Cycling UK Forum

ianr1950 wrote:

Mike Sales wrote:ianr1950 wrote:-

<Statistics can prove anything you want them to depending on how they are presented.>

So, do you therefore ignore all statistics and rely on common sense, or do you make sure statistics are used properly? The latter is the scientific approach, which is the method by which we have greatly increase our understanding of the world.
The statistics which show helmets don't work are those collected by the governments which made helmets compulsory. They show that head injuries to cyclists go down after a law, but by less than cycling. This has happened in several different countries. The interpretation is limited to very simple arithmetic. Please point out any trickery.

Mike Sales

Do you believe everything the governments tell you then

.

No, I treat what governments say with extreme caution - especially when there is strong contradictory scientific evidence. I treat scientific research with respect. That doesn't mean that it is beyond criticism, but if you are going to criticise it you need to point to out the methodological flaws. You need to do a bit better than claim that figures can be misleading if the evidence happens not to support your argument.

All these statistcs come from legislatures that have enacted laws against bareheaded cycling due to the supposed safety benefit of helmets. What possible motive would these governments have to manipulate the statistics to show that their own laws were misguided? How likely is it that every government would manipulate the figures in a similar way to put themselves in a poor light?

If cycle helmets offered a significant degree of protection then it is utterly implausible that that benefit would fail to show up in the figures in any of the places that have enacted laws. there is sufficient data that we can say with confidence that if cycle helmets have any effect at all on cyclist safety at all, that that effect must be very small.

The "BMA" allowed 5 minutes (yep - all of 5 minutes) to discuss this and listed the por helmet speakers first, reducing the time allowed to speak against. The figures quoted by the speakers were the dodgy "BHIT" claims and the vote was the only policy vote of the conference done by a quick "show of hands" and not electronically. Some witnesses say they were unsure it was actually carried as the vote was far from a majority.

Hardly the best ever example of modern democracy in action!

One wonders if support at the BMA was so strong why such underhand methods were used?

I wonder, could the CTC not lobby the BMA to change its stance?

Pete Owens wrote:

ianr1950 wrote:

Mike Sales wrote:ianr1950 wrote:-

<Statistics can prove anything you want them to depending on how they are presented.>

So, do you therefore ignore all statistics and rely on common sense, or do you make sure statistics are used properly? The latter is the scientific approach, which is the method by which we have greatly increase our understanding of the world.
The statistics which show helmets don't work are those collected by the governments which made helmets compulsory. They show that head injuries to cyclists go down after a law, but by less than cycling. This has happened in several different countries. The interpretation is limited to very simple arithmetic. Please point out any trickery.

Mike Sales

Do you believe everything the governments tell you then

.

No, I treat what governments say with extreme caution - especially when there is strong contradictory scientific evidence. I treat scientific research with respect. That doesn't mean that it is beyond criticism, but if you are going to criticise it you need to point to out the methodological flaws. You need to do a bit better than claim that figures can be misleading if the evidence happens not to support your argument.

All these statistcs come from legislatures that have enacted laws against bareheaded cycling due to the supposed safety benefit of helmets. What possible motive would these governments have to manipulate the statistics to show that their own laws were misguided? How likely is it that every government would manipulate the figures in a similar way to put themselves in a poor light?

If cycle helmets offered a significant degree of protection then it is utterly implausible that that benefit would fail to show up in the figures in any of the places that have enacted laws. there is sufficient data that we can say with confidence that if cycle helmets have any effect at all on cyclist safety at all, that that effect must be very small.

I have not argued either for or against any argument, what I have said is that statistics can be manipulated to present a picture that represents the point of view of what you want.

Is it wrong to argue for the use anything which in this instance is helmets even though the evidence only points to a very small percentage safety benefit.

People argue for the increased use of speed cameras in some areas even though sometimes they only produce a small percentage decrease in the number of accidents but very often the police and safety campaigners will say that even if it only saves 1 more life it is worth it.

One of the worst aspects of the helmet debate is the amount of time wasted debating it.

George Riches wrote:One of the worst aspects of the helmet debate is the amount of time wasted debating it.

No, it is all good fun and stops me getting bored whilst at work.

Cunobelin wrote:One wonders if support at the BMA was so strong why such underhand methods were used?

At the time of the super casino decisionmaking process a couple of years ago, it was widely bandied about that the syndicates interested in legalising more gambling had spent £££ squillion lobbying. (I cannot now remember the figure but it was huge.) Somebody had a letter published in The TImes asking where it has all gone. I think the implication was that that sort of money buys an awful lot of palm grease. All 'perfectly legal'* of course.

* a phrase meaning 'morally repugnant.'

ianr1950 wrote:... but very often the police and safety campaigners will say that even if it only saves 1 more life it is worth it.

... but what if, nett, it loses one life?

ianr1950 wrote:I have not argued either for or against any argument, what I have said is that statistics can be manipulated to present a picture that represents the point of view of what you want.

And I have asked you to point out the manipulation involved in the several cases where the different government figures show no benefit from big increases in helmet wearing. In some cases the figures suggest that the laws made things worse. Am I to believe that you cannot justify your assertion in this case, that you are merely casting nasturtiums?

ianr1950 wrote:Is it wrong to argue for the use anything which in this instance is helmets even though the evidence only points to a very small percentage safety benefit.

If, by this, you mean that the evidence shows a benefit, even if small, you are wrong. The figures, sometimes positive, sometimes negative, are just not good enough to conclude that helmets help or harm.
My own belief is that since helmeteers lay so much weight on the importance of using helmets, it would be likely that users over risk compensate, and by expecting too much protection from the plastic hat, incur more risk than they aim for. However, this is just my idle speculation, utterly without evidence and only mentioned out of naughtiness.

Mike Sales

If not wearing a helmet is contributory negligence to a collision between a car and a bicycle then so is going expensively dressed in a run down neighbourhood if that results in a mugging.

The helmet debate is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. Education of motorists to the practices of cycling would be a much better use of time. That way most motorist-cyclist collisions could be avoided and the question of helmet wearing would be redundant.

360fix wrote:If not wearing a helmet is contributory negligence to a collision between a car and a bicycle then so is going expensively dressed in a run down neighbourhood if that results in a mugging.

Especially if you incur a head injury that could be prevented with a helmet!

Mike Sales wrote:

ianr1950 wrote:I have not argued either for or against any argument, what I have said is that statistics can be manipulated to present a picture that represents the point of view of what you want.

And I have asked you to point out the manipulation involved in the several cases where the different government figures show no benefit from big increases in helmet wearing. In some cases the figures suggest that the laws made things worse. Am I to believe that you cannot justify your assertion in this case, that you are merely casting nasturtiums?

ianr1950 wrote:Is it wrong to argue for the use anything which in this instance is helmets even though the evidence only points to a very small percentage safety benefit.

If, by this, you mean that the evidence shows a benefit, even if small, you are wrong. The figures, sometimes positive, sometimes negative, are just not good enough to conclude that helmets help or harm.
My own belief is that since helmeteers lay so much weight on the importance of using helmets, it would be likely that users over risk compensate, and by expecting too much protection from the plastic hat, incur more risk than they aim for. However, this is just my idle speculation, utterly without evidence and only mentioned out of naughtiness.

Mike Sales

I don't see a need to point out anything.

You are right I am wrong, if that makes you happy.

ianr1950 sees no need to justify his assertion that the figures which show helmets don't work are fiddled. He goes on to admit he was wrong, so I guess he is right, in that sense, since he has withdrawn the allegation. I am pleased that he has finally admitted this, though the admission took some extraction.
I am not clear what he is puzzled about; if it is my reference to risk homeostasis, may I recommend "Risk" by John Adams. His website is full of interesting ideas which should be of interest to all cyclists, and in fact everyone. http://john-adams.co.uk/

Mike Sales

Mike Sales wrote:ianr1950 sees no need to justify his assertion that the figures which show helmets don't work are fiddled. He goes on to admit he was wrong, so I guess he is right, in that sense, since he has withdrawn the allegation. I am pleased that he has finally admitted this, though the admission took some extraction.
I am not clear what he is puzzled about; if it is my reference to risk homeostasis, may I recommend "Risk" by John Adams. His website is full of interesting ideas which should be of interest to all cyclists, and in fact everyone. http://john-adams.co.uk/

Mike Sales

Where have I actually said that the figures that say helmets don't work are fiddled then.

If this is all it takes to please you then go ahead and believe what you think I have said.

I bow in deference to your obvious far higher intellect than a mere mortal such as I.

You don't get it do you Mike. Maybe I should have put this on my earlier post.