Randomised controlled trials?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'
(219 posts)- Started 11 years ago by chdot
- Latest reply from chdot
- This topic is
closed
-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Would be ideal but they couldn't be double-blind. Also incidents are so rare that the sample size would need to be enormous.
Posted 11 years ago # -
[quote]If we're quoting public health people, how about this from the Greater Manchester Health and Transport Study Group.
[/quote]"Public health professionals must recognise the hazard of unintended consequences from well meaning helmet campaigners, and be prepared to speak out against exaggerations of risk and distortions of data.
"The trouble with this is: It is opinion, and furthermore it is co-written by M Wardlaw, you know, the one on the editorial board of cyclehemets.org & who isn't a public health professional.
Much of the stuff you see on the net is self-referring, tendentious stuff by people who have already made up their minds. So the Health & Transport Study Group writes a paper which references cyclehelmets.org which is then quoted on cyclehelmets.org as a reference paper... & the same bloke is concerned with both organisations. I draw my own conclusions.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Not just the net. Watch Holyrood for stories fed to the Record and the quoted in the house as being reported in the Record.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Let me see if I'm understanding this correctly. Opinions are OK if they are the opinions of public health professionals as in the "as a health researcher and cyclist ..." opinion we saw earlier (although a health researcher doesn't actually need to be a qualified public health professional. I could claim to be a health researcher on the basis of having done research about health even though I have no medical or public health qualifications) even if we have no idea what those opinions are based on and have no way of checking the validity of those opinions and no way to decide if the person expressing those opinions might have "already made their minds up".
Opinions from people with previously stated opinions, who have made clear the basis of their opinion and whose provenance can be checked and judged (and often found wanting), should be ignored because they've "already made up their minds".
And we should ignore anything where the opinionated opinion expresser is a co-author regardless of the role and professional standing of other co-authors and, particularly, regardless of the validity of the opinion they express.
Is that about right?
Posted 11 years ago # -
That's about the size of it. Obviously anyone who thinks the evidence doesn't support widespread helmet use is a crackpot and dodgy, their "opinion already made up".
Whereas, of course, if you've previously published a widely discredited study showing helmets prevent 85% of head injuries (and 70-odd percent of leg injuries!), it would be perfectly respectable to do a Cochrane Review where 4 of the 7 papers were written by you, based on only two data sets which somehow comprise 77% of the cyclists studied - and the three papers you generously include from outside authors are cherry-picked to ignore the awkward findings from population studies showing a lack of injury rate response.
Yes, that would be quite OK. You're a "concerned public health professional" and your work supports injury reduction efforts not to mention Commonsense.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yeahbut..In the Cochrane review it was pretty obvious whose papers they are. It says in the titles. You have to dig a little in the case I cited. You go through several links to find the names of the editorial board. It isn't exactly conspicuous.
If you accept that the Cochrane Review is flawed because it is self-referential why then quote from something which has the same flaws?
While Warlaw may well have written reams on the subject of cycle helmets. The fact remains his day job is a Design Engineer in the Gas Industry. It also remains tthe case that whatever research he has done has always led to the same conclusion.Let me repeat, I personally have reservations about the effectiveness of helmets to prevent injury in a lot of cases. That doesn't stop me from noticing how weak the arguments are when they seek to prove taht helmets actually cause harm.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Sure. But I countered one opinion with another. Your objection was that one of the opinions should be discounted not because of what was said but on the basis of who (partially) said it.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"That doesn't stop me from noticing how weak the arguments are when they seek to prove taht helmets actually cause harm."
That seems to be true - not least because in a real life crash it could never be established which part of a head/helmet/car/road/etc. dynamic caused any particular injury.
I don't suppose there have been any crash tests involving cycle helmets and different road surfaces etc. Probably not even for motorcycle helmets.
In any case I think that 'fear' that helmets might make things worse is not a great argument for adding to the mix about 'fighting' helmet compulsion - either in events or potential legislation.
Perhaps everyone who rides a bike should wear a helmet. Perhaps pedestrians too. Perhaps people who live in houses with stairs - or tenements.
It just seems strange that 'cycling' has become the focus of 'it's irresponsible not to take all necessary precautions' more than most other activities/parts of life.
Lifejackets if you walk along the canal - a speeding cyclist might force you into the water.
Personal choice.
Some people are more 'accident prone', cautious, sensible, safety conscious, have thinner skulls etc.
Of course there's evidence that wearing a helmet has reduced the severity of injuries to real people in real circumstances. I assume that this is more the case than the number of people who have had worse injuries because of wearing a helmet.
The thing that bothers me is that there seems to a 'road safety' (or perhaps Road Safety) view that helmets make people "safe" and if everyone wore one all problems would go away - I exaggerate.
This perverts into a view - used by insurance companies to save money - that you are irresponsible if you get knocked off when not wearing one.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The thing that bothers me is that there seems to a 'road safety' (or perhaps Road Safety) view that helmets make people "safe" and if everyone wore one all problems would go away - I exaggerate.
Only slightly.
I'm afraid this comes down to a motor vehicle centred society ignoring the elephant in the room: that motor vehicles are still killing thousands a year, and injuring or crippling many more.
Naturally, that's inconvenient: everyone 'has' to drive, right? So blame the victims instead: the pedestrians that "don't look where they're going" rather than the driver that was going too fast for the conditions; the cyclist who was "irresponsible" not wearing a helmet, hi-viz and body armour rather than the driver who "didn't see" them; etc, etc, ad nauseam.
Is it any coincidence that helmet proliferation and creeping (or actual) compulsion occurs in the most motorised, least cycling and pedestrian friendly countries? Australia, USA, Canada, UK: all places where cyclists are a tiny out group and where even pedestrian travel is often discouraged (eg. there are many parts of the US where sidewalks/pavements do not exist, making walking dangerous).
I honestly cannot even imagine this debate taking place in other northern European countries. Their version of "common sense" must be very different from the Anglo-Saxon version.*
* with apologies to the Celtic nations, but culturally and linguistically we are, for better or worse, hitched to the Anglo-Saxon sphere of influence.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"Only slightly"
Thanks.
You're probably right...
Posted 11 years ago # -
Insto, it isn't that I necessarily discount what they say, it is more that when something is introduced as: If we're quoting public health people, I think it might be equally fair to say: " Here is what a leading anti-helmet campaigner has to say."
Posted 11 years ago # -
Chdot: I think the crux of the matter is not that:
It just seems strange that 'cycling' has become the focus of 'it's irresponsible not to take all necessary precautions' more than most other activities/parts of life.But what we are discussing is 'reasonable precautions' which in this context means whether the benefits to be gained outweigh the disadvantages of wearing a helmet. What skews the helmet debate is that a significant number of people don't like wearing them for whatever reason. If you think back to the introduction of seatbelt laws there was an awful lot of grumbling about the inconvenience, discomfort etc (as well as a few stories of people being trapped in their cars and being burned to death.) The point is, we have largely come to accept the downsides of seatbelts and just put them on without thinking.. it is all part of driving a car and is seen as a reasonable precaution to take. You could argue 'why not wear a five point harness, neck brace and a crash helmet when driving' & the answer is because that, given the risks that is seen as an excessive inconvenience.
The point I'm trying to make is that cycling isn't being singled out, merely what some people see as a reasonable non-onerous precaution comes up against what other people have strong objections to. You could make a lot of the same arguments about track mitts in terms of why don't peds wear them etc, but I don't see people going online to suggest that wearing gloves potentially has negative effects in terms of risk compensation. The reason being, I suggest, is that people don't feel that strong negativity about wearing them.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Of course if we *really* wanted to make the roads safer, we'd insist all new cars have a proper rollcage fitted (not some indefinite "safety cell" which is conveniently vague and will deform in relatively minor impacts, a proper FIA spec one), fixed non-reclining seats, proper (minimum) four point seatblets, proper firewalls and a plumbed in extinguisher system as well as an external electrical cut out switch.
Oh and all drivers would be obliged to wear crash helmets.Excessive? Well it's the absolute minimum required before you race a car in a roadgoing class, and that is one of the reasons why motor racing is generally safer than driving on the road.
This would increase safety for the majority of the population and greatly reduce the burden on the emergency services/NHS.
Unfortunately, it would be classed as "inconvenient" or "off putting" or "too expensive", all of which are thin excuses when they are actually inspected closely.
The basic truth is that the authorities and manufacturers are prepared to accept a high level of casualties as long as it doesn't become a political hot potato, when we talk about institutional support for helmet use/compulsion it has a lot less to do with safety and a lot more to do with politics and greed imho.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@stiltskin
That would only be fair if you discount the role of the other people who co-wrote the report. Fairer: a leading anti-helmet campaigner writing in collaboration with ... (actually I have no idea who). And it still doesn't accord any validity to the point the authors are making, which is more important to me. I would have agreed with the basic point if it had come from a leading campaigner for helmet compulsion. It's a basic point of critical thinking.Posted 11 years ago # -
I don't see people going online to suggest that wearing gloves potentially has negative effects in terms of risk compensation. The reason being, I suggest, is that people don't feel that strong negativity about wearing them.
I suggest alternative reasons:
- there's no suggestion that you'll one day be chased down and fined by the police for not wearing gloves
- you don't, at present, have to wear gloves to be treated equally in certain events or even to enter them at all
- if a drunk motorist hits you and damages your hand, they won't be let off lightly if you were barehanded and you certainly won't struggle to get compensation for the damage they caused you.Of course gloves cause risk compensation, it seems strange to me to suggest they don't (how much is another question!). Literally everything fits into a matrix that, as a whole, strongly influences behaviour. IMO.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@Smudge, yeah but then that would give the impression that driving was dangerous. Everybody knows driving is perfectly safe, or would be if it wasn't for irresponsible cyclists and pedestrians recklessly getting the way. It's the cyclists who are dangerous to themselves and others, as anyone with any common sense knows.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"...that would
give the impressionmean admitting that drivingwasis dangerous..."Fixed that for you ;-)
Yes I know you had the sarcasm markers on that, but just too tempting!
(esp having had to do first aid at serious/fatal vehicle crash(es) ) :-(Posted 11 years ago # -
I'm not suggesting that gloves don't have that effect, but what you have just posted doesn't suggest that you are really that concerned with risk compensation and helmets: You've cited what concerns you about helmets.
I'm genuinely not trying to accuse you of arguing in bad faith as I have a lot of respect for the way you conduct yourself in these discussions (in various forums), but it often seems to me that in general people are utilising any argument that falls to hand as long as they don't have to wear a helmet.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Stiltskin "we have largely come to accept the downsides of seatbelts and just put them on without thinking". Maybe for most people but RoadSafetyScotland says "...it’s estimated that 14% of adults don’t wear their seatbelts every time. ...It is estimated that 1 in 3 people who are killed in vehicles are not wearing seatbelts, and half of them could have been saved had they worn them." So, far more lives could have been saved from getting everyone who uses a car to obey the existing seatbelt laws than could possibly be saved from banning all cycling without a helmet.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I'm not suggesting that gloves don't have that effect, but what you have just posted doesn't suggest that you are really that concerned with risk compensation and helmets: You've cited what concerns you about helmets.
In general I'm convinced by risk compensation as a phenomenon. Personally, I don't feel there's enough data to determine why mass helmet-wearing by a population doesn't cause big drops in the head injury rate, so my opposition mainly comes from the observation that no other country has achieved big reductions without feeling the need to champion one of the possible causes over any of the others.
In the meantime, there are no countries with a cycling culture which have a cycle safety culture too, and no countries with a cycle safety culture where the victim of dangerous driving isn't pummelled (bareheaded or not) figuratively when they come up against the perpetrator in either type of court - and I guess that summarises my own stance.
Posted 11 years ago # -
So, far more lives could have been saved from getting everyone who uses a car to obey the existing seatbelt laws than could possibly be saved from banning all cycling without a helmet.
I agree entirely. But then I'm not arguing for compulsion...
& to dramatically return the thread to the subject, what I am arguing is that Spokes were wrong to take sides in what is known to be a contentious subject. (& by their selection of links they are most definitely taking sides)
Posted 11 years ago # -
Spokes were wrong to take sides in what is known to be a contentious subject.
A subject such as....promoting the rights of cyclists and the cause of cycling as transport (as opposed to sport)? Pretty contentious to many non-cyclists. It gains my wholehearted support though.
Sometimes you have to take sides: sitting on fences is painful, just ask the Lib Dems.
Posted 11 years ago # -
stilts,
But then supporting events with helmet compulsions would be taking a side too.
Posted 11 years ago # -
There's very little point taking sides in any other kind of subject. Contentious subjects are precisely the kind where representative and campaigning bodies should take a position. My concern is that bodies like Spokes might duck contentious questions for fear of alienating potential soft allies and 'stakeholders' like, as was suggested way upthread, the Evening News and some councillors or MSPs.
Posted 11 years ago # -
As far as I can see Spokes are supporting choice and rejecting a form of compulsion.
For that I support them.Posted 11 years ago # -
"supporting events with helmet compulsions would be taking a side too"
+1 - I don't see how you can take a value-free position on promoting helmet compulsion events. Either you promote them or you don't promote them, after all.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I've had second thoughts on this issue. Actually, all Spokes are really doing is airing the views (of most) of their membership. Mr average Joe Bloggs cyclist, most of whom are helmet wearing have most likely never even heard of Spokes.
So in reality, Spokes members (and advocates) happy, average event rider none the wiser, win win.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@Baldcyclist, Dave summed it up for me a while back when he said "</stir>".
Posted 11 years ago # -
"I don't see how you can take a value-free position on promoting helmet compulsion events. Either you promote them or you don't promote them, after all. "
I disagree, in the sense that I think that there are far more important things. Let's have events promoted - get more people on bikes, support charities etc. Helmet compulsion can be quarrelled over elsewhere.
Posted 11 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
posts
