Live blog: Vuelta highlights, Team Wiggins replace Aqua Blue at Tour of Britain, Thomas's view on helmets "largely irrelevant" says cycling PR boss + more

fukawitribe wrote:

"And yet the data is ignored/dismissed when it comes to saying helmets are a load of bunk but are taken as an absolute when it states that helmets will save your life/offer significant safety increases."

That's rather missing the point Goldacre was making - but yeah, that happens and on both sides of the debate. In addition, confirmation bias and a fundamental lack of understanding of what the figures and statistics mean and how they were taken is rife, as is parroting second-hand summaries and out-of-context data. The biggest single issue, or at least one of the largest, I feel is the unwillingness to critically assess the data and analyses we do have, and are getting, and to possibly alter ones point of view - the vast majority seem to have their opinion already set in stone and pity the person who would dare to ask them to consider re-evaluating what they thought that was based upon. Hey ho....

But Goldacre himself says that further research and analysis is pointless - there's not going to be a Big Win on either side.

So... It isn't a 'both sides need to' argument. There is a movement, marketing campaigns, voices who would mandate helmets - and the burden of proof needs to lie with it. Cycling helmets have only become A Thing during most of our lifetimes. Imagine if Pedestrian Helmets became A Thing now. That wouldn't be a 'both sides need to' argument. Put up or stop trying to get peds to wear foam hats.

The 'anti' movement is only A Thing to counter that, just like atheists have only been A Thing since people started creating gods.

davel wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

"And yet the data is ignored/dismissed when it comes to saying helmets are a load of bunk but are taken as an absolute when it states that helmets will save your life/offer significant safety increases."

That's rather missing the point Goldacre was making - but yeah, that happens and on both sides of the debate. In addition, confirmation bias and a fundamental lack of understanding of what the figures and statistics mean and how they were taken is rife, as is parroting second-hand summaries and out-of-context data. The biggest single issue, or at least one of the largest, I feel is the unwillingness to critically assess the data and analyses we do have, and are getting, and to possibly alter ones point of view - the vast majority seem to have their opinion already set in stone and pity the person who would dare to ask them to consider re-evaluating what they thought that was based upon. Hey ho....

But Goldacre himself says that further research and analysis is pointless - there's not going to be a Big Win on either side.

So... It isn't a 'both sides need to' argument.

Indeed, beyond preventing myths on both sides from gaining traction.

davel wrote:

There is a movement, marketing campaigns, voices who would mandate helmets - and the burden of proof needs to lie with it. Cycling helmets have only become A Thing during most of our lifetimes. Imagine if Pedestrian Helmets became A Thing now. That wouldn't be a 'both sides need to' argument. Put up or stop trying to get peds to wear foam hats.

The 'anti' movement is only A Thing to counter that, just like atheists have only been A Thing since people started creating gods.

I agree that there is an urgent need for the counter to the compulsion threat but that is not always what is being discussed. I've only personally seen on here two occassions when someone has called for or agreed with mandatory helmet legislation in the UK - that is significantly less than e.g. the number of people who have argued that helmets can be effective personal protection equipment but often the two get conflated, or national stats are used to 'prove' helmets as PPE are ineffective and so on. In those cases the 'anti' movement , as you put it, is not A Thing to counter anything beyond some belief in the 'correctness' of their opinion. 

fukawitribe wrote:

davel wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

"And yet the data is ignored/dismissed when it comes to saying helmets are a load of bunk but are taken as an absolute when it states that helmets will save your life/offer significant safety increases."

That's rather missing the point Goldacre was making - but yeah, that happens and on both sides of the debate. In addition, confirmation bias and a fundamental lack of understanding of what the figures and statistics mean and how they were taken is rife, as is parroting second-hand summaries and out-of-context data. The biggest single issue, or at least one of the largest, I feel is the unwillingness to critically assess the data and analyses we do have, and are getting, and to possibly alter ones point of view - the vast majority seem to have their opinion already set in stone and pity the person who would dare to ask them to consider re-evaluating what they thought that was based upon. Hey ho....

But Goldacre himself says that further research and analysis is pointless - there's not going to be a Big Win on either side.

So... It isn't a 'both sides need to' argument.

Indeed, beyond preventing myths on both sides from gaining traction.

davel wrote:

There is a movement, marketing campaigns, voices who would mandate helmets - and the burden of proof needs to lie with it. Cycling helmets have only become A Thing during most of our lifetimes. Imagine if Pedestrian Helmets became A Thing now. That wouldn't be a 'both sides need to' argument. Put up or stop trying to get peds to wear foam hats.

The 'anti' movement is only A Thing to counter that, just like atheists have only been A Thing since people started creating gods.

I agree that there is an urgent need for the counter to the compulsion threat but that is not always what is being discussed. I've only personally seen on here two occassions when someone has called for or agreed with mandatory helmet legislation in the UK - that is significantly less than e.g. the number of people who have argued that helmets can be effective personal protection equipment but often the two get conflated, or national stats are used to 'prove' helmets as PPE are ineffective and so on. In those cases the 'anti' movement , as you put it, is not A Thing to counter anything beyond some belief in the 'correctness' of their opinion. 

I disagree a bit. I think sometimes it gets lost in the noise, as you say.

My own stance probably isn't far from Lord Sir St Chris's in that I think they're way down the list in what we should be giving attention - but I accept that they prevent injuries in certain situations.

It's difficult to get across an argument about giving them the appropriate attention without following a fairly vehement anti/discredit/rant line, on a forum... Which then has the unintended consequence of generating even more time and attention to the topic...!

I feel like I've become an evangelist for the 'anti' camp in response to evangelical pro stances. I've not got so much against the 'a helmet saved my life' stuff - but I'm vehemently against compulsion, and lawyers and police questioning whether victims were wearing a helmet etc - and feel they're sides of the same coin. 

davel wrote:

I disagree a bit. I think sometimes it gets lost in the noise, as you say.

My own stance probably isn't far from Lord Sir St Chris's in that I think they're way down the list in what we should be giving attention - but I accept that they prevent injuries in certain situations.

Same here.

davel wrote:

It's difficult to get across an argument about giving them the appropriate attention without following a fairly vehement anti/discredit/rant line, on a forum... Which then has the unintended consequence of generating even more time and attention to the topic...!

Yeah - that's unfortunately true and a large part of the problem IMO.

davel wrote:

I feel like I've become an evangelist for the 'anti' camp in response to evangelical pro stances. I've not got so much against the 'a helmet saved my life' stuff - but I'm vehemently against compulsion, and lawyers and police questioning whether victims were wearing a helmet etc - and feel they're sides of the same coin. 

I'm pretty much in agreement with all of that - although I see no conceptual link between the PPE idea and compulsion, which is often cited as some weird sort of natural consequence. However I have no time any more for the lack of knowledge of physics and testing that some seem to display, nor the inability to understand how to read and take-in data and conclusions in papers, which may make me seem in the 'pro' camp - but the only 'pro' I am is 'choice'.

fukawitribe wrote:

davel wrote:

I feel like I've become an evangelist for the 'anti' camp in response to evangelical pro stances. I've not got so much against the 'a helmet saved my life' stuff - but I'm vehemently against compulsion, and lawyers and police questioning whether victims were wearing a helmet etc - and feel they're sides of the same coin. 

I'm pretty much in agreement with all of that - although I see no conceptual link between the PPE idea and compulsion, which is often cited as some weird sort of natural consequence. However I have no time any more for the lack of knowledge of physics and testing that some seem to display, nor the inability to understand how to read and take-in data and conclusions in papers, which may make me seem in the 'pro' camp - but the only 'pro' I am is 'choice'.

I see it as some sort of slippery slope... The more helmets become 'normalised', the more it is accepted that cyclists are responsible for their own safety, and the more attention is drawn away from the major causes of cyclist KSIs (the big metal things driven into them by other people).

I see evidence for that 'slippery slope' in us being dodgy risk-takers disproportionately responsible for our own safety in how police, courts, defence lawyers and BTLers comment on what cyclists are wearing when they've been KSId. I totally accept that is massively subject to my confirmation bias and the echo chamber I've created for myself, and I don't know how pronounced a trend, if any, there is.

There's also my distrust of PPE, ingrained during 10 years of working for an engineering firm. A reliance on PPE suggests the fight for a safe environment is lost, or, rather, isn't even being fought properly.

I think the evidence suggests that if we had 100% helmet uptake, we'd have similar KSI rates as to now (assuming cyclist numbers stayed the same; I know the evidence suggests they would fall significantly as uptake approached 100%). Even if Rich_cb's assertion of a statistically significant drop in KSIs were accepted, the KSI numbers would still be in the current 'ballpark' to today.

Whereas if we could stop people driving metal things into us, there'd be tiny numbers of cyclist KSIs compared to now. I'd just like the factors that result in us being driven into to be given proportionate attention.

davel wrote:

Whereas if we could stop people driving metal things into us, there'd be tiny numbers of cyclist KSIs compared to now. I'd just like the factors that result in us being driven into to be given proportionate attention.

Hear, hear.

fukawitribe wrote:

Oddly enough, some of that sounds rather similar to what Ben Goldacre was saying on the subject..

it would really help if you learned to use the quote button so that we had the vaguest idea of what you were responding to.

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Oddly enough, some of that sounds rather similar to what Ben Goldacre was saying on the subject..

it would really help if you learned to use the quote button so that we had the vaguest idea of what you were responding to.

Fair enough, however it's fine until people edit their posts and the order gets screwed. This was the way it was - sometimes I revert.

fukawitribe wrote:

Well come on... just proving that the assertion was false. 

If you are referring to my assertion that I've never seen or heard anything in BBC coverage about the overwhelming benefits, individually and societally, of cycling, then you're wrong and it's still true.

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Well come on... just proving that the assertion was false. 

If you are referring to my assertion that I've never seen or heard anything in BBC coverage about the overwhelming benefits, individually and societally, of cycling, then you're wrong and it's still true.

It may be true for you in that you've not sseen or heard - but not only is it not true in general, if you performed either of the two searches (one done for you) you would find that it's no longer true for you either.

fukawitribe wrote:

It may be true for you in that you've not sseen or heard - but not only is it not true in general, if you performed either of the two searches (one done for you) you would find that it's no longer true for you either.

I don't see why I should have to search for information that should be in every BBC bulletin about obesity, health, pollution, congestion, climate change etc; but it is in none that I, as I go through my regular routine, see or hear because they don't mention it.  I mainly listen to R4, which has had hundreds, if not thousands of news articles and programmes about those subjects, but cycling is almost never mentioned, and even if it is, just fleetingly in an aside, which is bizarre given that cycling is the best, most efficient, most economic answer to all of them.

Explain to me why the BBC completely ignores the overwhelming benefits of cycling in normal, everyday broadcasting, and why you should have to search for absolutely relevant details in what is frankly, much of the news?  Much of which is specifically about those subjects?  How can you not mention cycling every time those subjects are discussed unless you have an agenda not to mention it.  As I've said, there are probably hundreds of reports about the benefits of cycling, but they are never mentioned on the BBC news in my sight/hearing.  How is this possible with a broadcaster which has strict rules about fairness and balance?  Cycle helmets and pedestrians being killed in collision with a cyclist on the other hand, they are all over like a very nasty rash, and ignore their own rules as they do it.

Sorry, but on the evidence of my own ears and eyes, the BBC is masssively biased against cycling.

And I bet it is true in general, that people who rely on the BBC for news and facts, are utterly ignorant of the overwhelming benefits of cycling, because the BBC doesn't mention them in the news and they, like me, don't go looking for them.

burtthebike wrote:

Explain to me why the BBC completely ignores the overwhelming benefits of cycling in normal, everyday broadcasting, and why you should have to search for absolutely relevant details in what is frankly, much of the news?  Much of which is specifically about those subjects?  How can you not mention cycling every time those subjects are discussed unless you have an agenda not to mention them.  As I've said, there are probably hundreds of reports about the benefits of cycling, but they are never mentioned on the BBC news in my sight/hearing.  How is this possible with a broadcaster which has strict rules about fairness and balance?  Cycle helmets and pedestrians being killed in collision with a cyclist on the other hand, they are all over like a very nasty rash, and ignore their own rules as they do it.

Sorry, but on the evidence of my own ears and eyes, the BBC is masssively biased against cycling.

I reckon it's all down to their elitism.

The top people at the BBC are extremely well paid and consider themselves to be a world apart from the plebs. They'd much rather that "ordinary people" should be working hard to be able to afford a gym membership to get exercise; to afford the payments on their latest shiny car that only travels at an average of 20mph due to the road congestion; to pay for holistic treatments to deal with all the air pollution that is trashing their health and to pay taxes to give loads of money to the road and car park builders.

Cycling? That's some kind of socialist clap-trap that's not really aligned with the BBC's message.

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

It may be true for you in that you've not sseen or heard - but not only is it not true in general, if you performed either of the two searches (one done for you) you would find that it's no longer true for you either.

I don't see why I should have to search for information that should be in every BBC bulletin about obesity, health, pollution, congestion, climate change etc; but it is in none that I, as I go through my regular routine, see or hear because they don't mention it. 

They do mention it, you don't need to search either, I gave you a link to click. There may well be bias in the coverage the BBC has (I think so) and they could have better coverage of that and many other issues but that doens't mean they never have information about the positive aspects available, which is what you originally said. Given you can't even be bother to flex one finger to be presented with a counter to your assertion I don't hold much hope of you acknowledging any of that. I'm off.

fukawitribe wrote:

I don't see why I should have to search for information that should be in every BBC bulletin about obesity, health, pollution, congestion, climate change etc; but it is in none that I, as I go through my regular routine, see or hear because they don't mention it. 

They do mention it, you don't need to search either, I gave you a link to click. There may well be bias in the coverage the BBC has (I think so) and they could have better coverage of that and many other issues but that doens't mean they never have information about the positive aspects available, which is what you originally said. Given you can't even be bother to flex one finger to be presented with a counter to your assertion I don't hold much hope of you acknowledging any of that. I'm off.

[/quote]

I hear maybe 5 or 6 BBC news bulletins a day, and they have mentioned obesity, health, pollution, congestion, climate change, diabetes, heart disease, depression almost constantly; number of times the most effective, economical treatment for all these is mentioned?  Zero.

I repeat; if I have to go searching for it, I'm not going to find out, especially if I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking for because they haven't mentioned it.  Please explain how it is possible for the BBC to continually mention all these subjects without once referring to the simplest, quickest, easiest, cheapest method of treating them in the same programmes without being biased?

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

It may be true for you in that you've not sseen or heard - but not only is it not true in general, if you performed either of the two searches (one done for you) you would find that it's no longer true for you either.

I don't see why I should have to search for information that should be in every BBC bulletin about obesity, health, pollution, congestion, climate change etc; but it is in none that I, as I go through my regular routine, see or hear because they don't mention it. 

They do mention it, you don't need to search either, I gave you a link to click. There may well be bias in the coverage the BBC has (I think so) and they could have better coverage of that and many other issues but that doens't mean they never have information about the positive aspects available, which is what you originally said. Given you can't even be bother to flex one finger to be presented with a counter to your assertion I don't hold much hope of you acknowledging any of that. I'm off.

The fact is, the BBC, like most news media, react to events. Somebody gets killed on a bike, that's an event, gets reported, and helmet or no, death of cyclist is the message. I suspect that there is not a lot of positive coverage because there are not many events which would trigger such, rather than any specific bias.  

Griff500 wrote:

The fact is, the BBC, like most news media, react to events. Somebody gets killed on a bike, that's an event, gets reported, and helmet or no, death of cyclist is the message. I suspect that there is not a lot of positive coverage because there are not many events which would trigger such, rather than any specific bias.  

 

A valid point, but they have had hundreds of articles about pollution, congestion, obesity, diabetes etc, none of which is particularly immediate news, but not in one of them do they mention the cheapest, quickest, most effective, economic method of tackling them, but they do go into great detail about other, less effective, more expensive methods.  I don't see how that can be anything but bias, especially as it isn't just a one off, it has been the case for the past twenty years at least.

burtthebike wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

The fact is, the BBC, like most news media, react to events. Somebody gets killed on a bike, that's an event, gets reported, and helmet or no, death of cyclist is the message. I suspect that there is not a lot of positive coverage because there are not many events which would trigger such, rather than any specific bias.  

 

A valid point, but they have had hundreds of articles about pollution, congestion, obesity, diabetes etc, none of which is particularly immediate news, but not in one of them do they mention the cheapest, quickest, most effective, economic method of tackling them, but they do go into great detail about other, less effective, more expensive methods.  I don't see how that can be anything but bias, especially as it isn't just a one off, it has been the case for the past twenty years at least.

Again, a valid point, but most of those you mention are triggered by the latest University report, or last week, the one from China. The last one I recall promoting cycling was the one 6 months or so ago showing that endurance cycling negates the adverse effects of alcohol. Then again, maybe I just recall that one as the two topics are close to my heart. 

OT I know, but I have little confidence in academic studies as they almost invariably prove exactly what the author needs in order to get his PhD or his next round of funding! Take the one last week showing that any alcohol at all increases risk of death. This was a study of 100,000 people, comparing alcohol consumption with health. Where were all the other lifestyle factors, eg do teatotallers eat more green veg (known to reduce cancer), do many teatotallers smoke, and closer to us, what was the exercise profile of the 100,000. This of course is much too difficult, lets just plot alcohol consumption against cancer rate and call it the most significant study ever!

Griff500 wrote:

Again, a valid point, but most of those you mention are triggered by the latest University report, or last week, the one from China.

There have been many reports about the benefits of cycling, probably in three figures, so why don't the BBC feature them?  They happily feature drugs which might come on stream in five years time and might have a beneficial effect.  They obsessively feature stories about obesity, health and food, when that is less effective than cycling.  They have regular features about pollution and global warming and heavily feature things like electric cars, but never mention cycling.

The bias is clear and obvious.

burtthebike wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

Again, a valid point, but most of those you mention are triggered by the latest University report, or last week, the one from China.

There have been many reports about the benefits of cycling, probably in three figures, so why don't the BBC feature them?  They happily feature drugs which might come on stream in five years time and might have a beneficial effect.  They obsessively feature stories about obesity, health and food, when that is less effective than cycling.  They have regular features about pollution and global warming and heavily feature things like electric cars, but never mention cycling.

The bias is clear and obvious.

... Yet here we are on a cycling site, and if you click today's news tab, just like the BBC, you will see a shedload of items covering accidents and none covering health benefits. One of our most popular topics is "near miss of the day". Does this portray the image we want? While we might criticise the pro helmet lobby and the BBC for conveying a poor image of cycling safety, what will potential newbys make of our own news page?

Griff500][quote=burtthebike wrote:

 ... Yet here we are on a cycling site, and if you click today's news tab, just like the BBC, you will see a shedload of items covering accidents and none covering health benefits. One of our most popular topics is "near miss of the day". Does this portray the image we want? While we might criticise the pro helmet lobby and the BBC for conveying a poor image of cycling safety, what will potential newbys make of our own news page?

I think you'll find that this website, and every other cycling website, features all the reports about cycling being incredibly beneficial and the overwhemingly, blinding obvious answer to many modern problems, which the BBC totally refuses to do.  And when I say refuses, that's exactly what I mean, as I must have sent their news programmes dozens of emails detailing the benefits when they've had yet another article about obesity, health, congestion, pollution, climate change without mentioning cycling, with absolutely zero result.

If anything else had half the benefits of a mass change to cycling, the BBC would be all over it 24/7/365.

fukawitribe wrote:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bbc+cycling+health

That's not patronising, is it?

fukawitribe wrote:

So why are you missing the non-negative coverage ? Try going to the news page and do the search I suggested. Tell me what the second hit is.

I think that there's more to the negative bias from the BBC on the subject of cycling than numbers of articles. They will headline negative aspects and tuck health benefits in obscure pages. They would appear to have a negative bias in that they point out the dangers each time a pro rider crashes, for example.