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

davel wrote:

Pedestrians obviously started wearing helmets.

So you can't explain it then.

Maybe two separate factors isn't such a crazy hypothesis after all.

ClubSmed wrote:

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.

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:

ClubSmed wrote:

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.

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.

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 wrote:

davel wrote:

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?

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.

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.

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?

davel 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.

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?

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.

antigee wrote:

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 

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...

Mark_1973_ wrote:

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

strike the ground proportionally harder with greater force - how do you even make stuff like this up?

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.

don simon wrote:

^ What he said ^

davel 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...

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:

davel 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...

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?

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:

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:

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"

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

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....

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.

We don't have to.

Being able to explain the ped difference doesn't defeat your argument.

Your fallacious logic defeats your argument.

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.

davel wrote:

We don't have to.

Being able to explain the ped difference doesn't defeat your argument.

Your fallacious logic defeats your argument.

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:

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.