More plastic hat mythology

[Graham]

I know this stuff is everywhere, but what struck me this time is the emphatic statement.

Half a million cycle trips are made each day in London, and a recent spate of deaths has put cycle safety at the top of the agenda.

One thing essential to safe cycling is a well-fitted helmet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25682712

How do I complain (effectively) about crap like this ??

[squeaker]

I know this stuff is everywhere, but what struck me this time is the emphatic statement.

Half a million cycle trips are made each day in London, and a recent spate of deaths has put cycle safety at the top of the agenda.

One thing essential to safe cycling is a well-fitted helmet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25682712

How do I complain (effectively) about crap like this ??

There's always the beeb's complaints procedure but IME don't waste your time

When I read this articleI thought things might be changing

Of course, debate still rages over whether helmets really help protect cyclists at all - with arguments ranging from the ineffectiveness of polystyrene to the mere act of wearing a helmet encouraging cyclists to take more risks and drivers to be less cautious.

but it was balanced by

But an independent review by the Transport Research Laboratory in 2009 found that assuming they are worn correctly, cycle helmets should be effective at reducing the risk of head injury.

plus other stuff from Headway

[Thermostat9]

How do I complain (effectively) about crap like this ??

There's always the beeb's complaints procedure but IME don't waste your time

Not entirely wasted - I saw this thread this morning and wrote the following on the BBC Complaints web page

From: Audience Services
Sent: 14 January 2014 09:45
To: NewsOnline Complaints
Subject: Complaint - Reply Required

Opinion reported as fact.

On the BBC News 'Health' web page there is an interesting article about a recent design of cycle helmet titled 'Can a paper helmet protect cyclists' heads?'

This opens with the statement "One thing essential to safe cycling is a well-fitted helmet.".

It is not essential, it is not even a legal requirement. There is little evidence that wearing helmets is even beneficial. Do not make statements like that as if they are facts.

And received this reply already - just 2 hours later.

Thank you for your recent email regarding the wording of the voiceover in the film about cycle helmets made from paper.

Your point about the use of the word ‘essential’ is valid, as it is indeed true that people can go for a bike ride without one and return safely. It is also true that they are not a legal requirement, as stated at the end of the online article.

There is, however, evidence to suggest that wearing a helmet can indeed be beneficial in certain types of cycle accident – especially those in which the cyclist falls and knocks their head against a hard surface. Mechanical testing of helmets shows that they can spread the load of the impact across a wider area, thus reducing the risk of fracture. Tests also show that compression of polystyrene reduces the speed of deceleration as the head hits the solid object – again, meaning that some of the energy of the impact is absorbed by the helmet rather than the skull.

Obviously helmets will not be protective in all situations, such as being hit by a lorry. There are also cases where people fall off their bikes and hit their head so lightly that a cycle helmet is superfluous. However, there are biomechanical data available to show that under a certain range of conditions, helmets can indeed reduce the risk of head injury.

Taking all of this into account, we are happy to change the first line of the film to:

“One thing that can be important for safe cycling is a well-fitted cycle helmet.”

I think this allows for your point about it not being ‘essential’ while also pointing out that in certain situations, a cycle helmet can make the difference between coming home safely and not.

I hope that this helps address your concern.

Richard Warry

Assistant editor, Specialist journalism

Unless people complain, each and every time they see sloppy journalism about this subject, the problem will continue. I'm not that bothered about the content of the reply (his explanation is probably arguable), but a volume of complaints will make the editorial teams take notice.

[honesty]

Thats probably one of the best written cycle helmet emails I've read. They should publish that with the news piece.

[Geriatrix]

I know this stuff is everywhere, but what struck me this time is the emphatic statement.

Half a million cycle trips are made each day in London, and a recent spate of deaths has put cycle safety at the top of the agenda.

One thing essential to safe cycling is a well-fitted helmet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25682712

How do I complain (effectively) about crap like this ??

Even if the BBC's statement was true, it would also be true for all activities that cause head trauma. Why don't we wear a helmet to mitigate against a slip in the shower, fall on the pavement, or to protect against random assault?

It's been mentioned before on the forum that whilst cycling tends to be evaluated as a single activity, it can be divided into distinct categories, that being sports, recreational and utility cycling. Not all carry the same risk, and not all cyclists indulge in the higher risk activities.

If you had to control for the high risk cycling activities, the risk of head injury from cycling would probably be no different to other day to day activities. So why no helmet compulsion from the time we get out of bed?

[Cunobelin]

...... plus other stuff from Headway

Headway are sadly one of the biggest charlatans when it comes to making absurd claims about head injuries

[[XAP]Bob]

what about changing the text of the article....

[Graham]

Well done Thermostat9, you got it toned down.

The text on the web page now reads :

Half a million cycle trips are made each day in London, and a recent spate of deaths has put cycle safety at the top of the agenda.

One thing that can be important for safe cycling is a well-fitted cycle helmet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25682712

Less outrageously objectionable, but still not right.

[honesty]

Going by their own email, based on their caveats it is right though. If you're going less that 12mph and fall on your head a cycle helmet can be important. The problem being that the caveats are never stated and therefore the casual reader will assume it still means in all scenarios.

[[XAP]Bob]

So shouldn't it say "one thing that could be important for a slow fall off a bike is a well fitted cycle helmet"

[mjr]

Going by their own email, based on their caveats it is right though. If you're going less that 12mph and fall on your head a cycle helmet can be important.

Only if you fall onto a flat road or kerb. Most helmets aren't tested against a hemispheric rock shape any more.

Conversely, why aren't they mentioning the increased risk of rotational injuries, strangulation and risk compensation?

[Graham]

Conversely, why aren't they mentioning the increased risk of rotational injuries, strangulation and risk compensation?

. . . because it is a lazy piece of preamble for an item on cardboard hats for cyclists, by an ignorant journalist/editor.

'Tis the way of the world.

[Steady rider]

Some info for the BBC

Robinson 1996 report, Table 2 shows data for children in NSW. The equivalent number of injuries for pre law level of number of cyclists increased from 1310 (384 head + 926 other injuries) in 1991 to 2083 (488 head + 1595 other injuries) in 1993. For NSW the helmet laws reduced children’s safety. The increased injury rate were 59%, from 1310 to 2083.
Robinson DL; Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws; Accid Anal Prev, 28, 4: p 463-475, 1996
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf

Concerns were expressed about the safety outcome ‘Of particular concern are children and adolescents who have experienced the greatest increase in the risk of cycling injuries despite a substantial decline in the amount of cycling over the past two decades’
Tin Tin S. Injuries to pedal cyclists on New Zealand roads, 1988-2007. BMC Public Health 2010;10:655. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/655


Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle law
Summary
‘Cyclist’s injury risk per hour increased by 20–32%’.
Clarke, CF, Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle law, NZMJ 10 February 2012, Vol 125 No 1349
http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/125-1349/5046/

The ECF (European Cycling Federation) stated "the evidence from Australia and NZ suggests that the wearing of helmets might even make cycling more dangerous,”
European Cycling Federation. 'Improving bicycle safety without making helmet use compulsory; Brussels, Belgium. 1998. http://www.fiab-onlus.it/andare/helm_gb.doc

Erke and Elvik (Norwegian researchers) 2007 stated: ‘There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and NZ, the increase is estimated to be around 14 percent.’
Erke A, Elvik R, Making Vision Zero real: Preventing Pedestrian Accidents And Making Them Less Severe, Oslo June 2007. page 28
https://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikas ... 7-nett.pdf

In general the helmet wearing rate has been increasing in the UK.
http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/repor ... n_2008.htm

Looking at the accident data for the past 10 years, the rate per billion miles.
GB
page 89
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... mplete.pdf

Cyclist, for fatal or serious, 2002 to 2012, 954 -1135, up 19%
All vehicles, 2002 to 2012, 190 -124, down 35%
Is this change connected to wearing helmets?

The UK's National Children's Bureau (NCB) provided a detailed review of cycling and helmets in 2005, stating that the case for helmets is far from sound and the benefits of helmets need further investigation before even a policy supporting promotion can be unequivocally supported. Gill T, Cycling and Children and Young People, A review, National Children's Bureau, 2005. http://www.cycle-helmets.com/cyclingreport_timgill.pdf


A reasonable doubt exists about helmets providing an overall safety benefit because of the above evidence. The BBC should report that there is evidence both for and against helmet wearing, some evidence indicating protection and other evidence suggesting they may increase the accident rate. Debate continues about their merits or otherwise. see
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... ncebrf.pdf

[Thermostat9]

Some info for the BBC

Why would the BBC be interested in reading your post here?

[Steady rider]

Yes the BBC may not be interested. They have had 20 years to cover the topic of cycle helmets and legislation but only occasionally give it a few minutes. They seem better at wasting time, repeating stories, and gaining high incomes for some. It costs £145.50 for a colour TV licence fee, say 20 million households, £2.9 billion. £7.945 million per day, £331000 per hours, £5500 per minutes, £92 per second. So when they waste time, repeating names, tunes, people can work out how much it costs. A bit far from cycle helmets, so I will leave it there. p.s the £7.9 million per day would be better spent on cycling.