Dad stops kid from crashing bike into parked car (+ link to video)

Rich_cb wrote:

ClubSmed 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.

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?

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.

Jimmy Ray Will 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. 

 

Explain the pre 1995 figures.

Rich_cb wrote:

alansmurphy 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.

 

 

Your hypothesis does not mention the date.

Neither did yours, just the graphs that you presented

ClubSmed 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.

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:

Jimmy Ray Will 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. 

 

Explain the pre 1995 figures.

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:

ClubSmed 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.

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.

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:

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"

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:

ClubSmed 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"

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.

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:

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.

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:

ClubSmed 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.

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.

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.

ClubSmed 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?

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:

ClubSmed 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?

All you had to was ask. Head injuries amongst cyclists showed a big decline after 1995. http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/266

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:

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....

But the difference between the two groups is statistically significant.

That's the crucial point.

Rich_cb wrote:

ClubSmed 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?

All you had to was ask. Head injuries amongst cyclists showed a big decline after 1995. http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/266

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:

ClubSmed 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?

All you had to was ask.

Head injuries amongst cyclists showed a big decline after 1995.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/266

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 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.

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:

ClubSmed 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.

I think I've presented more than enough evidence for my argument now.

Do you have any comment on the paper I linked to?

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.

Rich_cb wrote:

ClubSmed 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.

I think I've presented more than enough evidence for my argument now.

Do you have any comment on the paper I linked to?

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:

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.

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:

ClubSmed 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.

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.

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:

Rich_cb wrote:

The graphs show a clear correlation between increasing helmet usage and decreasing cyclist fatalities

Rich_cb wrote:

That is evidence to support the hypothesis that helmet use reduces cyclist fatalities

The graphs in question were:

• Changes on helmet rate wearing by % of cyclists (built-up roads only)
• Reported fatalities of cyclists per billion KM travelled (all roads and other)

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:

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:

Rich_cb wrote:

The graphs show a clear correlation between increasing helmet usage and decreasing cyclist fatalities

Rich_cb wrote:

That is evidence to support the hypothesis that helmet use reduces cyclist fatalities

The graphs in question were:

• Changes on helmet rate wearing by % of cyclists (built-up roads only)
• Reported fatalities of cyclists per billion KM travelled (all roads and other)

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!

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:

The evidence supports my hypothesis as helmets are a plausible factor.

The rest of the fucking internet wrote:

No it doesn't.

davel wrote:

The rest of the fucking internet wrote:

No it doesn't.

Still struggling with statistics?

Shame.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

The rest of the fucking internet wrote:

No it doesn't.

Still struggling with statistics? Shame.

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:

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.

Sorry, but that's an argumentum ad populum.

(Disclaimer, I agree with you, but this thread needs some more posts).

hawkinspeter wrote:

davel wrote:

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.

Sorry, but that's an argumentum ad populum.

(Disclaimer, I agree with you, but this thread needs some more posts).

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:

(Disclaimer, I agree with you, but this thread needs some more posts).

Happy to oblige

CygnusX1 wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

(Disclaimer, I agree with you, but this thread needs some more posts).

Happy to oblige

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:

ClubSmed 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:

Rich_cb wrote:

The graphs show a clear correlation between increasing helmet usage and decreasing cyclist fatalities

Rich_cb wrote:

That is evidence to support the hypothesis that helmet use reduces cyclist fatalities

The graphs in question were:

• Changes on helmet rate wearing by % of cyclists (built-up roads only)
• Reported fatalities of cyclists per billion KM travelled (all roads and other)

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!

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.

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:

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........

 

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.