Latest Aussie misleading claims

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
Steady rider
Posts: 2164
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Latest Aussie misleading claims

Postby Steady rider » 9 Feb 2019, 11:02am

https://www.smh.com.au/national/report- ... 50wj7.html

The claim: 'Report reveals how many lives have been saved by bike helmets'
it says:
"There were 1144 cycling fatalities in the period 1990-2016 and, using the pre-legislation trajectory as a guide, our model estimates 2476 cycling fatalities from 1990 to 2016 if bicycle helmet legislation had not been introduced the report says

The authors of the research have previously published similar flawed research with misleading conclusions.

To see why it is flawed read:
Evaluating cycling fatality risk with a focus on cycle helmet use
http://worldtransportjournal.com/wp-con ... 4.4opt.pdf

For Australia the general road fatality rate per million population reduced from 174 in 1988 to 53 in 2016.

Table 2 – fatalities (17 years and older )
.......................... 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016
Cyclists – C.......................... 33 39 35 37 34 39 32 29
Pedestrians. - P .............491 423 292 306 253 197 172 170
C/P% ..................... ...... 6.7 9.2 11.9 10.2 13.4 16.2 18.6 17.0

% cycling to work 1.56* 1.68* 1.50* 1.24* 1.21* 1.24* 1.29* 1.24*
% walking to work 4.4** 3.9** 3.9** 3.5** 3.5** 4.0** 3.9* 4.2*
* national data
** data from main cities

The reduction in children cycling also contributed to the reduction of deaths.

more details about Australia are provided in 'Evaluation of Australia's bicycle helmet laws', presentation at The Sports Science Summit, O2 venue London UK http://www.cycle-helmets.com/au-assessment-2015.pdf Presented 14 January 2015.

User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 417
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: Latest Aussie misleading claims

Postby Wanlock Dod » 9 Feb 2019, 6:34pm

I think it's called policy driven evidence gathering. I found the comments about climate change deniers rather funny too considering that in Australia climate change denial seems to be almost a national policy.

The cylists:pedestrians ratio of mortal peril is certainly an interesting analysis, and one that would no doubt be improved by making similar comparisons to other countries. If there are fewer cyclists, and less road danger, then they seem to have managed to make cycling quite dangerous.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2231
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Re: Latest Aussie misleading claims

Postby The utility cyclist » 10 Feb 2019, 7:43pm

Olivier is a shill of the worst kind and a deliberate twister of facts :twisted:

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3666
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Latest Aussie misleading claims

Postby pjclinch » 11 Feb 2019, 10:02am

It got reported on road.cc and the comments are reassuringly full of not only "this is bunk", but "this is bunk because...". That's the website articles and the Facebook handle to it.

(I don't think Olivier is a shill, I suspect he's just been blinded by the light on an emotive issue and has lost hold of his professional competency. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened... Sir Isaac Newton spent a lot of time on alchemy; it can happen to anyone.)

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

Steady rider
Posts: 2164
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Latest Aussie misleading claims

Postby Steady rider » 11 Feb 2019, 10:35am

Researchers in Australia would have known the effects from their legislation, when enforced, in discouraging cycling, within the first year or two. Jake and associates are producing misleading information by selecting what suits and avoiding other evidence.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2231
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Re: Latest Aussie misleading claims

Postby The utility cyclist » 11 Feb 2019, 4:37pm

pjclinch wrote:It got reported on road.cc and the comments are reassuringly full of not only "this is bunk", but "this is bunk because...". That's the website articles and the Facebook handle to it.

(I don't think Olivier is a shill, I suspect he's just been blinded by the light on an emotive issue and has lost hold of his professional competency. It wouldn't be the first time that's happened... Sir Isaac Newton spent a lot of time on alchemy; it can happen to anyone.)

Pete.

He knowingly uses 'head injuries' in his data that would not be protected by a helmet (cut lips is one specific injury he includes), he is also sponsored by NSW state government, he also ignores his own policies/methodology regarding meta analysis when it comes to anything relating to helmet studies, why is that?
He continually uses methods that have been denounced and exposed as flawed, he fails to acknowledge that cycling trips have gone down significantly as a % of population in Australia (except for Tasmania), he ignores that pedestrian injury/death rates have gone down by far more than people on bikes over the same period since helmet mandation.
Cycling deaths as a % of all road deaths has gone up 50% in Australia between 2005 -2014

he and his pals have even written a paper to denounce risk compensation/risk homeostasis, he is an utter disgrace to his profession and doing untold damage to Australia and beyond as his papers are quoted often.

Brucey
Posts: 34305
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Latest Aussie misleading claims

Postby Brucey » 11 Feb 2019, 6:15pm

I wonder why the rate of pedestrian fatalities has decreased? If there were some understanding of this then comments about the proportion of cycling related deaths might have more meaning. As it is, it seems there is no fixed yardstick, and you might choose one or another depending on exactly what kind of axe you are grinding.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Steady rider
Posts: 2164
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Latest Aussie misleading claims

Postby Steady rider » 11 Feb 2019, 7:11pm

Comparing cyclists to pedestrians
European data shows how pedestrian and cyclist deaths reduced with changes over time. The graph below provides an indication of when road safety improves, and then fewer deaths occur to car users, pedestrians and cyclists 7. From 1980 to 2004 pedestrians had more than a 60% reduction and cyclists approaching a 60% reduction in fatalities. In most fatality cases
for pedestrians and cyclists, head injuries are involved. Test data from vehicles impacting dummies at lower speeds, from
40 km/hr to 30 km/hr, indicate a reduction in HIC (Head Injury Criterion) value of 78% for cyclists and 70% for pedestrians.
This could result from a change in driving speed of 4.2km (2.6mph) from 70km/hr to 65.8km/hr, when reaction and braking
times are included 8.

see reference OP
'Evaluating cycling fatality risk with a focus on cycle helmet use'


This provides one indicator.