Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

For all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmet usage will be moved here.
Zulu Eleven
Posts: 235
Joined: 26 Oct 2018, 9:25pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by Zulu Eleven »

Mike Sales wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 6:18pm
Zulu Eleven wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 6:12pm

Which so far, despite a lot of hysterical shrieking, appears to remain intact
You are at it again. When two respected scientists can say that " the direct benefits (of helmets) are too modest to capture" an accusation of hysteria is not convincing.
Except they didn’t say that in regard to anything like the statement contained in the Highway Code. (And, frankly, I think you are cherrypicking a quote that doesn’t represent the entirety of the paper anyway)


Again, the statement in the Highway Code update is “Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances”

Nothing that has been said in the past few pages in any way undermines or disproves this simple statement
Last edited by Zulu Eleven on 6 Dec 2021, 6:26pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by Jdsk »

mjr wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 6:20pm
Jdsk wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 6:12pm
mjr wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 6:05pm Other basic problems are shared by the 2016 SR: it studies only a very narrow question, the lead author is also the author of included studies and several cited papers and the challenges are not shown clearly.
I suggest carrying out a systematic review that doesn't have what you consider as faults and submitting it for review and publication. The methodology is widely available.
There are two major problems with that idea:
1. who would fund it? Helmet promotion charities won't and independent organisations like CUK don't seem to be.
2. I strongly suspect nobody has funded the source studies which would be included in such a review, although I can't confirm that until I have enough funding to buy access to the databases.
What costs do you think that a systematic review would incur? It's mostly people's time.

And there seems to be a large amount of time available to argue about the subject which would be much better spent on evidence-based approaches.

The cost of access to the literature is very low, and probably zero in a realistic study involving an academic partner.

Jonathan
Last edited by Jdsk on 6 Dec 2021, 6:27pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by mjr »

Jdsk wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 6:17pm
Zulu Eleven wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 6:12pm
Jdsk wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 6:09pm Studying narrow questions is a very good idea. A major part of the problem in this debate is mixing up several different questions: what should national policy be, what is the effect of wearing a helmet or not across the population of all cyclists, what is the effect of me wearing a helmet or not for this trip, etc.
Exactly - hence the importance of referencing this back to the original statement (from the Highway Code) under challenge: “Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances”
It's an interesting sentence. It certainly doesn't take a position on mandation. But it does appear in a document that is a sort of national policy. Is it easy to find the evidence to which it refers? It should be for that to be included.
The evidence is not mentioned in the pdf on assets.parliament.uk linked earlier in this discussion.

It would be very interesting to see what those "certain circumstances" are. I wonder if it's the usual standing fall with no other vehicles involved.

They should also take this approach to the section for drivers by including "Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances" because that is clearly also true. I am pretty sure they could go further and find evidence that suggests that filling your car with polystyrene balls will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury when the car hits the fence because you can no longer see out!

Or maybe the Highway Code should be for useful measures and not a laundry list of minor effect possibilities.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by Jdsk »

Zulu Eleven wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 6:22pm
Mike Sales wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 6:18pm
Zulu Eleven wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 6:12pm Which so far, despite a lot of hysterical shrieking, appears to remain intact
You are at it again. When two respected scientists can say that " the direct benefits (of helmets) are too modest to capture" an accusation of hysteria is not convincing.
Except they didn’t say that in regard to anything like the statement contained in the Highway Code. (And, frankly, I think you are cherrypicking a quote that doesn’t represent the entirety of the paper anyway)

Again, the statement in the Highway Code update is “Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances”

Nothing that has been said in the past few pages in any way undermines or disproves this simple statement
Goldacre and Spiegelhalter do not come anywhere near saying that putting on a helmet for your next trip doesn't reduce the risk of injury. (Sorry about the multiple negatives.)

And their paper is three years before the cited systematic review and a fair number of the studies that are included.

Jonathan
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by mjr »

Jdsk wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 6:24pm What costs do you think that a systematic review would incur? It's mostly people's time.
Looking at the databases used in the 2016 review: PubMed is free, but Embase access is $1500/month, Scopus is price on application reported as $24,380/year for 1-25 users, and Compendex is price on application with no obvious public price.
And there seems to be a large amount of time available to argue about the subject which would be much better spent on evidence-based approaches.
Well, this is mission-critical, isn't it? If helmets were to be forced on cyclists, a lot of people would reduce or stop cycling, to the detriment of all cyclists and arguably the nation. So it gets some time. But maybe not as much as you think, given how fast some people type.

The evidence is not being collected any more. Few seem to care about the evidence now anyway. People have taken their positions for various reasons and entrenched, so it may no longer even be possible to collect good data without a lot of measures to reduce the risk of advocates telling data collectors what they they they want to hear, similar to what you have to do when surveying about sexual activities... and then both extremes will probably attack that methodology!

Goldacre and Spiegelhalter seem increasingly correct: "the current uncertainty [...] is unlikely to be substantially reduced by further research. [...] The enduring popularity of helmets [...may lie...] more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk."
The cost of access to the literature is very low, and probably aero in a realistic study involving an academic partner.
Based on the numbers above, we seem to have different ideas of very low cost and I don't understand aero in that context.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by Jdsk »

mjr wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 6:49pm
The cost of access to the literature is very low, and probably aero in a realistic study involving an academic partner.
Based on the numbers above, we seem to have different ideas of very low cost and I don't understand aero in that context.
That was my typo, now corrected: zero.

There's no need to pay anything like the costs quoted. Work with an academic partner, join the British Library, use a local library... register for an MSc...

Jonathan
Last edited by Jdsk on 6 Dec 2021, 7:02pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by Jdsk »

mjr wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 6:49pmThe evidence is not being collected any more. Few seem to care about the evidence now anyway.
I totally disagree. That SR was from 2016. PubMed has 273 citations including "cycle helmets" published since 1/1/2016.

Jonathan
Ron
Posts: 1382
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 9:07pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by Ron »

Zero? I think it is a typo.
Last edited by Ron on 6 Dec 2021, 7:05pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by Jdsk »

Ron wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 7:04pm
mjr wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 6:49pm of very low cost and I don't understand aero in that context.
Zero? I think it is a typo.
You're right.

: - )

Jonathan
Zulu Eleven
Posts: 235
Joined: 26 Oct 2018, 9:25pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by Zulu Eleven »

mjr wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 6:49pm Well, this is mission-critical, isn't it? If helmets were to be forced on cyclists, a lot of people would reduce or stop cycling, to the detriment of all cyclists and arguably the nation. So it gets some time. But maybe not as much as you think, given how fast some people type.
Again, the square root of nothing to do with the debate here, which is the veracity of the claim in the Highway Code update
Thehairs1970
Posts: 602
Joined: 11 Aug 2018, 9:30am

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by Thehairs1970 »

It is very difficult to do any ‘useful’ studies as none of them can be controlled. The only way of measuring the effect is to take a rider, get them to pop a helmet on and ride into something in a way that would produce a repeatable impact to the head. Then ask them to do it again without one. Speed, angle of impact and any defensive measures taken by the cyclist would also need to be exactly repeated.

Now, even if one could find volunteers (and if we did, I would question whether or not they had already had a brain injury!), keeping everything else the same is very difficult.

My simple test for whether or not you should wear a helmet would be to say that you have to take part in the above experiment and see who goes for what. This would give us a fantastic insight into what the public REALLY thinks.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by mjr »

Jdsk wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 6:57pm There's no need to pay anything like the costs quoted. Work with an academic partner, join the British Library, use a local library... register for an MSc...
My partner is not an academic, the British Library is a long train ride away and I can't even tell how to get access through it (lots of broken links in the results of a search for database names, feedback form submitted), I don't see any of those databases among the list on the Norfolk Libraries website (but I may ask the next time I visit one if the staff do not seem too busy), and I don't have the money to pay to do another Masters and much less the time.

I think you underestimate the costs of this for non-academics.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by mjr »

Zulu Eleven wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 7:30pm Again, the square root of nothing to do with the debate here, which is the veracity of the claim in the Highway Code update
It is something to do with the debate, having arisen naturally during it. It is not the core of the debate, though.

But now I see the source of your confusion and hostility. The debate is not whether that very niche claim is true, but whether it merits being in the Highway Code directed only at cyclists and without warnings. Please refer back to viewtopic.php?p=1656917#p1656917 for a reminder of how the latest debate started.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Zulu Eleven
Posts: 235
Joined: 26 Oct 2018, 9:25pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by Zulu Eleven »

mjr wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 7:51pm
Zulu Eleven wrote: 6 Dec 2021, 7:30pm Again, the square root of nothing to do with the debate here, which is the veracity of the claim in the Highway Code update
It is something to do with the debate, having arisen naturally during it. It is not the core of the debate, though.

But now I see the source of your confusion and hostility. The debate is not whether that very niche claim is true, but whether it merits being in the Highway Code directed only at cyclists and without warnings. Please refer back to viewtopic.php?p=1656917#p1656917 for a reminder of how the latest debate started.

Not really, the claim there is that the advice “You should wear a cycle helmet that conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened. Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances” is, and I quote, “questionable”

Nobody has, as yet, managed to provide any evidence in any way refuting that claim.
Mike Sales
Posts: 7860
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by Mike Sales »

Thehairs1970 wrote:
It is very difficult to do any ‘useful’ studies as none of them can be controlled. The only way of measuring the effect is to take a rider, get them to pop a helmet on and ride into something in a way that would produce a repeatable impact to the head. Then ask them to do it again without one. Speed, angle of impact and any defensive measures taken by the cyclist would also need to be exactly repeated.
Indeed. Also, in the real world a rider's behaviour would be affected by whether or not they wore a helmet. This is called risk compensation.
My simple test for whether or not you should wear a helmet would be to say that you have to take part in the above experiment and see who goes for what. This would give us a fantastic insight into what the public REALLY thinks.
Yes, behaviour is affected by whether the actor feels safer or more endangered. The amount of change in behaviour necessary to use up the minimal protection afforded by a cycle helmet is not large. If a helmet is felt needed to ride, say, a busy A road, this is risk compensation, in action. The helmet has not made you safe, but may have led you into more danger!
Last edited by Mike Sales on 6 Dec 2021, 8:28pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Post Reply