Two-wheelers are particularly vulnerable, not only when colliding with a motor vehicle, but also in single crashes. Single two-wheeler crashes are fairly common, in particular amongst the young and the elderly. Head injury is known to be a major cause of disability and death resulting from bicycle helmet accidents (e.g. fractures of the vault or the base of the skull or intracranial injuries).

General recommendations:

Bicycle helmet wearing should help to reduce the number of head injuries. Bicycle helmets contain a thick layer of polystyrene which absorbs the force of an impact and could reduce the consequences of an accident. Competent authorities should make sure that only type-approved crash helmets are used and that they are properly fastened.

Recommendation to the public health sector:

• To reduce head injuries to cyclists in all forms of accidents, including those involving a motor vehicle, every cyclist should be required to wear a bicycle helmet by law and violating this should be fined. The Health ministry should advise these – with regards of the head injuries – to the ministry of transport.
  
  
• Regardless of legislation, wearing helmets should be promoted. Arguments against bicycle helmets, such as risk-seeking tendencies while wearing a helmet or a reduction of cyclists’ shares due to helmet use, have no empirical evidence. Parents should act as role models by wearing helmets themselves. In school, cycling training should only be carried out with children wearing a bicycle helmet, and use of helmets should be en- forced.

I beg you to please remember these words are from Eurosafe, not me!

 

[Fab Foodie]

Incidentally… this is an extract from the first of Eurosafe's reports on vulnerable road users here...

4.2.3.1 Helmet use for cyclists in general

Two-wheelers are particularly vulnerable, not only when colliding with a motor vehicle, but also in single crashes. Single two-wheeler crashes are fairly common, in particular amongst the young and the elderly. Head injury is known to be a major cause of disability and death resulting from bicycle helmet accidents (e.g. fractures of the vault or the base of the skull or intracranial injuries).

General recommendations:

Bicycle helmet wearing should help to reduce the number of head injuries. Bicycle helmets contain a thick layer of polystyrene which absorbs the force of an impact and could reduce the consequences of an accident. Competent authorities should make sure that only type-approved crash helmets are used and that they are properly fastened.

Recommendation to the public health sector:

• To reduce head injuries to cyclists in all forms of accidents, including those involving a motor vehicle, every cyclist should be required to wear a bicycle helmet by law and violating this should be fined. The Health ministry should advise these – with regards of the head injuries – to the ministry of transport.
  
  
• Regardless of legislation, wearing helmets should be promoted. Arguments against bicycle helmets, such as risk-seeking tendencies while wearing a helmet or a reduction of cyclists’ shares due to helmet use, have no empirical evidence. Parents should act as role models by wearing helmets themselves. In school, cycling training should only be carried out with children wearing a bicycle helmet, and use of helmets should be en- forced.

I beg you to please remember these words are from Eurosafe, not me!

That's fine as long as other vulnerable road users such as drivers and pedestrians have to wear helmets as well .....

 

[thom]

That's fine as long as other vulnerable road users such as drivers and pedestrians have to wear helmets as well .....

They do have a report section 5.2 "Falls in Pedestrians" in the 2nd publication here : http://www.eurosafe.eu.com/csi/eurosafe2006.nsf/wwwVwContent/l3reports-528.htm

Some FiP data:
Locational:
30% in Pavement or pedestrianised malls
29% on Public Roads in Urban areas
14% on Cycle ways

Product:
66% caused by Stationary Equipment, processed and natural outside surfaces
5% by humans, animals, tissue fluids

Injury location:
42% lower extremities
32% upper extremities
20% Head

Type of injury:
29% Fracture
3% concussion

Activity:
78% General walking around

So my advice is never to walk around generally and if you do, take extra special care in pedestrianised areas of stationary things, perhaps wearing leg protection to avoid breaking your legs.

 

[Wobblers]

Incidentally… this is an extract from the first of Eurosafe's reports on vulnerable road users here...

4.2.3.1 Helmet use for cyclists in general

Two-wheelers are particularly vulnerable, not only when colliding with a motor vehicle, but also in single crashes. Single two-wheeler crashes are fairly common, in particular amongst the young and the elderly. Head injury is known to be a major cause of disability and death resulting from bicycle helmet accidents (e.g. fractures of the vault or the base of the skull or intracranial injuries).

General recommendations:

Bicycle helmet wearing should help to reduce the number of head injuries. Bicycle helmets contain a thick layer of polystyrene which absorbs the force of an impact and could reduce the consequences of an accident. Competent authorities should make sure that only type-approved crash helmets are used and that they are properly fastened.

Recommendation to the public health sector:

• To reduce head injuries to cyclists in all forms of accidents, including those involving a motor vehicle, every cyclist should be required to wear a bicycle helmet by law and violating this should be fined. The Health ministry should advise these – with regards of the head injuries – to the ministry of transport.
  
  
• Regardless of legislation, wearing helmets should be promoted. Arguments against bicycle helmets, such as risk-seeking tendencies while wearing a helmet or a reduction of cyclists’ shares due to helmet use, have no empirical evidence. Parents should act as role models by wearing helmets themselves. In school, cycling training should only be carried out with children wearing a bicycle helmet, and use of helmets should be en- forced.

I beg you to please remember these words are from Eurosafe, not me!

I note that references to the peer reviewed literature is conspicuous by its complete absence.

I also note that the call for compulsion makes no reference whatsoever to the significant body of evidence pointing to an increase in risk to cyclists once legislation is brought in.

An authoritative source this is not.

 

[thom]

I note that references to the peer reviewed literature is conspicuous by its complete absence.

I also note that the call for compulsion makes no reference whatsoever to the significant body of evidence pointing to an increase in risk to cyclists once legislation is brought in.

An authoritative source this is not.

Not sure I buy the lack of reference point in its entirety - there are very definitely references there, often to publication by NGOs such as WHO.
They do produce a peer reviewed journal, details here : http://www.eurosafe.eu.com/csi/eurosafe2006.nsf/wwwVwContent/l2icsp-journaldetails.htm
So I don't think it is fair if you are suggesting this NGO is devoid of credibility in the field or that they are naive in the quality of their publications. They appear to be collecting a wide collection of EU accident data and looking at a wide variety of effects.

These are the stakeholders of Eurosafe:

• · Austrian Road Safety Board, Austria: Injury data & Vulnerable Road Users
  
  
• · Consumer Safety Institute, Netherlands: General Coordination & Burden of Injury
  
  
• · ULSS20 Verona, Italy: Work Safety
  
  
• · European Child Safety Alliance: Child Safety
  
  
• · National Public Health Institute, Finland: Adolescents and Risk- taking
  
  
• · Trading Standards Institute, UK: Consumer Safety
  
  
• · Swiss Council for Accident Prevention, Switzerland: Sport
  
  Safety
  
  
• · National Suicide Research Foundation, Ireland: Suicide and Self-harm
  
  
• · John Moores University, UK: Violence prevention
  
  
• · University of Manchester, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work

 

[snorri]

The report also advocates measures to reduce crash risk,........ motor vehicle speed limits, infrastructure etc., unfortunately the compulsionistas will probably just home in on the section on helmets.

 

[ShipHill]

12 inch steel spike instead of an airbag in the steering wheel in cars. That would keep them focused.

 

[slowmotion]

I find the whole authoritarian tone of Eurosafe to be deeply unattractive. The EU at its worst.

 

[ShipHill]

People often say this but, 40 - 50 years ago when cars were much less kind to their occupants, we accepted the degree of slaughter with a fatalistic shrug.

Very true Adrian. My dad's old Cambridge was like a Sherman tank.

I watched this video yesterday on YouTube which I found very interesting >>

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY


a 16 1/2 minute long lecture by a guy called Mikael Colville-Andersen.

 

[Wobblers]

Not sure I buy the lack of reference point in its entirety - there are very definitely references there, often to publication by NGOs such as WHO.
They do produce a peer reviewed journal, details here : http://www.eurosafe.eu.com/csi/eurosafe2006.nsf/wwwVwContent/l2icsp-journaldetails.htm
So I don't think it is fair if you are suggesting this NGO is devoid of credibility in the field or that they are naive in the quality of their publications. They appear to be collecting a wide collection of EU accident data and looking at a wide variety of effects.

These are the stakeholders of Eurosafe:

• · Austrian Road Safety Board, Austria: Injury data & Vulnerable Road Users
  
  
• · Consumer Safety Institute, Netherlands: General Coordination & Burden of Injury
  
  
• · ULSS20 Verona, Italy: Work Safety
  
  
• · European Child Safety Alliance: Child Safety
  
  
• · National Public Health Institute, Finland: Adolescents and Risk- taking
  
  
• · Trading Standards Institute, UK: Consumer Safety
  
  
• · Swiss Council for Accident Prevention, Switzerland: Sport
  
  Safety
  
  
• · National Suicide Research Foundation, Ireland: Suicide and Self-harm
  
  
• · John Moores University, UK: Violence prevention
  
  
• · University of Manchester, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work

So what? The majority of the organisations you list are governmental. They have their own agendas and biases. Why are you listing them - it does not matter one whit to the credibility or not of Eurosafe. Nor is it at all clear as to how many of them have the necessary expertise required for statistical analysis of data of this nature.

What does matter, very much, is the thoroughness of their research. To be making the authoritative claims they are - and be in no doubt, their aim very much is to be the authority on which safety legislation of this nature - at the very least it is reasonable to expect (if not insist) a thorough examination and critique of the published literature. Yet neither the two conclusions that you emboldened are supported by the published data! The evidence of helmet efficacy is at best contradictory, while it has been shown that helmet compulsion increases risk exposure to cyclists. I looked at the quoted references - staggeringly few (less than 10%) of them are original research. Even fewer are from peer reviewed sources. That is not an exhaustive literature review. There is even one reference to "PubMed". PubMed is not a journal - it is a searchable database of medical articles and while most are from peer reviewed journals not all are. I am somewhat surprised to see such a reference there rather than the actual article: it rather calls into question the quality of the research done.

And this is the problem. Legislators will look at this and believe it uncritically. The evidence that contradicts their conclusions will be ignored, to our detriment. This is how bad legislation gets passed.

 

[thom]

I find the whole authoritarian tone of Eurosafe to be deeply unattractive. The EU at its worst.

It is not an EU org - it is an NGO

 

[thom]

So what? The majority of the organisations you list are governmental. They have their own agendas and biases. Why are you listing them - it does not matter one whit to the credibility or not of Eurosafe. Nor is it at all clear as to how many of them have the necessary expertise required for statistical analysis of data of this nature.

…

And this is the problem. Legislators will look at this and believe it uncritically. The evidence that contradicts their conclusions will be ignored, to our detriment. This is how bad legislation gets passed.

I thought about going through your argument in detail but I think we both would agree, this thread does not need another sniping match. My opinion on your criticism is that it is just a tad too strident to be balanced.

I don't know much about this NGO but listing their sponsors is just revealing facts and I do not presume these are necessarily biased organisations like you do. I'm not going to go out on a limb to defend them but I am pointing out that their research is being quoted/pointed to by the national press and as you note, people who chose to delve into this information will very likely accept their conclusions and trust work sponsored by them. This clearly does have some effect in public consciousness.

What seems to be interesting though is that I think they claim their data is new as obtained from national institutions. That may be in the sense that they have a wide set of data pertaining not only to cycling but also to all other transport modes. It is not clear to me.

Don't doubt, I believe helmet usage for adults using current designs is more then likely as Adrian puts it a personal choice based upon emotions. For children or some people learning to ride for the first time who are more likely to have less acute accidents, I'm prepared to believe different. But this is not a point I want to argue, just to be clear about.

Anyway, I am genuinely interested and open minded to hear your or anyone else's considered (but please be a chilled out) opinion on what the motive of this NGO would be in making such claims as it has that I did highlight. I am trying hard to keep emotions out of my question. As I see it
1) They may be right and have new data that can back their claims up
2) They may be honestly mistaken - personally I do not think it is right to presume their statisticians are not up to scratch
3) They may be dishonestly mistaken - why would those sponsoring org.s be prepared to sponsor it
4) something else - in my book it is ok just to say I don't know

 

[swansonj]

Anyway, I am genuinely interested and open minded to hear your or anyone else's considered (but please be a chilled out) opinion on what the motive of this NGO would be in making such claims as it has that I did highlight. I am trying hard to keep emotions out of my question. As I see it
1) They may be right and have new data that can back their claims up
2) They may be honestly mistaken - personally I do not think it is right to presume their statisticians are not up to scratch though
3) They may be dishonestly mistaken - why would those sponsoring org.s be prepared to sponsor it
4) something else - in my book it is ok just to say I don't know

I have often pondered why seemingly reputable organisations come up with wrong conclusions. The nearest I can get to it is that it's perhaps a question of starting point and hence perspective. I don't believe they have bad statisticians, I believe their statisticians are working within too narrow constraints. Specifically, they are focused on interventions (it's that activist, I must do so something and be seen to be doing something, Y chromosome thing again), and fail to allow themselves to consider the larger picture where actions may be indirect and secondary. It's also a desire to cut the problem up into small manageable pieces and to analyse each one separately rather than to see connections. In engineering we call it a systems approach. In war it's the difference between throwing another million troops at a frontal assault on the enemy's trenches and machine guns, or looking for the flanking movement or the new technology. In politics, it's the difference between liberals, who see a series of problems and think that each one can be tackled separately within existing structures, and socialists, who see the same problems but recognise the need for a common change in structures to address them. In safety, it's the difference between couching the debate entirely in terms of the immediate intervention, and having a more open mind as to the bigger picture. In short, perhaps it's not about how good you are at doing statistics, it about how good you are at asking yourself open questions.

But then again, if looking at data with an open mind, rather than looking at data from the narrow perspective of our prejudices, were easy, we'd all be Nobel material.

 

[theclaud]

Cool! This thread has got good again!

 

[mcshroom]

That may just be because of the enflouncement of a certain motorbike loving 'Stultus Saxum' a couple pages back.