Evaluating the impact of cycle helmet use...

[mattheus]

Analysis paralysis! Just what we need ...

[Jdsk]

Analysis paralysis! Just what we need ...

On this topic many people seem to have a major concern that some sort of mandation might occur. If that isn't a smart thing to do then having good evidence of lack of effectiveness would be powerful protection.

Jonathan

PS: But on the wider question of policy: there's far too much new government legislation, IMHO because it's so politically attractive and so much easier than the hard graft of effective implementation. A stronger emphasis on the need for evidence would again be very helpful.

[Nearholmer]

I would ask also: effective at achieving what?

There seem to be multiple, overlapping questions at play in this thread. Is the question, for instance: how best can we protect cyclists against head injuries (which the helmet focus implies)? Or, how best can we maximise bicycle usage, while containing resultant head injuries to an acceptable level? Or, the same, but expanding the question to all injuries? Or, or, or ……

Unless the question is clearly defined, nobody on earth will be able to work out what data are needed in order to answer it, and unless/until there is consensus that it is the right question to ask, it will never get answered, because everyone will spend their time debating that point.

If I were engaged in this discussion as part of my paying work, rather than to stave off boredom while recovering from covid, I would get everyone to focus first on defining and agreeing upon the question, then to focus on deciding what data might be needed in order to answer it, then on looking to see whether the data exist already, or whether it might be necessary to commission work to obtain the data.

[Jdsk]

I would ask also: effective at achieving what?

There seem to be multiple, overlapping questions at play in this thread. Is the question, for instance: how best can we protect cyclists against head injuries (which the helmet focus implies)? Or, how best can we maximise bicycle usage, while containing resultant head injuries to an acceptable level? Or, the same, but expanding the question to all injuries? Or, or, or ……

Unless the question is clearly defined, nobody on earth will be able to work out what data are needed in order to answer it, and unless/until there is consensus that it is the right question to ask, it will never get answered, because everyone will spend their time debating that point.

If I were engaged in this discussion as part of my paying work, rather than to stave off boredom while recovering from covid, I would get everyone to focus first on defining and agreeing upon the question, then to focus on deciding what data might be needed in order to answer it, then on looking to see whether the data exist already, or whether it might be necessary to commission work to obtain the data.

You bet.

I've repeatedly tried...

Jonathan

PS:
Specific separate questions
Evidence-based methodology
And then try to reach consensus as a method of working for each of those questions and using that methodology

[mattheus]

Analysis paralysis! Just what we need ...

On this topic many people seem to have a major concern that some sort of mandation might occur. If that isn't a smart thing to do then having good evidence of lack of effectiveness would be powerful protection.

Yes, you're right; but we already have plenty of that evidence - hundreds of studies have failed to show effectiveness. [and hundreds of people before me have pointed this out ... ]

So it's time to look at the measures - as Vorpal mentioned - that we DO know will improve safety. And start doing them!.

We don't have much need for more analysis at the moment; that's not to say we should stop studies, but we shouldn't delay proven useful measures either.

Meanwhile you and Nearholmer can debate what are the key questions to ask with eachother - OK?

[Jdsk]

So it's time to look at the measures - as Vorpal mentioned - that we DO know will improve safety. And start doing them!.

We don't have much need for more analysis at the moment; that's not to say we should stop studies, but we shouldn't delay proven useful measures either.

Totally agree on the urgent need to implement effective measures.

Yes, you're right; but we already have plenty of that evidence - hundreds of studies have failed to show effectiveness. [and hundreds of people before me have pointed this out ... ]

That's your conclusion. Have you considered that others might not agree? (And effectiveness of what, as above?)

What should happen in that case other than continued rational discussion?

Thanks

Jonathan

[Nearholmer]

Mattheus

What question are you trying to answer?

I get that you think it’s the most important question, but maybe I wasn’t paying attention when you said what it was.

Kevin

[Vorpal]

And public policy should always start with what is known and what isn't known.

Public Policy should start with effective measures.

And how will we know which measures are effective (and which aren't) without establishing what is known and what isn't?

Thanks

Jonathan

In the case of helmets, it's relatively simple. And can be approached from several different angles.

1) Safety Engineering & the hierarchy of controls:

This is used across engineering disciplines to prioritise measures that improve safety, and is a standard approach for safety engineers. It is written into procedures the world over, in manifold industries and operations.

2) The risk relative to other activities

Without precise numbers, or knowing whether helmets are beneficial, we can see that the risk of head injury whilst cycling is roughly similar to many other activities where the risk is considered acceptable. Some of these activities, such as walking and driving result in far more head injuries simply because of higher participation (exposure).

3) Formal risk assessment methods, designed to prioritise safety measures may look at risks either quantitatively or qualitatively, or some combination. Data about the knowledge / benefit of a single piece of protective equipment is not normally required to apply these risk assessment methods. I think if you were to look, you would find a similar dearth of data about the effectiveness of at least some protective equipment legislated for industry or workplaces (safety footwear?)

4) with or without helmets, the benefits of cycling outweigh the risks, so it is logical that efforts to increase the numbers of people cycling are more important than figuring out if they should use helmets whilst doing it.

[Nearholmer]

Vorpal

You seem to have overlooked “reasonable practicability” in what you say.

I would suggest that if people were cycling as part of their work (some are I guess) we would do all that is reasonably practicable to reduce risk to them while doing so, which might include issuing them with a helmet, which is after all a low-cost thing to do, and possibly reduces risk to some extent. I’d be really surprised if people who cycle while employed aren’t issued with helmets, and required to wear them.

Kevin

[mattheus]

Vorpal

You seem to have overlooked “reasonable practicability” in what you say.

I would suggest that if people were cycling as part of their work (some are I guess) we would do all that is reasonably practicable to reduce risk to them while doing so, which might include issuing them with a helmet, which is after all a low-cost thing to do, and possibly reduces risk to some extent. I’d be really surprised if people who cycle while employed aren’t issued with helmets, and required to wear them.

I suggest you go away and research people who cycle while employed. I'll give you this one for free:
https://www.bikebiz.com/pedal-me-bans-s ... y-reasons/

Meanwhile, consider the bigger picture. We want to be healthier, put less burden on the BHS, maybe live longer, right?
So consider this:

4) with or without helmets, the benefits of cycling outweigh the risks, so it is logical that efforts to increase the numbers of people cycling are more important than figuring out if they should use helmets whilst doing it.

[mattheus]

Meanwhile, consider the bigger picture. We want to be healthier, put less burden on the BHS, maybe live longer, right?

Too late - they're out of business IIRC!

Try NHS.

[Nearholmer]

How about reading what I write, rather than being, frankly, rude?

If you scan back over my entire contribution to this thread, you won’t find a single word of “scaremongering”, and neither will you find me making intemperate accusations against other contributors when my own views are very slightly challenged.

[mattheus]

I'm sorry if I come across as rude. But you are basically proposing helmet compulsion by the back-door here:

I would suggest that if people were cycling as part of their work (some are I guess) we would do all that is reasonably practicable to reduce risk to them while doing so, which might include issuing them with a helmet, which is after all a low-cost thing to do, and possibly reduces risk to some extent. I’d be really surprised if people who cycle while employed aren’t issued with helmets, and required to wear them.

If you come out with this sort of rubbish, don't be surprised if someone points out the flaws in it.

[Nearholmer]

Where is the rubbish?

The concept of reducing risk so far as is reasonably practicable is integral to the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974; if an employer fails to do it, they open themselves to prosecution.

And, having read that pedal.me link, I’m educated, but remain a bit surprised. Their logic in terms of it being impossible to go over the front of one of their bikes is sound, but I think they pin a great deal on the risk compensation argument, which so far as I can find in the various papers cited in this thread is postulated, but not proven.

If, god forbid, one of their people did suffer a really bad head injury in an accident at work, and HSE decided it was worth taking a case against them, the court case would be very interesting.

[Jdsk]

Their logic in terms of it being impossible to go over the front of one of their bikes is sound, but but I think they pin a great deal on the risk compensation argument, which so far as I can find in the various papers cited in this thread is postulated, but not proven.

It's an interesting argument. It's best handled as one of those separate questions. There is a recent systematic review of the available studies.

Jonathan