Thinking of doing a stats video

[downfader]

I have seen some good stuff in relation to other subjects on youtube by the likes of Aaronra, Potholer54 and Thunderfoot. Mostly science and an analysis of it.. It kind of makes me think.. I'd like to do a similar video with "snapshots" of real studied stats on helmets, injuries with and without, and the culture of fear perpetuated.

I have already posted this before, as have others I think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY

I'd like to do something more UK based. It daunting though. And the info is hard to find. I think the video needs to present the data as a snippet of text on screen as such:

"X many cyclists in the UK - Source = Y"
"X many of those wear helmets - Source =Y"
"Number of injuries, number of head/brain injuries - Source"
"Number of head or brain injuries to helmet cyclists"

etc..

You can see why this is daunting. I also need footage of cyclists in traffic, not first person but more from an observational viewpoint like Mike Rubbo uses. I also dont want to come across as "anti helmet" but pro choice, as is my stance. I think its important to represent data rather than a viewpoint whereby the viewer can look at it and say "OK, I have a chance to check this up independently and see if it is correct."

[snibgo]

You might also compare the situation in the Netherlands, where few (we hear) wear helmets. True they have more fatalities, but among a much higher cycling population so (I suppose) a lower fatality rate.

Statistics of places where helmet compulsion has lead to lower cycling numbers will assist the anti-compulsion argument.

There are probably UK stats for head injuries per billion miles for pedestrians, motorists and cyclists.

[hubgearfreak]

I also dont want to come across as "anti helmet" but pro choice, as is my stance.

it's your choice which side of the fence you're on. or if you're sat upon it.

but surely you either think;
they're useful and ought to be worn
or you think that they're next to useless and do more harm than good

[downfader]

I also dont want to come across as "anti helmet" but pro choice, as is my stance.

it's your choice which side of the fence you're on. or if you're sat upon it.

but surely you either think;
they're useful and ought to be worn
or you think that they're next to useless and do more harm than good

The trouble is people want easy to digest information either to back up their assertions or to lead on to more complex arguments for merits etc. Its a bit hard to lace myself firmly in either camp, no one has come out with anything definitive, the only thing for sure is that people got by without them for many, many years, and that there is this myth that they'll stop a car.

But as I said, I think I should concentrate on a stats analysis video. Perhaps I should KISS, lol!

[hubgearfreak]

Its a bit hard to lace myself firmly in either camp, no one has come out with anything definitive, the only thing for sure is that people got by without them for many, many years, and that there is this myth that they'll stop a car.

many people (non-cyclists) tell me cycling's too dangerous. many cyclists re-inforce this image by wearing hats. unless the thinking and rational like you come down on this side of the fence, how's that going to change.? if it doesn't change, where's the future of cycling - in the glass strewn gutters that local gov. have painted for us?

[snibgo]

It's always worth asking yourself who is your intended audience? Cyclists, knowledgable cyclists, the general public? What decisions do you want to be made, based on your video?

You might keep it simple: Per mile, cycling is about as safe as walking. Per hour, cycling is about as safe as driving.

(That's true of fatalities and serious injuries. I guess it's also true of head injuries, but I don't know.)

[downfader]

Snibgo, I think this sort of information is non-exclusive. It can be consumed by cyclist and non-cyclist alike, helmet or bareheaded alike.

Hubgear, I dont think its wise to exclude anyone. If I come down and say "you must change your ways" I will be endangering the acceptability of the stats.. we'll see. Even though I wear a helmet 90% of the time I still dont see any benefit in compulsion, which I suppose this is aimed at answering in some part.

[reohn2]

The first thing I'd ask myself is who,if anyone,will watch it?
The making of public information films/videos etc is only of any use if its "seen" ie;Youtube is watched for entertainment for the most part,with any educational stuff on there being demonstrative.
I'm not trying to take the wind out of your sails but unless it has some kind of impact on cyclists and noncyclists alike its not going to be worth the effort.

If its intended to enlighten the powers that be, ie;MP's,the police,healthcare professionals,by way of giving them all the facts in a short easily understood package, then maybe its would be worth it, if cyclists are threatened with helmet compulsion.I would have thought the CTC would/could/should be funding such a film.

[SilverBadge]

but surely you either think;
they're useful and ought to be worn
or you think that they're next to useless and do more harm than good

Everyone forms this opinion on the basis of the (mis)information available to them and their own fallible interpretation thereof. I think a statistical analysis should show the breakdown of cyclist fatality scenarios, causes of death, (in)effectiveness of helmets by scenario (and maybe point out overoptimism for helmet benefits in quite a few analyses), blameworthiness proportion of all road users involved - most of this is (hidden) in TRL reports 446 and others. From here you can make straightforward comparisons with other preventative methods (enforcement of driving standards, 20mph zones), other dangerous activities (e.g walking downstairs) where helmets aren't but could be used, to put the issue in context. Also, examine historic trends with either slowly rising or step changes (i.e compulsion) in helmet wearing, to verify the realised safety benefit vs adverse consequences (reduced cycling).

[[XAP]Bob]

I'm coming down on the side of appropriate compulsion..

In motor racing, horse racing etc the wearing of a helmet is compulsory, but not in running races.
The energy is somewhat higher for cycle racing than for running, and the risk of a large scale crash (peleton) is higher.
I'm not sure what I'd suggest for triathlons or time trials, where there is no risk of the competitors crashing into each other - it doesn't seem relevant for them, but that is a decision for the governing body of that sport.

When in a very high energy situation on the road (motorway) motorists don't weat helmets, and we're at significantly lower energy that that in general traffic.

On my trike I don't.
On the the upright I do for longer journeys, but not if I'm nipping out to the shop via the back roads.

But the real question is the design of the helmets - what risk am I mitigating by wearing a helmet?
- Not the risk of bodily injury
- Not the risk associated with a vehicle hitting me at speed - the energy is just too great for a cycle helmet
- The risk of a mechanical failure/surface fault throwing me from the bike. This is unlikely, and I'm still unlikely to hit my head, but that is a risk worth mitigating.
- On the trike the fact that I have three wheels already mitigates that risk.posting.php?mode=reply&f=41&t=45373#review

What else do I gain / lose:
- LOSE - Studies have shown that I'll lose overtaking space, so I make sure I take the primary position early when appropriate, and look for escape paths continuously
- GAIN - Place to hold a camera and/or lights


How many people suffered head injuries as a result of the recent weather?

[downfader]

I've not been able to do much sadly.. have had a chest infection and I've generally been feeling worn and run down, even distracted.

I have come up with questions I feel need answering -

Austrailia
Pre-helmet compulsion
Number of cyclists? Number of head injuries? Number of those specifically brain injuries?
Percentage of cycling specific population affected by head/brain injury?
Percentage of cycling specific population using helmet?

Post-helmet compulsion
Same questions as above but taking samples from the first year post, then 5, 10, last etc... Makes it less daunting and can prove/hint trends a little easier

We then apply said questions to other countries that dont have compulsion. I would like to see Germanies, Netherlands, as well as obviously the UKs and USAs. I think, though I'm unsure, that parts of the USA has compulsion, and I'm told Spain now does too.

Another question that crosses my mind is how the different standards specifically work. I have a general understanding that some are SNELL and ANSII tested and some websites deal with the basics.

Second part - how do the different standards actually differ? Are they specific to product, body area, company or country?
Do any of these tests bear relevance to automotive v cycle collisions? If so how?
Is there any inclination of companies to go for cheaper standards? If so why?

Driver relationship to helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists has been raised a number of times on the web, even in the Press. The trouble I find with the proximity study is that its JUST one study as far as I can tell. Dr Ian Walker I beleive the guys name is. I think he was resident at Bath Uni, but unsure.. we can extend his findings by asking a series of questions to noncyclist drivers in a survey:

Potential Driver Survey Questions
General info
1. How long have you been driving?
2. Have you ever had an accident in that time?
3. Do you have an advanced driving qualification?
4. What is your income range? (this could be about hinting to trends)
5. a -What sort of motorvehicle(s) do you drive?
b- If more than one, what do you predomninantly drive?

Driving info
1. Typically how far ahead do you read the road (give general distances)?
2. Do you scan driveways, junctions and side roads before and passing for hazards?

On approaching a cyclist
1. Do you hold back with a 2 second distance behind until it is safe to pass?
-yes, no? Dont know?
-If no why? They dont need it, I can stop safely, I'm trained

2. If there is clear space to pass do you slow down on the approach?
3. If as above, what distance would you say that you pass the cyclist's furthest right protrusion (usually the right handlebar or a bag)?
-less than 30cm/1 foot, 2 feet, 3 feet, I give more
4. If 3. is less than 3 feet/90cm then please outline your mindset?
a. I do so because they do not need too much space
b. It is safe to do so in my opinion
c. I am unconfident overtaking cyclists
d. any other reasons you can think of or perhaps an "other box"

Another series of questions that spring to my mind is how the tax payer will be burdened with the costs of change in law, etc:

Cost of outline Bill and legal research?
Costs of changing legal situation in pro-compulsion countries?
Cost of enforcing legislation in places like Aus, NZ and USA? Is that reaped back in fines?
Cost to society - is it just a fine, or does the "offender" and up with a permanent record for not wearing a helmet?

Translate to the UK and we have to ask what the proposed costs of change of law, testing that law, and enforcing it here?

This has all been in me head obviously, so its taken a while to write it down...

[hubgearfreak]

IMO, a driver survey would be utterly pointless. let's look at this question for example.

1. Do you hold back with a 2 second distance behind until it is safe to pass?

they* obviously feel it's safe to overtake. from their perspective in their steel box, it's safe for them. so you're survey results would show that 99% of motorists pass only when it's safe to do so. however, we all know this to be the excrement of bovines

*or around 95%, the other 5% are using threateningly close overtakes to admonish us for being on their road

[Tonyf33]

The other problem with proximity studies is that it is very hard to know how far away you are when passing something on your left when sat on the right of a motor vehicle. So for a very large proportion they wont know accurately how far away they are. Maybe something like comparatively to cars do you give cyclists more or less space when overtaking, if not why not? (This is another major failing of the HC IMO)

Hubbers, I think your 99%(or 95 whichever figure you choose) is way off the mark, not all car drivers are twonks and i'd say the majority pass safely
we mostly only remember the rubbish/dangerous overtakes.

[hubgearfreak]

Hubbers, I think your 99%(or 95 whichever figure you choose) is way off the mark, not all car drivers are twonks and i'd say the majority pass safely

you get 95% passing as they should? frankly i'm amazed, but also delighted for you. (if you're not delusional that is )

[snibgo]

There is probably a lucrative market for printing that image on the back of tee-shirts. Except for copyright, of course. And the problem that if a driver can read it, he's too close.

Maybe 1 in 3 drivers give me that much room, even when there is no oncoming traffic.