Cycleclips and Misleading Reporting

[stewartpratt]

I suggest you do read the article.

Ok, so I've just found it in the archive. The sentence you quote is not a headline, as you said it was. It is a simple sentence in a one-paragraph round-up of helmet-related news: "Meanwhile, a new study has cast doubt on the efficacy of cycle helmets in preventing injury."

Were I to be picky I would query the fact that the link text was "a new study" and the link target was a road.cc article rather than the study itself, but I am now really struggling to see how you could make such a mountain out of nothing, not even a molehill. It's a perfectly reasonable and accurate sentence. I don't see what aspect of it you could dispute: A study has been published, it's new, it concerns the efficacy of cycle helmets, and it suggests that said efficacy is less than is commonly accepted. As you said yourself, "the new study they refer to is a Norwegian study which simply concludes that helmets do not reduce the incidence of head injuries by the extent suggested by previous studies." Which is absolutely consistent with the sentence in Cycleclips.

[Cunobelin]

If it helps in even one case then it has some effectiveness, provided in the other cases the outcome is not worsened. Your statement only makes sense if in the cases where the helmet was not effective it actually had a negative effect which on average was of the same magnitude as the positive effect in the succesful cases. And that's never going to be the case.

In which case we must also promote driver, pedestrian and beer helmets on the same grounds............

According to one of the Cohort studies of head injuries, 60 % are alcohol related.We can look at the evidence from other impacts so we "know" that full face helmets could prevent many of these injuries, and there is no proof of any negative effect.... so how can we argue against their use and even compulsion?

[Cunobelin]

43% seems pretty good to me and doesn't justify the misleading headline used by the CTC in Cycleclips which is partial, misleading and like something one would expect from the Daily Mail.
I can't understand why the CTC doesn't ballot members on this issue and seek their views.
I really object to receiving misleading headlines from an organisation I am helping to pay for.
jonty

Perhaps this is why a vote wouldn't work as the pro helmet lobby would still see a loss as a win because the number of votes would seem "good to them"?

57% vote against helmet compulsion, and 43% for - would you accept that decision?

[StopHeadway]

Without directing this at anyone in particular; there are few things more depressing than watching people debate a paper without referring to any of its published conclusions, even when the paper is freely available online to be read in full...

I suppose it's a good illustration of the helmet debate in microcosm?

[Jonty]

I suggest you do read the article.

Ok, so I've just found it in the archive. The sentence you quote is not a headline, as you said it was. It is a simple sentence in a one-paragraph round-up of helmet-related news: "Meanwhile, a new study has cast doubt on the efficacy of cycle helmets in preventing injury."

Were I to be picky I would query the fact that the link text was "a new study" and the link target was a road.cc article rather than the study itself, but I am now really struggling to see how you could make such a mountain out of nothing, not even a molehill. It's a perfectly reasonable and accurate sentence. I don't see what aspect of it you could dispute: A study has been published, it's new, it concerns the efficacy of cycle helmets, and it suggests that said efficacy is less than is commonly accepted. As you said yourself, "the new study they refer to is a Norwegian study which simply concludes that helmets do not reduce the incidence of head injuries by the extent suggested by previous studies." Which is absolutely consistent with the sentence in Cycleclips.

IMO the statement "a new study has cast doubt on the efficacy of cycle helmets in preventing injury" gives the impression that cycle helmets are totally ineffective in preventing injury, especially given the context within which the statement was made.
If it has said "a new study has concluded that cycle helmet are less effective in preventing injury than previously thought" then that would IMO have been accurate and consistent with the study.
jonty

[Cunobelin]

Without directing this at anyone in particular; there are few things more depressing than watching people debate a paper without referring to any of its published conclusions, even when the paper is freely available online to be read in full...

I suppose it's a good illustration of the helmet debate in microcosm?

But we have:

6. Conclusions
Based on the studies reviewed in this paper, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. A re-analysis has been performed of a meta-analysis of the protective effects of bicycle helmets reported in Accident Analysis and Prevention (Attewell et al., 2001). The original analysis was found to be influenced by publication bias and time-trend bias that were not controlled for.
2. When these sources of bias are controlled for, the protective effects attributed to bicycle helmets become smaller than originally estimated.
3. When the analysis is updated by adding four new studies, the protective effects attributed to bicycle helmets are further reduced. According to the new studies, no overall effect of bicycle helmets could be found when injuries to head, face or neck are considered as a whole.
4. The findings of this study are inconsistent with other meta- analyses, in particular a Cochrane review published in 2009. However, the study inclusion criteria applied in the Cochrane review are debatable.

[kwackers]

IMO the statement "a new study has cast doubt on the efficacy of cycle helmets in preventing injury" gives the impression that cycle helmets are totally ineffective in preventing injury, especially given the context within which the statement was made.

It's a bit of a stretch to change "cast doubt" to "totally ineffective".

I can't help but think you're trying to make a non-point...

[Jonty]

IMO the statement "a new study has cast doubt on the efficacy of cycle helmets in preventing injury" gives the impression that cycle helmets are totally ineffective in preventing injury, especially given the context within which the statement was made.

It's a bit of a stretch to change "cast doubt" to "totally ineffective".

I can't help but think you're trying to make a non-point...

It a bigger stretch to describe a study as casting doubt on the efficacy of cycle helmets when the same study concludes that helmets reduce risk by over 40%.
jonty

[Cunobelin]

You really need to get a grip here!

1. Previous paper claims 60% reduction
2. New paper suggests 40%
3. 40 is less than 60
4. That casts doubt on the claimed efficacy of helmets as stated in the original paper!

That is as complicated as it gets!

Your imagined conspiracy theory doesn't get off the ground I am afraid.

[SilverBadge]

According to one of the Cohort studies of head injuries, 60 % are alcohol related.We can look at the evidence from other impacts so we "know" that full face helmets could prevent many of these injuries, and there is no proof of any negative effect.... so how can we argue against their use and even compulsion?

Very true - visor down, you can't drink nearly as much

[StopHeadway]

It's also worth remembering that we are talking about "already falling" incidents here. i.e. if you are already falling off your bike, are helmets 60% effective at reducing the risk of head injury, or 40% (and apparently completely ineffective when you include neck/face injuries in the mix).

The study is not saying that helmet use reduces head injuries by 40%, since the chance of becoming an "already falling" person is different in the context of bareheaded / helmeted / compelled. For instance, if helmets reduced head injuries by 40% but caused 40% more people to fall, say because of close overtaking or increased risk-taking...

[Jonty]

It's also worth remembering that we are talking about "already falling" incidents here. i.e. if you are already falling off your bike, are helmets 60% effective at reducing the risk of head injury, or 40% (and apparently completely ineffective when you include neck/face injuries in the mix).

The study is not saying that helmet use reduces head injuries by 40%, since the chance of becoming an "already falling" person is different in the context of bareheaded / helmeted / compelled. For instance, if helmets reduced head injuries by 40% but caused 40% more people to fall, say because of close overtaking or increased risk-taking...

Yeah.. right....if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
jonty

[StopHeadway]

Um... this is the whole question about helmet use though, isn't it?

It's easy to show that people pick up less injuries when they fall off a bike wearing a helmet. However, when a population of cyclists all start wearing helmets, the rate of head injury does not decrease (in some cases it's been documented to increase). Therefore, the helmeted cyclists experience more accidents.

Alternative explanations welcomed. Were all the helmets faulty, for instance?

[bovlomov]

Alternative explanations welcomed. Were all the helmets faulty, for instance?

They could mostly be fitted badly. Even enthusiastic helmet wearers often don't see the need to fit the things properly [any pics to illustrate this?]; how much worse is it for reluctant ones?

Our new mandatory helmet legislation needs to be drafted so that it would also be an offence to wear a badly fitting helmet. Regular roadside checks will eliminate non-compliance.

[StopHeadway]

Even so, this would require everybody to accept that a badly fitted helmet is more dangerous than bareheaded, which (given that many free helmet handouts are one-size-fits-all with no further advice) would not go down well in the helmet camp.