CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

For all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmet usage will be moved here.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Jdsk »

pjclinch wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 7:12pmI find it telling that Goldacre is very much a proponent of SR and in much of his writing goes out of his way to promote and encourage their use, but that Cycle helmets and the law says the current research body isn't really conclusive and there is a suggestion that more work along the same lines won't be either. He doesn't say all someone needs to do is systematically review it and we'll have progress. The drift (especially if read with the background on the badscience website or in I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that) is that it's a field where the current tools don't appear to be up to this particular job. Those current tools include SR.
I am not aware of any statements from either Goldacre or Spiegelhalter that there's a better method of establishing what's known and what isn't known in this sort of domain than systematic review. If our current knowledge is limited (as it is) then a systematic review will reveal precisely that.

Jonathan
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5470
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by pjclinch »

Jdsk wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 7:27pm
pjclinch wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 7:12pmI find it telling that Goldacre is very much a proponent of SR and in much of his writing goes out of his way to promote and encourage their use, but that Cycle helmets and the law says the current research body isn't really conclusive and there is a suggestion that more work along the same lines won't be either. He doesn't say all someone needs to do is systematically review it and we'll have progress. The drift (especially if read with the background on the badscience website or in I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that) is that it's a field where the current tools don't appear to be up to this particular job. Those current tools include SR.
I am not aware of any statements from either Goldacre or Spiegelhalter that there's a better method of establishing what's known and what isn't known in this sort of domain than systematic review. If our current knowledge is limited (as it is) then a systematic review will reveal precisely that.
But "better" or even "best" is still no use if it's not good enough. The best method to polish a third still doesn't give you anything shiny.

SR should involve a quality threshold. If nothing much is meeting an adequate one then you're left with nothing.

You say above our knowledge is limited, so we're all happy with that being the state of play. Risk and Cycle helmets and the law give us piles of reasons why that is so. SR of the existing literature doesn't get you past those reasons: if the methodology of what you're reviewing is flawed ISTM that's a pretty hard thing to argue past a meaningful quality threshold.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Jdsk »

pjclinch wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 8:19pm
Jdsk wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 7:27pm
pjclinch wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 7:12pmI find it telling that Goldacre is very much a proponent of SR and in much of his writing goes out of his way to promote and encourage their use, but that Cycle helmets and the law says the current research body isn't really conclusive and there is a suggestion that more work along the same lines won't be either. He doesn't say all someone needs to do is systematically review it and we'll have progress. The drift (especially if read with the background on the badscience website or in I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that) is that it's a field where the current tools don't appear to be up to this particular job. Those current tools include SR.
I am not aware of any statements from either Goldacre or Spiegelhalter that there's a better method of establishing what's known and what isn't known in this sort of domain than systematic review. If our current knowledge is limited (as it is) then a systematic review will reveal precisely that.
But "better" or even "best" is still no use if it's not good enough. The best method to polish a third still doesn't give you anything shiny.

SR should involve a quality threshold. If nothing much is meeting an adequate one then you're left with nothing.

You say above our knowledge is limited, so we're all happy with that being the state of play. Risk and Cycle helmets and the law give us piles of reasons why that is so. SR of the existing literature doesn't get you past those reasons: if the methodology of what you're reviewing is flawed ISTM that's a pretty hard thing to argue past a meaningful quality threshold.
How can we know what evidence is out there without a review of the literature? And the best way to do a review is as a systematic review.

It's very common for the conclusion of a systematic review to be that no high-quality evidence could be found. But we can't know unless the searching is done. Systematically.

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Jdsk »

pjclinch wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 8:19pmSR should involve a quality threshold. If nothing much is meeting an adequate one then you're left with nothing.
The evidence hierarchy is commonly used within systematic review to classify categories of studies. And statistical testing to examine the reliability of conclusions.

And as above for the conclusion to be that there is no high-quality evidence available.

These are reasons to perform systematic reviews, not to avoid them.

Jonathan
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5470
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by pjclinch »

Jdsk wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 8:28pm
pjclinch wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 8:19pmSR should involve a quality threshold. If nothing much is meeting an adequate one then you're left with nothing.
The evidence hierarchy is commonly used within systematic review to classify categories of studies. And statistical testing to examine the reliability of conclusions.

And as above for the conclusion to be that there is no high-quality evidence available.

These are reasons to perform systematic reviews, not to avoid them.
This is, I suspect, a point of Furious Agreement. I'm not against anyone doing such work, but for reasons outlined in some detail by others I don't think the one raised on risk compensation meets the bar, and I'm frankly dubious about Olivier's SR efforts on helmet efficacy because he has a fixation on case/control hospital studies and they really don't seem fit for purpose. So to date just because it says "systematic" on the tin doesn't demonstrate it's good.

How do we know what's out there? There's no shortage of lists of references to give us a pretty good idea, but as you say it could certainly be better. But I couldn't face it, even if if I had the skills to do it right. A WHO bibliography listed 447 papers back in 2004, so a lot more than that. It's a very big job for something that has all the hallmarks of giving us a conclusion of inconclusiveness, and I say that because most of the work doesn't account for psychology.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Jdsk »

pjclinch wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 9:07pmThis is, I suspect, a point of Furious Agreement.
: - )

Jonathan
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by mattheus »

We are entering CTT AGM season this week. I have started the preliminiry steps towards reversing this rule.

Well wishes welcome! :P

[i have little experience on regs changes, nor the diplomacy to push them through, so this might be a very long road ... ]
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by drossall »

Interested to know how it goes. But my understanding is that delegates vote as representatives of their Districts, whose views may have been decided in their own meetings, where delegates were representatives of clubs. Is that roughly right? If so, any successful campaign (on any issue) would have to start at club level.

I realise that there are debates going on about delegates last year who were mandated and yet ignored that, and whether they should have done that, but my main point is that the voting, at least in theory, reflects wider views that might have to be influenced for success.
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by mattheus »

drossall wrote: 5 Oct 2022, 1:31pm Interested to know how it goes. But my understanding is that delegates vote as representatives of their Districts, whose views may have been decided in their own meetings, where delegates were representatives of clubs. Is that roughly right? If so, any successful campaign (on any issue) would have to start at club level.
Correct. I am attending district AGM as part of my club's delegation (no-one went last year - there are a LOT of clubs in a District, and I suspect only a tiny minority attend. this creates an interesting representation/democracy situation .... )
drossall wrote: 5 Oct 2022, 1:31pm I realise that there are debates going on about delegates last year who were mandated and yet ignored that, and whether they should have done that, but my main point is that the voting, at least in theory, reflects wider views that might have to be influenced for success.
What wider selection of views IS there than the CUK forum?!?
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Steady rider »

A motion asking for presentation of evidence regarding the pros and cons of requiring helmet use in time trails could be one option, to allow representatives to consider the available evidence and to vote on whether the motion passed last year mandating their use should be reversed.

This could allow for 2 speakers, say for 20 mins each, and take a vote.
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by mattheus »

Steady rider wrote: 5 Oct 2022, 4:16pm A motion asking for presentation of evidence regarding the pros and cons of requiring helmet use in time trails could be one option, to allow representatives to consider the available evidence and to vote on whether the motion passed last year mandating their use should be reversed.

This could allow for 2 speakers, say for 20 mins each, and take a vote.
That's quite a nice idea. :idea:

I'm unlikely to take that approach, as my simplistic plan is to copy-paste previous AGM motions that are of the form
"Amend Section 4.3.2.1(c), to replace with "blah blah yellow blah blah" with "blah 2cm blah white blah"

If I'm lucky, bigger brains than mine within CTT will improve my proposal!
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Steady rider »

https://www.cyclingtimetrials.org.uk/articles/view/16
3. OBJECTS
3.1 The Company's objects are:
(a) To control unpaced cycling time trials and such other cycling events as the Company shall from time to time decide, held on the public roads, private roads, tracks, circuits and off road courses of any nature whatsoever, of England, Wales, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and Scotland on where there is legal access during the period required to complete the event and the time taken or distance covered by each competitor and/or team provides the basis of the competition;
(b) To promote cycling races, cycling competitions and other cycling events as single or multiple events either on its own behalf, through its members, or in conjunction with any other competent body, partner or promoter;
(c) To nominate and fund individual riders or teams from its members to represent the Company in any cycling event within the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the world;
(d) To support and encourage all forms of cycling which benefit the physical and mental wellbeing of members of the community and where appropriate, to join, make donations to, guarantee the obligations of any person, charity or sporting body which further the objects of the Company.
16.2 The chair of the meeting may permit other persons who are not members of the Company to attend and speak at a National Council meeting.
I assume none members may be able to speak, provide information, if the Chair allows. There is a reasonable case to say the helmet requirements do not fit the 'Objects'. The Chair allowing speakers to provide evidence showing it may not be in keeping with the ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION would be justified.
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by mattheus »

Steady rider wrote: 8 Oct 2022, 6:58pm There is a reasonable case to say the helmet requirements do not fit the 'Objects'. The Chair allowing speakers to provide evidence showing it may not be in keeping with the ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION would be justified.
If you speak to the helmet nazis, you will realise they're not interested in "reasonable cases".

I don't know what would persuade them. Yesterday I was told we need the rule because "motorists hate us already, seeing us racing without helmets just makes it worse" (this is probably the feeblest of the points put forward - but as it came from a member with status similar to Dame Sarah Storey in cycling, no-one challenged it. Well, except me.)

These are the only possible scenarios I can envisage:
- A law protecting all cyclists who choose to ride on the public highway from helmet mandates [they'd probably all switch to expensive events on motor circuits]. OR:
- Zoe Backstedt doing a lecture tour about a rotational brain injury caused by her little sister's helmet. "Think of the children!"
User avatar
TrevA
Posts: 3551
Joined: 1 Jun 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by TrevA »

I suspect you may have already fallen at the first hurdle, but the way the CTT AGM operates tends to favour the Status Quo, so I think you are fighting an uphill battle. To change a rule, you need a 2/3 majority at the AGM.
Sherwood CC and Notts CTC.
A cart horse trapped in the body of a man.
http://www.jogler2009.blogspot.com
tim-b
Posts: 2091
Joined: 10 Oct 2009, 8:20am

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by tim-b »

If you speak to the helmet nazis, you will realise they're not interested in "reasonable cases"
snip...nor the diplomacy to push them through, so this might be a very long road ...
Can I make a suggestion...?
~~~~¯\(ツ)/¯~~~~
Post Reply