POC ramps up helmet safety with SPIN rotational impact technology

alansmurphy wrote:

I have a simple test for those for and against helmets. I have a 2 by 2 concrete slab, a dining chair and a helmet... Pop along and get involved.

I am in the helmet saved my life camp but don't give a shite who chooses to wear one (except my kids). What I hate is someone telling me it has no benefit as that's simply idiotic and I'd invite them to the aforementioned chair...

I don't think anyone says they can never offer any protection, and no-one can argue that yours didn't protect you. It's the weight of the benefit that is debated - and I can't see it being resolved.

You highlight one of the criticisms, because I'd take the helmet in your test any day of the week, but they're not designed to protect you from stones being dropped on your head, which is a pretty unlikely riding scenario. The criticism is that the rating and testing of them is too specific for them to be of much real world use, when you consider how much they're mandated and the perception of their safety. In certain offs they might well be better than nothing but they're certainly not marketed or mandated with that as their strapline.

hawkinspeter wrote:

@Rich_cb - I can't find any decent stats on UK helmet use over the years. Have you found any?

I posted a graph earlier in the thread.

This is the data that the graph is based on.

https://trl.co.uk/reports/PPR420

It's not perfect but the methodology is consistent so the results are comparable.

Rich_cb wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

@Rich_cb - I can't find any decent stats on UK helmet use over the years. Have you found any?

I posted a graph earlier in the thread. This is the data that the graph is based on. https://trl.co.uk/reports/PPR420 It's not perfect but the methodology is consistent so the results are comparable.

Thanks - I should have checked the thread.

I'm not convinced that the helmet usage lines up that well with the KSI stats, but we're just playing with graphs here, so it's all down to interpretation.

simonmb wrote:

Nothing science-based about my next statement, and even I don't fully understand it, but I'm just back from Amsterdam and spent four days cycling the city - and comfortably riding sans helmet. First day back home - on goes the helmet. I couldn't even contemplate cycling without a lid here. The same thing happened in and after Copenhagen. Anyone else had the same experience? Do they / did they have the same helmet debate on Dutch and Danish cycling forums?

Put your finger on it there Simonmb.  Cycling in Amsterdam is much safer than in any UK city, and no-one there wears a helmet, apart from road racers and tourists, so whatever makes cycling safe, it isn't helmets.  So why do we waste so much time talking about helmets which are just a distraction from the real issue, and why aren't we doing what the Dutch and the Danes do and making cycling safe?

That's why I object so much to articles and advertorials extolling the virtues of helmets, because they are essentially a waste of time and most definitely not "the answer" to making cycling safe.   They also deter some people by making it appear that cycling is a very risky activity, as why would you need to wear a helmet if it wasn't?  The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, but nobody considers that inherently dangerous.  

As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there seems to be a correlation between the number of cyclists and the risks of cycling, so by deterring some people, helmet publicity puts us all at greater danger.  There was another report last week which showed that the heatlh benefits of cycling are even bigger than had been estimated before, so helmet publicity also increases ill health by deterring people.

Stumps wrote:

Regardless of scientific tests saying they do or don't work and all the people saying it saved my life or those saying it won't save you if a ton of metal runs over you etc etc...... After nigh on 30yrs of attending RTC's involving bikes and seeing the mess a head makes when it's scraped along the ground I will happily wear one.

By definition you wear a helmet for walking and when in a motorvehicle, if not, why not?

We already know that almost half of all serious head trauma's are from a group that occupy motorvehicles and that as a rate people on foot are more likely to have a serious head trauma.

Clearly your own bias proves you can't assess risk correctly.

Stumps wrote:

Regardless of scientific tests saying they do or don't work and all the people saying it saved my life or those saying it won't save you if a ton of metal runs over you etc etc...... After nigh on 30yrs of attending RTC's involving bikes and seeing the mess a head makes when it's scraped along the ground I will happily wear one.

You might like to check out the term "observation bias".

davel wrote:

Conclusion: it's completely disingenuous to link the cyclist KSI decrease with helmets, isn't it?

Nope.

Cyclist KSIs fell at a faster rate than overall KSIs.

That indicates there was a cyclist specific factor at play does it not?

Now let's try and think of some cyclist specific factors.

Any suggestions?

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Conclusion: it's completely disingenuous to link the cyclist KSI decrease with helmets, isn't it?

Nope. Cyclist KSIs fell at a faster rate than overall KSIs. That indicates there was a cyclist specific factor at play does it not? Now let's try and think of some cyclist specific factors. Any suggestions?

The first thing I was taught about stats is that correlation does not equal causation.  In Australia when they brought in the helmet law, deaths to cyclists fell, but deaths to pedestrians fell by slightly more, but that didn't stop the helmet proponents claiming that helmets were effective, even when pedestrians weren't wearing them, so the cause of the fall in cyclists' deaths was almost certainly not due to helmets.  In fact, because there were fewer cyclists, the rate of cycling deaths went up, not down.

Same thing happened with motorcycle helmets in the UK.  After the introduction of the law, motorcycling deaths fell, but deaths to all road users fell, apart from cyclists, pedestrians and rear seat passengers in cars.  So although the helmet campaigners claimed a victory for road safety, the cause of that fall in motorcycling deaths is highly unlikely to have been the helmet law.

Ice cream causes drowning, and the sales of ice cream and the figures for drowning are the same shape.  But of course that is nonsense, and it is coincidence that more people buy ice cream and go swimming when it's hot.

Simply posting two sets of data and implying that they are related is disingenuous.

burtthebike wrote:

Simply posting two sets of data and implying that they are related is disingenuous.

Correlation is not causation.

If you compare the pedestrian KSI figures to the cyclist KSI figures you can see that the cyclist KSI suddenly began to decline post 1995 after decades of stasis whilst the pedestrian rate continued to decline at its previous rate.

By taking pedestrians as our control group we can eliminate a lot of the statistical noise and provide stronger statistical evidence than just correlation.

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Simply posting two sets of data and implying that they are related is disingenuous.

Correlation is not causation. If you compare the pedestrian KSI figures to the cyclist KSI figures you can see that the cyclist KSI suddenly began to decline post 1995 after decades of stasis whilst the pedestrian rate continued to decline at its previous rate. By taking pedestrians as our control group we can eliminate a lot of the statistical noise and provide stronger statistical evidence than just correlation.

I just had a little look at http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/2636/cycling/stats-uk/index.html and they've got a graph that implies that pedestrian fatalities have dropped at a sharper rate than cyclist fatalities. Does this mean that pedestrians started wearing helmets in the early nineties?

hawkinspeter wrote:

I just had a little look at http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/2636/cycling/stats-uk/index.html and they've got a graph that implies that pedestrian fatalities have dropped at a sharper rate than cyclist fatalities. Does this mean that pedestrians started wearing helmets in the early nineties?

 

No, it means that in 1990 a pedestrian specific factor starting affecting the pedestrian KSI rate.

Whatever that factor was it did not affect the cyclist KSI rate (which had been broadly static since the early 1980s).

A pedestrian specific factor might be something like improved pedestrian crossings for example.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Simply posting two sets of data and implying that they are related is disingenuous.

Correlation is not causation. If you compare the pedestrian KSI figures to the cyclist KSI figures you can see that the cyclist KSI suddenly began to decline post 1995 after decades of stasis whilst the pedestrian rate continued to decline at its previous rate. By taking pedestrians as our control group we can eliminate a lot of the statistical noise and provide stronger statistical evidence than just correlation.

I just had a little look at http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/2636/cycling/stats-uk/index.html and they've got a graph that implies that pedestrian fatalities have dropped at a sharper rate than cyclist fatalities. Does this mean that pedestrians started wearing helmets in the early nineties?

 

It simply implies that some factor may be at work in pedestrian KSI's causing the decrease. It would be worth looking at the possible causes for that decrease, perhaps starting with miles walked, use of public transport, improved car / pedestrain impact safety factors. Just as one needs to look at a possible cause for the cycling KSI decrease, in which case we have a convenient and good candidate in the increase of helmet wearing. Obviously cyclists and pedestrians don't exist in the exact same risk climate so expecting there to be a common factor in the KSI decline may be jumping the gun a little...

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Conclusion: it's completely disingenuous to link the cyclist KSI decrease with helmets, isn't it?

Nope.

Cyclist KSIs fell at a faster rate than overall KSIs.

That indicates there was a cyclist specific factor at play does it not?

Now let's try and think of some cyclist specific factors.

Any suggestions?

A few*, but stop the implications - make an actual argument.

This is the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen you post these two graphs together while waiting for others to join the dots for you. You want to make the implication without having to make a specific claim, because you know you don't have the evidence to back anything specific regarding helmet use in that decade up. You've never qualified it by conceding that other factors were at play across ALL ROAD USERS - you post the graphs, and drop the mic.

Road KSIs fell off a cliff in 1995. They decreased by over a third, suggesting major, major factors in general road safety improvement. The vast, vast majority of road users not KSId in that decade (even cyclists!) weren't wearing helmets, never mind cycling helmets. In this same period we're looking at an increase of helmet use from roughly a laughable 15% to a less-than-stellar 30%. Cycling helmets in this overall decrease are just noise.

But what are you claiming of that increase? That helmet use increasing by 15% caused the decrease of cycling KSIs by 42%? No, that would be silly - but you make the implication each time you post those two graphs and sit back. You're not daft, you know that you don't have enough material to lead to a conclusion, but you call BTBS out for posting figures and extrapolating an argument, so you need to do better.

So what's your implication now, seeing as we've discounted the bulk of that KSI decrease via 'general road KSIey improvements'? You're still attributing that greater KSI decrease (42% vs 35%, so a decrease of 7%) to helmets? Are you suggesting that an increase of 15% in helmet use results in a decrease of 7% in KSIs?

* My own fact is that Indurain won his last TdF in 1995. It's obvious that the sportier UK riders decided to devote their next decade of riding to Big Mig, 2 years for each TdF win, and, seeing how effective his brain-sappingly boring riding style was, decided to emulate that. Fewer accidents and collisions: fewer KSIs. Oooh, easily, let's say, 6.85% fewer.

davel wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Conclusion: it's completely disingenuous to link the cyclist KSI decrease with helmets, isn't it?

Nope. Cyclist KSIs fell at a faster rate than overall KSIs. That indicates there was a cyclist specific factor at play does it not? Now let's try and think of some cyclist specific factors. Any suggestions?

A few*, but stop the implications - make an actual argument. This is the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen you post these two graphs together while waiting for others to join the dots for you. You want to make the implication without having to make a specific claim, because you know you don't have the evidence to back anything specific regarding helmet use in that decade up. You've never qualified it by conceding that other factors were at play across ALL ROAD USERS - you post the graphs, and drop the mic. [...]

http://theconversation.com/dont-feed-the-trolls-really-is-good-advice-he...

ConcordeCX wrote:

http://theconversation.com/dont-feed-the-trolls-really-is-good-advice-he...

 

Barring a pompous comment about understanding statistics you've made no contribution to the thread.

Jog on.

davel wrote:

A few*, but stop the implications - make an actual argument.

This is the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen you post these two graphs together while waiting for others to join the dots for you. You want to make the implication without having to make a specific claim, because you know you don't have the evidence to back anything specific regarding helmet use in that decade up. You've never qualified it by conceding that other factors were at play across ALL ROAD USERS - you post the graphs, and drop the mic.

Road KSIs fell off a cliff in 1995. They decreased by over a third, suggesting major, major factors in general road safety improvement. The vast, vast majority of road users not KSId in that decade (even cyclists!) weren't wearing helmets, never mind cycling helmets. In this same period we're looking at an increase of helmet use from roughly a laughable 15% to a less-than-stellar 30%. Cycling helmets in this overall decrease are just noise.

But what are you claiming of that increase? That helmet use increasing by 15% caused the decrease of cycling KSIs by 42%? No, that would be silly - but you make the implication each time you post those two graphs and sit back. You're not daft, you know that you don't have enough material to lead to a conclusion, but you call BTBS out for posting figures and extrapolating an argument, so you need to do better.

So what's your implication now, seeing as we've discounted the bulk of that KSI decrease via 'general road KSIey improvements'? You're still attributing that greater KSI decrease (42% vs 35%, so a decrease of 7%) to helmets? Are you suggesting that an increase of 15% in helmet use results in a decrease of 7% in KSIs?

* My own fact is that Indurain won his last TdF in 1995. It's obvious that the sportier UK riders decided to devote their next decade of riding to Big Mig, 2 years for each TdF win, and, seeing how effective his brain-sappingly boring riding style was, decided to emulate that. Fewer accidents and collisions: fewer KSIs. Oooh, easily, let's say, 6.85% fewer.

Firstly, I've posted the graphs once before and actually specifically drew attention to the different rates of decline for different road users. So your 'mic drop' accusation is bullshit.

I call BTBS out for posting made up statistics and for deliberately/ignorantly confusing relative and absolute risk.

Moving on.

At a population level there will always be multiple factors at play.

By comparing the KSI rates for cyclists, pedestrians and overall KSIs you can cut through a lot of the noise.

When there is a significant difference between the rates for different road users it strongly implies that group specific factors are having an effect.

The task then is to identify group specific factors that changed significantly during the period in question.

Cycle helmets meet that criteria.

Does it mean cycle helmets accounted for the entire difference. No.

Is it absolute irrefutable proof? No.

Is it possible to obtain absolute irrefutable proof? No.

It is evidence though.

The quality of evidence in the helmet debate is generally poor. Most studies are small and riddled with errors.

This evidence is, therefore, as good or better than pretty much anything else in the debate.

The hypothesis is that the large increase in cycle helmet use contributed, in part, to the relatively steep in decline in cyclist KSIs compared to other road users.

There is some evidence to support that hypothesis.

If you have evidence of other cyclist specific factors that changed during that period feel free to post them. Jokey suggestions about Big Mig aside...

@Rich: that's a pretty rambling admission that you're arguing ideologically. I'm not saying others aren't doing the same, but posting unrelated graphs does not an argument make - it's the kind of stuff I'd expect from a Trump tweet.

If "There is some evidence to support that hypothesis", maybe post that and not the pictures.

Apropos of nothing, here's Mig. Experts say he reached peak boring in 1995. Don't accept that that level of boring could cause 7% drop in KSIs? Sad.

davel wrote:

@Rich: that's a pretty rambling admission that you're arguing ideologically. I'm not saying others aren't doing the same, but posting unrelated graphs does not an argument make - it's the kind of stuff I'd expect from a Trump tweet.

If "There is some evidence to support that hypothesis", maybe post that and not the pictures.

Apropos of nothing, here's Mig. Experts say he reached peak boring in 1995. Don't accept that that level of boring could cause 7% drop in KSIs? Sad.

I don't think you've understood the argument I'm making.

The graphs are the evidence.

The graphs show a cycling specific factor which began to have a significant effect from 1995 onwards.

By comparing the decline in cycling KSIs to pedestrian KSIs and overall KSIs we can be confident that the factor is specific to cyclists.

The challenge is then to identify that factor.

A time trialling Spaniard boring all cyclists into submission is one possibility but another, some might argue more likely, possibility is the rise in helmet use.

The rise in helmet use occurred at the exact same time as the cycling specific decline in KSIs.

You will never be able to definitively prove that helmets caused the decline but you will equally never to be able to prove that they did not.

The weight of evidence currently suggests that helmets were responsible for at least some of the decline in cyclist KSIs.