Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

For all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmet usage will be moved here.
Post Reply
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, 7:45pm
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.
I'm not sure if this is meant humorously.

Academic partner didn't mean life partner, it meant project partner.

The relevant British Library resources are available online.

And in connection with local libraries it might be worth having a look at Access to Research:
https://accesstoresearch.org.uk

Jonathan

PS: It's obvious that there are strongly held views on the several different questions that are being discussed at the same time. Evidence-based methodology is a crucial tool in discussing and achieving some agreement on what's known and what isn't known.
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

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

Post by mattheus »

Jdsk wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 10:55am
mattheus wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 10:52am
Jdsk wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 10:44am

https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2674

That's the study which triggered the comments from G and S. And is about the effects of mandation. As above there are several different questions milling around here, and it's important to be precise about which one is being discussed.

But they did include a comment about helmets and injuries:

While helmets reduce the risk of head injuries and we encourage their use...

That appears to be consistent with the revised wording in the Highway Code.
Do you think such editorial comment makes good science? Or good health policy?
[I do generally hold the BMJ in high regard BTW! But no-one should be above criticism and question.]
That isn't an editorial comment. It was made by the authors of the study.
Fair point. But the general question stands: they do some analysis, present some numbers ...
and then make an opinionated summary; which ends up being the main quote here on the internet!

You may agree or disagree with their opinion: my point is should it be there, like a newspaper sub-headline?
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

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

Post by mattheus »

To further illustrate how this works, let's look at the whole sentence they wrote:

"
While helmets reduce the risk of head injuries and we encourage their use, in the Canadian context of existing safety campaigns, improvements to the cycling infrastructure, and the passive uptake of helmets, the incremental contribution of provincial helmet legislation to reduce hospital admissions for head injuries seems to have been minimal.
"
Would you agree that snipping out the first clause - and posting it on this forum to support your views - is steering the meaning?

Is this presentation better:
"
While helmets reduce the risk of head injuries and we encourage their use, in the Canadian context of existing safety campaigns, improvements to the cycling infrastructure, and the passive uptake of helmets, the incremental contribution of provincial helmet legislation to reduce hospital admissions for head injuries seems to have been minimal.
"
?
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Post by Jdsk »

mattheus wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 11:50am
Jdsk wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 10:55am
mattheus wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 10:52am Do you think such editorial comment makes good science? Or good health policy?
[I do generally hold the BMJ in high regard BTW! But no-one should be above criticism and question.]
That isn't an editorial comment. It was made by the authors of the study.
Fair point. But the general question stands: they do some analysis, present some numbers ...
and then make an opinionated summary; which ends up being the main quote here on the internet!

You may agree or disagree with their opinion: my point is should it be there, like a newspaper sub-headline?
This is a complex subject and the evidence isn't easy to understand. If people choose not to read entire papers it's up to them and the effects are reasonably predictable.

Personally I'm extremely interested in the comments from researchers who have been studying the subject at greater length and in more depth than I have. And in this particular case those comments are very helpful in separating the many questions, and especially the different questions of mandation and protective effects.

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Post by Jdsk »

mattheus wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 11:55am To further illustrate how this works, let's look at the whole sentence they wrote:

"
While helmets reduce the risk of head injuries and we encourage their use, in the Canadian context of existing safety campaigns, improvements to the cycling infrastructure, and the passive uptake of helmets, the incremental contribution of provincial helmet legislation to reduce hospital admissions for head injuries seems to have been minimal.
"
Would you agree that snipping out the first clause - and posting it on this forum to support your views - is steering the meaning?

Is this presentation better:
"
While helmets reduce the risk of head injuries and we encourage their use, in the Canadian context of existing safety campaigns, improvements to the cycling infrastructure, and the passive uptake of helmets, the incremental contribution of provincial helmet legislation to reduce hospital admissions for head injuries seems to have been minimal.
"
?
Snipping the quote was intended to separate the different issues of protection and mandation. It was deliberate. We won't make progress if we don't.

Jonathan
Last edited by Jdsk on 7 Dec 2021, 12:01pm, edited 1 time in total.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

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

Post by Steady rider »

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... le_helmets

This research shows there are major weaknesses in the approach taken with cycle helmets.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Post by Jdsk »

Steady rider wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 12:01pm https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... le_helmets

This research shows there are major weaknesses in the approach taken with cycle helmets.

Meta-analysis is a statistical technique. His competence in statistical analysis is illustrated in this discussion of a rather simpler technique: p values:
viewtopic.php?p=1592658#p1592658

Jonathan
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

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

Post by Steady rider »

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... se_revised
I think it could be helpful to see the articles, other people may not be able to find the links and if questions arise I may be best placed to answer and may benefit from the knowing any concerns or points.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _in_Canada

The report prior to the consultation does mention Colin Clarke's work as a key consideration.
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

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

Post by mattheus »

Jdsk wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 12:01pm
mattheus wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 11:55am ...
...

Is this presentation better:
"
While helmets reduce the risk of head injuries and we encourage their use, in the Canadian context of existing safety campaigns, improvements to the cycling infrastructure, and the passive uptake of helmets, the incremental contribution of provincial helmet legislation to reduce hospital admissions for head injuries seems to have been minimal.
"
?
Snipping the quote was intended to separate the different issues of protection and mandation. It was deliberate. We won't make progress if we don't.

Jonathan
But the bit you quoted wasn't supported by the study it comes from! I put it to you that by deliberately putting that (partial) quote in the context of a complex study about a different issue, you hoped to give it more weight in this debate.

Perhaps that is your idea of progress?
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Post by Jdsk »

mattheus wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 12:33pm
Jdsk wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 12:01pm
mattheus wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 11:55am ...
...

Is this presentation better:
"
While helmets reduce the risk of head injuries and we encourage their use, in the Canadian context of existing safety campaigns, improvements to the cycling infrastructure, and the passive uptake of helmets, the incremental contribution of provincial helmet legislation to reduce hospital admissions for head injuries seems to have been minimal.
"
?
Snipping the quote was intended to separate the different issues of protection and mandation. It was deliberate. We won't make progress if we don't.
But the bit you quoted wasn't supported by the study it comes from! I put it to you that by deliberately putting that (partial) quote in the context of a complex study about a different issue, you hoped to give it more weight in this debate.

Perhaps that is your idea of progress?
I thought that this debate was about the wording in the Highway Code and protection rather than mandation.

The quoted part was about protection rather than mandation.

Jonathan
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

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

Post by mattheus »

Jdsk wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 12:37pm
mattheus wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 12:33pm
Jdsk wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 12:01pm
Snipping the quote was intended to separate the different issues of protection and mandation. It was deliberate. We won't make progress if we don't.
But the bit you quoted wasn't supported by the study it comes from! I put it to you that by deliberately putting that (partial) quote in the context of a complex study about a different issue, you hoped to give it more weight in this debate.

Perhaps that is your idea of progress?
I thought that this debate was about the wording in the Highway Code and protection rather than mandation.

The quoted part was about protection rather than mandation.
Yes. But it was just an opinion from the writer. There was nothing backing it up!
[crikey this is hard work ... ]
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Post by Jdsk »

Steady rider wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 12:19pm https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... se_revised
I think it could be helpful to see the articles, other people may not be able to find the links and if questions arise I may be best placed to answer and may benefit from the knowing any concerns or points.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _in_Canada

The report prior to the consultation does mention Colin Clarke's work as a key consideration.

There's concern upthread about the authors of systematic reviews including their own primary studies. It's appropriate to draw attention to that. IMO it's acceptable as long as it's known and the primary data are made available for others to replicate the study as they think fit. But this pales into insignificance when compared with quoting your own work without declaration. Or cherrypicking your own work when other studies and systematic reviews are available.

Jonathan
Last edited by Jdsk on 7 Dec 2021, 12:53pm, 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 »

mattheus wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 12:41pm
Jdsk wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 12:37pm
mattheus wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 12:33pm But the bit you quoted wasn't supported by the study it comes from! I put it to you that by deliberately putting that (partial) quote in the context of a complex study about a different issue, you hoped to give it more weight in this debate.

Perhaps that is your idea of progress?
I thought that this debate was about the wording in the Highway Code and protection rather than mandation.

The quoted part was about protection rather than mandation.
Yes. But it was just an opinion from the writer. There was nothing backing it up!
That's simply incorrect. The quotation was from the Abstract which doesn't include references. A few lines further on in the Introduction they wrote:

A proportion of these injuries can be prevented by the use of helmets, 9 10 11 12

and in the Discussion:

Helmets reduce the risk of injuries to the brain by up to 88%, the head by up to 85%, and the face by up to 65%.10 11 12

Those numbers give the link to the cited papers in the References.

These are the authors' conclusions but they're not simply "opinion". They're "backed up" by the cited studies.

Jonathan
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

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

Post by Steady rider »

I think the approach by the Highway Code /government policy should be accident avoidance first, they have failed in some respects on this count, needs improvements.
They should ensure the Code is not used to the disadvantage of cyclists or pedestrians, as cyclists are probably most affected by the legal aspects regarding 'should' and where no legal requirement exits contributory negligence claims should not apply to what is not worn by a cyclist or pedestrian regarding extra safety aids.
They should advise there is mixed evidence regarding the benefits of cycle helmets and their promotion and encouragement may not provide a societal benefit. Helmets, if worn should comply with standards and worn correctly.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

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

Post by Jdsk »

Steady rider wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 12:56pm... and where no legal requirement exits contributory negligence claims should not apply to what is not worn by a cyclist or pedestrian regarding extra safety aids.
I'd be very wary of removing anyone's right to present their own case. Even where liability is presumed (which I would favour for vulnerable road users) that right should be *maintained.

Jonathan

* And apparently is maintained in the jurisdictions where this has been introduced, according to previous discussion in this forum:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=145062&hilit=negligence+presumed
Last edited by Jdsk on 7 Dec 2021, 1:07pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply