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

ClubSmed 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.

 

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.

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:

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.

 

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.

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:

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?

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:

That is evidence of a cyclist specific factor.

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:

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)

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.

alansmurphy wrote:

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...

Yawn.

ClubSmed 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?
As for cycling casualties, if the total number of static, but head injuries have decreased, then that's a rise in all other injuries by my calculations. Am I wrong?

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:

ClubSmed wrote:

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?

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.

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?

alansmurphy wrote:

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?

Yawn.

Rich_cb wrote:

ClubSmed 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?
As for cycling casualties, if the total number of static, but head injuries have decreased, then that's a rise in all other injuries by my calculations. Am I wrong?

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.

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

Rich_cb wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

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?

Yawn.

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?

ClubSmed 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

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.

alansmurphy wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

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?

Yawn.

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?

Yawn.

alansmurphy wrote:

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...

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:

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...

Rich_cb wrote:

ClubSmed 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

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.

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:

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?

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:

ClubSmed 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?

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.

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:

I am not struggling with anything, you on the other hand seem to be confusing the meaning of "one possible explanation" with "plucked out of the air, based on nothing, statement"
I asked for that data because I foolishly believed that you were referring back to something you had found and posted on another thread rather than making stuff up.

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:

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.

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!

Rich_cb wrote:

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.

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:

ClubSmed wrote:

I am not struggling with anything, you on the other hand seem to be confusing the meaning of "one possible explanation" with "plucked out of the air, based on nothing, statement"
I asked for that data because I foolishly believed that you were referring back to something you had found and posted on another thread rather than making stuff up.

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.

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:

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.

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.