FOI request

[martinn]

Hi all,

this has probably been suggested before, but I couldn't find it when I looked, and the answer might not make any difference to the Helmet dialogue, and this might not apply to private companies

But, if a FOI request was submitted to the companies that manufacture helmets requesting then to state in percentage terms how many deaths due to head injury wearing a helmet would prevent in comparison to not wearing a helmet, would
a) they have to respond and
b) would this have any bearing in the helmet debate as this is often a fact bereft discussion, rather than an evidence based discussion.

I suppose the other way of asking would to ask how much safer is a new helmet rather than the version that it has replaced?

Or would they simply trot out the results from one of the pro helmet papers?

Martin

[meic]

I suspect they could quite legitimately respond with nothing more than we do not hold that information.
I also suspect that the FOI act only applies to Public bodies and is inapplicable to private companies.

[thirdcrank]

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) gives you the right to access recorded information held by public sector organisations. Anyone can request information – there are no restrictions on your age, nationality or where you live
(My emphasis)

https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-in ... on-request

[martinn]

O well worth a thought
I suppose that if you asked them the question, sometimes its what you don't say that's important.
It could be something that the campaign section of CUK asked on behalf of its supporters. They could publish the reply on the website, as an answer to why they have the helmet stance they have adopted. ie even the people that make and promote these devices, wont say they make a difference.

Martin

[Psamathe]

I have no knowledge but I'd doubt the helmet manufacturers would spend mush effort monitoring accident statistics in relation to helmet use. Do accident reports for cyclists with helmets record the make, model, age of helmets being worn? Do they record if they were being worn properly.

Manufacturers are seeking profits and spending all that resource of information collection and accurate analysis would need to be justified. I'd suspect they'd rather spend the resource researching helmet design to make better helmets.

I doubt one could read much into any response from the manufacturers. e.g. if they said "We do not collect such information" what would that signify?

Ian

[Cunobelin]

In theory, one could ask for the minutes of the meeting where the decision was made and the evidence upon which the decision was based

[Cunobelin]

I have no knowledge but I'd doubt the helmet manufacturers would spend mush effort monitoring accident statistics in relation to helmet use. Do accident reports for cyclists with helmets record the make, model, age of helmets being worn? Do they record if they were being worn properly.

Manufacturers are seeking profits and spending all that resource of information collection and accurate analysis would need to be justified. I'd suspect they'd rather spend the resource researching helmet design to make better helmets.

I doubt one could read much into any response from the manufacturers. e.g. if they said "We do not collect such information" what would that signify?

Ian

The ironic thing is that it is not the manafacturers making claims.... they know how weak the evidence is

It is an informed emotive lobby and ignorant event promoters doing the job on their behalf

[landsurfer]

b) would this have any bearing in the helmet debate as this is often a fact bereft discussion, rather than an evidence based discussion.

Martin

Possibly repeating an oft said thing but; It is there any evidence, scientifically peer reviewed, that a cycle helmet has ever saved a life, is all "evidence" subjective and anecdotal.

[[XAP]Bob]

b) would this have any bearing in the helmet debate as this is often a fact bereft discussion, rather than an evidence based discussion.

Martin

Possibly repeating an oft said thing but; It is there any evidence, scientifically peer reviewed, that a cycle helmet has ever saved a life, is all "evidence" subjective and anecdotal.

no because such a trial would be unethical.

What studies can show is that they make no meaningful difference (the error bars cover both negligible positive and negative net outcomes) on a population basis.
The outcome for any individual incident cannot be rigorously tested in an ethical fashion.. And that assumes that the incident would have unfolded in exactly the same way irrespective of the hat wearing of the 'participants'.

Given studies that show greater risk taking when wearing different headwear - when sat in a chair and told that the headwear is there to mount a camera to track eye movement - I have zero confidence that incidents (rather than outcomes) are unaffected by headwear...

[Pastychomper]

The ironic thing is that it is not the manafacturers making claims.... they know how weak the evidence is

It is an informed emotive lobby and ignorant event promoters doing the job on their behalf

Given how things work in other industries, I'd be very surprised if that lobby is not at least partly supported by "charitable" donations from major helmet manufacturers. I wonder if that is researchable.

[The utility cyclist]

The ironic thing is that it is not the manafacturers making claims.... they know how weak the evidence is

It is an informed emotive lobby and ignorant event promoters doing the job on their behalf

Given how things work in other industries, I'd be very surprised if that lobby is not at least partly supported by "charitable" donations from major helmet manufacturers. I wonder if that is researchable.

You mean people like New South Wales state sponsored lackey and purveyor of misleading 'studies' Jake Olivier, who not only uses false statistics in his meta analysis (not research) but also comes up with a new way to show helmets are fantastic, this being 'odds ratio'. He would not even stick to his own methodology with respect to meta analysis thus making himself a mockery, however he and others keep on doing the same thing, he even co=authors a paper that says cycle helmets did not reduce cycling in Australia and another that says that risk compensation is basically made up and has no effect on head injuries.

When the UCI made helmets compulsory for all racing this was on the back of an incident that if they had actually being truthful and found out how ineffective the plastic hats were it would have shown to be absolutely useless in the impact and the speeds the rider came off at. I have no doubt that there were back handers involved, helmets are a multi billion pound industry, not only would all pro racers and indeed amateurs be wearing them the wannabe's and faux racers would want to wear them. It's a masterful plan and using emotion to push it through as happened in New Zealand, Jersey and other places means those pushing against it are disgusting, callous animals not to mention stupid with no common sense.

We already know that the EU road safety commission push for helmets across the continent and use sweetners to get kids to wear them and spend a lot of money promoting them wherever they can, all the whilst using slanted reasoning and bent incomplete stats like comparing absolute deaths in NL and DK to UK and stating that UK is safer for cyclists because we wear more helmets

[Cunobelin]

The ironic thing is that it is not the manafacturers making claims.... they know how weak the evidence is

It is an informed emotive lobby and ignorant event promoters doing the job on their behalf

Given how things work in other industries, I'd be very surprised if that lobby is not at least partly supported by "charitable" donations from major helmet manufacturers. I wonder if that is researchable.

A bit like the Cracknell debacle where he denied helmet sponsorship despite it being listed, or the Geraint Thomas statements which again failed to mention helmet sponsorship.

I think that a good start would be for anyone who wishes to make statements about helmets should have to declare the vested interest

[gaz]

Manufacturers are seeking profits and spending all that resource of information collection and accurate analysis would need to be justified. I'd suspect they'd rather spend the resource researching helmet design to make better helmets.

There's a level playing field for helmet "safety" performance. Every manufacturer builds down to the required standard of the market where they intend to sell their product.

Bigger profits = "better helmet", no other measure of better is relevant to the manufacturers.

[Steady rider]

Some details may be published shortly that will probably be helpful.

[martinn]

Thats a bit enigmatic......