A video of a father dashing after his son to prevent him from crashing his bike into a parked car has been grabbing a l;ot of attention on Reddit – but not for the reason you might think.
The footage, which you can watch here, shows the father steadying his son’s bike on a quiet suburban street before giving him a little push to help him on his way.
The father is jogging alongside his son as the youngster makes his first pedal strokes – then suddenly sprints into action as the nipper veers towards a parked car.
For many commenting on the video on Reddit, however, the quick-thinking father’s prompt action to prevent a crash wasn’t the most striking thing about the video, with the first commenter observing, “That kid needs a helmet” – an opinion that inevitably has sparked a debate on the subject.
422 thoughts on “Dad stops kid from crashing bike into parked car (+ link to video)”
Read a few of the comments
Read a few of the comments which seemed quite tame, but couldn’t be arsed reading the lot.
Dad is running the same speed
Dad is running the same speed as the kid.
If Dad falls his head hits the ground from a greater height than the kid’s would.
Therefore: Dad needs a helmet more than the kid.
Anybody care to fault my logic?
FrankH wrote:
Yes.
i. The child is much more likely to fall than the adult as he is wobbling along on an unstable two wheeled vehicle that he is not yet competent to control
ii. The child is likely to have slower reflexes than the adult
iii. The child’s head is proportionally heavier than the adult’s with a weaker neck so will have more momentum and strike the ground proportionally harder with greater force
iv. The child’s skull is still not fully formed so will possibly be subjected to more lasting damage
v. The child’s outstretched arms probably have insufficient strength to prevent his head hitting the ground, should he fall
vi. The child probably has less experience of falling and, therefore, of controlling a fall
p.s. I couldn’t care less who wears a helmet but the angle you’ve approached this from is so tiring. A helmet has saved me from serious injury on three occasions so I choose to wear one.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
12 child deaths in motors solely due to head injury in England and Wales, totl child cycling deaths in whole of UK of ALL ijury types, SIX, this is 2016 stats.
Increasing child head weight by 20% in many cases and increasing head size increases chance of head strike when falling.
Child head can withstand greater force than helmet before breaking.
Children wearing ‘safety’ aids take massively greater risks, ergo more injuries incl heads. Cotton wooling kids NEVER EVER works to make them safer.
Child head injury rate whilst cycling massively less than other aspects in life including playground etc.
Despite this being common https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB1b5cVK138 there were SIX child deaths in NL on bikes in 2016, their kids cycle a shit ton more than ours as do babies/infants with no helmets.
a helmet has killed a child through wearing it in UK.
Deaths/injuries of children from stabbing and guns … solution, bullet/stab proof vests right?
You have no idea.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
Unfortunately it proved completely pervious to confirmation bias.
davel wrote:
If only everyone could be as objective as you eh?
Rich_cb wrote:
If only everyone could be as objective as you eh?— Mark_1973_
I can post some graphs that don’t prove the point I’m trying to make if you like?
davel wrote:
Only if supported with anecdotal facts.
davel wrote:
Resorting to bluster again.
How delightfully predictable.
You’ve never once managed to provide a decent argument to explain the correlation the graphs show.
Anybody would think that you only resort to bluster to cover up the complete inadequacy of your argument…
Rich_cb wrote:
You’re the one with the hypothesis as follows:
Cyclist death rates fell.
Helmet usage rose.
Therefore, helmet usage causes a reduction in cyclist deaths.
The burden of proof is all yours, dear; I don’t have to prove a thing. You’re getting very unscientific in your complaints.
As has been said – your hypothesis might be entirely correct. But you’re sure as shit not proving it via those pictures you keep wheeling out.
davel wrote:
Yawn.
The graphs show a clear correlation between increasing helmet usage and decreasing cyclist fatalities.
That’s evidence.
In this context it’s likely to be the highest quality evidence available for the period in question.
The onus is now on you to provide evidence to the contrary.
You never have.
Rich_cb wrote:
You’re the one with the hypothesis as follows:
Cyclist death rates fell.
Helmet usage rose.
Therefore, helmet usage causes a reduction in cyclist deaths.
The burden of proof is all yours, dear; I don’t have to prove a thing. You’re getting very unscientific in your complaints.
As has been said – your hypothesis might be entirely correct. But you’re sure as shit not proving it via those pictures you keep wheeling out.
— Rich_cb Yawn. The graphs show a clear correlation between decreasing cyclist and pedestrian fatalities. That’s evidence. In this context it’s likely to be the highest quality evidence available for the period in question. The onus is now on you to provide evidence to the contrary. You never have.— davel
FTFY.
What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
You’re very silly to think that evidence for a sketchy correlation is anything like evidence for cause and effect, which is the thrust of your argument. A mere correlation isn’t your point – you’re trying to prove it’s evidence for helmets causing a reduction. That requires way more proof.
Instead you get all slopey-shouldered and say ‘over to you’, like that shifts the burden of proof.
You’re not right; you’re just argumentative.
(BTW, you should get your narcolepsy checked. I’ve heard that being shit at science is a leading cause – there’s probably a graph for that).
davel wrote:
Yawn.
Do you think that constant obfuscation makes you any more correct?
There is a correlation between increased helmet use and decreased fatalities.
There is no correlation between the pedestrian fatality rate and the helmet use rate. The pedestrian rate also follows a different pattern to the cyclist rate.
That is evidence to support the hypothesis that helmet use reduces cyclist fatalities.
Is it 100% conclusive. Of course not.
Is it realistically possible to provide 100% proof.
No.
The evidence that smoking causes cancer is largely based on correlation and nobody denies that fact anymore.
The tobacco companies did used to make arguments that sounded very similar to yours though.
Try and provide a counter argument to my hypothesis.
Maybe include some evidence.
You know like some one who isn’t “shit at science” would.
I won’t hold my breath.
Rich_cb wrote:
FTFY.
What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
You’re very silly to think that evidence for a sketchy correlation is anything like evidence for cause and effect, which is the thrust of your argument. A mere correlation isn’t your point – you’re trying to prove it’s evidence for helmets causing a reduction. That requires way more proof.
Instead you get all slopey-shouldered and say ‘over to you’, like that shifts the burden of proof.
You’re not right; you’re just argumentative.
(BTW, you should get your narcolepsy checked. I’ve heard that being shit at science is a leading cause – there’s probably a graph for that).
— Rich_cb Yawn. Do you think that constant obfuscation makes you any more correct? There is a correlation between increased helmet use and decreased fatalities. There is no correlation between the pedestrian fatality rate and the helmet use rate. The pedestrian rate also follows a different pattern to the cyclist rate. That is evidence to support the hypothesis that helmet use reduces cyclist fatalities. Is it 100% conclusive. Of course not. Is it realistically possible to provide 100% proof. No. The evidence that smoking causes cancer is largely based on correlation and nobody denies that fact anymore. The tobacco companies did used to make arguments that sounded very similar to yours though. Try and provide a counter argument to my hypothesis. Maybe include some evidence. You know like some one who isn’t “shit at science” would. I won’t hold my breath.— davel
It seems clear you have some odd deep-seated need to believe in high-viz and helmets. The idea that a simple one-off correlation like your graph is proof of anything is just so absurd as to make me wonder what your motivation is. Not least when there’s an obvious counterpoint in the graph itself, in that pedestrian casualties have also fallen at the same time.
The evidence for smoking and cancer is not just based on eyballing a single graph and claiming to see a correlation. Scientific evidence does involve correlations, of course it does, but consistent and repeatable correlations of multiple variables, often at different levels. Not just one graph at a macro level.
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
(Clearly the onus is on you to prove that Nicolas Cage movies don’t cause people to fall into swimming pools and drown and that US government spending on science doesn’t lead directly to people hanging themselves)
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I base my beliefs on the best available evidence.
The balance of evidence suggests that bright clothing and lighting help to reduce accidents.
If the balance of evidence changes I’ll change my view.
As for the graph, I’ve explained multiple times the pedestrian trend differs markedly from the cyclist trend suggesting different causative factors.
A potential causative factor that correlates strongly with the drop is increased helmet use.
If you have evidence that there is another causative factor that could explain the change please provide it.
Most people on these boards simply go on and on about correlation and causation without providing a viable alternative explanation.
Rich_cb wrote:
Your attempt to explain away the pedestrian trend wasn’t remotely convincing, seemed like obvious ad-hoc reasoning to me.
I’m sure one could find any number of things that correlate with that fall, just as much as ‘helmet use’ – so what? That’s not enough to establish a causal relationship. You’re making the claim about helmets, its not up to others to find the (probably multiple) causal factors.
For starters, to make a more plausible claim you’d have to look at data about the relationship between helmet use and KSI rates in many different contexts (different times, different countries, different road conditions).
A bit like the argument that removing lead in petrol caused the decline in violent crime – it’s not remotely conclusive and is probably never going to be proven either way (there being so many other possible causes), but one thing that helps that case is the fact that the timing of those two things varies from country-to-country and there’s a meta-correlation, in that the correlation appears in different countries at different times. Something like that would be a small start if you want to claim there’s a case.
All you have here is one correlation in one country at one time.
Again, to me you seem invested in wanting to believe in helmets and high-viz (and I mean on a macro, society-wide, level, not just in relation to individuals). Rather than that belief following from the evidence, your stance seems the other way round to me, you have the belief first, and they you try and intepret things like that graph to fit it.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
What’s your interpretation of the graph then?
Does the pedestrian fatality rate fall significantly before the cyclist rate begins to fall?
As I said previously I base my opinions on the best evidence I can find, if the evidence changes I’m happy to change my opinion.
At the moment I can’t see any better explanation for the fall in cyclist deaths than the increase in helmet use.
Rich_cb wrote:
You’re the one with the hypothesis as follows:
Cyclist death rates fell.
Helmet usage rose.
Therefore, helmet usage causes a reduction in cyclist deaths.
The burden of proof is all yours, dear; I don’t have to prove a thing. You’re getting very unscientific in your complaints.
As has been said – your hypothesis might be entirely correct. But you’re sure as shit not proving it via those pictures you keep wheeling out.
— Rich_cb Yawn. The graphs show a clear correlation between increasing helmet usage and decreasing cyclist fatalities. That’s evidence. In this context it’s likely to be the highest quality evidence available for the period in question. The onus is now on you to provide evidence to the contrary. You never have.— davel
That is not evidence, at the risk of repeating myself:
Lies, damn lies and statistics
The two graphs you shared are not comparable as they contain different sets of data.
One has details on changes on helmet rate wearing by % of cyclists (built-up roads)
One has reported fatalities of cyclists per billion KM travelled (all roads and other)
If you wanted to compare statistics you would need to have:
Statistics on changes on helmet rate wearing by % of cyclists on all roads
Statistics on reported fatalities of cyclists by % of cyclists on all roads
or
Statistics on changes on helmet rate wearing per billion KM travelled on all roads
Statistics on reported fatalities of cyclists per billion KM travelled on all roads
Without the above similar data sets to compare no meaningful conclusions can be made as we do not know if hemlet wearers are more or less likely to do longer journeys (or if so by how much or if they wear their helmet at all times on all journeys etc, etc) which would be needed to even begin to get close to being able to draw a conclusion.
ClubSmed wrote:
If you want to read my response to your comment go back to the thread you cut and pasted it from.
Rich_cb wrote:
That won’t make it right 🙁
From https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adult_cyclist_head_injuries_versus_helmet_use_in_New_Zealand.jpg
davel wrote:
After going on and on about how correlation is meaningless you present a lack of correlation as evidence…
I don’t know how applicable statistics related to mandatory helmet laws are to the situation in the UK.
The paper that the graph is taken from states that a trend away from road cycling may explain the findings as there was an associated drop in collisions between bicycles and cars over the same period.
If there were evidence of a similar drop in collisions in the UK that would actually be an alternative hypothesis.
Rich_cb wrote:
After going on and on about how correlation is meaningless you present a lack of correlation as evidence…— davel
I think you actually might be insane.
Nobody has gone on and on about how correlation is meaningless.
You claimed that helmets resulted in death rates falling.
You presented graphs that show a spurious correlation as evidence for cause/effect.
You then claim it’s on others to refute that.
I just wanged a graph up that showed a stronger LACK of correlation between helmet use and death rate decrease than your correlation as a counter to your argument. It’s not perfect, but I’ve humoured your nonsense and it’s as valid as your pretty pictures. I’m struggling to see what you can’t be getting about this, unless you’re just very, very stubborn. Have you considered the possibility (reality, here) that you’re just wrong?
davel wrote:
Read my posts, I’ve said time and time again that I’m more than happy to change my opinion if presented with good evidence to do so.
I’ve also said time and time again that the correlation does not prove causation but could be evidence of causation.
I’ve yet to see you present any decent explanation for the pattern of cyclist fatalities and its divergence from those of pedestrians.
Rich_cb wrote:
That is not evidence, at the risk of repeating myself:
Lies, damn lies and statistics
The two graphs you shared are not comparable as they contain different sets of data.
One has details on changes on helmet rate wearing by % of cyclists (built-up roads)
One has reported fatalities of cyclists per billion KM travelled (all roads and other)
If you wanted to compare statistics you would need to have:
Statistics on changes on helmet rate wearing by % of cyclists on all roads
Statistics on reported fatalities of cyclists by % of cyclists on all roads
or
Statistics on changes on helmet rate wearing per billion KM travelled on all roads
Statistics on reported fatalities of cyclists per billion KM travelled on all roads
Without the above similar data sets to compare no meaningful conclusions can be made as we do not know if hemlet wearers are more or less likely to do longer journeys (or if so by how much or if they wear their helmet at all times on all journeys etc, etc) which would be needed to even begin to get close to being able to draw a conclusion.
— Rich_cb If you want to read my response to your comment go back to the thread you cut and pasted it from.— ClubSmed
to summerise, you asked what other element could possibly explain the changes in fatalities. You were given three plausable causes for this along with graphs as relevent as yours to back them up.
ClubSmed wrote:
My responses are on the previous thread.
To summarise;
1 was not cycling specific, the other two did not fit the time line so could not be said to correlate.
Rich_cb wrote:
to summerise, you asked what other element could possibly explain the changes in fatalities. You were given three plausable causes for this along with graphs as relevent as yours to back them up.
— Rich_cb My responses are on the previous thread. To summarise; 1 was not cycling specific, the other two did not fit the time line so could not be said to correlate.— ClubSmed
It does not have to be cycling specific, just to be utilised by that demographic. Otherwise you would have to discount helmet use as they are also used by skaters, skooters, trikes, skiers etc.
All three show significant changes within the period in question and are not just limited to use on major built up roads so arguably more relevent.
Regardless, if it was helmet wearing that was responsible for the drop in fatalities you would expect the injury rate to stay the same or go up whilst the fatalities go down (as helmets are are there to prevent the injury, not the incident). However it would appear that the number of reported incidents has also fallen over the same period. Therefore you could expect the catalyst to be something of a acident preventative measure (like my suggestion of driver awareness) rather than an injury preventative measure (such as helmets).
ClubSmed wrote:
They don’t show significant change over the same period. Go and look at the timelines on your graphs, they are decades out.
Do you think a significant percentage of pedestrians are wearing helmets? Even including the disparate groups you suggested the total will be a fraction of 1% at best.
So referring to helmets as cycling specific is perfectly valid.
What is the source for your graph? I have very different (referenced) data to that.
Rich_cb wrote:
You’re the one with the hypothesis as follows:
Cyclist death rates fell.
Helmet usage rose.
Therefore, helmet usage causes a reduction in cyclist deaths.
The burden of proof is all yours, dear; I don’t have to prove a thing. You’re getting very unscientific in your complaints.
As has been said – your hypothesis might be entirely correct. But you’re sure as shit not proving it via those pictures you keep wheeling out.
— Rich_cb Yawn. The graphs show a clear correlation between increasing helmet usage and decreasing cyclist fatalities. That’s evidence. In this context it’s likely to be the highest quality evidence available for the period in question. The onus is now on you to provide evidence to the contrary. You never have.— davel
Sorry Rich_cb – yes there are correlations between the increase in helmet use and a reduction in cyclist fatalities, however, as much of the reduction in cycling fatalities could be down to the improvement in pedestrian safety standards in modern cars.
There have also been studies which have showed that car drivers are more likely to give cyclists less respect on the road/pass closer etc if the cyclist has a helmet on as they perceive that the cyclists wearing a helmet as being better protected. In the same way that if car manufacturers fitted a giant steel spike in a steering wheel of a car rather than airbags drivers would be less inclined to drive like a nutjob as they know if they crashed their car they would probably die.
The statistics and figures that are of relevance are those from countries where helmet usage is law, but read in conjunction with the number of journey’s undertaken.
And using New Zealand as an example, annual cycling use has fallen by approximately 25% since the introduction of the laws – from 39m hours per year, to below 29m hours per year.
Yet the number of cyclists injured has dropped by wait for it – about 25%.
So in conclusion yes a compulsory helmet law has reduced the number of cyclist fatalities/injuries, but how much of that is down to helmets or how much is down to the fact that people cycle less.
Have a look here for the detailed analysis http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html
And FYI I have and always will wear a helmet, but I do so out of choice. If cycle helmet laws will result in a reduction in cycling then they are a bad thing.
craigstitt wrote:
I really don’t know how applicable data is from NZ to the UK given the compulsory helmet law in NZ and the subsequent fall in cycling. (FWIW I’m also opposed to compulsory helmet laws.)
Cycle use has increased in the UK as have cycle accidents but deaths remain at or near historic lows
Improved car safety might be an explanation but EuroNCAP only started assessing the pedestrian safety of vehicles in 1997.
The fall in the pedestrian fatality rate significantly preceded this and the cyclist rate started dropping from 1994-95 so again before any measurable changes in vehicle pedestrian safety had been made.
Rich_cb
The above is merely evidence that you have no understanding of the scientific method nor of proof.
Listen to Davel.
janusz0 wrote:
So correlation can never be used as evidence?
I’d suggest you’re the one who needs to familiarise themselves with research methods.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
Only your first point is specific to the child riding a bike. Therefore, presumably, children should wear helmets at all times?
Mark_1973_ wrote:
Good points.
Agree wholheartedly with point 1, I’d contest point 2 as I believe relefexes will be on a par, if not better than an adult. What will be different will be the option to effectively interpret stimulus and react accordingly. Aligned to point 1, cycling specific reflexes will not have been developed.
Point 3, I agree, but I’d also contest; increasing the weigh and volume of head will only make it more likely that a head impact will take place
Point 4, a childs skull will be softer than an adults and is therefore better positioned to absorb and tolerate head impacts.
Point 5, this may or may not be true, but as in point 3, the likelood of avoiding a head strike will be lower in the helmet wearer due to increased weight and volume of head.
Point 6, I agree, but as in points 3 and 5, with less skills to control a fall, wearing a helmet will create a greater need to take effective action to avoid a head strike.
Personally speaking, I am not convinced by helmets. For usre, there are times when they definitely make a difference, and they will have definitely made the difference between life and death… but equally, the are also times when they are ineffective, and other times when they are contributory to injuries.
But I encourage my kids to wear a helmet when they are going out, as I know I will, to a degree, be bias due to years of helmetless cycling.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
strike the ground proportionally harder with greater force – how do you even make stuff like this up?
Target fixation. Very common
Target fixation. Very common phenomenon… Be it bicycles, motorcycles, jet skis, etc.
Years ago when we were kids, my brother learned to ride his bike, ran through sprinklers and his rim brakes got wet…rather than just coast to a stop in open space he just target fixated our Dad’s car.
Jamminatrix wrote:
Totally avoidable. Obviously using deep section carbon rims with wrong pads.. Totaly avoidable with discs.
jimt wrote:
Oh great, a helmet debate combined with a disc brake debate! Some heads are going to explode.
Not sure why you wouldn’t
Not sure why you wouldn’t stick a lid on a kid when teaching them to ride…
alansmurphy wrote:
Did anyone learn to ride without a helmet?
Are you dead?
I rest my case.
don simon wrote:
Did anyone learn to ride without a helmet?
Are you dead?
I rest my case.— alansmurphy
my father, his brothers and sisters, their parents, aunts and uncles and their grandparents and great grandparents learned to ride their bikes without helmets, and every single one of them is dead now.
My great-great aunt Cissie on the other hand never learned to ride a bike at all, but she went everywhere in a brass fireman’s helmet, and she’s 173 now.
don simon wrote:
Did anyone learn to ride without a helmet?
Are you dead?
I rest my case.— alansmurphy
No but I crashed wearing a helmet and I’m not dead. I rest my case.
don simon wrote:
Did anyone learn to ride without a helmet?
Are you dead?
I rest my case.— alansmurphy
When I learnt to ride a bike, helmets weren’t available, so what’s your point?
I’ve been wearing ever since they became widely available and I’ve been glad of them a couple of times, most notably when I went over the handlebars and landed on my head (hired bike that hadn’t been put together properly). I was pretty happy the dent in the front of that one wasn’t in the front of my head! Pretty bad case of road rash elsewhere. I also had a pretty nasty MTB crash after snapping my handlebars – the guy I was with at the time who wasn’t wearing a helmet went straight to the nearest bike shop on his way home to buy one.
Just taken daughter to school on her bike – she’s still learning to ride, doesn’t always remember to use the brakes, doesn’t always look where she’s going, the pavements aren’t in great condition and she gets easily distracted. Last week, she stopped suddenly and climbed off her bike because she’d seen an interesting-looking conker. Yes, she’s wearing a helmet.
don simon wrote:
Did anyone learn to ride without a helmet?
Are you dead?
I rest my case.— alansmurphy
I also know lots of people who learnt to drive without wearing a seatbelt (those who passed their driving test before 1983) who are not dead. This does not mean that they should not be wearing one now, nor does it suggest that seatbelts are not saving lives.
I am not saying that I am for helmet use, I am not saying that I am against it. All I am pointing out is the flaw in such an arguement regarding helmet use.
Nevermind helmets, barefoot
Nevermind helmets, barefoot on a public highway? He could stand on a rusty nail, contract blood poisoning and die from sepsis! Totally irresponsible!
Wha?! Guy’s not wearing shoes
Wha?! Guy’s not wearing shoes – who knows what might happen there!! Tetanus, sepsis, gangrene, leaving the kid fatherless. Totally irresponsible.
I like a good shoe debate, me.
Everybody I know that
Everybody I know that recommends wearing a helmet learned to ride without one…
dodpeters wrote:
I’m not really sure that this argument bears anything out other than a logical fallacy.
Cars 30 years ago were inherently unsafe, should we therefore remove all modern safety features from cars because drivers have survived?
kitsunegari wrote:
BS – cars have never been ‘unsafe’. It has been the operators that have been the problem. Look at that tragic incident in Birmingham last week. It never ceases to amaze me individuals are granted licenses to operate machinery on the roads.
kitsunegari wrote:
Not true, it wasn’t the cars that were unsafe but the operators, have the operators improved in their behavior/habits since more ‘safety’ features have been added, I think not, quite the opposite, it’s just that the tech sometimes gets them out of trouble and protects them, however such are the lowered behavioural issues with those feeling protected they still manage to globally kill 1.25million people and maim tens of millions and still suffer a ridiculously large ampount of head injuries (greater than in any other aspect in our society) despite airbags, crash protection systems, seatbelts tracgtion control and all manner of driver aids and protection systems.
Remove all ‘safety’ features and those outside the vehicle benefit massively(the reverse of what happened when seatbelts were brought in), change the behaviour/actions of those that are unsafe or remove them from the machinery that they harm with instead of trying to mask the problem through ever increasing tech that is flawed massively. Helmets would never ever be proposed as a solution to something that wasn’t ever a problem until others decided to use a weapon to kill and maim with it, the problem would be taken out of the equation not add PPE as this is the final option as we know it is the weakest aspect of addressing safety.
I managed to drive a 850kg vehicle with no power steering, no airbags, no crumple zones, no impact beams and had basic non inertia seatbelts without harming another person or making anyone feel threatened. I never died driving it nor was ever injured, I don’t see that it is the vehicle itself but the attitude of the driver that needs modifying and adding so called safety aids has a direct negative effect on that attitude/way of behaving, just as some people on bikes have their behaviour modified when they think they are safer by wearing a plastic hat.
Who gives a FF; my fits bike
Who gives a FF; my fits bike ride age 5, my brother pushed me off down a hill so that I’d balance; I turned in to a side road straight in to the back of a parked car! I learned about brakes on my next ride. Well you wouldn’t believe the reaction; front page news in the Derby Telegraph; letter page blocked for months with the helmet v irresponsible parents debate. A moritorium on children learning through play and mistakes; all just in case they accidentally triggerd a nuclear war by offending the USSR!
That vehicle should not be
That vehicle should not be obstructing the highway.
Does the driver pay to store his stuff there?
I never rode with a helmet as
I never rode with a helmet as a child and now I shitpost on cycling forums. A clear case of cause and effect.
It’s odd really as I now ride sensibly (mostly) with a helmet as an adult, but rode like a tosser on BMXs and MTBs with no helmet and here I am. Luck of the draw I guess sometimes looking back but mostly you don’t NEED a helmet but I guess you never know. If it helps you ride more assuredly then wear one.
This said I remember a particulary upsetting tv programme (think it was 24 hrs in A and E) where a cyclist smashed his face into a cattle grid and ended up with a trapped blood vessel in his neck and ended up with half his skull missing. You never know what life has up it’s sleeve for you.
> A helmet has saved me from
> A helmet has saved me from serious injury on three occasions so I choose to wear one.
Perhaps you should learn how to avoid crashing your bicycle. Observation, anticipation, they’re good skills to have.
I have bumpers on my car but I don’t drive around bumping into things.
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
You win the prize for the most ridiculous post ever. Well done. Maybe it’s time to start lobbying vehicle manufacturers to remove all safety aids and devices from their vehicles, and simply tell their customers not to crash.
Here’s an x-ray of my shoulder after a van turned left into my path whilst I was in a blue cycle lane in London. Obviously with your skills of observation and anticipation you would have avoided the collision (or are your anticipation skills so finely honed that they cause you not to ride and just post ridiculous comments from the safety of your keyboard instead?). I’m pretty sure my helmet, which also impacted a solid wall of metal, prevented my skull from looking like the rest of those bones.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
Do you think that removing or reducing the adverse concequences of crashing for the driver is likely to make them take more or less care?
Do you think that removing all legal penalties for driving into others would make drivers more or less likely to do so? Why is it different if the penalties are physical rather than legal?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
He’s being hyperbolic, he doesn’t actually want lawless roads. PeowPeow was making an argument from infallibility. There was another guy on here a while ago who was always saying ‘ride to conditions’ like he had never found a patch of ice or pothole on the road. Expect the unexpected unless you are Danny Macaskill (oh wait even he wears a helmet.)
Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:
Prize for the most sanctimonious answer goes to….
I’ve seen kids learning to
I’ve seen kids learning to ride bikes with what is basically roller derby gear.
However once they have learnt the knee and elbow pads are never openly worn again. And they ride their bikes without helmets if just playing in the street. However if they are going on a journey – yes kids in my area do go cycle around the area to shops or the park – they wear them.
The helmet debate around children is silly as people are more safety conscious with them in general. Kids playground equipment is no longer on bare concrete and Adventure Playgrounds have lots of assistants even if the older kids using it are 14 so should be sensible. Children have to child seats in cars and there needs to be one seat belt per kid, no kids can be carried in the boot.
Point I’m making is what was acceptable when we were children is no longer acceptable and considered cruel.
Amazing how many people, on
Amazing how many people, on this site, who ride bikes are so anti helmet. Considering a helmet could be the difference between consuming food through a tube for the rest of my life, i find it hard to be as against them as others.
any kids in my care will wear a helmet, as i dont want to have to explain why to their parents why they weren’t, not sure petty arguments can be used in real life to argue away life changing injuries, that could have been prevented by something as simple as wearing a helmet.
SteveAustin wrote:
Nobody is anti-helmet in the sense that they object to anybody wearing a helmet. Some people are anti-helmet compulsion. There’s a big difference.
SteveAustin wrote:
I’m actually pretty amazed at the amount of people on this forum whose balance is so bad that they require a helmet.
giff77 wrote:
You mean you have stopped trying to do tricks on your bike? Gosh you are an old git :p
Bluebug wrote:
I’m actually pretty amazed at the amount of people on this forum whose balance is so bad that they require a helmet.
— giff77 You mean you have stopped trying to do tricks on your bike? Gosh you are an old git :p— SteveAustin
this auld git still knows how to fall
SteveAustin wrote:
The issue is rarely about the actual lid, or lack thereof, it’s a ‘compulsion’ issue usually. I think it’s incredibly childish. “I don’t care if I smash my head in, I don’t have to wear a lid, so I’m not going to, and anyone who says otherwise is a big smelly poo head”. It’s a very sad attitude for an adult to have.
Judge dreadful wrote:
it would be sad if any adult had that attitude. But they don’t, and it’s sad that you have constructed a childish strawman in place of any actual thought-through contribution.
There are two issues. Do helmets do what their proponents claim? Should they be compulsory?
All the evidence that I’ve read suggests that the benefits are hugely oversold, and the disadvantages hugely understated. In any case, at best the answer to the first question is that the jury is still out.
This doesn’t prevent any individual from wearing one if they want to – they’re adults and can make up their own minds. It would be nice if you could treat people who decided not to wear one with the same courtesy.
Even if the answer was a clear and unequivocal ‘yes’, it does not follow that they should be compulsory. That argument relies on a whole other set of assumptions, criteria, value judgements and evidence, none of which are childish. These include questions of personal choice, population-scale impact on healthcare costs and health itself, and balance of risk compared to other activities.
These are complex questions. If all you have to offer is ‘smelly poo head’ perhaps your own head is in the wrong place.
Judge dreadful wrote:
Dumbest post I’ve ever seen on one of these threads. Have you considered growing up? Maybe next time actually engage with the points being made, you know, like a reasoning adult, instead of resorting to the baby-talk?
are those bungalows? I can’t
are those bungalows? I can’t stand bungalows, they make me confused and angry
Oh no, you see some helmets
Oh no, you see some helmets that are anti helmet here, they’ll even argue that your helmet made absolutely no difference even when smashed to pieces and head remaining intact.
That coming from someone who wears a helmet on club rides but not on the couple of miles commute. Certainly don’t think they should be compulsory in any way shape or form.
I just thought I’d my own
I just thought I’d my own comment to the great helmet debate – version 3,946
Someone call?
Someone call?
Helmut D. Bate wrote:
Nothing personal, Helmut, but can you bugger off?
Helmut D. Bate wrote:
Yeah, we just wanted to know if when you were a child you were called Master Bate?
KendalRed wrote:
Yeah, we just wanted to know if when you were a child you were called Master Bate?
— Helmut D. Bate
Oh in certain delicate scenarios I still am…
… by your Mum.
Rich_cb wrote:
The “best” evidence, it would seem, would be two graphs rolled out ad-nauseum by the high priest of the Church of the Skid Lid. Quirte a belief system you have.
It doesn’t – the balance of evidence is quite confused – however the balance of anecdata in this regard is overpowering. As is the level of confirmation bias.
No, I see two trends that a remarkably similar – both trend downwards. I do some differences in specific graphs. Perhaps you need to look up what the word “trend” means in a dictionary, specifically in statistical terms?
I would also direct you to read section 2 “Distinguishing trends from effects of helmet wearing” from the NZ helmet study
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/AAP2001DLRNZHI.pdf
Most people on these boards simply go on and on about correlation and causation without providing a viable alternative explanation.— Rich_cb
You’re the one with the hypothesis trying to draw a causative link for a correlation. It has been shown to be not a very strong one, and that other plausible correlations exist. It is not for others to prove that one (or a combination) of these alternatives is a better fit, but for you to show that these other factors can be ruled out.
Disclosure : I own a cycling helmet. I only wear it on the trails. Personal anecdata suggests I’m most likely to come a cropper when on my MTB (I also wear knee and elbow guards at the same time). I’ve come off several times and pretty certain my knee guards saved my life.
CygnusX1 wrote:
The “best” evidence, it would seem, would be two graphs rolled out ad-nauseum by the high priest of the Church of the Skid Lid. Quirte a belief system you have.
It doesn’t – the balance of evidence is quite confused – however the balance of anecdata in this regard is overpowering. As is the level of confirmation bias.
No, I see two trends that a remarkably similar – both trend downwards. I do some differences in specific graphs. Perhaps you need to look up what the word “trend” means in a dictionary, specifically in statistical terms?
I would also direct you to read section 2 “Distinguishing trends from effects of helmet wearing” from the NZ helmet study
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/AAP2001DLRNZHI.pdf
Most people on these boards simply go on and on about correlation and causation without providing a viable alternative explanation.— Rich_cb
You’re the one with the hypothesis trying to draw a causative link for a correlation. It has been shown to be not a very strong one, and that other plausible correlations exist. It is not for others to prove that one (or a combination) of these alternatives is a better fit, but for you to show that these other factors can be ruled out.
Disclosure : I own a cycling helmet. I only wear it on the trails. Personal anecdata suggests I’m most likely to come a cropper when on my MTB (I also wear knee and elbow guards at the same time). I’ve come off several times and pretty certain my knee guards saved my life.
— Rich_cb
Yawn.
There have been multiple studies published in the last few years looking at the effects of lights and brightly coloured/reflective clothing on collision rates, almost all associated such measures with a decreased rate of collisions.
What you’re suggesting is that anybody presenting a hypothesis should simultaneously present every single other possible hypothetical explanation?
Go and actually look at the graphs. Look at the pedestrian trend. When does it start to decrease? When does the cycling trend start to decrease? Hint: they decrease at different times.
Doesn’t that imply that different factors are at work for each group?
Rich_cb wrote:
The “best” evidence, it would seem, would be two graphs rolled out ad-nauseum by the high priest of the Church of the Skid Lid. Quirte a belief system you have.
It doesn’t – the balance of evidence is quite confused – however the balance of anecdata in this regard is overpowering. As is the level of confirmation bias.
No, I see two trends that a remarkably similar – both trend downwards. I do some differences in specific graphs. Perhaps you need to look up what the word “trend” means in a dictionary, specifically in statistical terms?
I would also direct you to read section 2 “Distinguishing trends from effects of helmet wearing” from the NZ helmet study
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/AAP2001DLRNZHI.pdf
Most people on these boards simply go on and on about correlation and causation without providing a viable alternative explanation.— Rich_cb
You’re the one with the hypothesis trying to draw a causative link for a correlation. It has been shown to be not a very strong one, and that other plausible correlations exist. It is not for others to prove that one (or a combination) of these alternatives is a better fit, but for you to show that these other factors can be ruled out.
Disclosure : I own a cycling helmet. I only wear it on the trails. Personal anecdata suggests I’m most likely to come a cropper when on my MTB (I also wear knee and elbow guards at the same time). I’ve come off several times and pretty certain my knee guards saved my life.
— CygnusX1 Yawn. There have been multiple studies published in the last few years looking at the effects of lights and brightly coloured/reflective clothing on collision rates, almost all associated such measures with a decreased rate of collisions. What you’re suggesting is that anybody presenting a hypothesis should simultaneously present every single other possible hypothetical explanation? Go and actually look at the graphs. Look at the pedestrian trend. When does it start to decrease? When does the cycling trend start to decrease? Hint: they decrease at different times. Doesn’t that imply that different factors are at work for each group?— Rich_cb
Eyeballing a single graph isn’t a statistical analysis. It would be very surprising if the two lines were identical. That different factors (or probably the same factors manifested in different ways) are at work for each mode in no way supports the idea that helmets are the causal factor for cyclists.
But if you could link to those multiple studies that would help. But I suspect they will turn out to be flawed in only looking at one aspect of the issue (and, in particular, ignoring all the downsides of making such things compulsory).
I bet you could make a study showing that wearing helmets in the shower reduces the rates of shower-slipping-related head injuries, but that would in no way tell us what the total effect of a compulsory shower-helmet law would be.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
You don’t need complex statistical analysis to see that the pedestrian rate has declined markedly before there is any change in the cyclist rate.
That implies a specific factor at work.
I’ve never said that the correlation with increased helmet use proves causality just that it is supportive evidence.
I’ve also never argued for compulsory helmets or hi Vis.
Anyway here are three recent studies looking into lights or hi Vis.
Hi Vis RCT:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753517313528
Lights RCT:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457512002606
Hi Vis Observational study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457515301184
Rich_cb wrote:
Makes you look a c**t. Just saying.
alansmurphy wrote:
Makes you look a c**t. Just saying.— Rich_cb
A problem you’re no doubt very familiar with.
alansmurphy wrote:
Makes you look a c**t. Just saying.— Rich_cb
That’s your stock response that you bring to every debate isn’t it? Yeah, thanks for that.
drosco wrote:
Makes you look a c**t. Just saying.— alansmurphy
That’s your stock response that you bring to every debate isn’t it? Yeah, thanks for that.— Rich_cb
Not really, very rarely sworn at people in around 1100 comments.
The arrogance of ‘Yawn’ as a response perhaps invoked a bit of an OTT reaction but people seem so lacking in the ability to take on someone else’s view.
I am actually on the helmet side so Rich would be more aligned with my views than BTBS (for example), the ‘argument’ though is wrong.
alansmurphy wrote:
Makes you look a c**t. Just saying.— drosco
That’s your stock response that you bring to every debate isn’t it? Yeah, thanks for that.— alansmurphy
Not really, very rarely sworn at people in around 1100 comments.
The arrogance of ‘Yawn’ as a response perhaps invoked a bit of an OTT reaction but people seem so lacking in the ability to take on someone else’s view.
I am actually on the helmet side so Rich would be more aligned with my views than BTBS (for example), the ‘argument’ though is wrong.— Rich_cb
I actually wear a helmet fairly regularly too.
And yes, Rich_cb could well be right that helmets caused a decrease in deaths sometime around the 90s. But it’d be in a stopped-clock-waving-an-irrelevant-graph kind of right, just as it spotted the correct time on the microwave.
Rich cb, you’re comedy gold,
Rich cb, you’re comedy gold, you’re so clueless as to be dangerous much like other helmet promoters/believers.
You cannot produce any worthwhile ‘evidence’ and show ridiculous confirmation bias much like Jake Olivier who not onlytotally disregarded his own advice on meta-analysis in his attempt to prove helmets work but also used a method that is ridiculously flawed and has been outed as such that it proves diddly squat.
The sad thing is you and your ilk ignore the facts regarding the dangers of head injuries in other walks of life, not just other modes of transport but everything else.
1.4Million head injuries that have being reported, approx 160,000 admitted into hospital in the UK alone. And yet you’ll only wear/promote helmets for cycling, you and your cohorts are truly insane.
Disclaimer, I am anti helmet, as a whole to society they cause misery, exclusion, unjust/unlawful action by government, remove freedoms, increase danger and always lower the responsibility of those posing the harm without any increase in safety nor health.
the kids in my care never wear helmets, we ride on the roads, in parks trails etc.
This not just my own son who understood the stupidity of helmets (and rode to school for 7 years on a NSL road leading into a busy road full of wanka parents in their motors) but also friends kids and also my grandkids.
Even my 7 year old grandson gets it, he’s reckless as theycome hasADHD but grasps that he would take even more risk if he felt safer, this is proven beyond ddoubt but helmet zealots deny ithas any effect on behaviour. Fuck, you only have to watch the pros to see the results of helmet wearing and how many more die and get injured sInce compulsion despite all the advantages of better brake, tyres, more marshalls/barriers and massively improved medicare on course.
Helmetzealots ignore that in boxing there was a massive increase in TBIs after headgear was made compulsory, ignore that gridiron got moredangerous re head injuries when headgear was brought in (massively less tbi in rugby), ignore that head trauma in skiing hasn’t gone down despite almost universal wearing.
Yep, helmet proponants are very much insane and those wearing are part of the bigger picture problem that normalises something that is harmful to us all.
That’s why I’ll constantly debate it ,thats why im anti helmet
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
A lecture on bias from BTBS.
There’s nobody on this site with less of a clue about risk than you, you constantly confuse absolute and relative risk and can’t seem to grasp why they should be treated differently.
Stick to your illuminati migration conspiracy theories. They make more sense than your helmet posts.
You looking like a c**t?
You looking like a c**t?
Yes we’re all familiar with it here…
alansmurphy wrote:
Yawn.
Blimey! It’s almost like some
Blimey! It’s almost like some people don’t have real jobs…
Anyway, ClubSmed, there’s no “e” in argument, but thanks for your time.
don simon wrote:
O… kay…
Rich’s lack of understanding
Rich’s lack of understanding on basic statistical principles is quite funny but BTBS is equally as deluded:
“Disclaimer, I am anti helmet, as a whole to society they cause misery, exclusion, unjust/unlawful action by government, remove freedoms, increase danger and always lower the responsibility of those posing the harm without any increase in safety nor health.
the kids in my care never wear helmets, we ride on the roads, in parks trails etc.”
If you’re talking compulsory use then some of your arguments are correct. However, suggesting they increase danger and have no increase in safety is mind blowingly stupid!
alansmurphy wrote:
What basic statistical principle have I misunderstood?
alansmurphy wrote:
If through wearing helmets you push the onus of safety on to the vulnerable my safety goes down.
if you push the onus of safety on to the vulnerable the safety of EVERYONE goes down, this includes motorists too.
these are simple facts and are shown in that not only are those posing the harm allowed to do pretty much whatever they like and not be punished at all (Michael Mason is an extreme but not unusual example) thus those posing the harm don’t think they are doing anything wrong so continue to pose harm/behave unlawfully. But, blame is pushed onto victims to the point of no compensation or reduced ompensation in courts and governement not protecting the vulnerable but telling them to wear ‘safety’ aids as the primary method of protection which is proven to fail at all quarters and the police instead of looking at the primary cause of incidents they look at how the vulnerable haven’t protected themselves and thus don’t even prosecute/let off those doing the harm, again increasing the safety of the vulnerable.
Helmets put off people from cycling, again a known, reduce the numbers cycling, you reduce the overall safety. One of the main reasons people do not cycle is because of the safety factor, focussing on ‘safety’ aids for the vulnerable that we know doesn’t work and in some countries will penalise/criminalise you, that safety factor is influenced in a negative way partly because of helmets.
it isn’t rocket science and you calling it mindblowingly stupid makes you the stupid one for ignoring which is in plain sight and we see the result of how helmets have not made it safer at all, so unsafe are helmets that not just individually are they more detrimental they are so unsafe due to the weakness of the helmet itself and the (to some) unexpected outcomes, that any tiny benefit for a small fraction of incidents one that we as a society ignore in every other aspect of life as being trivial or should not be pushed for helmet use that we see a worse overall safety aspect regarding injuries/harm to helmet wearers compared to unhelmetted.
Again, this is shown in several sports as I mentioned, not just cycling and you again deny that cycling is less safe with helmet wearing and that helmet wearing does not pose a negative effect on the safety of everyone!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
If through wearing helmets you push the onus of safety on to the vulnerable my safety goes down.
if you push the onus of safety on to the vulnerable the safety of EVERYONE goes down, this includes motorists too…
But, blame is pushed onto victims to the point of no compensation or reduced ompensation in courts and governement not protecting the vulnerable but telling them to wear ‘safety’ aids as the primary method of protection which is proven to fail at all quarters and the police instead of looking at the primary cause of incidents they look at how the vulnerable haven’t protected themselves and thus don’t even prosecute/let off those doing the harm, again increasing the safety of the vulnerable.
Helmets put off people from cycling, again a known, reduce the numbers cycling, you reduce the overall safety.
it isn’t rocket science and you calling it mindblowingly stupid makes you the stupid one for ignoring which is in plain sight and we see the result of how helmets have not made it safer at all, so unsafe are helmets that not just individually are they more detrimental they are so unsafe due to the weakness of the helmet itself and the (to some) unexpected outcomes
Again, this is shown in several sports as I mentioned, not just cycling and you again deny that cycling is less safe with helmet wearing and that helmet wearing does not pose a negative effect on the safety of everyone!— alansmurphy
Are we not starting to stray into compulsary wearing territory and the victim blaming is really extending to you.
Of course the onus shouldn’t be on the vulnerable road user, if a car is driven terribly and hits them then what they’re wqearing shouldn’t matter a jot. This is about education, enforcement and punishment and should have nothing to do with attire. On the other hand, if hit I’d rather be wearing a lid than not! Any example you give (so long as compulsary doesn’t come into it) are external factors and behaviours, if everyone behaved as they should do you would be better with a helmet than not.
To say they’ve not made it safer at all is MBS (my new acronym) again, I have experienced how it made it safer for me as one prevented serious damage when I had a crash, there we are safer for 1. You can argue all you like that I became a maverick due to wearing a lid, not true, I just messed up.
As for defects, again even a lid that isn’t quite as strong as anticipated is likely to be better than none. Lets both sit in a chair and drop slabs of concrete on our head and compare my lid to your non lid, hmm MBS!
Strangely, I agree with many of your points in terms of victim blaming and potential to put people off. You may have seen this by my reactions to headmasters thinking they can impart the laws upon school children or commenting when Police have mentioned riders clothing or riding single file. I am all for free choice and understanding of risk reward, I too agree with helmet salesman Mr Boardman in that it’s a long way down the list of issues that need resolving. But when a helmet costs peanuts and can save your life, you’d have to be pretty thick skulled to not consider one!
alansmurphy wrote:
But the pushing of helmets (by manufacturers, organising bodies, the general public [both cyclists and not]) has created the situation where there is pressure, culturally (I’m not comparing this with mandated by law) to wear one. Large numbers of cyclists do.
And if that creates the impression of danger, which results in fewer cyclists, then yes: that makes it less safe for all of us, if you believe in ‘safety in numbers’ (more cyclists = safer cyclists), as I do.
I’ve kind of ‘fallen’ into wearing one. All the triathlons I’ve done (I might have done a couple of sprints BITD which didn’t mandate them, but since I’ve got back into more ‘serious’ ones you have to have a helmet), and British Cycling events – they mandate them. I think it’s only TTs that don’t demand them, and I’ve got so used to wearing one in races I wear one to those too.
And, buying one for tris, I didn’t want to just be getting used to it on race day, so I wore it for commuting and training. Then I realised it was OK at keeping your head dry and warm during a winter commute, and it’s a handy place to strap a rear light to, which I do believe makes you safer, and before you know it… it’s crept up on me: I’m wearing a helmet more often than not.
I’ve never ‘needed’ one; never been in a situation where I’m glad I had one or wished I’d worn one. I’ve never fallen off onto my head, with or without a helmet. I honestly have no clue how much safer or otherwise wearing one makes me, considering all the variables, a collision I haven’t had yet, risk compensation, driver behaviour… there’s way too much noise to make a rational decision on that.
But I do believe that us all wearing them makes us all slightly less safe, because it contributes to fewer cyclists, and I feel slightly guilty about just accepting that situation, largely because I just wanted to do triathlons.
And just tilt this perspective slightly. Think of exactly the same situation, but apply it to pedestrians: the creeping use of helmet-wearing, with little-to-no compelling overall argument for their efficacy; walking event organisers demanding you wear a helmet because you might be safer if you slip on your head halfway up Snowdon; people on forums arguing that you’re an idiot for not thinking it will make you safer if a roof slate fell on your head or if you slipped and banged your head on a kerb*; court cases regarding pedestrians who’d been killed by dangerous driving actually discussing whether the pedestrian was wearing one or not…
We don’t need a compulsion law for it to already be a pretty sick state of affairs, if you ask me.
*about 6 times the number of deaths from cycling result from a fall down steps, in the UK.
Correlation, causation, ergo
Correlation, causation, ergo propter hoc…
alansmurphy wrote:
Reading not your strong point is it?
Or is it comprehension you struggle with?
Rich_cb wrote:
Yep I can do reading, what I’ve read so far is you digging a big hole without the ability to climb out. You may actually have a point if you took your head from up your arse.
alansmurphy wrote:
Where in the thread did I say that correlation proves causation?
I’ve said it can be evidence of causation but never said that it proved it.
In fact I’ve emphasised that point several times.
Rich_cb wrote:
You kind of imply it, generally in an ‘oh really?’ smart arse response to a ‘helmets have never been proved to cause significant decreases in KSIs’ post.
You then post those pictures.
You probably never have said they prove cause and effect, because you lack the courage of your conviction. Which does beg the question…
Why the fuck post them, then?
davel wrote:
I post it because it’s evidence against a lot of the nonsense claims posted on these threads.
The ‘oh really’ post was in response to
“Despite the thousands of “helmet saved my life” stories, the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase”
Those graphs may not prove a lot but they are a good rebuke to that sort of post.
I don’t claim that the graphs show causation because it can’t be proved.
Personally I believe that, in certain specific circumstances, a helmet will protect its wearer from injury. I can’t prove that though.
Sorry you are right, I was looking at all traffic acidents, not cycling specific ones. (I’m not afraid of admitting when I am wrong)
But the graph you showed with the correct data of accidents showed the trend of accidents going up, how can that be if bright clothing and lighting help to reduce them?
Your graphs showing the changes in helmet wearing rate on UK major built-up roads cannot be compared with your graph of “Reported Fatalities Cycling UK” which is represented as Fatalities per billion KM travelled. The reasons for this include (but are not limited to:
I believe that too, in fact I would say that the majority of people on this forum would agree that a helmet can protect it’s wearer from injuries in certain specific circumstances. The problem arises in the debate around what those circumstances are and if they translate to the need for them on the road.
The main issue with all your posts is that you are not proving anything although you believe that you are. There are people on this forum sitting on both sides of the helmet/no helmet debate that are telling you this so it is not just biais, so just accept it.
ClubSmed wrote:
As the risk is stated per billion miles it makes no difference if the number of cyclists increase or the average length of journey increases.
You could quantify differently if you wanted, per journey or per hour or in any other way you chose but in order to have consistency you need to stick to the same metric.
Risk per distance is probably the best one IMHO.
The helmet wearing data is available for a lot of different road types, it all shows a similar trend so the point about different road types is essentially invalid.
As for your remark about the lights… Don’t expect to be taken seriously if that is your honest response.
Believe it or not road collisions are multifactorial. If one factor improves but others deteriorate then you can still get an increase in collisions. I’ve linked to some pretty decent studies elsewhere in this thread that provide good evidence for hi-vis/reflectives and lights.
As I’ve acknowledged throughout the thread the evidence for helmets is not strong but it is strong enough to refute many of the more ridiculous claims put forward by the anti helmet posters.
The graphs were posted on the previous thread in response to such a claim.
Rich_cb wrote:
But the graph you showed with the correct data of accidents showed the trend of accidents going up, how can that be if bright clothing and lighting help to reduce them?
Your graphs showing the changes in helmet wearing rate on UK major built-up roads cannot be compared with your graph of “Reported Fatalities Cycling UK” which is represented as Fatalities per billion KM travelled. The reasons for this include (but are not limited to:
— Rich_cb As the risk is stated per billion miles it makes no difference if the number of cyclists increase or the average length of journey increases.— ClubSmed
Yes it does, because if the same number experienced cyclists begin to cycle further then the risk is the same. If more non experienced cyclists join in to increase the overall distance than the risk could rise due to the increase of inexperienced riders.
That is exactly what I have been saying, you do not have the same metric in your two sets of data so they are not comparable!
One shows Changes in helmet wearing rate on UK major built-up roads (represented as a % of cyclists seen during a period) and the other Reported Fatalities Cycling UK (represented as Fatalities per billion KM travelled) which are nowhere near the same metric!
You have not shown any other road type metric, just the one I mentioned
ClubSmed wrote:
Here are all the helmet wearing stats.
https://trl.co.uk/reports/PPR420
The trend of increasing use is seen across
different road types and most demographics, teenage boys being the main outlier.
If you want to break down all the fatalities by road type you can do so using the STATS19 data here:
https://data.gov.uk/dataset/road-accidents-safety-data/resource/63932dff-0019-435e-9ee5-8d0ac75a810f
You can’t measure risk and presence or absence of a risk factor using the same metric.
What metric exactly are you proposing for measuring cycle helmet use?
What metric are you proposing for measuring cycling fatalities?
In both cases how exactly are you going to measure said metrics?
It seems to me that you’re demanding data that doesn’t exist in order to avoid discussing the data that does exist.
Rich_cb wrote:
Yes it does, because if the same number experienced cyclists begin to cycle further then the risk is the same. If more non experienced cyclists join in to increase the overall distance than the risk could rise due to the increase of inexperienced riders.
That is exactly what I have been saying, you do not have the same metric in your two sets of data so they are not comparable!
One shows Changes in helmet wearing rate on UK major built-up roads (represented as a % of cyclists seen during a period) and the other Reported Fatalities Cycling UK (represented as Fatalities per billion KM travelled) which are nowhere near the same metric!
You have not shown any other road type metric, just the one I mentioned
— Rich_cb Here are all the helmet wearing stats. https://trl.co.uk/reports/PPR420 The trend of increasing use is seen across different road types and most demographics, teenage boys being the main outlier. If you want to break down all the fatalities by road type you can do so using the STATS19 data here: https://data.gov.uk/dataset/road-accidents-safety-data/resource/63932dff-0019-435e-9ee5-8d0ac75a810f You can’t measure risk and presence or absence of a risk factor using the same metric. What metric exactly are you proposing for measuring cycle helmet use? What metric are you proposing for measuring cycling fatalities? In both cases how exactly are you going to measure said metrics? It seems to me that you’re demanding data that doesn’t exist in order to avoid discussing the data that does exist.— ClubSmed
I am proposing that if you are using the metrics detailing use of helmets on major built up roads then you need to use the metrics from accidents on those same type of roads for comparison.
Having looked at the data on road accidents between 2012-2016 I can see that cyclists cover around twice as much distance on Urban roads than Rural roads but the number of cyclists killed are roughly the same over this period. So you could draw a conclusion that the data would be greatly skewed if you included these types of roads as you have.
I am not avoiding discussing the data that does exist, it is just if the data needed doesn’t exist that is needed that the data that does exist cannot prove anything as it is uncomparable.
ClubSmed wrote:
Here are all the helmet wearing stats. https://trl.co.uk/reports/PPR420 The trend of increasing use is seen across different road types and most demographics, teenage boys being the main outlier. If you want to break down all the fatalities by road type you can do so using the STATS19 data here: https://data.gov.uk/dataset/road-accidents-safety-data/resource/63932dff-0019-435e-9ee5-8d0ac75a810f You can’t measure risk and presence or absence of a risk factor using the same metric. What metric exactly are you proposing for measuring cycle helmet use? What metric are you proposing for measuring cycling fatalities? In both cases how exactly are you going to measure said metrics? It seems to me that you’re demanding data that doesn’t exist in order to avoid discussing the data that does exist.[/quote]
I am proposing that if you are using the metrics detailing use of helmets on major built up roads then you need to use the metrics from accidents on those same type of roads for comparison.
Having looked at the data on road accidents between 2012-2016 I can see that cyclists cover around twice as much distance on Urban roads than Rural roads but the number of cyclists killed are roughly the same over this period. So you could draw a conclusion that the data would be greatly skewed if you included these types of roads as you have.
I am not avoiding discussing the data that does exist, it is just if the data needed doesn’t exist that is needed that the data that does exist cannot prove anything as it is uncomparable.
[/quote]
The two data sources classify roads differently so you can not make a true comparison across the two sources.
What you can do is compare the overall trends.
Helmet use increased significantly from 1995 onwards on all road types.
Over the same period cyclist fatalities decreased significantly across the country as a whole.
There is a clear correlation, prior to 1995 there had been no significant change in the cyclist fatality rate for over a decade.
In the decade prior to 1995 the pedestrian fatality rate decreased significantly.
That implies separate causative factors for each group.
One hypothesis is that helmets represent the cycle specific causative factor that affected the fatality rate post 1995.
Without further data it is impossible to prove the hypothesis however.
Cyclists wearing helmets =
Cyclists wearing helmets = creates the perception of danger = discourages people from cycling.
Totally agree: it’s often trotted out by St. Chris and I don’t see what’s controversial about that.
Fewer cyclists = all cyclists are less safe. I’m not sure there’re huge wads of evidence for this, but the argument that more cyclists = cyclists are safer, as drivers become conditioned to them and are more likely to be/know cyclists themselves seems logical. Therefore the converse would be logical too.
Cyclist Personal Protective Equipment results in an expectation that cyclists look after their own safety. How many court cases with drivers being prosecuted have we seen where cyclists’ PPE (not a legal requirement) has been discussed? I’m not sure how commonplace this is, but it is reported. We don’t seem to have the equivalent onus placed on pedestrians or drivers by the defence when they’re the victims. So the sinister impression created is of a situation where you have one set of vulnerable road users being expected to go above and beyond what’s required by law to protect their own safety.
Hey, Helmut … is your
Hey, Helmut … is your brother Schubert still around?
This thread was more interesting when Schu D. Bate was here
CygnusX1 wrote:
I don’t see him much anymore.
He married a girl called Discbrake and our relationship deteriorated in predictably rapid fashion 🙁
Yo Momma Thread!
Yo Momma Thread!
Yo Momma so ugly, she makes onions cry.
(No subject)
don simon wrote:
^ What he said ^
What this forum proves is
What this forum proves is that the helmet zealots are just as bad as the anti helmet brigade in that both groups views’ are so entrenched they will never see eye to eye
Why bother arguing or trying to reason. And be honest about your own biases people
It’s the Dad who needs the
It’s the Dad who needs the helmet. He’ll be in for a ferocious bollocking when Mum sees the video. Just another every day near injury / death experience which parents have always suffered when raising kids. As for a helmet, why not? If the worse happens and junior’s noggin gets a whallop, you just might feel guilty sitting in casualty waiting for them to be fixed up.
This is awesome…
This is awesome…
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Hmm, not sure. I’ve strong views on the helmet issue and participated in some of the threads in the past. To be honest I find it boring now. I’m only commenting now to see if we can get a record number of comments on this thread. 🙂
OldRidgeback wrote:
The problem is that while it’s boring and repetitive to go through the same arguments over-and-over, stories like the one on here just the other day emphasise why it can’t simply be ignored, because one day the alliance of the car-centric and the ignorantly-paternalist might get the government to pass such legislation.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
The issue of helmet use is an important one, I agree. But it’s been debated on this website numerous times before and will be numerous times in the future. The fact is, there are people who argue for and against helmet compulsion on this website. The two sides will never agree. The debate will carry on and on and on here but never actually get anywhere.
OldRidgeback wrote:
As the issue is (extremely) debatable, the only sensible answer is to NOT mandate helmet wearing and let the individual decide what safety equipment is appropriate.
Agreed Davel, like you it
Agreed Davel, like you it sneaked up on me and I don’t always wear one. You can also say that external pressure and the ‘normalising’ of it may have had an influence. There is potentially a small impact on the getting people into cycling and safety in numbers points and it’d be interesting to research this – I don’t believe the Australian law changes are the way to do it as to me that showed a greater emphasis on their lack of care for cyclists to be a reasonable ‘test’ and ‘control’. I would also wonder how many are directly put off returning based on this, I’d imagine many that say they would actually wouldn’t.
They’re all parts that need adding to the mix which is why I got a bit nawty about the graph, I don’t propose I have the answer but I don’t believe it’s a line up and a line down.
Hope that you don’t have to test the theory either Davel, I hadn’t before July. Even with this I get the argument that the helmet is making the surface area bigger. However, the way my body and head hit that big flippin pole and the subsequent damage to body (not head) and helmet makes me gald I’d spent £50. And yes, it’s influenced me, I replaced it with an £80 one!
alansmurphy wrote:
Fair point, and conclusions drawn from ‘safety in numbers’ theory often have their critics. Nevertheless, it is A Thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_in_numbers#In_road_traffic_safety
But yes – the wider point is that there are impossible variables to measure at play, so helmet/no helmet regarding safety is essentially an ideological argument. We might as well argue about religion. I can see why you could get a bit evangelical if you had an off that resulted in a split helmet and unscathed head. Not having had that experience, the equation, for me, is still ‘Am I safer with a helmet?’… and I genuinely don’t know. I don’t see how anyone can. The evidence regarding safety is pretty flimsy, which gifts the opposing arguments traction – risk compensation, driver behaviour… am I more likely to take risks on a descent? Are cars more likely to buzz me..? I doubt it, but I don’t KNOW.
So the question for me then is about the wider use of helmets, and its potential effects. What I do know is that colleagues remark that they wouldn’t cycle to work as they think it’s dangerous; I know that surveys report that people are put off because they perceive cycling to be dangerous; I know surveys report that people associate PPE with danger; I know that people who’ve driven into cyclists have had lawyers who have discussed the victim wearing/not wearing a helmet as some sort of blaming device.
To me, that constitutes a more tangible negative impact to widespread helmet use, and that’s the reason I’m largely anti-helmet.
davel wrote:
Absolutely – the 2 that bother me most are the associations with danger and the victim blaming. These are massive external factors that are wrong on so many levels and I’ve highlighted that I agree with Boardman that the helmet is so far down the list of things for the powers that be to concern themselves with – which incidentally makes the recent reviews so ridiculous.
The utopia is for motorists to behave as they should, infrastructure to improve (both cycling provision and road maintenance) and human beings (or lawyers) to improve their behaviours. Then I’d only have to wear a lid to protect me from myself 🙂
Davel, you just got me
Davel, you just got me questioning why I started wearing a helmet, I now remember that it was because of pressure from my (now ex) wife due to an accident that her father had during a commute by bicycle. I am glad I do now as most of my commute is along a canal, a river and through a park where the helmet saves my head from multiple branch lashings.
I also have to travel around 500 metres each side of this by road, and have come to believe that the helmet will probably give me decent protection during this time given the speed I am likely going.
I agree that the onus should be on the driver to look out for cyclists (that ideal state is certainly not going to happen in the near future) but I don’t think that striving for this negates the need for a helmet. There are always going to be issues that cannot be controlled like black ice, falling trees/branches, animals running out etc.
I also agree that the helmet projects an element of danger that may put any would be cyclists off, but I don’t think it creates as much as a barrier as the perceived need for lycra (I also wear lycra on my commute by the way).
ClubSmed wrote:
So, to me, the risk of the first (I see the risks of having an off in which a helmet would protect me as pretty insignificant) doesn’t outweigh the potential damage. But, again, in something that’s impossible to measure, it probably comes down to ideology.
I’d sooner we stop apologising for existing alongside cars, and I suppose I see helmets as feeding that, while it isn’t encouraged in any other road user (who happen to die in greater numbers).
But yes: I also used to have a section of commute where my head would get beaten up by branches… if I hadn’t worn a helmet. It was pretty useful for that.
davel wrote:
I can understand that, we are all shaped by our own experiences. I was unfortunate enough to watch my father get hit by a car (as a pedestrian) and his head go through the windscreen followed by him skimming along the road on his head. He survived but had massive scaring to the top of his head (the only place that scared as a result of the incident). The incident was pretty much my father’s fault as he tried to cross the road when he should not have, but it gave me an insight as to what could happen should I get hit by a car whilst on the bike. I do understand at the same time that wearing a helmet whilst saving my head may result in more severe injuries elsewhere like my neck and spine, it’s all a gamble really.
Visit any of the US dominant
Visit any of the US dominant cycling subReddits and they are a cesspit of supidity, especially with regards to helmets.
Something happened to ped
Something happened to ped deaths around the same time as the downward trend in cyclist deaths to make them fall at about the same rate.
What’s more likely:
Scenario A: an increase in helmet use from 15% to 30% resulted, completely independently, in cyclist death rates dropping around the same as pedestrians death rates did, for completely different reasons, around the same time?
Scenario B: a multitude of factors resulted in roads becoming increasingly safer for cyclists and peds around the same time, but because they’re different types of user the trends don’t follow exactly the same pattern?
davel wrote:
If your explanation is that the same factor is affecting both groups how do you explain the rapid fall in pedestrian fatalities prior to 1995 which occurred while there was no significant change in the cycling fatality rate whatsoever?
The most logical explanation is a pedestrian specific factor.
Rich_cb wrote:
No: I’m saying there are multiple factors that will have affected different road users differently.
You’re trying to simplify this into single factors, and are arguing for Scenario A.
davel wrote:
There are obviously multiple factors.
What I’m arguing is that the pre 1995 decline in pedestrian fatalities was due to an additional pedestrian specific factor.
How else do you explain the huge decline in pedestrian fatalities (pre 1995) while cyclist fatalities remained unchanged?
If you’re arguing coincidence
If you’re arguing coincidence for one then argue it for both…
Pedestrians obviously started
Pedestrians obviously started wearing helmets.
davel wrote:
So you can’t explain it then.
Maybe two separate factors isn’t such a crazy hypothesis after all.
Maybe is down to the rise in
Maybe is down to the rise in mobile phone contracts and network coverage, this fits the timeline. This could be argued to enable quicker 999 calls and therefore quicker overall emergency services response times resulting in lower death rates.
Maybe this effected pedestrians sooner is that the trend to take mobiles with you on a cycle caught on later.
ClubSmed wrote:
Doesn’t fit the timeline.
Pedestrian deaths fell rapidly from 1990.
Mobile phones were very rare at that point and coverage wouldn’t have extended outside of large cities which were already well connected.
Rich_cb wrote:
Mobile phone subscription rates grow significantly from 1990 (after launching in 1985) and coverage grows rapidly from 1995 so it does fit the timeline. As the majority of pedestrian deaths happen in cities and most cyclist deaths in rural areas it makes sense that subscription rates would affect the pedestrians first (as it started as a city only tool) and then the cyclist population as the coverage grows to cover those rural areas. It fits as a probable a cause and likely factor.
ClubSmed wrote:
Look at the subscriptions line of your graph.
About 2.5% of the population has a mobile phone subscription by 1995.
You think that was sufficient to cause a 25% drop in pedestrian fatalities?
Rich_cb wrote:
Mobile phone subscription rates grow significantly from 1990 (after launching in 1985) and coverage grows rapidly from 1995 so it does fit the timeline. As the majority of pedestrian deaths happen in cities and most cyclist deaths in rural areas it makes sense that subscription rates would affect the pedestrians first (as it started as a city only tool) and then the cyclist population as the coverage grows to cover those rural areas. It fits as a probable a cause and likely factor.
— Rich_cb Look at the subscriptions line of your graph. About 2.5% of the population has a mobile phone subscription by 1995. You think that was sufficient to cause a 25% drop in pedestrian fatalities?— ClubSmed
As they will have been all concentrated in cities due to the coverage at the time and the vast majority of pedestrian deaths happen on Urban roads (the 2012-2016 reported casualty and accident rates data has ~ double the amount of urban pedestrian deaths than rural vs the ~ 50/50 split on cylist deaths) I find plausable.
ClubSmed wrote:
Except that the advantage of mobile phones is the ability to phone the emergency services more quickly.
In an inner city the availability of landlines and phone boxes is so high that the difference in time between mobile and landline would be minor.
It doesn’t fit.
Rich_cb wrote:
As they will have been all concentrated in cities due to the coverage at the time and the vast majority of pedestrian deaths happen on Urban roads (the 2012-2016 reported casualty and accident rates data has ~ double the amount of urban pedestrian deaths than rural vs the ~ 50/50 split on cylist deaths) I find plausable.
— Rich_cb Except that the advantage of mobile phones is the ability to phone the emergency services more quickly. In an inner city the availability of landlines and phone boxes is so high that the difference in time between mobile and landline would be minor. It doesn’t fit.— ClubSmed
Landlines and phone boxes are minutes away where as your jacket pocket (or belt hoster given the time period) are seconds away. When dealing with emergency response times a minute can literally mean the difference between life and death.
Though this is irrelevent because I have decided we are now playing by your rules. I have come up with a hypothesis and it is now *fact until you can come up with another explanation that fits.
*I don’t actually believe this to be fact, it is just a parallel that I plucked out of the air and no research has been put into this. I am just playing Rich_cb’s game of “Sharks like Ice-cream”
ClubSmed wrote:
The problem with your hypothesis is that it would involve an enormous fall in inner city pedestrian fatalities in order to create a nationwide 25% fall.
Do you have any proof of such a huge fall?
It also fails to explain why inner city cyclists wouldn’t have shared any of this enormous benefit.
Rich_cb wrote:
Landlines and phone boxes are minutes away where as your jacket pocket (or belt hoster given the time period) are seconds away. When dealing with emergency response times a minute can literally mean the difference between life and death.
Though this is irrelevent because I have decided we are now playing by your rules. I have come up with a hypothesis and it is now *fact until you can come up with another explanation that fits.
*I don’t actually believe this to be fact, it is just a parallel that I plucked out of the air and no research has been put into this. I am just playing Rich_cb’s game of “Sharks like Ice-cream”
— Rich_cb The problem with your hypothesis is that it would involve an enormous fall in inner city pedestrian fatalities in order to create a nationwide 25% fall. Do you have any proof of such a huge fall? It also fails to explain why inner city cyclists wouldn’t have shared any of this enormous benefit.— ClubSmed
As Urban Pedestrian Fatalities account for ~70% of all Pedestrian Fatalities but only ~40% of Cyclist Fatalities it is feasable for a large impact on a nationwide fall in pedestrian fatalities and does explain why inner city cyclists overall statistics would not have been as affected.
As for proof of the huge fall in inner city pedestrian fatalities, where was your proof of a huge fall in head injury related cycling fatalities in line with helmet wearing trends going up?
We are supposed to be playing your game now, not mine so you have to come up with an alternative explanation otherwise mine stands.
ClubSmed wrote:
If your numbers are correct then it is not feasible for the pedestrian fatalities to fall so markedly without a corresponding fall in cyclist fatalities.
Rich_cb wrote:
As Urban Pedestrian Fatalities account for ~70% of all Pedestrian Fatalities but only ~40% of Cyclist Fatalities it is feasable for a large impact on a nationwide fall in pedestrian fatalities and does explain why inner city cyclists overall statistics would not have been as affected.
As for proof of the huge fall in inner city pedestrian fatalities, where was your proof of a huge fall in head injury related cycling fatalities in line with helmet wearing trends going up?
We are supposed to be playing your game now, not mine so you have to come up with an alternative explanation otherwise mine stands.
— Rich_cb If your numbers are correct then it is not feasible for the pedestrian fatalities to fall so markedly without a corresponding fall in cyclist fatalities.— ClubSmed
During the period 1993-1995 the miles travelled on major roads by cyclists stayed the same where as the miles travelled on minor roads where cyclists fatalities are more likely increased. That could explain the short spike in cycling fatalities during this time that are not followed by the pedestrian fatalities.
As for proof of the huge fall
All you had to was ask.
Head injuries amongst cyclists showed a big decline after 1995.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/266
Rich_cb wrote:
As for proof of the huge fall in inner city pedestrian fatalities, where was your proof of a huge fall in head injury related cycling fatalities in line with helmet wearing trends going up?
— Rich_cb All you had to was ask. Head injuries amongst cyclists showed a big decline after 1995. http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/266— ClubSmed
Abstract:
For the period of this study comprehensive data on helmet wearing are available, and pedestrians are used as a control to monitor trends in admission.
Among cyclists admitted to hospital, the percentage with head injury reduced from 27.9% (n = 3070) to 20.4% (n = 2154), as helmet wearing rose from 16.0% to 21.8%.
Pedestrian head injuries declined significantly from 26.9% (n = 2256) in 1995/96 to 22.8% (n = 1792) in 2000/01.
So both fall significantly during the period….
ClubSmed wrote:
But the difference between the two groups is statistically significant.
That’s the crucial point.
Rich_cb wrote:
As for proof of the huge fall in inner city pedestrian fatalities, where was your proof of a huge fall in head injury related cycling fatalities in line with helmet wearing trends going up?
— Rich_cb All you had to was ask. Head injuries amongst cyclists showed a big decline after 1995. http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/266— ClubSmed
Have other health indicators (related to pollution and physical activity) improved since 1995? Is ubiquitous helmet use compatible with the mass active-travel required to substantially improve those indicators? Those are the important questions. That study doesn’t appear to addresss them. Why is ‘head injuries among existing cyclists’ such an important issue, when set against the far larger problem of public health in general?
(Are such head injuries even the most significant cause of death among existing cyclists, incidentally? Most of the London ones appear to be caused by crushing injuries)
The evidence appears to be that for my first question the answer is ‘no’. Because countries with either mandatory helmet laws, or even just high social-pressure and concequent heavy use rates, have very low cycling rates and poor scores on physical activity.
And the countries that do better on the latter, have much less helmet use.
This isn’t a technical medical question, it’s a sociological and political one.
Again, you could encourage pedestrians to wear helmets, and then a study like that might find some relationship with declines in head injuries among pedestrians. That would tell us very little about whether pushing helmets for walking was good for public health or not.
Rich_cb wrote:
I didn’t ask for stats on hospital admissions, I asked for stats on road fatalities as that was the data you were pushing as evidence.
ClubSmed wrote:
I think I’ve presented more than enough evidence for my argument now.
Do you have any comment on the paper I linked to?
Rich_cb wrote:
I already did comment, but I do have another observation. If both pedestrian and cyclist head injury submissions fell, does that not point to the catalyst being something that changes the impact of the accident for both parties rather than just one?
You have not presented any evidence to support your argument, just three lots of stats around three different data sets that aren’t comparable.
ClubSmed wrote:
The change between the two groups was statistically significant.
That means there is a cycling specific factor causing the difference.
I’ve presented evidence that cycling fatalities fell significantly post 1995.
I’ve presented evidence that the number of cycling accidents overall did not fall.
I’ve presented evidence that the number of cyclist head injuries fell significantly post 1995.
I’ve presented evidence that this fall in cycling head injuries was, in part, due to a cycling specific factor.
The challenge is to identify a factor that would not prevent cycling accidents but would reduce the severity of those accidents, in particular a factor that would reduce the likelihood of head injury.
My hypothesis is, as it has been throughout this thread, that cycle helmets are that factor.
I’ve presented evidence that the rate of cycle helmet wearing increased significantly post 1995.
Rich_cb wrote:
No it has not. You are trying to change your hypothesis to fit the new “evidence” that you are presenting. Your hypothesis on this thread started out as being:
The graphs in question were:
Those two graphs prove that helmet wearing went up for a type of cyclist during a period where cycling fatalities overall went down. That is all they prove, I have pointed this out and told you what you would need to prove correlation. What you would have needed to prove this would be trends in Cycle Helmet wearing and Cyclist Fatalities as a result of head injury for the same sample groups.
You have not been able to provide this, you have just thrown other pieces of statistics into the mix to try and muddy the water but none of them have provided the connecting link that was needed. You have provided a link to a paper that shows that cyclist head injury admissions to hospital went down over the period where cycling helmet usage was recorded and shown to go up. Pedestrian head injury admissions to hospital (which was the control) also went down over this same period, but cyclists head injury admissions to hospital went down slightly more. This could be presented as evidence that helmets could cause a reduction in injury, but not death. Most research into cycle helmet effectiveness will show that helmets can reduce or remove low impact injuries but do somewhere between nothing to worsening high impact injuries. So just because minor injuries could go down as a result of helmet wearing does not mean that death as a result could not stay the same or even go up.
Just to remove any bias issues that you have been feeling let me point out that at least two of the posters on this thread (AlanSMurphy and Myself) are pro helmet (though anti mandatory enforcement), wear them ourselves and believe that they do save cyclists from injury. The fact that your graphs did not even convince the already convinced should have shown just how disconnected they were.
You need to accept that the helmet debate currently comes down to a belief system as there is no compelling evidence either way. As with any belief system, you are entitled to believe whatever you want but you also need to respect others belief system if you want them to respect yours!
ClubSmed wrote:
You’re being a bit obtuse now.
The hypothesis that helmets reduce fatalities is based on them reducing head injuries so it’s hardly a different hypothesis.
I will accept that the study does not differentiate between severity of head injury but you can’t dismiss the evidence entirely based on that.
As for the road type, we’ve been over this, STATS19 and the TRA classify roads differently so you can’t look at individual road types.
You can look at the overall picture, which is what I have done.
That supports the hypothesis that helmets reduce fatalities (by reducing head injuries).
I provided a link to all of the road data earlier in the thread.
As detailed in my previous post the evidence shows a factor reducing the severity of cycling injuries post 1995.
The evidence also shows a cyclist specific factor reducing the rate of head injuries.
The evidence supports my hypothesis as helmets are a plausible factor.
It doesn’t prove it but I never said that it did.
Rich_cb wrote:
davel wrote:
Still struggling with statistics?
Shame.
Rich_cb wrote:
— davel Still struggling with statistics? Shame.— The rest of the fucking internet
Here’s one figure I have got my head around.
Number of people who interpret your graphs the Rich_cb way: 1.
But it’s everyone else who’s wrong.
davel wrote:
Sorry, but that’s an argumentum ad populum.
(Disclaimer, I agree with you, but this thread needs some more posts).
hawkinspeter wrote:
It is.
But it doesn’t mean it isn’t right :))
Also I’d like to nominate Smeds for the new years honours list, if that’s how it works… I think it should be. Some sort of gong for services to internet patience (not Solitaire).
hawkinspeter wrote:
Happy to oblige 🙂
CygnusX1 wrote:
Thanks for that.
Anyway, back to the health and safety debate: I think it’s quite clearly shown by the data that people are just getting more and more clumsy as time goes on. It’s most clearly shown by this graph comparing cyclists hitting stationary objects (not pens, rulers etc) and people falling over their own feet. There’s clearly some conspiracy going on.
Rich_cb wrote:
No it has not. You are trying to change your hypothesis to fit the new “evidence” that you are presenting. Your hypothesis on this thread started out as being:
The graphs in question were:
Those two graphs prove that helmet wearing went up for a type of cyclist during a period where cycling fatalities overall went down. That is all they prove, I have pointed this out and told you what you would need to prove correlation. What you would have needed to prove this would be trends in Cycle Helmet wearing and Cyclist Fatalities as a result of head injury for the same sample groups.
You have not been able to provide this, you have just thrown other pieces of statistics into the mix to try and muddy the water but none of them have provided the connecting link that was needed. You have provided a link to a paper that shows that cyclist head injury admissions to hospital went down over the period where cycling helmet usage was recorded and shown to go up. Pedestrian head injury admissions to hospital (which was the control) also went down over this same period, but cyclists head injury admissions to hospital went down slightly more. This could be presented as evidence that helmets could cause a reduction in injury, but not death. Most research into cycle helmet effectiveness will show that helmets can reduce or remove low impact injuries but do somewhere between nothing to worsening high impact injuries. So just because minor injuries could go down as a result of helmet wearing does not mean that death as a result could not stay the same or even go up.
Just to remove any bias issues that you have been feeling let me point out that at least two of the posters on this thread (AlanSMurphy and Myself) are pro helmet (though anti mandatory enforcement), wear them ourselves and believe that they do save cyclists from injury. The fact that your graphs did not even convince the already convinced should have shown just how disconnected they were.
You need to accept that the helmet debate currently comes down to a belief system as there is no compelling evidence either way. As with any belief system, you are entitled to believe whatever you want but you also need to respect others belief system if you want them to respect yours!
— ClubSmed You’re being a bit obtuse now. The hypothesis that helmets reduce fatalities is based on them reducing head injuries so it’s hardly a different hypothesis. I will accept that the study does not differentiate between severity of head injury but you can’t dismiss the evidence entirely based on that. As for the road type, we’ve been over this, STATS19 and the TRA classify roads differently so you can’t look at individual road types. You can look at the overall picture, which is what I have done. That supports the hypothesis that helmets reduce fatalities (by reducing head injuries). I provided a link to all of the road data earlier in the thread. As detailed in my previous post the evidence shows a factor reducing the severity of cycling injuries post 1995. The evidence also shows a cyclist specific factor reducing the rate of head injuries. The evidence supports my hypothesis as helmets are a plausible factor. It doesn’t prove it but I never said that it did.— Rich_cb
I think the issue we are having here is that there are not the historical matching data sets.
I believe that you cannot prove the correlation without them.
You believe that because the exact data sets matches do not exist you can throw any other similar pieces of data to fill the gap.
If you ignore the little details and just use the high level data then that is when you find that sharks are attracted by ice-cream as I mentioned earlier.
Also the “evidence” does not point to a “cyclist specific factor”, as the pedestrian fatalities drop at the same rate, but earlier, factors that affects pedestrians earlier than cyclists are just as (or more) likely.
Just to throw another curve ball in here, there was a response to a 2002 study in Canada (data captured 1995-1999 after the introduction of amandatory cycle helmet law) that showed that the risk of head injuries fell, but by around the same number as the number of cyclists fell. It also showed that the risk of other injuries nearly doubled over the same period. This would seem to corroborate other hypothesis that the wearing of safety gear such as helmets make the individual less risk adverse and therefor more likely to take risks that can result in a more serious incident. This could actually point to the initial uptake in helmet wearing being the factor that delays the cyclist fatalities falling in line with the pedestrian decline……..
ClubSmed wrote:
The correlation between the rise in helmet use and the fall in cycling fatalities is in time.
So you don’t need other data.
As you rightly said you do need more proof than just correlation.
The fact that cycling injuries remained static after the rise in helmet use is evidence against your risk compensation theory.
It is also evidence that whatever factor or factors caused the decline in fatalities did not do so by reducing the number of accidents but by reducing the severity of said accidents.
The fact that head injuries declined faster amongst cyclists than pedestrians is evidence that there was a factor specific to cyclists.
You have the decline in fatalities, the change in injury severity and the specific decline in cyclist head injuries all of which occurred at the same time that helmet use increased.
It’s not conclusive proof but each separate piece of evidence supports the hypothesis.
Rich_cb wrote:
I think the issue we are having here is that there are not the historical matching data sets.
I believe that you cannot prove the correlation without them.
You believe that because the exact data sets matches do not exist you can throw any other similar pieces of data to fill the gap.
If you ignore the little details and just use the high level data then that is when you find that sharks are attracted by ice-cream as I mentioned earlier.
Also the “evidence” does not point to a “cyclist specific factor”, as the pedestrian fatalities drop at the same rate, but earlier, factors that affects pedestrians earlier than cyclists are just as (or more) likely.
Just to throw another curve ball in here, there was a response to a 2002 study in Canada (data captured 1995-1999 after the introduction of amandatory cycle helmet law) that showed that the risk of head injuries fell, but by around the same number as the number of cyclists fell. It also showed that the risk of other injuries nearly doubled over the same period. This would seem to corroborate other hypothesis that the wearing of safety gear such as helmets make the individual less risk adverse and therefor more likely to take risks that can result in a more serious incident. This could actually point to the initial uptake in helmet wearing being the factor that delays the cyclist fatalities falling in line with the pedestrian decline……..
— Rich_cb The correlation between the rise in helmet use and the fall in cycling fatalities is in time. So you don’t need other data. As you rightly said you do need more proof than just correlation. The fact that cycling injuries remained static after the rise in helmet use is evidence against your risk compensation theory. It is also evidence that whatever factor or factors caused the decline in fatalities did not do so by reducing the number of accidents but by reducing the severity of said accidents. The fact that head injuries declined faster amongst cyclists than pedestrians is evidence that there was a factor specific to cyclists. You have the decline in fatalities, the change in injury severity and the specific decline in cyclist head injuries all of which occurred at the same time that helmet use increased. It’s not conclusive proof but each separate piece of evidence supports the hypothesis.— ClubSmed
There is also a correlation between the rise in Helmet use and the reduction in coronary heart disease and the fall in price of ecstacy tabs but that does not prove a connection or causality.
Where is the evidence of a change in the injury severity, I do not recall seeing this?
I also can’t recall the evidence for cycle injuries remaining static whilst head injuries increasing, in fact this data shows that the opposite is true.
ClubSmed wrote:
I don’t think I said head injuries had increased?
Head injuries decreasing is part of my argument.
KSIs were down while the overall injury rate was static so the proportion of injuries that are severe has decreased.
I’m not sure why you keep going on about spurious correlations.
The different pieces of evidence I’ve presented all support the hypothesis so it is more detailed than just a simple correlation.
Rich_cb wrote:
Where is the evidence of a change in the injury severity, I do not recall seeing this?
I also can’t recall the evidence for cycle injuries remaining static whilst head injuries increasing, in fact this data shows that the opposite is true.
— Rich_cb I don’t think I said head injuries had increased? Head injuries decreasing is part of my argument. KSIs were down while the overall injury rate was static so the proportion of injuries that are severe has decreased. I’m not sure why you keep going on about spurious correlations. The different pieces of evidence I’ve presented all support the hypothesis so it is more detailed than just a simple correlation.— ClubSmed
Sorry, I meant decreasing head injuries. The data I found did not show that the cycle casualties per billion miles had decreased, it looks like an increase to me.
The paper you linked to for head injury analysis showed that pedestrian head injuries also significantly decreased over the same period and the subset of cyclists that saw the bigest decrease in head injuries were children and according to the helmet wearing stats you posted they did not show an increase in helmet wearing. How do you explain that?
ClubSmed wrote:
The data showing a decrease in head injuries covers 1995-2001 when, as your graph shows, the overall injury rate was static.
Pedestrian head injuries did fall but there was a statistically significant difference between the fall in the pedestrian rate and the greater fall in the cyclist rate.
That is evidence of a cyclist specific factor.
As for the data on child cyclists it can’t really be interpreted without a control group of child pedestrians. Unfortunately I don’t think that data was included in the paper. It would be interesting to see it analysed.
Rich_cb wrote:
Or of a pedestrian-specific factor. Or of multiple factors affecting both.
And that’s without getting into the question of what ‘statistically significant’ actually means (it is, after all, rather an abritrary threshold, and nobody really knows what it truly means for something to be ‘statistically significant’, which is why medical studies in particular seem to be prone to find ‘statistically significant’ correlations that turn out to not be repeatable, hence all the press headlines about this-or-that causing or preventing cancer)
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
It could be a pedestrian specific factor that makes head injuries more likely in pedestrians.
It could also be a cyclist specific factor that makes head injuries less likely.
It can’t be a factor affecting both groups unless it affects one group disproportionately in which case you could argue it was a specific factor anyway.
The fact that the difference exists is therefore evidence of a specific factor at work.
Cycle helmets are a plausible hypothesis to explain the difference.
Rich_cb wrote:
So the fact that you can’t find the corresponding data set for the children cyclists means we should ignore it because it doesn’t fit your hypotheses. All the other data that does fit your hypotheses but doesn’t have the corresponding data set we just use the high level data. Is that right?
Actually the study does cover pedestrian children, but it doesn’t support your hypotheses:
“A total of 53 207 emergency pedestrian admissions occurred in the six years, of which 13 193 (24.8%) were due to head injury. Pedestrian head injuries declined significantly from 26.9% (n = 2256) in 1995/96 to 22.8% (n = 1792) in 2000/01, an estimated change of –4.94% (95% CI –3.79 to –6.10) (fig 1). The decline was similar among both adults and children, from 24.7% to 21% among adults and 33.2% to 29.2% among children.”
As for cycling casualties, if the total number is static, but head injuries have decreased, then that’s a rise in all other injuries by my calculations. Am I wrong?
ClubSmed wrote:
No it means I’m basing my hypothesis on the data that is available.
We don’t have comparable data by road type so I’m using the data available.
We don’t have case-control data for child cyclists so I’m using the data available.
I think you are right about other injuries increasing, we don’t know what type of injuries those are.
Rich_cb wrote:
I just updated my post to say that the study does refer to child pedestrians so there is control data:
“A total of 53 207 emergency pedestrian admissions occurred in the six years, of which 13 193 (24.8%) were due to head injury. Pedestrian head injuries declined significantly from 26.9% (n = 2256) in 1995/96 to 22.8% (n = 1792) in 2000/01, an estimated change of –4.94% (95% CI –3.79 to –6.10) (fig 1). The decline was similar among both adults and children, from 24.7% to 21% among adults and 33.2% to 29.2% among children.”
How do you a explain that?
As for the other injuries, we don’t need to know what they are to see that they support the helmet making cyclists take more risks hypotheses
ClubSmed wrote:
I did not see that pedestrian data, sorry.
One possible explanation is that children derive more benefit from helmets than adults. There could, of course, be another cycling specific factor affecting the results but the results alone do not disprove the hypothesis that helmets prevent head injury.
The static injury data doesn’t necessarily support the hypothesis that helmets increase risk taking.
If a helmet stopped somebody suffering a serious head injury but they still suffered other minor injuries then the data would show no change in overall casualties but the proportion of non head injuries would rise.
There would however have been no increase in the number of accidents and therefore no evidence of increased risk taking.
Rich_cb wrote:
Sorry, I must have missed it when you posted data showing that “children derive more benefit from helmets than adults”. Could you repost it please?
ClubSmed wrote:
What part of “one possible explanation” are you struggling with?
You are falling back on your previous tactic of demanding data that just doesn’t exist.
Rich_cb wrote:
I am not struggling with anything, you on the other hand seem to be confusing the meaning of “one possible explanation” with “one plucked out of the air, based on nothing, statement”
If you had said “One possible explanation is that children MIGHT derive more benefit from helmets than adults.” I would have understood that you were just thinking out loud, but you did not use the word “might” leaving it to look like a statement of fact that could explain it. So I asked for that data foolishly believing that you were referring back to something you had found and posted on another thread rather than making stuff up.
Nothing wrong with the way I read it, just the way you wrote it.
ClubSmed wrote:
Is it a possible explanation?
Yes.
It doesn’t change the overall picture anyway. The group that wore helmets showed a significantly greater decline in serious head injury rate than the non helmet wearing group.
That’s the pattern you’d expect to see if helmets reduced head injuries.
Rich_cb wrote:
Is it a possible explanation? It has had about the same amount of research and thought (probably less) put into it as the One Direction theory.
What picture are you seeing? The one I’m seeing shows that the group of cyclists with no change in helmet wearing trends (children) showed the greater decline in head injuries.
ClubSmed wrote:
It is a possible explanation but it’s also a needless distraction.
The difference between the data for adults and children is interesting.
The TRL noted that they found far higher rates of helmet wearing amongst children on recreational routes than on roads.
If there has been a trend towards children cycling more miles on such routes and fewer on the roads it could explain the discrepancy as the helmet wearing rate for children would have been underestimated.
The research definitely points to a cycling specific factor for both children and adults but the evidence for helmets is stronger for adults than children.
Rich_cb wrote:
No.
If you take most periods that fall within the range of your graph, there is either a bigger fall among pedestrian deaths, or a 90s variation that you’re pinning your entire argument on. That’s the eyeball test that everyone is doing. Why don’t you put the figures into a stats package and post the results? Let’s see a trend analysis. We can all see it but maybe if R or maybe even Excel told you, you would listen.
You’re aligning variation in the overall trend with a helmet increase in another graph, but that helmet wearing graph doesn’t cover the same period. You might tell yourself that that variation is statistically significant – and it might be. But the link to the increase in helmet wearing is not established. The crucial question: what happens with the helmet wearing trend prior to your graph? I’m going to make the most logical assumption that the trend continues to the left of your graph, which smooths the spike and damages your argument. Now it’s back on you to show that that assumption is incorrect.
As it is, you’re not just comparing apples with oranges, you’re trying to compare them using two different scales too. You’re truncating the larger, central dataset and fitting it to your hypothesis dataset, rather than get the correct dataset for your hypothesis. Can you see that that is THE WRONG WAY ROUND? Shrugging your shoulders and saying that’s all you’ve got is admitting defeat, not winning the argument.
You don’t yet have the data to draw a significant correlation – much less, the evidence for cause/effect – to make your claim. Get better data, or stop making the claim.
Helmut D. Bate wrote:
Seriously?
Read the paper that I posted.
That’s where that conclusion is from.
There isn’t enough data to prove causation and I’ve never said there is, the data that is available does support the hypothesis that helmets are reducing head injury/death.
You might not like that but that doesn’t make it wrong.
Rich_cb wrote:
No. If you take most periods that fall within the range of your graph, there is either a bigger fall among pedestrian deaths, or a 90s variation that you’re pinning your entire argument on. That’s the eyeball test that everyone is doing. Why don’t you put the figures into a stats package and post the results? Let’s see a trend analysis. We can all see it but maybe if R or maybe even Excel told you, you would listen. You’re aligning variation in the overall trend with a helmet increase in another graph, but that helmet wearing graph doesn’t cover the same period. You might tell yourself that that variation is statistically significant – and it might be. But the link to the increase in helmet wearing is not established. The crucial question: what happens with the helmet wearing trend prior to your graph? I’m going to make the most logical assumption that the trend continues to the left of your graph, which smooths the spike and damages your argument. Now it’s back on you to show that that assumption is incorrect. As it is, you’re not just comparing apples with oranges, you’re trying to compare them using two different scales too. You’re truncating the larger, central dataset and fitting it to your hypothesis dataset, rather than get the correct dataset for your hypothesis. Can you see that that is THE WRONG WAY ROUND? Shrugging your shoulders and saying that’s all you’ve got is admitting defeat, not winning the argument. You don’t yet have the data to draw a significant correlation – much less, the evidence for cause/effect – to make your claim. Get better data, or stop making the claim.
— Helmut D. Bate Seriously? Read the paper that I posted. That’s where that conclusion is from. There isn’t enough data to prove causation and I’ve never said there is, the data that is available does support the hypothesis that helmets are reducing head injury/death. You might not like that but that doesn’t make it wrong.— Rich_cb
Oh OK: we’ve moved on from those first graphs then…
With all the time you spend on these threads, could you not just crunch it all together in Excel and post that?
Helmut D. Bate wrote:
As I’ve said multiple times I can’t prove causation.
If it was possible to draw all the data together and statistically analyse it I would have done.
I’ve posted links to the statistical analysis that has been done.
Rich_cb wrote:
Then why make conclusions like that from it?
Anyway your entire method of doing statistical analysis is wrong.
You do realise you have p*ssed off people who do wear helmets as well as those who don’t simply because of your poor statistical analysis.
Bluebug wrote:
Then why make conclusions like that from it?
Anyway your entire method of doing statistical analysis is wrong.
You do realise you have p*ssed off people who do wear helmets as well as those who don’t simply because of your poor statistical analysis.— ClubSmed
I’ve already addressed that point. That was a possible suggestion to explain the variation, maybe I could have worded it more specifically by I clarified afterwards.
The statistical analysis I’ve referred to is from a published study in a respected journal.
Rich_cb wrote:
The Lancet is a respected journal and they still published that the MMR vaccine causes autism. Further analysis found the methodology was completely flawed, the author is no longer a medical doctor, and it has caused and is still causing major worldwide health scares.
The BMJ is a respected journal and still have been pressurised to publish that statins are good for everyone and greatly prolong life. Further analysis of data by different people has found this stance is flawed and the arguments are still ongoing.
The point I’m making is don’t take other people’s statistical analysis at face value even from respected journals.
Bluebug wrote:
Nobody said that journals were infallible but respected journals are a hell of a lot more trustworthy than most sources of information.
Rich_cb wrote:
Nothing about the above post suggests that the statement “children derive more benefit from helmets than adults” isn’t being presented by you as a fact!
Good point, but the number of “helmet saved life and I walked away unscathed” stories would suggest otherwise. What you would need here to disprove the more risk taking theory is data on the other injuries patients with head injuries pre-1995 had and if they would warrant hospital admission
Rich_cb wrote:
Let’s be honest here, I very much doubt that you have based your hypothesis on the data that is available. I find it far more likely that you had a belief that cycle helmets reduced cycling fatalities and went out in search of data that you believed proved this point. Attempting to make out that you are some neutral entity that just decided to look at all the data available and draw a hypotheses from it is not likely. Especialy given that the corresponding child pedestrian data was available yet your hypothesis did not change.
ClubSmed wrote:
And what exactly is your hypothesis?
That there is absolutely no difference between the injuries suffered by pedestrians and cyclists?
What evidence have you based your position on?
Rich_cb wrote:
— Rich_cb And what exactly is your hypothesis? That there is absolutely no difference between the injuries suffered by pedestrians and cyclists? What evidence have you based your position on?— ClubSmed
Perhaps their position is that there isn’t any good evidence on which to base a position, therefore the matter should be left up to individual choice? And that those who have a dogged and fanatical commitment to a pro-helmet stance despite that absence of evidence, might have some sort of pre-existing bias?
Rich_cb wrote:
— Rich_cb And what exactly is your hypothesis? That there is absolutely no difference between the injuries suffered by pedestrians and cyclists? What evidence have you based your position on?— ClubSmed
I do not have any hypothesis based on the data available. What I do have is a belief based on nothing more than my own perception of personal experiences. That belief is that cycle helmets help reduce harm in most cycling collisions which I am likely to find myself and that is why I wear a helmet.
There is no compelling evidence to support either for or against argument, I wish there was then I would know which way I need to go to keep myself and my loved ones safest. Until that happens I am in the cycle helmet wearing camp but I am happy for others to make their own choice based on whatever belief system they have.
Rich_cb wrote:
As Fluffykitten has tried to explain, you are spectacularly missing the point. I strongly suspect that helmet-wearing has an effect on head injuries at the individual level. But, as your own links show, the effect is very small (albeit statistically significant).
As your own link shows, FAR more head injuries happen to pedestrians, so, if the public policy objective is to reduce the incidence of head injury, why are you intent on targeting the small sub-group of cyclists, who, as a group, incur so few of these injuries?
Then there is the indisputable evidence that compulsory helmet-wearing drastically reduces cycling rates – that is a bad outcome for the whole of society – a couple of academics calculated that the helmet law in New Zealand was a net dis-benefit to the economy.
The simple fact is that bicycle helmets are a solution in search of a problem.
improvement in outcomes for
improvement in outcomes for ped’s involved in serious trauma maybe due to changes in the way in which hospital services changed response – can’t recall were read the article but a move to specialist trauma units at a limited number of locations with ambulances bypassing local hospitals gave some dramatic improvements in survival rates for serious trauma based on experiences from war in Afganistan and going back to terror attacks in NI so 90’s would make sense a quick google tells me Royal College of Surgeons produced an influential report in 1988
….its all so complicated
antigee wrote:
Exactly – loads of factors.
The Government even calls out the recession as one factor in the 90-94 general downward trend*.
@rich_cb: you know you’re safe to keep falling back on seeking an explanation for the decrease in pedestrian deaths, since you know that there’ll be no single factor: nobody has, or ever will, satisfactorily explain the ‘pedestrian specific’ cause you’re going on about. It can’t be done. You know this, which is why you keep pushing for it.
And yet you’re happy to attempt to pass off a single factor as a possible cause of a similar downward trend in cyclist deaths. Your logic isn’t even consistent within your own head.
*http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/448037/road-fatalities-2013-data.pdf
davel wrote:
I think you’re deliberately trying to misrepresent what I’m saying as you’re unable to present a valid counterargument.
As I said below, there are multiple factors. However many factors, such as improved trauma care, will benefit both pedestrians and cyclists.
When one group has a very large improvement in the fatality rate whilst the other group has no change the only logical conclusion is that there is a factor that is specific to that group.
I’m not asking anybody to identify the pedestrian specific factor, just to acknowledge that a pedestrian specific factor is the most logical explanation.
Can you at least do that?
Rich_cb wrote:
Is this for real?
The graphs, more or less, show a very similar trend. Ok, at certain points one is decreasing faster than the other, but generally speaking they follow a very similar trend.
Therefore, to me at least, it would appear unarguable to use these graphs as demonstration of helmet use reducing numbers.
The only way this would be potentially useable is if cycling casualty numbers had reduced significantly greater than pedestrian, as then there would be an unexplained influencer. However this is not the case.
There is no need to provide a counter argument as you have failed, in my opinion at least, to present a plausible argument.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
Explain the pre 1995 figures.
Rich_cb wrote:
Is this for real?
The graphs, more or less, show a very similar trend. Ok, at certain points one is decreasing faster than the other, but generally speaking they follow a very similar trend.
Therefore, to me at least, it would appear unarguable to use these graphs as demonstration of helmet use reducing numbers.
The only way this would be potentially useable is if cycling casualty numbers had reduced significantly greater than pedestrian, as then there would be an unexplained influencer. However this is not the case.
There is no need to provide a counter argument as you have failed, in my opinion at least, to present a plausible argument.
— Rich_cb Explain the pre 1995 figures.— Jimmy Ray Will
Improvements in emergency treatment practices and the improved speed of response times due to the rise of mobile phone contracts and coverage. The same factors causing the decline but in a way that effects pedestrians first fits better as the downward trend is pretty much the same just affecting pedestrians first
Rich_cb wrote:
We don’t have to.
Being able to explain the ped difference doesn’t defeat your argument.
Your fallacious logic defeats your argument.
davel wrote:
Your argument rests entirely on the premise that the pedestrian and cyclist rates follow the same trend.
The pre 1995 figures expose the flaw in your argument.
Hence your sad little attempts at deflection.
Rich_cb wrote:
Your argument rests entirely on the premise that the pedestrian and cyclist rates follow the same trend.
The pre 1995 figures expose the flaw in your argument.
Hence your sad little attempts at deflection.— davel
You know what is sad? Your insistence on pushing your own agenda against so many other posters who see through your shit.
There’s a couple of % difference in Smed’s abstract of your report.
Your argument boils down to a 5% increase in helmet-wearing that results in cyclists being 2-3% better off than pedestrians shows that helmets work? When the section of road users who don’t wear helmets experienced more than 2-3% over the same period.
Because any rational person, even if they follow your line that helmets account for all the difference, will view that as helmets being poor compared to whatever fucking magic shit that pecs put in their heads in the same period.
davel wrote:
Do you know what statistical significance means?
Rich_cb wrote:
Do you know what statistical significance means?— davel
Better than you, you troll.
davel wrote:
Is that honestly the best response you’ve got?
Pathetic.
I’m not sure if this thread
I’m not sure if this thread is long enough yet.
hawkinspeter wrote:
No it’s not. I’m not convinced that this helmet type is BSI approved though.
I’ve just realised that this
I’ve just realised that this thread is still ‘live’…
STOP. JUST. STOP.
STOP. JUST. STOP.
Extract from the report
Extract from the report posted on head related injuries during the helmet wearing study (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/266):
Significant decreases were seen among adult and child cyclists. The percentage of head injuries among adults in 1995/96 was 24.7% (n = 1129), and estimated to change by –8.09% (95% CI –6.18 to –10.01). Among children, the percentage of head injuries was 29.6% (n = 1625) in 1995/96, and estimated to change by –8.32% (95% CI –5.35 to –11.28).
I notice from this that children had the greater reduction in head injuries but, according to the helmet wearing graph provided, they were the least likely to be wearing a helmet……
I think everyone is missing
I think everyone is missing seeing the bigger picture.
What we really need to be concentrating on is the following graph and how the age of Miss America is clearly the most important factor in cyclists’ longevity.
hawkinspeter wrote:
It appears from that graph that a slightly older Miss America is resulting in more cyclists coming back to life…
alansmurphy wrote:
Beware the zombie cyclists!
He doesn’t. He doesn’t feel
He doesn’t. He doesn’t feel he needs to.
“The different pieces of evidence I’ve presented all support the hypothesis so it is more detailed than just a simple correlation”.
So alongside the other funny correlations people have posted we can also throw in that iPhones have reduced cycling casualties, as has the band one direction, gravel bikes, full hd TV’s.
It’s my hypothesis and by putting two unrelated pieces of data together you can’t say I’m wrong…
alansmurphy wrote:
Yawn.
On that basis Rich do you
On that basis Rich do you also hypothesise that the band one direction and the apple iPhone have had a greater influence on the reduction in casualties than helmets?
alansmurphy wrote:
Yawn.
Rich_cb wrote:
No, really?
But there’s a line of data that says that cycling fatalities per billion miles is decreasing and a line showing iPhone ownership going from zero to around 25m people in the same time frame…
What else could it be?
alansmurphy wrote:
No, really?
But there’s a line of data that says that cycling fatalities per billion miles is decreasing and a line showing iPhone ownership going from zero to around 25m people in the same time frame…
What else could it be?— alansmurphy
Yawn.
Are you not sleeping well, is
Are you not sleeping well, is this really complex data keeping you up at night?
How do you hypothesise One Directions influence? They weren’t even born (probably) in 1995, is there some kind of greater power at work? But as their record sales increased so did fatalities, it’s all there in the data…
alansmurphy wrote:
I think I should warn you that you are treading on VERY dangerous ground by highlighting the One Direction connection.
Have a read of this little snippet and realise the horrifying truth about One Direction and their plan to immanentize the eschaton:
http://lightoftruth.tumblr.com/post/33630306726/the-band-one-direction-slowly-turning-into
Do not fuck with One Direction, the Illuminati or squirrels.
alansmurphy wrote:
Is illuminati a form of high
Is illuminati a form of high viz and could we be forced to only cycle in one direction’s?
See what you’ve done with your yawning Rich?!
Do you get a prize for the
Do you get a prize for the double century?
@alansmurphy – I’ve said too
@alansmurphy – I’ve said too much already.
Oi – I had to buy all their
Oi – I had to buy all their albums, put posters on my wall, buy tickets to gigs all in the name of research…
Ah so now you cherry pick
Ah so now you cherry pick what is needless, use if statements then claim other random data trends as evidence. Fabulous work Mr Trump…
Two changes over time can
Two changes over time can show correlation but do not show causality. Correlation without causality is pretty close to meaningless.
I have mentioned the shark and ice cream example before, but I shall mention it again as I do not think it was clear last time as you are still ignoring it. Correlation vs causation. … There is a correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks (they both go up as the temperature goes up in this case). But just because ice cream sales go up does not mean ice cream sales cause (causation) more shark attacks or vice versa. Deeper analysis of data would show that in one country (UK) Ice cream sales go up with no changes in shark attacks, leading to a more logical conclusion that shark attacks rise when more people occupy beaches near dangerous shark habitats and this happens during the warmer days when more ice cream is sold. So ignoring the significant smaller data set and just dealing with the high level information you are just ignoring important facts to prove your original hypotheses.
Let’s keep this in mind as we look at the latest paper you provided on head injury hospital admission rates over the period of helmet usage data being collected.
If children are more likely to cycle in alternative cycling infrastructure such as shared paths and cycle lanes and this caused the decline, then it is reasonable to imagine that the same could be said for the adult cyclists. Surely this is a theory that better fits as it is cycling specific and covers the difference in decline between adult and child cyclists.
Reduction in head injuries was not what you stated originally though, you just latched on to this because you thought that this paper was bullet proof and would win you points so you adapted your argument. Your original hypotheses though, was that of cycle helmets preventing death. If this is true then it does not need to follow that they would also cause a drop in head injuries as it is logical to assume that if they prevent death by head injury that these same preventions will be moved from the killed table to the injured table. So depending on what they do to the minor head injuries, and what their numbers are, it is possible for a reduction in death by head injury to result in a status quo or even a slight increase.
Just because cycle helmets can prevent one does not mean they have to prevent both. I would suggest you pick one of them and stick to that if you insist on continuing your crusade.
I’ve mentioned it before, others have mentioned it too, but I will call it out again. There are people on this thread who believe that cycle helmets make a difference (I am one of them) and they don’t agree that your data proves your point. Surely that alone should tell you something? If you can’t convince the already converted that your data proves the point then you really should look again at what you have. An argument based on facts that fall down is more likely to convince others that the reverse is true than that it’s true but can’t be proven.
ClubSmed wrote:
The only way to prove causation in this instance would be a randomised controlled trial.
That would be nearly impossible to conduct and will never be carried out.
So we have to base our arguments on the data available.
To give some context, causation has never been proved between cigarette smoking and ill health. The two things do strongly correlate though.
So correlation is a useful tool in public health.
The TRL acknowledged that the data on childrens’ helmet wearing was not as thorough as the data on adult wearing rates. In their later surveys they also looked at segregated leisure routes. They found higher rates of children cycling and far higher rates of children using helmets on those routes.
If that data is representative then it would be very difficult to determine whether it was the infrastructure or the helmets which caused the decline in head injuries in children.
That caveat does not apply to the adult data.
The paper I linked to looked at serious head injuries, if helmets do reduce fatalities the most obvious way they would do so is by reducing serious head injuries. Implying that I somehow moved the goalposts is a bit disingenuous.
If helmets reduce death from head injury then they would also reduce rates of serious head injury.
The data shows a reduction in serious head injury.
Helmets would not reduce other minor injuries and may increase the number of minor head injuries (by converting serious head injuries to minor ones).
The data shows a static number of overall injuries indicating an increase in minor injuries.
The data is behaving as you would expect if helmets were reducing death from serious head injuries.
It doesn’t prove causation but it is evidence that supports the hypothesis.
Rich_cb wrote:
Almost exactly what I was going to say (though you’d have to add ‘double-blind’ in there as well!).
Except I’ve have replaced the bolded sentence with ‘The problem is how some conclude that we can therefore base our arguments on the weak-to-useless data available’.
We can’t, that’s the point. The absence of good data doesn’t magically make the bad data any better or arguments based on it any more convincing. It means we can’t say anything very much.
I actually have long had the same problem with other claims about medicine and nutrition etc. That getting good evidence is nearly-impossible does not mean one has to accept conclusions drawn from really bad evidence, it means we can’t say anything one way or the other and should be wary about claiming ‘expert’ status so as to tell others what to do.
Rich_cb wrote:
The TRL study states that:
“Both adults and children were more likely to wear a helmet when cycling on a cycle path than on the road or pavement”
Does this not point to the increase in cycling infrastructure and helmet wearing being inextricably interlinked as to make it impossible to determine whether just one is the cause of the injury reduction? Personaly I am surprised by this finding though as I would have thought that cycle paths are the least dangerous enviroment and therefor the has the least need for the wearing of a helment. Are cycle paths of a recreational route included in KSI data or is it just roads? If not then that would skew the data sets quite a lot wouldn’t it?
Have I missed your posting of the details of the number of minor injuries over the period or is this another made up statement that you have mistakenly written in such as way as to look like a fact
Harry Hill would know how to
Harry Hill would know how to settle this.
Tommytrucker wrote:
Opening a rival bed shop called Beds Beds Beds Beds Beds Beds Beds Beds Beds?
Rich, I have a hypothesis:
If I fall from my bike and my head is going to connect with tarmac I would much rather be wearing a helmet than not. The cheap price of helmets means I am more than happy to mitigate risk by spending a small amount of money. Other people have a different opinion.
I have statistical evidence to back this hypothesis up.
For any that are new to this
For any that are new to this thread and finding over 200 posts to be daunting, here is a summary:
Rich_CB: Cycle Helmets prevent Cyclist Deaths!
Other Thread posters: There is no proof of that
Rich_CB: Yes there is, here are two graphs
Other Thread posters: but pedestrian fatalities drop too and at a similar rate
Rich_CB: They start at different times so it must be different factors
Other Thread posters: It could be the same factor that affects cyclist more slowly or later
Rich_CB: No, it has to be cycling specific
Other Thread posters: No it doesn’t and your graphs do nothing to prove causation
Rich_CB: I don’t have to, it shows correlation and that’s all I need
Other Thread posters: But they are not even the same data set
Rich_CB: The same data sets don’t exist so they don’t have to be the same
Other Thread posters: Yes they do
Rich_CB: No they don’t, and here is a paper that proves Cycle Helmets prevent Cyclist Injuries
Other Thread posters: Wait, you said cyclist deaths initially
Rich_CB: Same thing
Other Thread posters: No it isn’t, one being true does not make the other true. One could be true and make the other worse.
Rich_CB: Whatever, it’s clear proof, I win
Other Thread posters: But pedestrian head injuries drop significantly too and they don’t wear helmets
Rich_CB: That doesn’t matter as cyclist head injuries drop more
Other Thread posters: But cyclist head injuries drop more for children who your graph shows not to have had an increase in wearing helmets…
Rich_CB: There is not the matching child pedestrian data so we have to discount that
Other Thread posters: But when you have not had matching data, that did not stop you. Anyway, here is the matching child pedestrian data and it doesn’t support your hypothesis
Rich_CB: Helmets effect children differently
Other Thread posters: Really, I didn’t know that. Where is that information?
Rich_CB: I didn’t say it was a fact!
Other Thread posters: Uh, OK?!?!
Rich_CB: Anyway, I have proven correlation
Other Thread posters: No you haven’t, they are different data sets! But OK, have some proof of correlation with Cyclist Fatalities and One Direction/ iPhones/ Age of Miss America/
Rich_CB: Yawn! You are being silly
Other Thread posters: No more so than you.
ClubSmed wrote:
Clubsmed: I don’t understand how to compare data, I’ve had it pointed out to me numerous times that the correlation is in time so the data set is irrelevant but I just don’t get it. Sharks and Ice cream., Sharks And Ice Cream. SHARKS. AND. ICE CREAM.
Rich_cb wrote:
The data sets do have to match as well as time! Or do you think that helmet wearing in Italy and the fall in UK cyclist fatalities can be used as long as it is during the same time period?
ClubSmed wrote:
Well the UK and Italy are in the EU so cars have to meet the same safety standards.
OK I’m being mean there as it was explained to me when changing from left hand to right hand drive some of the safety features in the car body aren’t swapped round on some models.
ClubSmed wrote:
And you’re back to being pointlessly obtuse.
The datasets you’re referring to both cover the UK during the period 1994-2002.
The fact that they classified roads in a slightly different manner does not prevent an overall comparison being made.
Especially when the data is only being used to show a correlation.
I’ve explained that multiple times.
Rich_cb wrote:
So are you saying that helmets prevent cyclist fatalities from all injuries? If not then you are not showing correlation because you don’t have the correct dataset to show the trend of fatalities from head and neck injuries. The dataset that you provided does not show if head and neck injury related cycling fatalities go up or down.
I showed correlation with mobile phone contracts and coverage, at least that fits with all causes of cyclist fatalities.
ClubSmed wrote:
We’ve been over the mobile phone stuff before.
You didn’t/couldn’t explain the lack of correlation with cycling injuries given the supposed enormous effect on pedestrian injuries.
Helmet use (in adults) is correlated with a decrease in deaths and serious head injuries.
I don’t have access to further data showing a decrease in death from serious head injuries but the absence of that data doesn’t disprove the hypothesis.
Rich_cb wrote:
Please, please stop abusing science.
Otherwise, come and disprove that the flying spaghetti monster is nesting at the bottom of my garden.
davel wrote:
Please, please stop abusing science.
Otherwise, come and disprove that the flying spaghetti monster is nesting at the bottom of my garden.— Rich_cb
I haven’t got the data to say that Freddie Starr didn’t eat my hamster or that there isn’t a double decker bus on the moon!
alansmurphy wrote:
Fair warning: I won’t try to not disprove it then. I think.
davel wrote:
We can now add ‘The Scientific Process’ to the (rapidly lengthening) list of things that Davel doesn’t understand.
Rich_cb wrote:
Please, please stop abusing science.
Otherwise, come and disprove that the flying spaghetti monster is nesting at the bottom of my garden.
— Rich_cb We can now add ‘The Scientific Process’ to the (rapidly lengthening) list of things that Davel doesn’t understand.— davel
Oh, fuck off.
You’ve got an opinion, done some shit Google-fu to try to find ANYTHING to support it, keep pulling out new scraps that don’t prove what you’re saying, and you see the inability of people debating against you to outright disprove what you’re saying as somehow supporting your nonsense. And you either don’t get the absurdity of that situation, or don’t care.
You don’t even know what it is that you don’t understand. I remember our debate about insurance Ts&Cs – exactly the same. Zero experience, zero grasp of the subject, blagging your way through some tiresome posts based on frantic googling.
Stick to your subject matter: living under bridges and eating goats.
davel wrote:
Wade into a discussion you don’t understand, throw some insults around and then declare the other person a troll.
Ok.
Ps
I’m pretty sure I’ve never debated Insurance T&C’s with anyone.
Rich_cb wrote:
You’ve got an opinion, done some shit Google-fu to try to find ANYTHING to support it, keep pulling out new scraps that don’t prove what you’re saying, and you see the inability of people debating against you to outright disprove what you’re saying as somehow supporting your nonsense. And you either don’t get the absurdity of that situation, or don’t care.
You don’t even know what it is that you don’t understand. I remember our debate about insurance Ts&Cs – exactly the same. Zero experience, zero grasp of the subject, blagging your way through some tiresome posts based on frantic googling.
Stick to your subject matter: living under bridges and eating goats.
— Rich_cb Wade into a discussion you don’t understand, throw some insults around and then declare the other person a troll. Ok. Ps I’m pretty sure I’ve never debated Insurance T&C’s with anyone.— davel
I had a debate about insurance with someone on here. Don’t know who.
When they found out some of my work was for insurance companies they suddenly stopped arguing.
Rich_cb wrote:
I assume you mean “the scientific method”? I am curious to know what it is about this that you believe you understand but Davel doesn’t?
ClubSmed wrote:
I’ve seen the terms used interchangeably but yes that is what I mean.
Davel does not understand how to test a hypothesis.
Rich_cb wrote:
Rich, you don’t understand how to test a hypothesis. You have two unrelated graphs showing a very high level trend. As has been demonstrated on here before, this can be done with thousands of things that don’t stand up to scrutiny when questioned. You seem to wish to simply discredit/ignore anything that doesn’t suit your argument; this isn’t testing a hypothesis it is being arrogant and ill-informed.
Rich_cb wrote:
I did explain the difference in the effect on pedestrians and cyclists from mobile phones. I said it was down to the growth of coverage starting in cities and where the majority of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities occur.
You are right, the lack of data does not disprove your hypothesis. What it does mean is that you have no proof to support your hypothesis.
ClubSmed wrote:
You didn’t explain why urban cyclists had failed to benefit at all when their pedestrian counterparts had enjoyed a huge fall in fatalities.
As I’ve said all along proving causation is impossible in this situation.
It doesn’t mean I have no evidence.
Rich_cb wrote:
I did explain why urban cyclists had a slower impact initially, you just choose to ignore it.
I’m not talking about causation yet, just correlation. Unless you are trying to prove that helmets create a magic bubble around the cyclist preventing all types of injury then you have no evidence. Unless you can show that head and neck injury related fatalities for cyclists went down over that period you have nothing.
The way I understand the Scientific Method is that once the hypothesis is formed the corner of the hypothesis goes to collect RELEVANT data to prove the hypothesis. You seem to be under the impression that any data will do and it’s not for you to prove your hypothesis but for others to disprove it.
ClubSmed wrote:
Here’s a picture of the scientific process/method.
As you can see I have collected relevant data from the literature and analysed it for patterns that would support my hypothesis.
The patterns do support the hypothesis.
Rich_cb wrote:
Here’s a picture of the scientific process/method.
As you can see I have collected relevant data from the literature and analysed it for patterns that would support my hypothesis.
The patterns do support the hypothesis.— ClubSmed
The issue is that you have not gathered relevant data because you don’t have corresponding data. This results in you having no patterns or data that support your hypothesis (though you are now claiming it as a theory rather than a hypothesis)
ClubSmed wrote:
Look at the diagram I provided.
Observation: There is a correlation in the UK between increased helmet wearing and decreased cycling fatalities.
Question: Could cycling helmets have been responsible for a fall in cycling fatalities? How would they do this?
Hypothesis: Cycle Helmets reduce deaths (from head injuries).
Testable predictions:
1: Overall injury rate will not fall when helmet use increases as helmets do not prevent accidents.
2: Head injury rates will fall as helmet use increases.
3: Deaths from head injuries will fall.
Data Gathered
Prediction 1: Proved correct
Prediction 2: Proved correct in adults.
Prediction 3: No data available to prove or disprove.
So as you can see I have actually followed the method/process.
Rich_cb wrote:
You are aware that you can do free online statistics courses?
https://www.coursera.org/courses?languages=en&query=statistics
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability
(Yes learning about probability is relevant.)
It’s probably worth you doing one.
That way then you can understand why other posters are pulling your posts apart.
Bluebug wrote:
Good old deflection.
Always there when you haven’t got an argument to make.
Rich_cb wrote:
Is denial and avoidance worse?
Denial as in “I never debated insurance Ts&Cs” 5 months after you did exactly that?
Avoidance as in ignoring the proof (you might want to Google-Fu the shit out of that word –
it’s PROOF) that, actually, you did debate exactly that on this very site 5 months ago.
I think they’re worse. Or evidence of insanity.
davel wrote:
I forgot a couple of posts that occurred 5 months ago.
I think it’s far more worrying that you remembered them to be honest.
Rich_cb wrote:
I forgot a couple of posts that occurred 5 months ago.
I think it’s far more worrying that you remembered them to be honest.— davel
Slightly more than just a couple of posts: it’s the same sort of nonsense as exhibited on here and other threads.
So you’ve either got a dismal memory or are just full of shit.
davel wrote:
I’ve just got better things going on in my life to distract me from silly disagreements on road.cc.
Nice that you remembered it though.
Rich_cb wrote:
Yeah, your posts suggest a well-balanced life.
But I do also copy all your posts into a date-sorted file. So when I read about someone in a helmet and graph-covered Tron suit going postal while raging inaccurately about evidence and hypotheses, I can hand it over to plod. You know, to do my bit.
davel wrote:
It’s good that you have something to keep you occupied I suppose.
Rich_cb wrote:
I’ve just got better things going on in my life to distract me from silly disagreements on road.cc.
Nice that you remembered it though.— davel
I suggest you get on with the better things in your life then, instead of continuing this disagreement on road.cc
Rich_cb wrote:
You are aware that you can do free online statistics courses?
https://www.coursera.org/courses?languages=en&query=statistics
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability
(Yes learning about probability is relevant.)
It’s probably worth you doing one.
That way then you can understand why other posters are pulling your posts apart.
— Rich_cb Good old deflection. Always there when you haven’t got an argument to make.— Bluebug
I was trying to be polite instead of pointing out like the other posters none of the data you have used supports your theories, and your statistical analysis of the data to draw your conclusions is terrible and is related to no modern scientific method taught at GCSE, A level, undergraduate degree level and post graduate degree level at Russell group universities in England and Wales.
Added to that some insurance companies do both basic and refresher courses in statistics for all workers on-site just to avoid people coming out with rubbish in front of customers.
Bluebug wrote:
So point out the actual flaws in my posts.
I’ll save you some time.
At no point have I said that correlation proves causation.
Off you go.
Rich_cb wrote:
It seems pointless me trying to explain why and how you’re wrong, as so many others as well as myself have tried to do in the course of this thread.
If you do not possess the intelligence needed to take on board feedback and adapt with it then so be it.
The next step in the scientific method would be to publish your findings. Why don’t you try those reputed journals that you admire and see how many of them are willing to publish your paper.
Questions:
How many journals would accept Rich_CB’s research methods, analysis and findings?
What will Rich_CB do when the paper is rejected by all?
Hypothesis:
Rich_CB will not have his work taken seriously but that will not change his outlook.
Testable predictions:
Rich_CB’s ‘study’ will not be accepted by any journal (respected or not)
Rich_CB will not accept this as any fault of his data or analysis.
It’s now over to you Rich_CB to gather the data, good luck! I look forward to seeing the results.
ClubSmed wrote:
Good old deflection.
Always there when you don’t have an actual argument.
Rich_cb wrote:
Good old deflection.
Always there when you don’t have an actual argument.— ClubSmed
No, I am just laid up in bed with a very high fever and find it hard to go over the same ground again and again.
Only if helmets are the single factor, have you evidence that helmets are the only factor effecting injury rates?
This does not have to be true for the hypothesis to be correct. It depends on helmet effectiveness on different severity impacts, the number of those types of impacts and how the numbers are moved down the line.
Yes, if the hypothesis is true and the helmets were worn correctly in the environments where the majority of fatalities happen then you would expect to see this impact.
This can not be proved correct unless you prove that there were definitely no factors that should have increased the number of fatalities, like increasing car numbers for example.
I don’t believe that you have shown the data for all head injuries, only for serious (hospital submission) head injuries. With the data I did see you provide, it was disproved due to the sub group of cyclists with the largest decline not having an increased helmet wearing trend. It was also questionable due to the also significant drop in pedestrian head injuries over the same period.
So out of your three testable predictions two were pointless and the other not done due to lack of data.
That’s just my take though, and I’m ill. Send it to the journals and see what they say.
ClubSmed wrote:
Look at the diagram.
See the box that says ‘develop testable predictions’?
‘If my hypothesis is correct then I expect a, b, c…’
That’s what I’ve done.
The data is behaving as expected if helmets were reducing deaths from head injury.
They don’t have to be the only factor for that to be true.
The comparison with pedestrians helps to eliminate the effect of shared factors.
So there is evidence for a cyclist specific factor that reduces head injuries.
There is also evidence that during the time said factor was observed there was no change in the overall injury rate.
That evidence is exactly what you would expect to find if helmets were reducing head injuries.
If you correct the paediatric head injury data for participation rate then the difference between pedestrians and cyclists disappears.
The difference in adults is maintained.
This is further evidence in favour of my hypothesis.
Rich_cb wrote:
This is exactly what I was talking about, you can’t see the faults even when they are pointed out to you several times, by several different posters from differing helmet debate standpoints. Not one single person has come forward to support your workings out, many on this site believe in your hypothesis but no-one has agreed with your workings, does that not tell you anything?
I’ve done my best to show you the errors but as you won’t listen, I am thinking that you are a lost cause. If you are so convinced by the accuracy of your process, data, analysis and conclusions then go try and get it published, as I previously suggested, and let us know what happens.
ClubSmed wrote:
The argument I’ve put across is pretty much the exact same one as proposed in the BMJ article I linked to.
Maybe you and all the other experts on this thread should write to the BMJ and alert them to their error?
Rich_cb wrote:
We don’t need to, the BMJ are already aware of the errors in the paper. Some of those I have already detailed, another key one is:
“The main conclusion of Cook and Sheikh, that a bicycle helmet prevents 60% of head injuries, is incorrect due to a fundamental error in the way they have treated their percentages. A correct analysis demonstrates unequivocally that there must be major confounding factors in their data set that they have failed to take into account, and therefore any estimate of helmet effectiveness is purely speculative.
Assuming that their basic analysis of the data is correct (although the numbers they quote in the text do not actually appear to match the figure plotted), they arrive at a figure of a 3.6% for the reduction in the head injury (HI) rate for cyclists, over and above the “background” reduction that pedestrians have also seen. They assume that this drop in HI is due to increased helmet-wearing. However, this reduction is presented in terms of the number of percentage points, and relative to the baseline value of 27.9% HI for cyclists in 1995-6 it actually represents a 3.6/27.9 = 13% drop in the HI rate.
The decrease in the number of helmetless cyclists over the same interval is 5.8 percentage points from a baseline of 84% unhelmeted, giving the percentage drop as 5.8/84 = 7%. Cook and Sheikh calculate helmet effectiveness to be given by the ratio 3.6/5.8 = 60%. However the correct expression to use is 13/7 = 186%. In other words, “helmet effectiveness” is so high that each helmet does not just save its wearer, but a non-wearer too. At this rate, head injuries would be eliminated completely if just a little over half of all cyclists wore them! This is clearly ludicrous.
A more reasonable conclusion to draw from this would be that there are some other factors that are responsible for the large drop in HI rate, and therefore any attempt to attribute some part of the total 30% (8.49/27.9) change to the provably marginal impact of a very small number of extra helmet wearers is at best highly speculative and fraught with inaccuracy.”
The authors subsequently admitted to their mathematical error.
ClubSmed wrote:
That’s an error based on the failure to correct for the decline in the rate of cycling amongst children which I’ve already mentioned.
It’s not an error with calculating the difference between adult pedestrian and cyclist head injury rates which is what I referred to in my post detailing testing the hypothesis.
If you correct the data for participation rates you get a smaller overall benefit but one that actually mathematically makes sense.
It is also actually stronger evidence in favour of helmets having a benefit as once corrected you no longer see a larger benefit in the group that did not increase their wearing rate.
Rich_cb wrote:
Where’s the ‘start with ideology and scratch around Google for shitty data’ bit?
You don’t test your hypothesis by stretching data that was compiled to do something different.
Your behaviour in this thread and others bears zero relationship to that diagram. Do you understand that? It isn’t the process or that diagram that has the issue, it’s you thinking that attempting to bend Google to fit your ideology is anything approaching scientific – that’s the fucked-up bit. You’ve spent a lot of time on this: you could have done your own research by now.
“I’m pretty sure I’ve never debated Insurance T&C’s with anyone.”
Here’s your warbling on insurance from all of 5 months ago: http://road.cc/content/news/226380-cycling-abroad-and-relying-nationwide-travel-insurance-youll-need-wear-helmet-or#comments
You had a bang on the head or something?
ClubSmed wrote:
Fair play Smeds: I’ve called you wardenny before but this made me properly crease up (Rich_cb’s response made me chuckle too, but with the caveat that he was working from tidy material).
Chapeau.
ClubSmed wrote:
Time for the 300+ post update amendment:
Rich_CB: As nobody can prove my hypothesis wrong then it must be right!
Other Thread posters: That’s not how it works, stop abusing science
Rich_CB: ‘The Scientific Process’ is clearly another thing I know everything about and you know nothing
Other Thread posters: You mean ‘The Scientific METHOD’?
Rich_CB: Same thing, anyway here is a graphic from Wikipedia to prove that I know what I am talking about.
Other Thread posters: Uh, OK?!?!
Rich_CB: And here are all my thoughts and data and how they fit the model
Other Thread posters: Why can’t you see that if everyone else is saying that you are wrong (from both sides of the helmet debate), then you should take another look?
Rich_CB: The fact that posters here are resorting to insults means that I am right!
Other Thread posters: You clearly aren’t learning anything here. The next step is to publish your results, why don’t you see if one of the journals will do that?
Rich_CB: Classic deflection when you have no argument!
Other Thread posters: No argument, what have the last 300 posts been about?
Rich_CB: My thoughts fit perfectly into the framework from Wikipedia so I win!
Other Thread posters: Your thoughts do not fit the scientific model, that was such a crude attempt. The only question that does support your hypothesis is the one you have no data for
Rich_CB: Then the BMJ should be informed as my paper is pretty much the same as theirs
Other Thread posters: So you are now admitting no fresh ideas only plagiarism? Anyway, the BMJ are already aware of the issues including the gaping mathematical error.
234 comments?? wtf….let it
234 comments?? wtf….let it lie!
Plasterer’s Radio wrote:
Above everything, do not do this.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
davel wrote:
Are you suggesting it was increased use of lights because I think it’s disc brakes. I’m not even sure helmets exist, well with the exception of one…
So, anybody got any thoughts
So, anybody got any thoughts on Brexit?
hawkinspeter wrote:
I wore my helmet while in the referendum booth. Look what happened there….
Just gonna chuck this hand
Just gonna chuck this hand grenade into the middle…and walk away…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-hampshire-42345928/girl-says-cycle-helmets-should-be-compulsory
My view…if anyone still gives a shit: The evidence can be manipulated to suit all arguments, but even if the evidence was clear one way or the other, I would still wear one, and I would defend the rights of others not to wear one.
KendalRed wrote:
Annoyingly, this is the level that the BBC stoops to in its never-ending campaign against cycling and cyclists. A 12 year old girl is their expert on road safety and compulsory helmet wearing? FFS if there’s strong evidence to support the efficacy of helmets, then show it (and I don’t mean weak ass graphs just possibly showing a correlation).
I hate the BBC sometimes.
There’s something rotten in
There’s something rotten in Hampshire.
I wonder what would have
I wonder what would have happened if the goats had been wearing helmets?
Rich CB here’s some data for
Rich CB here’s some data for you:
2005: 25% of men and 23% of women smoked
2010: 21% of men and 20% of women smoked
2005: 77.9 people per hundred thousand had an incidence of lung cancer
2010: 79.4 people per hundred thousand had an incidence of lung cancer
Hypothesis:
Quitting smoking causes cancer.
alansmurphy wrote:
Test the hypothesis by looking at lung cancer rates amongst those who quit smoking and those who continue to smoke.
Lung cancer rates are higher among those who continue to smoke.
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/85/6/457/891320
Hypothesis disproved.
Rich_cb wrote:
Rich CB here’s some data for you:
2005: 25% of men and 23% of women smoked
2010: 21% of men and 20% of women smoked
2005: 77.9 people per hundred thousand had an incidence of lung cancer
2010: 79.4 people per hundred thousand had an incidence of lung cancer
Hypothesis:
Quitting smoking causes cancer.
— Rich_cb Test the hypothesis by looking at lung cancer rates amongst those who quit smoking and those who continue to smoke. Lung cancer rates are higher among those who continue to smoke. https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/85/6/457/891320 Hypothesis disproved.— alansmurphy
That data you refer to is from 1993, mine was 2005-2010. You are wrong, my hypothesis is still correct.
alansmurphy wrote:
Your hypothesis does not mention the date.
Rich_cb wrote:
Neither did yours, just the graphs that you presented
Rich_cb wrote:
Hypothesis:
Quitting smoking causes cancer.
That data you refer to is from 1993, mine was 2005-2010. You are wrong, my hypothesis is still correct.
— Rich_cb Your hypothesis does not mention the date.— alansmurphy
You’re right, apologies, there was no clue in what I presented as in your world 1993 could quite possibly have come after the years 2005 or 2010…
alansmurphy wrote:
Rich CB here’s some data for you:
2005: 25% of men and 23% of women smoked
2010: 21% of men and 20% of women smoked
2005: 77.9 people per hundred thousand had an incidence of lung cancer
2010: 79.4 people per hundred thousand had an incidence of lung cancer
Hypothesis:
Quitting smoking causes cancer.
alansmurphy wrote:
No mention of the date in your hypothesis.
Rich_cb wrote:
Nor in yours you fucking prick!
alansmurphy wrote:
Nor in yours you fucking prick!— alansmurphy
Now now children.
My hypothesis doesn’t need a date.
If your hypothesis relates to a specific period in time then it does.
Not too complicated.
Rich_cb wrote:
Nor in yours you fucking prick!— Rich_cb
Now now children.
My hypothesis doesn’t need a date.
If your hypothesis relates to a specific period in time then it does.
Not too complicated.— alansmurphy
Well now you’ve stitched yourself up a few times. Firstly, how many cyclists were killed by serious head injuries in, oooh let’s just say, before the motor car compared to now?
Secondly, where in your diagram did it say ‘develop and test a hypothesis stating dates’?
Thirdly, about 150 posts ago, you refused a challenge to your hypothesis as the dates didn’t match your data, in contradicting my VERY simple data set you’re too stupid to realise you’d have needed a time machine.
I previously found you a little stubborn, unable to accept that your ‘fact’ was an opinion with a little belief thrown in. The more you post the more you seem arrogant and moronic, are you an MP?
alansmurphy wrote:
You don’t understand this at all do you?
Rich_cb wrote:
You don’t understand this at all do you?— alansmurphy
Sometimes, maybe, when everyone else in the ‘room’ says that you are wrong, take a look in the mirror!
alansmurphy wrote:
He will argue the toss over anything that supports this argument, or flashing lights, or bright colours. It’s exactly what he accuses BTBS of.
That insurance thread I linked to (the one from 5 months ago that Richie couldn’t remember, probably because it didn’t suit his argument at that very point) – he knew how financial product management worked then, due to him never having worked in financial product management, but having actuarial mates, or something.
It’s exactly the same as me knowing a couple of professional rugby players pretty much makes me a professional rugby player.
If 5 months ago, I was pretty much a professional rugby player, and today, I couldn’t remember being pretty much a professional rugby player; if someone told me I was either mentally ill, or a trolly gobshite who argued the toss about so many topics I couldn’t remember what I’d made up 5 months ago, I’d probably be a bit concerned and maybe agree. But if you’re actually mentally ill or a trolly gobshite, I suppose you just keep arguing the toss over the topic du jour.
That he won’t (or will pretend not to) remember this in 5 months tells me all I need to know.
davel wrote:
He will argue the toss over anything that supports this argument, or flashing lights, or bright colours. It’s exactly what he accuses BTBS of.
That insurance thread I linked to (the one from 5 months ago that Richie couldn’t remember, probably because it didn’t suit his argument at that very point) – he knew how financial product management worked then, due to him never having worked in financial product management, but having actuarial mates, or something.— alansmurphy
To be fair in this case it is different as he doesn’t need to work in the area, as there is absolutely nothing stopping him getting the articles he linked to and re-analysing the methodology and data himself.
He may have an issue because he doesn’t have the raw data but if he started by simply looking at the methodology the researchers used to collect their data, then he could understand some of the faults with the research. This basic technique is actually taught at GCSE level statistics, while at degree level a statistical re-analyst of existing data is something that many degree students in different disciplines do as part of their projects/dissertations.
Instead he decided he would just parrot bits of the articles to try and suit his theories, or hypothesis as he now calls it, he was trying to make.
Bluebug wrote:
I did critique the methodology.
That’s why I mentioned correcting for the participation rate.
I’m still waiting for you to point out the huge number of statistical errors I’ve made.
Quick reminder:
I’ve never said correlation proves causation.
OK. let’s try this another
OK. let’s try this another way.
Your Hypothesis is:
You have stated that:
The hypothesis quite clearly states a belief that cycle helmets cause a reduction in fatalities from head injuries. The only data you have presented is related to correlation (and none of those being cyclist death rates from head injuries) so therefore, following your own comments and logic, we can agree that the results of your ‘study’ have to be labeled as inconclusive.
ClubSmed wrote:
I’m pretty sure (Davel will hopefully confirm) that a few hundred posts ago I said that I couldn’t prove the hypothesis with the data available.
Without further large scale research or access to data about the cause of death for all cycling fatalities we will never be able to prove the hypothesis.
The challenge has therefore been to test the hypothesis as far as possible with the available data.
The data I’ve presented fits the expected pattern if the causative factor(s) were protective equipment.
The data also indicates a specific factor reducing the risk of head injury for adult cyclists.
Do the data patterns prove that helmets are that factor?
No.
There could be other cyclist specific factors at work alongside helmets or there could be a combination of factors that don’t include helmets.
Whatever the factor(s) is/are we would expect to see a strong correlation in time with the decline in fatalities and head injuries.
Increased helmet use does correlate exactly with the decline but I’m sure other things do too, possibly including sharks, ice cream sales and smoking cessation.
Rich_cb wrote:
No.
There could be other cyclist specific factors at work alongside helmets or there could be a combination of factors that don’t include helmets.
Whatever the factor(s) is/are we would expect to see a strong correlation in time with the decline in fatalities and head injuries. Increased helmet use does correlate exactly with the decline but I’m sure other things do too, possibly including sharks, ice cream sales and smoking cessation.— Rich_cb
OMG I think he finally agrees with everyone else.
I’ve fixed the one flaw: A small increase in helmet use does correlate roughly with the larger decline (see earlier post quoting from peer review of BMJ study as to why this is unsafe to draw any conclusions from).
CygnusX1 wrote:
The decline in fatalities and serious head injuries occurred at the exact same time as the rise in helmet use.
The correlation is exact.
You can’t draw conclusions about the magnitude of effect without proving causation.
Rich_cb wrote:
No.
There could be other cyclist specific factors at work alongside helmets or there could be a combination of factors that don’t include helmets.
Whatever the factor(s) is/are we would expect to see a strong correlation in time with the decline in fatalities and head injuries. Increased helmet use does correlate exactly with the decline but I’m sure other things do too, possibly including sharks, ice cream sales and smoking cessation.— Rich_cb
OMG I think he finally agrees with everyone else.
I’ve fixed the one flaw: A small increase in helmet use does correlate roughly with the larger decline (see earlier post quoting from peer review of BMJ study as to why this is unsafe to draw any conclusions from).
— CygnusX1 The decline in fatalities and serious head injuries occurred at the exact same time as the rise in helmet use. The correlation is exact. You can’t draw conclusions about the magnitude of effect without proving causation.— Rich_cb
So you have a correlation in one case. You haven’t controlled for any possible confounding variables, as you just have one dataset, in one place at one time with one set of conditions. You can’t control for anything because you only have the one, strongly-contaminated, real-world dataset.
You can’t say what would have happened had helmet use not increased, still less what might have happened had there been wider social and legal changes that might-or-might-not be helped or hindered by a helmet-promoting culture.
What’s the point supposed to be, here? I zoned-out during the last few pages of toing-and-froing so don’t know what point you are trying to make.
In general it seems to me there is a big problem with drawing conclusions from ‘case studies’ when you have no ability to perform a controlled trial. As I think I said already, that’s why we keep getting these dodgy stories (that the Daily Mail particularly loves) about this-or-that causing-or-preventing cancer.
To really say anything convincing without a controlled experiment you need a lot of repeated cases, across different conditions, not just one graph and dataset.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
So you have a correlation in one case. You haven’t controlled for any possible confounding variables, as you just have one dataset, in one place at one time with one set of conditions. You can’t control for anything because you only have the one, strongly-contaminated, real-world dataset.
You can’t say what would have happened had helmet use not increased, still less what might have happened had there been wider social and legal changes that might-or-might-not be helped or hindered by a helmet-promoting culture.
What’s the point supposed to be, here? I zoned-out during the last few pages of toing-and-froing so don’t know what point you are trying to make.
In general it seems to me there is a big problem with drawing conclusions from ‘case studies’ when you have no ability to perform a controlled trial. As I think I said already, that’s why we keep getting these dodgy stories (that the Daily Mail particularly loves) about this-or-that causing-or-preventing cancer.
To really say anything convincing without a controlled experiment you need a lot of repeated cases, across different conditions, not just one graph and dataset.— Rich_cb
You were right to zone out.
He’s still trying to make the same point.
Bluebug wrote:
He’s also still waiting for your statistical critique.
Rich_cb wrote:
I doubt it would sway you even if it came from the emeritus professor of statistics @ Oxford / Cambridge / Yale / Harvard, anyway.
But it’s my last day in the office this year, things are quiet and although I should be working on finalising the architecture of an advanced analytics workbench (R, Python etc.) capability on a Hadoop big data platform for my esteemed data scientist and actuarial colleagues to use in the new year, I’ll bite.
Sorry folks, but its…
(more follows)
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Increasing helmet use is correlated with decreasing fatalities, decreasing serious injuries, decreasing serious head injuries.
In these sort of situations you usually can’t do a randomised controlled trial or a cohort study as the numbers involved are far too small so the studies would have to be enormous.
Approximately 100 deaths a year in a population of about 55 million (NI is not included in the stats).
Case control studies are probably your best bet and even then you have to make some compromises.
When comparing adult cyclists to adult pedestrians you do see a larger decrease in the head injury rate for cyclists.
This indicates a cyclist specific factor.
There is more than correlation at play here but given the limitations mentioned causation is almost impossible to prove.
Rich_cb wrote:
Let’s be clear, when you say correlation, what you actually mean is “fairly similar overall general trend”. There is not any direct correlation for example for the spike in cyclist fatalities in 2002 (that does not return to the same level until 2008) with the trend in cycle helmet wearing rates.
I also don’t recall seeing the data about the decreasing serious injuries, I remember it being either static or increasing slightly (but I am still off with a temperature, so could be mistaken).
As for decreasing serious head injuries, there was a significant decrease amongst pedestrians too, the largest decrease was amongst child cyclists who did not show any increase in helmet wearing rates. So no definitive correlation here
ClubSmed wrote:
We’ve covered the child cyclist data.
Correct for participation rates and the difference between the decline in pedestrian and cyclist rates disappears for children but not for adults.
The correlation doesn’t have to continue indefinitely to be correct.
A new factor could easily have become significant at that time. The fact that both pedestrian and cyclist rates plateau and then decline again simultaneously indicates a shared factor like traffic increasing or mobile phone ownership (correlation is not causation).
The KSI rates followed pretty much the exact same pattern as the fatality rates.
Rich_cb wrote:
Like the forming of one direction or the launch of the iPhone?
This is where you don’t need the cleverer people on this board to prove you an idiot, I can do it. You are finding a piece of data that doesn’t meet your desired result and openly just throwing out ‘a new factor’ whereas everything else is helmet.
How can you prove the other things weren’t due to infrastructure and the anomalies be helmet related, or blue cars or Santa or sharks?
Rich_cb wrote:
The fact that you can’t do good studies, doesn’t make the bad ones any more convincing. Believing that it does seems to be the main fallacy you are perpetrating here.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
The fact you can’t realistically do gold standard studies doesn’t mean you shouldn’t examine the evidence at all.
All I’ve done is present the evidence available.
The evidence suggests an adult cyclist specific factor that is reducing head injuries.
Rich_cb wrote:
You can, you just need to use the word “if” to clarify that it is not a fact and purely based on a supposition
alansmurphy wrote:
If the people arguing against you are Alansmurphy and Davel you should take it as a sign you’re probably right.
You’ve both demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of this yet are convinced that you are correct.
Davel is even arguing against linking to evidence during a debate.
When your glaring errors are pointed out you both just resort to insults.
It’s completely pathetic.
Rich_cb wrote:
The thing is that it is not just two posters arguing against you, and no-one is arguing for you.
The two posters you have singled out are a good representation though as one is pro-helmets, the other anti. So because of this you can remove the possible debate bias issue. AlanSMurphy is not the only pro-helmet poster on this thread, many have posted comments reflecting support of helmet, but none have posted comments supporting your use of data being correct.
Can you really not see that this statement more describes yourself than others?
What? I do not understand what you are getting at here?
That’s rich coming from, well Rich
Rich_cb wrote:
Not sure who reverted to insults first, but don’t kid yourself that you don’t do it via your passive-aggressive nonsense like actually typing ‘yawn’ onto a forum page.
I tend not to call people trolls unless they’re being trolly.
When I exhibit a complete lack of understanding of something, I tend to either preface the shit I’m about to post, or accept correction from someone who knows more about a topic than I do. You should try that.
What I tend not to do is just carry on having a row then deny it happened a few months down the line, then when reminded of it, with proof, make out like it’s somehow the other person’s fault for remembering it.
That’s the behaviour of a fucking troll. Ergo, Rich_cb is a fucking troll. There would be other erroneous conclusions to make, such as: all trolls are Rich_cb, or trolls only exhibit that sort of behaviour. Feel free to jump to any other incorrect conclusion, but the one I’m happy with is that you’re a fucking troll.
The graph, if you can picture it, has ‘Rich_cbness’ as one axis, and ‘trollness’ as the other, and they are directly proportional.
HTH
davel wrote:
Not sure who reverted to insults first, but don’t kid yourself that you don’t do it via your passive-aggressive nonsense like actually typing ‘yawn’ onto a forum page.
HTH— alansmurphy
I think it was me, I called him a c**t for which I later apologised. I regret that…
Apology.
alansmurphy wrote:
Not sure who reverted to insults first, but don’t kid yourself that you don’t do it via your passive-aggressive nonsense like actually typing ‘yawn’ onto a forum page.
HTH
— Rich_cb I think it was me, I called him a c**t for which I later apologised. I regret that… Apology.— alansmurphy
You shouldn’t apologise, there’s a graph that proves he’s a clueless c**t, sorry make that hypothesis based on the number of clueless posts and deliberately acting like a cunt. I think my data is sound.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I can only assume you’re off the scale on both counts.
Learnt the difference between absolute and relative risk yet?
Rich_cb wrote:
Not sure who reverted to insults first, but don’t kid yourself that you don’t do it via your passive-aggressive nonsense like actually typing ‘yawn’ onto a forum page.
HTH
— alansmurphy I think it was me, I called him a c**t for which I later apologised. I regret that… Apology.— davel
You shouldn’t apologise, there’s a graph that proves he’s a clueless c**t, sorry make that hypothesis based on the number of clueless posts and deliberately acting like a cunt. I think my data is sound.
— Rich_cb I can only assume you’re off the scale on both counts. Learnt the difference between absolute and relative risk yet?— alansmurphy
If you aint got a graph or a published paper then you’re wrong, I have a graph that proves my point, that’s how it works for proof in your la la land, ergo my hypothesis is valid according to your rules/way of thinking. You truly are a delusional dipshit.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I can only assume you’re off the scale on both counts. Learnt the difference between absolute and relative risk yet?— Rich_cb
If you aint got a graph or a published paper then you’re wrong, I have a graph that proves my point, that’s how it works for proof in your la la land, ergo my hypothesis is valid according to your rules/way of thinking. You truly are a delusional dipshit.— alansmurphy
I’ll take that as a no.
alansmurphy wrote:
That’s just brillant!!
I’m going to use your example whenever I have to explain statistics to anyone.
Has anyone won yet?
Has anyone won yet?
don simon wrote:
I hope not, I was waiting for the 300+ posts round-up to catch up on the argument
CygnusX1 wrote:
I hope not, I was waiting for the 300+ posts round-up to catch up on the argument— don simon
What was the question?
What is a question?
Can you prove it?
42
42
Can we have an end to this madness now, please?
You failed with the gathering
You failed with the gathering of data as you have used data that separately tests 2 areas of your hypothesis without linking.
Same as mine below with smoking and cancer.
Follow that around your little diagram and it’s as valid, if not moreso than yours!
alansmurphy wrote:
You’ve got a correlation and a hypothesis.
You haven’t tested your hypothesis at all.
The test that I did disproved it so you’ve now altered your hypothesis to be date specific.
You still haven’t tested your new date specific hypothesis.
Rich_cb wrote:
er no. Hypothesis is that quitting smoking causes cancer, data over a 5 year period shows that as the number who smoke declines the number suffering an incidence of cancer rises. Simple, like you!
Your challenging of this is even amateur!
alansmurphy wrote:
Go and look at the little diagram I posted.
Try and understand it.
.
.
.
.
_
_
(No subject)
off the fucking scale
off the fucking scale
Meanwhile in a civilised
Meanwhile in a civilised society, one that Rich_cb would be having graph(ic) nightmares over https://vimeo.com/246432864
(No subject)
Rich_cb [488 posts] 37 min
Rich_cb [488 posts] 37 min ago 0 likes
ClubSmed wrote:
It seems pointless me trying to explain why and how you’re wrong, as so many others as well as myself have tried to do in the course of this thread.
If you do not possess the intelligence needed to take on board feedback and adapt with it then so be it.
The next step in the scientific method would be to publish your findings. Why don’t you try those reputed journals that you admire and see how many of them are willing to publish your paper.
Questions:
How many journals would accept Rich_CB’s research methods, analysis and findings?
What will Rich_CB do when the paper is rejected by all?
Hypothesis:
Rich_CB will not have his work taken seriously but that will not change his outlook.
Testable predictions:
Rich_CB’s ‘study’ will not be accepted by any journal (respected or not)
Rich_CB will not accept this as any fault of his data or analysis.
It’s now over to you Rich_CB to gather the data, good luck! I look forward to seeing the results.
Good old deflection.
Always there when you don’t have an actual argument.
No argument??!!
What’s with the 297 posts then? Just for a laugh?
I don’t know which thread is funnier, this or the Raceview Cycles one.
Well, that was a stupid goal
Well, that was a stupid goal to give away…
#WBAMUN
300. THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!
300. THIS IS SPARTA!!!!!
(No subject)
.
.
It’s because he’s a moron.
It’s because he’s a moron.
As said below, I am ‘pro helmet’s, well I wear one and it helped me in a collision. Rich doesn’t even need to make an argument; people have choice and can make a judgement. The bigger pictures are:
1. The focus on helmets takes away from the piss poor infrastructure and driving standards
2. Rich’s understanding of data is laughable!
(No subject)
Okay, can we all get together
Okay, can we all get together like reasonable adults and agree on just ONE thing?
The person who makes the 500th post wins.
(No subject)
I think Rich conceded he is
I think Rich conceded he is wrong which suggests we won’t hit the 500 post mark, shame that.
As an aside, I think disc brakes should be made mandatory…
You’ve just said you don’t
You’ve just said you don’t have a statistically valid sample, what is there to critique?
Come on, just 150 more
Come on, just 150 more comments and we’re there.
No
No
I shall not be involved in
I shall not be involved in this
alansmurphy wrote:
You are already involved.
You can’t hide now.
Bluebug wrote:
You are already involved.
You can’t hide now.— alansmurphy
.
.
What would you say to a cup?
What would you say to a cup?
.
.
I refuse to be drawn into
I refuse to be drawn into commenting just for the sake of it.
Here we go…
Here we go…
OMG is this still going??? –
OMG is this still going??? – 349 comments and counting…
brooksby wrote:
Yep. It is quite funny.
.
.
.
.
The Case of Crown vs Brick
[b]The Case of Crown vs Brick Wall[/b]
[hr]
[b]The Charge:[/b] Gross negligence of personal safety and endangerment to motorised traffic
[b]The Accused:[/b] Any cyclist who chooses not to wear a helmet, or argues that other cyclists should be free to choose – Since there’s not enough room for them all, we’ll put BTBS in the dock as the most helmet-sceptical of the road.cc commenters.
[b]The Judge: [/b] The Hon. Mr. Rich_cb
[b]The Jury: [/b] 12 good Rich_cb’s and true
[b]Counsel for the prosecution:[/b] Rich_cb QC
[b]The prosecution expert witnesses:[/b] Rich_cb, Rich_cb & Rich_cb
[b]The defence team:[/b] davel, ClubSmed, BlueBug, alansmurphy etc. etc.
[b]The hecklers in the public gallery:[/b] hawkinspeter and Don Simon (are there any more circular argument gifs left out in the interweb?)
[b]Evidence so far submitted do the court:[/b]
Exhibit A. Percentage cycle helmet wear on UK major roads (1994 – 2008)
Exhibit B. Cyclist & Pedestrian deaths per million km (1980 – 2008)
Exhibit C. Some other graph to do with head injury rates that got wheeled out that I can’t be arsed to hunt down in the hundreds of posts.
Exhibits D to W: Various charts showing a correlation between cyclist deaths/casualties and miscellaneous other statistics (mobile phone use, LED lighting, age of Miss America, sharks, ice cream) — all ruled as inadmissible by the judge presiding (Yawn!)
[b]Transcript of the case arguments thus far:[/b] Read through the 350 or so post prior to this one, or, look for the abridged version by ClubSmed in the low 300s.
But let’s go back to the opening statements for the defence and prosecution (my emphasis):
This argument is central to the prosecution’s case – it’s the same argument Rich_cb used on an earlier (thankfully much shorter thread):
You’ve just failed to interpret the graph correctly.
The pedestrian rate starts falling earlier and approaches parity in the early 90s.
From 1995 onwards the [b]cycling rate starts to fall faster[/b] than the pedestrian rate.
So there is [b]clearly a cycling specific factor[/b] that becomes significant after 1995.
The pattern [b]fits perfectly[/b] with the increasing use of helmets disproving the initial point I was replying to.— Rich_cb
http://road.cc/content/news/233754-cycling-uk-urges-%E2%80%9Cstop-making-cycling-school-difficult%E2%80%9D
(again my emphasis, not Rich_cb’s).
So here’s my critique… (follows)
CygnusX1 wrote:
FFS. It’s obvious this is the wrong approach. Rich_cb is a witch and any fool can prove it. Throw him in front of a car with his helmet. If he survives without appreciable damage (although it seems it will be hard to measure the functioning of his/her brain) then s/he is a witch. If s/he doesn’t then s/he is innocent.
Also have you considered the Rich_cb i may actually be a clever TensorFlow project trained up on all the years of helmet drivel comments?
Let’s start with Exhibit A
Let’s start with [b]Exhibit A[/b]
1. This is a line graph, however it’s quite clear that it shows a linear increasing trend (except for children). So far, no controversy.
2. The data is only for “major built up roads” – how are these defined? Is it safe to assume similar increase in helmet use on other road types? (Hint: no).
3. How was the data gathered? Was the sample size statistically significant?
None of this is new – these things have been pointed out before.
FFS!
FFS!
Who is trying to convince who, of what?
Now moving on to Exhibit B
Now moving on to [b]Exhibit B[/b]
1. This is another line graph (joining dot to dot) with time-series for both pedestrians and cyclists. Unlike the helmet wear graph (Ex. A) the data is quite “noisy”
2. The y-axis is Deaths per Billion km – there are two measures here combined:
a) Deaths (by road user type)
b) Total journey distance (by road user type)
3. Deaths – taken from police/coroner reports – will be accurate reflection of a sad reality, but these numbers will fluctuate due to a myriad of factors (weather, location, emergency medical response times, etc).
4. Total distance travelled by road user type – this has to be an estimate for both pedestrians and cyclists (unless the goverment has microchipped us all and can track our every movement – one for another Illuminati style thread). Motorised vehicular travel figures are likely to be more accurate – MOT tests record the odometer readings so the difference from year to year can be determined and aggregated up with similar vehicle types.
5. So how are the estimated travel distances for cyclists and peds determined? Are they based on safe assumptions? Are the sample datsets sufficient? Do they account for differences due to particularly inclement weather one year versus another , economic factors (walking/cycling because cheaper than car or public transport)?
6. Even if we accept at face value that the travel distance estimates are pretty accurate, they are still a guess and add more uncertainty into where the points on the chart should be – ideally we should be looking at a scatter plot with error bars, not this oversimplified graph…
Now for the assertion that
Now for the assertion that there is a perfect correlation between the two datasets…
Leaving aside the fact that A shows helmet use on one type of road, whereas B shows death rates for all types of injury (TBI or crushing under a lorry) on all types of road, and there’s nothing to indicatethe % kms are by helmet wearers {SHARKS AND ICE CREAM!!!!]
Graph A starts in 1994 yet we are to look for a rapid decline from the high of 1995 – thats hardly perfect is it? Lets at least look at a trend including the ’94 data points.
Since they are a “perfect correlation” and A is a linear trend, let’s try and “smooth” the data by drawing in a “line of best fit” (statisticians would do this more accurately by linear regression techniques, I’ve done it by eye like a secondary school student).
I present [b]Exhibit X[/b]
Oh, but that trend line shows
Oh, but that trend line shows the cycling mortality rate drops of less steeply than that of pedestrians – but there is clearly a cycling specific factor at play here according to Rich_cb so that means increased helmet wear has actually slowed the decline in cycling mortality?
Bloody hell
Bloody hell
Of course, we should be
Of course, we should be trying to fit our trend line to the entire datset not just cherry picking the bit that fits our pre-defined ideas. I give you [b]Exhibit Y[/b]
If you don’t get membership
If you don’t get membership for this, there is no god.*
* maybe save that for another thread?
Personally, I’m not sure it
Personally, I’m not sure it is a linear trend – it looks more like a curve to me. Ideally. I’d use a non-linear regression technique on a control dataset (maybe the death rate for all road user types) and then test that against the figures for each of the different road user types.
My suspision is that such a model would fit each road user type pretty well – indicate whatever the factors affecting the falling mortality rate is, any cycling specific factor is likely tonegligable.
I can’t be arsed to test this hypothesis properly, so I will draw in the curve by eye (still more scientific than Rich_cb’s approach). I present to the court [b]Exhibit Z[/b]
I could go on, but I’m afraid
I could go on, but I’m afraid that might lead to Don Simon slashing his wrists in despair.
I will finish with my closing statement to the court: in the case of Crown versus Brick Wall, would Your Honour please now STFU? Otherwise we’re all going to have to bang our crowns, temples and any other point on our skull against a brick wall repeatedly* for some light relief.
* Up to each person whether or not they wear a helmet to do so.
/shitposting
CygnusX1 wrote:
I do admire the effort with the graphs but the debate moved on quite a bit from there.
Our interpretations of the graph are different, personally I think the cyclist rate is simply varying around 50 until 1995 when it begins to drop sharply.
The pedestrian rate is likewise static until 1990 before falling sharply.
On my interpretation that would indicate specific factors at play.
Obviously if you interpret it differently you will reach a different conclusion.
The paper I linked to analysed head injury rates for cyclists and pedestrians and showed a greater decline in head injuries for cyclists than pedestrians.
The authors failed to correct the data for activity rates so their conclusions were flawed but if you do the correction adult cyclists have a greater decline in head injuries than adult pedestrians whilst child cyclists and pedestrians show a similar decline.
That is evidence of a cyclist specific factor which would support my interpretation of the graphs.
Rich_cb wrote:
Are you saying that helmets had no influence until 1995?
ClubSmed wrote:
We don’t know what the trend in helmet use was for that period.
If the helmet wearing rate was static then there could have been an effect from the helmets but no change year on year as the effect would have been constant.
Rich_cb wrote:
You have never presented these figures showing your corrective methods
Let me see, how does it go
Let me see, how does it go again? ah, yes…
Yawn.
You’re interpreting the graph incorrectly.
* goes to headbang a wall *
CygnusX1 wrote:
You can ignore the graphs altogether and the argument remains the same.
There is other evidence for a cycling specific factor.
…
…
Rich, are you Haley Joel
Rich, are you Haley Joel Osment?
Other evidence? You haven’t
Other evidence? You haven’t presented evidence. You are starting to question your own ‘evidence’ yet clinging on to your blind faith.
Here you go, I’ll help. I have a sample of one, me. Wearing a helmet when I hit a big metal pole, I believe, reduced the head injuries I did suffer compared to what I would. I choose to wear a helmet for a ‘proper ride’.
There are counter arguments and I’ll happily hear them (including increased head circumference meaning I may have missed the pole with my head).
I am not arguing the possibility that helmet use could save lives, I’m arguing your terrible methodology. Furthermore, I’ll argue mandatory and any victim blaming culture derived from horse shit elements!
this thread has crashed my
this thread has crashed my brain – now I have to wear a helmet permanently just to stop it leaking out of my head holes!
edit; and yes, it’s definitely causal, not just a correlation!
God bless us, every one!
Flying Spaghetti Monster bless us, every one!
davel wrote:
Ramen to that!
CygnusX1 wrote:
Flying Spaghetti Monster bless us, every one!
— CygnusX1 Ramen to that!— davel
From my memory (I used to be affiliated with the Pastafarians) there’s an interesting little graph that they often use. Maybe it deserves to be included here:
hawkinspeter wrote:
I think that increase is (possibly) connected to the Curse of Greyface, proposed by the Discordians… I don’t know if that’s a genuine correlation or causation, mind.
brooksby wrote:
Discordians? What a bunch of slackers!
hawkinspeter wrote:
fnord
brooksby wrote:
The quality of mercy is not strained,
it droppeth as a gentle rain from heaven above…
.
.
hawkinspeter wrote:
technically, those are conditions – I think we’ve established that any definitive causal links cannot be proven
.
.
If the comments reach 400
If the comments reach 400 will the Internet explode??
One can only hope.
One can only hope.
400th post spot prize!
400th post spot prize!
.
Nope
(No subject)
I go away for 24 hours and
I go away for 24 hours and this thread is still alive…
Die Die Die
It’s long since become
It’s long since become nothing more than sarky put downs. Yawn.
this thread as become a bit
this thread as become a bit like a long ride, you get halfway in and your arse hurts, your legs ache, your hands and shoulders are stiff, your mind is reeling at thought of going for two or three more hours, but then, having reached your target, you just don’t wanna stop any more, you’ve become one with the bike
beezus fufoon wrote:
Are we nearly half way there yet?
Not sure, how long is a piece
Not sure, how long is a piece of string?
So, anyone got any opinions
So, anyone got any opinions about plastic spokes vs metal ones?
http://www.berdspokes.com/
Do they provide the same ‘zing’ as metal spokes and what can be done about it?
hawkinspeter wrote:
More likely to consider environmentally sound bamboo.
Grahamd wrote:
You’re completely forgetting about the weight/tensile strength of bamboo. Wooden’t you need to make it heavier to approach the strength of metal?
Grahamd wrote:
won’t somebody please think of the pandas!
beezus fufoon wrote:
Pandas offer greater protection than polystyrene?
Who’d’ve thunk it?
don simon wrote:
With all the “environmentalists” complaining about destruction of habitats and concreting over the Brazilian rain-forest, why don’t they put their hands in their pockets and buy helmets for pandas?
Surely they’re worth protecting aren’t they?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Come back with some graphs and we can discuss.
CygnusX1 wrote:
Well, I’ve posted the one above, but as it’s you, have another one free of charge.
Oops – wrong graph. Should
Oops – wrong graph. Should have been this one:
hawkinspeter wrote:
you spoke too soon…
OK, 400 and counting and the
OK, 400 and counting and the internet didn’t explode…
road.cc admins: are you able to set a maximum threadcount and/or can we have a dedicated new forum (‘helmet arguments’), as this is beginning* to get really silly.
*Actually, it got silly a loong time ago…
You’re interpreting it wrong.
You’re interpreting it wrong.
Fall in cyclist deaths correlates with a marked increase in pandas?
Cyclists* are protecting pandas. Fooking hippies.
*Might also be pedestrians.
davel wrote:
1. Panda populations are rising, this correlates with the rise in helmet usage on UK built up roads (94-08) data
2. Cycling pandas wear helmets (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FISOPJU0whE)
3. QED
CygnusX1 wrote:
I’m sorry, but this panda stuff isn’t simply black and white.
don simon wrote:
Quite, there are red pandas as well.
.
.