Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

[Thehairs1970]

In support of your ideas. It also turns out that in the UK, head injury is the highest cause of death of motorcyclists. I suspect it would be the case if we removed helmets from riders. So will you also be campaigning for a repeal of the motorcycle helmet laws? It’s surely the same argument.

[Zulu Eleven]

The challenge to their methodology is the systematic filtering out of the large volume of evidence that doesn't support their conclusions from the review. It is rather like Newcastle United claiming to be the top club in the premier league by analysing the results from the most recent 38 games in which they won.

I did explain this in the post you supposedly replying to, but you snipped it off.

Again - because you still don’t appear to be reading it - if there is such a challenge then what is stopping it being made valid through the established and robust comment and editorial process. This is how the system works.

Since you claim to be a fan of data. Please explain why the rate of head injuries INCREASED for cyclists following helmet compulsion in New South Wales.

Again, what has that got to do with the claim in the Highway Code?

[Jdsk]

The 2016 Systematic Review:
"Bicycle injuries and helmet use: a systematic review and meta-analysis":
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/1/278/2617198

And then I'd suggest everyone should reread Goldacre and Spiegelhalter, of course.

(I don't know of a more recent SR, but would welcome it if anyone does.)

Jonathan

[mjr]

Well no actually - I just read what many qualified statisticians and scientists have said on reviewing that paper.

How about you?

Then those ‘ qualified statisticians and scientists’ can follow the comment & editorial procedure in accordance with Cochrane guidelines - that is how science is done - the fact that no valid objections to the protocol resulting in withdrawal have come forward shows how little credence the hysterical anti-mask, oops, I mean anti-helmet brigade’s critique deserves.

In less than two years, more studies have been done and more solid evidence provided for masks against covid than in about four decades for helmets against cycling injuries. Equating the two says more about your irrational belief in helmet use than anything else.

The Cochrane Library website seems to be a usability disaster zone. It says that four criticisms have been submitted and the authors replied, but the "Feedback 1" link does nothing. It's not clear to me how it could be challenged for withdrawal without repeating work by far more illustrious academics. I believe from comments on another site that very qualified statistician Dorothy L Robinson submitted a challenge and the authors (TRT) simply rejected the main criticisms by saying that they were only interested in head injury reduction, not the effects on injuries in general, or even in head injury rates. Essentially, TRT yet again concluded that helmets "work" but for a very different value of "work" than most people would care about.

It's obvious where to get funding for helmet-supporting research, but who would be funding the considerable time required to document, submit and defend those objections to the point where Cochrane withdraw the Review?

Ultimately, this is a review of only five studies, two of which are from the authors, all of which have been rebutted and one of which is considered too low quality for US government agencies to use. It is not solid.

I mean, no journal is perfect - Cochrane has indeed withdrawn studies in the past based on valid challenges… but your argument appears to be that in the established field of scientific research, one of the most respected sources and publishers of systemic research has - seemingly uniquely - disregarded both science and published editorial guidelines to support a fairly minor and in the grand scheme of things fairly inconsequential review of evidence regards bicycle helmets. Presumably at the behest of ‘big-helmet’ I suppose… or maybe in an effort to keep the lizard people safe from the effects of the chemtrails.

Or more likely this publication is an aberration, a blot on its copybook, carried out by smart researchers who spotted a flaw in the Cochrane protocol which allowed them to submit a very small review of a very narrow question heavily emphasising their own work. That flaw has now been remedied by adoption of a Conflict of Interest Policy but it does not apply retrospectively to publications as old as that review and will only cause TRT problems if they try to update it... and with so many people willing to accept it, why would they? The helmet-promotion job is done.

[Jdsk]

Ultimately, this is a review of only five studies, two of which are from the authors, all of which have been rebutted and one of which is considered too low quality for US government agencies to use. It is not solid.

There's a lot more studies in the 2016 SR.

Jonathan

[Mike Sales]

the hysterical anti-mask, oops, I mean anti-helmet brigade’s critique deserves.

Presumably at the behest of ‘big-helmet’ I suppose… or maybe in an effort to keep the lizard people safe from the effects of the chemtrails.

You are becoming abusive.
Calling your opponents in discussion a "brigade" is always a bad sign.
Please keep it civil.

[mjr]

Ultimately, this is a review of only five studies, two of which are from the authors, all of which have been rebutted and one of which is considered too low quality for US government agencies to use. It is not solid.

There's a lot more studies in the 2016 SR.

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.

[Zulu Eleven]

the hysterical anti-mask, oops, I mean anti-helmet brigade’s critique deserves.

Presumably at the behest of ‘big-helmet’ I suppose… or maybe in an effort to keep the lizard people safe from the effects of the chemtrails.

You are becoming abusive.
Calling your opponents in discussion a "brigade" is always a bad sign.
Please keep it civil.

Ridicule/mocking ≠ abusive

[Jdsk]

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.

Jonathan

[Mike Sales]

the hysterical anti-mask, oops, I mean anti-helmet brigade’s critique deserves.

Presumably at the behest of ‘big-helmet’ I suppose… or maybe in an effort to keep the lizard people safe from the effects of the chemtrails.

You are becoming abusive.
Calling your opponents in discussion a "brigade" is always a bad sign.
Please keep it civil.

Ridicule/mocking ≠ abusive

A fine distinction: neither contributes to a civil discussion. Do try to behave as befits this club.
"Brigade" is not really ridicule, just a stock way to try to denigrate.

[Jdsk]

Ultimately, this is a review of only five studies, two of which are from the authors, all of which have been rebutted and one of which is considered too low quality for US government agencies to use. It is not solid.

There's a lot more studies in the 2016 SR.

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.

Jonathan

[Zulu Eleven]

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.

Jonathan

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”

Which so far, despite a lot of hysterical shrieking, appears to remain intact

[Jdsk]

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.

Jonathan

[Mike Sales]

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.

[mjr]

There's a lot more studies in the 2016 SR.

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.