Boardman sparks helmet row after Pedal Me bike taxi ride; Arsonists destroy popular Longleat MTB trail; Israel Cycling Academy to step up to WorldTour with Katusha takeover; Mason frames stolen; Cycling UK slams GWR train bike storage +more on the live bl

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

So the below = Shares in Helmet companies, everyone must wear one. 

 

We believe that it is a personal choice whether to wear a cycle helmet or not, and for parents to make that choice for their children.

Improved safety records in the most cycling-friendly countries are greatly attributed to a network of well-connected and high quality dedicated infrastructure, public awareness and understanding of cycling, and a culture where most people cycle regularly rather than helmet use.

Countries with the highest levels of cycling, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, record the lowest levels of helmet use in the world. For example, the Netherlands has 5% helmet use and the lowest incident of head injuries in the world.

Legislating to make cycle helmets compulsory can discourage people from cycling. Evidence from Australia and New Zealand, for example, suggests that large numbers of cyclists are deterred from cycling by helmet legislation. In the year following the introduction of legislation for compulsory helmets in New South Wales (Australia) there was a 36% reduction in cycling levels.

It is estimated that a total of 136,000 adults and children in New Zealand – nearly 4% of the total population – stopped cycling immediately after the introduction of cycle helmet legislation in 1994.

This reduction in cycling is associated with a reduction in physical activity which could lead to negative health impacts overall. Coupled with this is the fact that cycling safety improves when more people cycle – the ‘safety in numbers effect’. It is thought that the increased frequency of motorist-cyclist interaction creates more aware motorists.

Cycling has many health, social and environmental benefits. If we are to make the most of these benefits, we need to increase, and, therefore, normalise cycling.

This means putting solutions that are based on the evidence and the experiences of most cycling-friendly countries and cities into practice. We need to invest in and deliver a network of dedicated cycling routes and car-free public space so that cycling is a viable option for everyday journeys.

You somehow missed the rather more relevant bits which appeared just before your quote.  Note the overwhelming bias of research showing helmets to be extremely effective, including some which has been proved wrong, and the total lack of anything balancing it.

"Recent studies have found that cycle helmets can offer protection to the head, but not in every scenario.

For example, a recent academic study showed cycle helmets offer "effective protection at low speeds of less than 50km/h (31 mph)".

The same study also concluded cycle helmets offer protection against secondary impacts against the ground after the initial collision, but that helmets became less protective the faster cars are travelling, and were of "minimal" use in crashes with cars travelling at more than 50km/h (31 mph).

A French study found that helmets contributed to a 24%-31% reduction in head injury overall and a 70% reduction in head injuries categorised as moderate injury (defined as loss of consciousness for between 15 minutes and 6 hours or a period of post-traumatic amnesia of up to 24 hours).

A Cochrane review of five case-control studies found helmets provide a 63% to 88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of people cycling.

Helmets provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%). Injuries to the upper and mid facial areas are also reduced 65%. However, the review did acknowledge that little to no protection is offered to the lower face and jaw."

So after proving that helmets are incredibly effective, they put in some hogwash about it being your decision.

burtthebike wrote:

So after proving that helmets are incredibly effective, they put in some hogwash about it being your decision.

So may I ask - are you arguing that all of those studies are wrong, and so mis-information, that some are/some aren't but they're not balanced by studies that show no benefit or physical harm caused by helmet use, or something else ? They appear to repeatedly mention they are not a panacea, not required in many places to social and infrastructural differences, and it's personal choice - all this is reasonably far from what I have unfortunately been exposed to from the Mail and others.

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

So after proving that helmets are incredibly effective, they put in some hogwash about it being your decision.

So may I ask - are you arguing that all of those studies are wrong, and so mis-information, that some are/some aren't but they're not balanced by studies that show no benefit or physical harm caused by helmet use, or something else ? They appear to repeatedly mention they are not a panacea, not required in many places to social and infrastructural differences, and it's personal choice - all this is reasonably far from what I have unfortunately been exposed to from the Mail and others.

As I've said, they only reference studies showing massive benefits from helmet wearing, some at least of which have been totally trashed, and don't reference any of the rather more reliable studies showing no benefits.  If they are supposed to be promoting cycling and are trying to be balanced, why is the evidence all one way and of the type that discourages cycling by portraying it as dangerous?  If this isn't biased, why do they only reference one type of evidence and ignore the more reliable stuff?

Having continually referred to evidence showing that helmets are effective, they then move on to suggest that you make up your own mind.

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

So after proving that helmets are incredibly effective, they put in some hogwash about it being your decision.

So may I ask - are you arguing that all of those studies are wrong, and so mis-information, that some are/some aren't but they're not balanced by studies that show no benefit or physical harm caused by helmet use, or something else ? They appear to repeatedly mention they are not a panacea, not required in many places to social and infrastructural differences, and it's personal choice - all this is reasonably far from what I have unfortunately been exposed to from the Mail and others.

As I've said, they only reference studies showing massive benefits from helmet wearing, some at least of which have been totally trashed, and don't reference any of the rather more reliable studies showing no benefits.  If they are supposed to be promoting cycling and are trying to be balanced, why is the evidence all one way and of the type that discourages cycling by portraying it as dangerous?  If this isn't biased, why do they only reference one type of evidence and ignore the more reliable stuff?

Having continually referred to evidence showing that helmets are effective, they then move on to suggest that you make up your own mind.

I have no problem with people presenting data showing efficacy or harm, that's surely just more information to use to make that personal decision, as long as that data is reliable. At least one of the quote analyses there has been picked apart a number of times - and shouldn't have been used IMO - but at least one appears to be a decent piece of work.. so why not. Data is data, if it goes contrary to our beliefs then so be it, that's science - i've had views about seemingly established physics, along with others, which have then turned out to be incorrect or at least only partially true.. that's part of the enjoyment for me. The same here. They have mentioned studies which show the negative effects of helmet mandation, and the data from other countries which have low helmet use - so i'm not undestanding your question "why is the evidence all one way " ?

Your use of phrases like "continually referred to evidence ", "massive benefits" and "all one way" don't really point to an objective viewpoint, at least to me and perhaps a number of others who  have also read the article... if it's balance you're after, perhaps you could also address that along with any short-comings in the piece.

fukawitribe wrote:

Your use of phrases like "continually referred to evidence ", "massive benefits" and "all one way" don't really point to an objective viewpoint,

OK, so show me any referenced study that shows no benefit?   There are later mentions of counter arguments, but all the hard science, with figures, shows massive benefits, when that is at least questionable.  If they acknowledge later that the studies they quote aren't the whole story, why do they only reference studies showing massive benefits when there are plenty of more reliable studies which show the opposite?

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Your use of phrases like "continually referred to evidence ", "massive benefits" and "all one way" don't really point to an objective viewpoint,

OK, so show me any referenced study that shows no benefit?  

Well there I agree with you to a certain extent (could be more explicit) -  however if you go and look at the links in that piece there are a number either dealing with that directly, e.g.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/03/why-cities-should-watch-t...

or with references to studies that show lack of benefits, alongside their caveating of the actual role of helmets in 'safety' considersations.

burtthebike wrote:

There are later mentions of counter arguments, but all the hard science, with figures, shows massive benefits, when that is at least questionable.  If they acknowledge later that the studies they quote aren't the whole story, why do they only reference studies showing massive benefits when there are plenty of more reliable studies which show the opposite?

But they do acknowledge that the studies aren't the whole story, and that there are other - arguably more important - issues to consider than the PPE aspect of things. The studies they quote may also have useful information in them and be reliable - if that shows circumstances where helmets are effective (or not) that should be considered, not dismissed because it runs counter to any particular belief system.

As for the "plenty of more reliable studies which show the opposite" - we could get into a another long discussion about that, but as far as a meta-analyses of things go, i'll go with Ben Goldacre and his opinion on the papers and studies he saw. 

Bungle73 wrote:

What's the point of comparing UK train bike storage, with that from unspecified country that has a ton more space to play with? Trains in the UK are rammed. Do you think that Commuter X would be happy to give up his seat in favour of someone's bike? I don't think so. Trains do not have unlimited space to play with.   Most people want that space primarily used for seats.  

Rubbish, train companies are deliberately putting people, bikes and luggage in smaller spaces to optimise profits, having recently travelled on Austrian, Dutch and German railways one could see how catering for cyclists and disabled people in Europe is far more advanced than in the UK. I used to regularly travel on TPE to Leeds and can't remember one occasion where the contractually obliged number of carriages was provided. It's not a space issue, it's a greed issue.

burtthebike wrote:

The great CB points out the double standards and stupidity of most people's view of helmets, cycling and safety.

I wonder if he's seen Sustrans latest staggeringly awful contribution?  So biased it could easily be from the Daily Mail.

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/policy-positions/all/all/our-positi...

Not sure what's so terrible about the Sustrans policy. I read it & it's basically "it's up to you whether you wear one or not but the evidence suggests they can help, in some cases". Can't really argue with that surely? It's more or less in line with my practice - I wear one for club rides (moving fast, risk of collisions) & real off-road (I'm not very good, so high chance of coming off) but not for going to the shops or pootling along a canal towpath or whatever (low risk, moving slowly, mostly on pavements & cycle paths).

burtthebike wrote:

The great CB points out the double standards and stupidity of most people's view of helmets, cycling and safety.

I wonder if he's seen Sustrans latest staggeringly awful contribution?  So biased it could easily be from the Daily Mail.

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/policy-positions/all/all/our-positi...

Go on then, I’ll bite, what’s so staggeringly awful about their contribution? And please point out the bias that you think makes is worthy of being a Daily Mail article?

I read it simply for what it is - a comment saying people have free choice, it can help protect the head in certain incidents, isn’t a silver bullet and the countries with the most cyclists and best segregation also have the fewest helmet wearers and head injuries, pointing out that the helmet isn’t the solution that the average car driver thinks it is and indeed making it compulsory has huge detrimental effects on numbers taking up cycling.

My god, what a fascist rant those black shirted journos at Sustrans are...

PP

Pilot Pete wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

The great CB points out the double standards and stupidity of most people's view of helmets, cycling and safety.

I wonder if he's seen Sustrans latest staggeringly awful contribution?  So biased it could easily be from the Daily Mail.

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/policy-positions/all/all/our-positi...

Go on then, I’ll bite, what’s so staggeringly awful about their contribution? And please point out the bias that you think makes is worthy of being a Daily Mail article?

I read it simply for what it is - a comment saying people have free choice, it can help protect the head in certain incidents, isn’t a silver bullet and the countries with the most cyclists and best segregation also have the fewest helmet wearers and head injuries, pointing out that the helmet isn’t the solution that the average car driver thinks it is and indeed making it compulsory has huge detrimental effects on numbers taking up cycling.

My god, what a fascist rant those black shirted journos at Sustrans are...

PP

In response to you and oceandweller, did you actually read it?  They only reference pro-helmet research, they ignore the much more reliable research showing no benefit, and one of the papers they reference is the second worst helmet study ever: the Cochrane Review which broke every rule of Cochrane Reviews.  They give figures for the protective effect of helmets which even the original researchers, Thompson, Rivara and Thompson don't support any more.  It really couldn't be any more one-sided, and either the person who compiled it is a helmet zealot or they are blissfully ignorant.

So they tell you time after time that helmets are fantastically effective, then tell you "but it's your decision" when they have clearly selected their evidence to support their position that helmets are great, implying that if you don't wear one, you're ignoring the evidence.

If you don't understand why something so utterly, blatantly one-sided and biased is wrong, perhaps you are DM readers.

burtthebike wrote:

Pilot Pete wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

The great CB points out the double standards and stupidity of most people's view of helmets, cycling and safety.

I wonder if he's seen Sustrans latest staggeringly awful contribution?  So biased it could easily be from the Daily Mail.

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/policy-positions/all/all/our-positi...

Go on then, I’ll bite, what’s so staggeringly awful about their contribution? And please point out the bias that you think makes is worthy of being a Daily Mail article?

I read it simply for what it is - a comment saying people have free choice, it can help protect the head in certain incidents, isn’t a silver bullet and the countries with the most cyclists and best segregation also have the fewest helmet wearers and head injuries, pointing out that the helmet isn’t the solution that the average car driver thinks it is and indeed making it compulsory has huge detrimental effects on numbers taking up cycling.

My god, what a fascist rant those black shirted journos at Sustrans are...

PP

In response to you and oceandweller, did you actually read it?  They only reference pro-helmet research, they ignore the much more reliable research showing no benefit, and one of the papers they reference is the second worst helmet study ever: the Cochrane Review which broke every rule of Cochrane Reviews.  They give figures for the protective effect of helmets which even the original researchers, Thompson, Rivara and Thompson don't support any more.  It really couldn't be any more one-sided, and either the person who compiled it is a helmet zealot or they are blissfully ignorant.

So they tell you time after time that helmets are fantastically effective, then tell you "but it's your decision" when they have clearly selected their evidence to support their position that helmets are great, implying that if you don't wear one, you're ignoring the evidence.

If you don't understand why something so utterly, blatantly one-sided and biased is wrong, perhaps you are DM readers.

And yet their opinion is that helmet use reduces cycling pickup and their benefits and the Netherlands has the lowest use of helmets and the lowest injury rates so better to have safe infrastructure then helmets. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Pilot Pete wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

The great CB points out the double standards and stupidity of most people's view of helmets, cycling and safety.

I wonder if he's seen Sustrans latest staggeringly awful contribution?  So biased it could easily be from the Daily Mail.

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/policy-positions/all/all/our-positi...

Go on then, I’ll bite, what’s so staggeringly awful about their contribution? And please point out the bias that you think makes is worthy of being a Daily Mail article?

I read it simply for what it is - a comment saying people have free choice, it can help protect the head in certain incidents, isn’t a silver bullet and the countries with the most cyclists and best segregation also have the fewest helmet wearers and head injuries, pointing out that the helmet isn’t the solution that the average car driver thinks it is and indeed making it compulsory has huge detrimental effects on numbers taking up cycling.

My god, what a fascist rant those black shirted journos at Sustrans are...

PP

In response to you and oceandweller, did you actually read it?  They only reference pro-helmet research, they ignore the much more reliable research showing no benefit, and one of the papers they reference is the second worst helmet study ever: the Cochrane Review which broke every rule of Cochrane Reviews.  They give figures for the protective effect of helmets which even the original researchers, Thompson, Rivara and Thompson don't support any more.  It really couldn't be any more one-sided, and either the person who compiled it is a helmet zealot or they are blissfully ignorant.

So they tell you time after time that helmets are fantastically effective, then tell you "but it's your decision" when they have clearly selected their evidence to support their position that helmets are great, implying that if you don't wear one, you're ignoring the evidence.

If you don't understand why something so utterly, blatantly one-sided and biased is wrong, perhaps you are DM readers.

And yet their opinion is that helmet use reduces cycling pickup and their benefits and the Netherlands has the lowest use of helmets and the lowest injury rates so better to have safe infrastructure then helmets. 

A bit of pretend balance after they've spent the rest of the article telling you to wear a helmet because they are fantastically effective.  Nowhere do they quote any of the reliable evidence showing no benefit from helmet wearing, but they do quote quite a few much less reliable studies which show fantastic benefits.

Anybody reading it would inevitably conclude that helmets were effective, which is at the very least, questionable.  Does Sustrans have shares in helmet companies?

burtthebike wrote:

So they tell you time after time that helmets are fantastically effective

Sustrans wrote:

Recent studies have found that cycle helmets can offer protection to the head, but not in every scenario

kamoshika wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

So they tell you time after time that helmets are fantastically effective

Sustrans wrote:

Recent studies have found that cycle helmets can offer protection to the head, but not in every scenario

Your quote implies that helmets are effective in the vast majority of collisions, but the data doesn't show that, so I'm not quite sure why you used it, unless you're agreeing with me?

Later they say this "A Cochrane review of five case-control studies found helmets provide a 63% to 88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of people cycling."  Those figures have been disproved many times, and anyone still quoting them is either utterly ignorant or a helmet zealot who is quite prepared to use propaganda to promote helmets.

Does Sustrans have shares in helmet makers?

burtthebike wrote:

kamoshika wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

So they tell you time after time that helmets are fantastically effective

Sustrans wrote:

Recent studies have found that cycle helmets can offer protection to the head, but not in every scenario

Your quote implies that helmets are effective in the vast majority of collisions

No it doesn't, even if you had defined precisely what 'effective' is meant to mean.

burtthebike wrote:

Your quote implies that helmets are effective in the vast majority of collisions, but the data doesn't show that, so I'm not quite sure why you used it, unless you're agreeing with me?

I'm sorry, but your reading and understanding of it must be completely different to mine if you think that "cycle helmets can offer protection to the head, but not in every scenario" implies that "helmets are effective in the vast majority of collisions". To me they have very different meanings.