Helmets - the definitive thread.. ** Mod Note - Please read Opening Post **

CramCycle

JoeLeogue wrote: »

Given this context, I'm to believe that it is irrelevant to put that question to him and to report what he has to say?

I would have made more sense to write an article on helmets, note the public concern and include the quote from the minister, maybe include a couple of facts in the last paragraph about other jurisdictions that have implemented such a law and to state what this has done.

Not take an article about a bike share scheme, relate a death that had no bearing on the bike share opening and put a scare mongering headline (well your editor put it there) that is so removed from the rest of the article. Congratulations, the few people on the fence about such a scheme will now relate your article to the death of a man who hit a stationary object, they will relate it to helmet use (which as you say yourself hasn't even been mentioned as a contributing factor by the investigators, (although they might just to get an early lunch and not have to drag up any alternative reasons he may have come off the bike), bar by those with no knowledge of helmet design and safety specifications).

They are not related bar the bicycle, the ministers comments are not related to the death either, he politely dodged around a hacks (not you, the guy who asked) question as it also had no point being asked. He is a minister, not a man with any noted knowledge of stats and studies in helmet usage and benefits. Its like walking up to me and asking do I think pressure through the Corrib gas line is acceptable. I don't know so don't ask me.

JoeLeogue

CramCycle wrote: »

I would have made more sense to write an article on helmets, note the public concern and include the quote from the minister, maybe include a couple of facts in the last paragraph about other jurisdictions that have implemented such a law and to state what this has done.

Not take an article about a bike share scheme, relate a death that had no bearing on the bike share opening and put a scare mongering headline (well your editor put it there) that is so removed from the rest of the article. Congratulations, the few people on the fence about such a scheme will now relate your article to the death of a man who hit a stationary object, they will relate it to helmet use (which as you say yourself hasn't even been mentioned as a contributing factor by the investigators, (although they might just to get an early lunch and not have to drag up any alternative reasons he may have come off the bike), bar by those with no knowledge of helmet design and safety specifications).

They are not related bar the bicycle, the ministers comments are not related to the death either, he politely dodged around a hacks (not you, the guy who asked) question as it also had no point being asked. He is a minister, not a man with any noted knowledge of stats and studies in helmet usage and benefits. Its like walking up to me and asking do I think pressure through the Corrib gas line is acceptable. I don't know so don't ask me.

He's the minister. If he's not the one to ask about the Government passing a law in an area that comes under his portfolio, who is? He didn't dodge the question. He said people should wear helmets in his opinion, but that there are different schools of thoughts when it comes to passing a law about it.

It was in the article about the bike scheme because he was asked about it at the press conference for for a public cycling scheme, and this was a question relating to public safety while cycling.

It is absolutely relevant.

We'll have to agree to disagree. To me it would not have made sense to ignore the debate that was ongoing at the time.

which as you say yourself hasn't even been mentioned as a contributing factor by the investigators

I never said that.

CramCycle

JoeLeogue wrote: »

He's the minister. If he's not the one to ask about the Government passing a law in an area that comes under his portfolio, who is? He didn't dodge the question. He said people should wear helmets in his opinion, but that there are different schools of thoughts when it comes to passing a law about it.

But in the context of the article, it had no place, just like the dead man. The article was about the bike share scheme launch. Thats why its irrelevant. Maybe I am mistaken and the article was about the dead man and you inserted the bike scheme launch for no reason?

It was in the article about the bike scheme because he was asked about it at the press conference for for a public cycling scheme, and this was a question relating to public safety while cycling.

From my reading of the article it comes across as if the question was in relation to the death of the man. Thats not what is said but it is what is implied, a man died without wearing a helmet, the guy who asked the question asks why aren't users or cyclists in general required to have helmets. It makes it sound like they were pointed out together. If the other journalists asked as a general point to the scheme, fair enough, thats how it should have been reported but maybe I just misread it.

It is absolutely relevant.

We'll have to agree to disagree. To me it would not have made sense to ignore the debate that was ongoing at the time.

I didn't ask you to ignore it, but if you want to mention it, how about a balanced article that points out the facts, pros/cons, related material from other jurisdictions where this has been done before, why it might not be introduced and/or reasons why it should/could be introduced, do some investigating, see what the figures tell you. I think my mistake was that you were a reporter/journalist and not a columnists. Apologies for the confusion.

I never said that.

You did, here in fact:

JoeLeogue wrote: »

The man had died less than 24 hours before the press conference. It was a relevant news story. At that stage the only information available was from eye witnesses who called local radio stations with their accounts, and they said he wasn't wearing a helmet. No other information was revealed. Perhaps we will learn more when the inquest is heard, but that is a while away yet.

CatFromHue

A longish but very interesting article on helmets and why there's been little innovation in their safety characteristics for a long time.

http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html

A video on the MIPS technology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8W5X0s2AhU

Iwannahurl

JoeLeogue wrote: »

A man dies in a bike accident in Cork city.

The following morning his accident prompts a debate on the most listened to local radio show in the country, and part of the debate centers on whether or not the wearing of helmets should be made compulsory.

An hour after that debate airs, the Minister who oversees cycling, who would have the power to bring about a mandatory helmet law if he wanted to, is in Cork to launch a cycling initiative.

Given this context, I'm to believe that it is irrelevant to put that question to him and to report what he has to say?

Why did this tragic incident prompt a debate, and what other issues were discussed?

JoeLeogue

CramCycle wrote: »

But in the context of the article, it had no place, just like the dead man. The article was about the bike share scheme launch. Thats why its irrelevant. Maybe I am mistaken and the article was about the dead man and you inserted the bike scheme launch for no reason?

From my reading of the article it comes across as if the question was in relation to the death of the man. Thats not what is said but it is what is implied, a man died without wearing a helmet, the guy who asked the question asks why aren't users or cyclists in general required to have helmets. It makes it sound like they were pointed out together. If the other journalists asked as a general point to the scheme, fair enough, thats how it should have been reported but maybe I just misread it.


I didn't ask you to ignore it, but if you want to mention it, how about a balanced article that points out the facts, pros/cons, related material from other jurisdictions where this has been done before, why it might not be introduced and/or reasons why it should/could be introduced, do some investigating, see what the figures tell you. I think my mistake was that you were a reporter/journalist and not a columnists. Apologies for the confusion.

You're both right and wrong in that you seem to confuse the role of columnist and reporter.

I am a reporter - I report on what happens and that day I was asked to report on the launch of the bike scheme and what the Minister said at that launch. I reported on what the Minister said at the launch. It's not my job to present an argument either for or against helmets. Writing about the "pros/cons, related material from other jurisdictions where this has been done before, why it might not be introduced and/or reasons why it should/could be introduced" would be a column. My job was to report on the launch, what the Minister said and I did that.

You did, here in fact:

You claim I said that a helmet "hasn't even been mentioned as a contributing factor by the investigators".

I did not. I said the information available at the time was from eye witnesses and that the only information available from that was that he was not wearing a helmet.

The investigators have yet to make any statements on contributing factors, so to say the lack of a helmet "hasn't even been mentioned as a contributing factor by the investigators" is disingenuous as they haven't stated any factors yet. I'm sure a post mortem has been carried out on this gentleman by now, and they have a clearer idea of his cause of death. But that information has yet to be made public.


Again, the bottom line here is that the Minister whose portfolio includes cycling was at a press event about a public cycling initiative and answered a relevant, topical question on a public cycling safety issue. I reported on the event and included his comments on the public cycling safety issue.

monument

JoeLeogue wrote: »

You're both right and wrong in that you seem to confuse the role of columnist and reporter.

I am a reporter - I report on what happens and that day I was asked to report on the launch of the bike scheme and what the Minister said at that launch. I reported on what the Minister said at the launch. It's not my job to present an argument either for or against helmets. Writing about the "pros/cons, related material from other jurisdictions where this has been done before, why it might not be introduced and/or reasons why it should/could be introduced" would be a column. My job was to report on the launch, what the Minister said and I did that.

http://www.niemanlab.org/2013/05/objectivity-and-the-decades-long-shift-from-just-the-facts-to-what-does-it-mean/

I'm not going to tell you what your job is or how to do it, but the he/she said journalism without context is just one type or style of reporting.

Adding national or international context does not make the writer a columnist.

No Pants

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Why did this tragic incident prompt a debate, and what other issues were discussed?

Does anyone know if the man who died had been drinking Coca Cola before his death? Was that question even asked?

JoeLeogue

And again I would point out that I was sent to report on what was said at a press conference. I do not have licence to expand what was a small news story into a feature on the pros and cons of wearing a helmet.

All these suggestions of expanding on the helmet debate ignore the fact that it was not my job there and then.

If you think that the debate warrants a wider discussion, pitch a piece to the editor, send in a letter to the paper.

I came on here to explain my role in reporting what the Minister said because, to be honest, I took offense at the accusation that I was "sh1t-stirring" and I resented the implication that my status as a freelance journalist somehow influenced how I went about covering the story.

I'm leaving it at that. I've come on here to engage with you all, to explain my role. As far as I'm concerned my job that day was to report what the Minister said at the press conference. I did that.

Thanks for the discussion, but we're never going to agree. I didn't have the space or the license to expand upon the helmet debate. It was a small news story in the grand scheme of things. Whilst discussing a public bike scheme, the Minister discussed a public cycling safety issue. I reported what he said.

CramCycle

JoeLeogue wrote: »

I report on what happens and that day I was asked to report on the launch of the bike scheme and what the Minister said at that launch. I reported on what the Minister said at the launch.

Sorry, since I was not there and only have your article to go on and now what you have said here. Am I correct in saying that the deceased Cork man was not mentioned at the launch? Another reporter asked what about helmets (did he mention the deceased?)?

You claim I said that a helmet "hasn't even been mentioned as a contributing factor by the investigators".

I did not. I said the information available at the time was from eye witnesses and that the only information available from that was that he was not wearing a helmet.

Your writing style indicates that it is a factor (that's the way I read it, I could be wrong, sort of SKY news implying something without saying it to promote debate regardless of whether it is relevant or not), but as you say here, that's not what has been said, all that has been said is he wasn't wearing a helmet. Maybe it was a factor, maybe it wasn't but surely there is other information available that no one seems to want to print which was as reliable as a person ringing a news station with their version of events. Have you looked into the mans death? where was he coming from? where was he going? Did he have lights on the bike? Was the bollard easy to see in the available lighting?

Again, the bottom line here is that the Minister whose portfolio includes cycling was at a press event about a public cycling initiative and answered a relevant, topical question on a public cycling safety issue. I reported on the event and included his comments on the public cycling safety issue.

Thats fair enough, but you added in all the stuff about the deceased. The helmet was a afair question as many people think it is necessary.

As someone else posted, if you were reporting on a motorway opening, would you mention a road death/RTA where witnesses had said the car was speeding? Or would you focus the article on reduction in traffic on surrounding roads and the perceived benefits for the local community (or even the perceived negatives eg reduction in local business).

CramCycle

JoeLeogue wrote: »

Thanks for the discussion, but we're never going to agree. I didn't have the space or the license to expand upon the helmet debate. It was a small news story in the grand scheme of things. Whilst discussing a public bike scheme, the Minister discussed a public cycling safety issue. I reported what he said.

You reported what he said plus some stuff about a deceased man in Cork. The two, at the time of your report, were unrelated but you lead anyone reading your report to believe they are, whether intentional or not, that's how it comes across, but that could also just be an editor rearranging or editing your piece.

I appreciate you coming on here to explain, and the freelance crack was out of line, it doesn't even make sense. I also appreciate you did not write the headline which probably does more to distract from the actual story than your piece.

tomasrojo

If the story is meant to be about the launch of the Cork bike-share scheme, my main problem is that the scheme is not described (number of bikes, cost) until about nine paragraphs in, and an unrelated cycling death dominates the opening paragraphs. Covering the question asked and the minister's resonse is fair enough, but they probably don't belong at the top.

clint_silver

Insurance statistics in the states related to cyclists. Percentages of those who died with their helmets on half way down. Yoiu can go back year by year, apologies if this was posted already.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-bicyclists/fatalityfacts/bicycles

2012 469 deaths without a helmet. 123 deaths with a helmet.

130 deaths where it was unknown whether a helmet was used. split those 50/50 and youre looking at a rough 3:1 ratio of deaths of cyclists.

Other things we can do to help ourselves not die. Dont cycle in urban non intersection areas between 6-9pm without a helmet in July with drink on you if youre male over the age of 20.

CramCycle

buffalo wrote: »

Reading this - http://www.vox.com/2014/5/22/5738626/how-and-why-bicycle-deaths-happen-in-the-us - and the below graph caught my attention. Seems like if you were a helmet you're more likely to be killed? </dubious and dodgy statistical analysis>

clint_silver wrote: »

Insurance statistics in the states related to cyclists. Percentages of those who died with their helmets on half way down. Yoiu can go back year by year, apologies if this was posted already.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-bicyclists/fatalityfacts/bicycles

2012 469 deaths without a helmet. 123 deaths with a helmet.

130 deaths where it was unknown whether a helmet was used. split those 50/50 and youre looking at a rough 3:1 ratio of deaths of cyclists.

The joys of statistics, they can tell whatever story you want regardless of the facts.

Looking at their table of deaths from 94 to 2012, the average deaths per year were 724. Oddly though, the percentage of those killed with a helmet has increased from 2.4% to 20.7%. This might lead you to believe that wearing a helmet is more dangerous as the number of helmet users killed on their roads increased more than five fold but the rate of deaths among that group increased 8 fold as a sub group of those killed while on bicycles.
The number of non helmet wearers dying has decreased by 39.5%.

What it does not inform you is, whether this can be explained by increases in cyclists using helmets or whether not wearing a helmet is intrinsically safer.

The truth is though that the usage rates are irrelevant here as the number of deaths does not differ greatly year to year regardless of an increase in use of bicycles or possibly helmets. What can be inferred from this is that there are a subgroup who are likely to perish on the roads every year for a variety of reasons. What would be more interesting to see is the % against volume of cyclists, are the numbers the same with volumes increasing or decreasing. The focus should then be, this subgroup, what can we do to prevent the majority of these incidences. Is it an educational problem (don't go up the inside of large vehicles), is it a maintenance problem (service brakes etc. regularly). You will never remove 100% of road fatalities, accidents happen despite the best of intentions but there may be a better way to reduce them.

Chips Lovell

JoeLeogue wrote: »

The reasoning behind “singling out cycling like this”?
It was a press conference about cycling. I reported what was said.

The press conference was about the the launch of the bike scheme though. Did you ask this question yourself? And if you didn't, why did you pick out this question and chose that line to lead your story?

Do you have any reasoning for singling out cycling like this or were you just operating on the assumption that cycling must be dangerous so therefore it must be news if a minister opposes mandatory helmet use?

CatFromHue

CatFromHue wrote: »

A longish but very interesting article on helmets and why there's been little innovation in their safety characteristics for a long time.

http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html

A video on the MIPS technology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8W5X0s2AhU

Bikestore.ie have some more affordable MIPS helmets. The ones I saw on other sites would be very high end and so very expensive helmets.

http://www.bikestore.ie/catalogsearch/result/?q=mips&x=0&y=0

Cakewheels

I'm not allowed to post links yet, but the Journal.ie are covering a Poster made by Mayo Co Co Road Safety Officer which claims to use RSA statistics. One of these is "Cyclists not wearing a helmet have two times the risk of being killed". Can anyone comment on the source (including country) and or meaning of this statistic? Does it mean - compared to if the same cyclist was wearing a helmet, or does it mean - compared to cyclists who wear helmets? Or is it, cyclists not wearing a helmet when they crash have two times the risk of being killed (thus ignoring any of the debates re driver risk compensation (overtaking closer to cyclists that have helmets) or cyclist risk compensation).

tomasrojo

loughgill wrote: »

Does it mean - compared to if the same cyclist was wearing a helmet, or does it mean - compared to cyclists who wear helmets? Or is it, cyclists not wearing a helmet when they crash have two times the risk of being killed (thus ignoring any of the debates re driver risk compensation (overtaking closer to cyclists that have helmets) or cyclist risk compensation).

The latter, but they simplified it (or the newspapers did)

I analysed the data (rather grand term, relative risk is a very easy analysis to do) previously:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71566585&postcount=327

In short, the RSA found that in the event of a collision the death rate for cyclists was twice as high for non-helmeted cyclists. Unfortunately, they neglected to check the confidence interval of the relative risk they'd calculated, or didn't care. If you do that -- and you should, as that's how science works -- there is no evidence of a difference between helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists.

So the RSA did a safety campaign built, essentially, on statistical noise. And the Gardaí ran safety messages to cyclists on electronic roadside boards about "reducing the risk" for about six months afterwards.

tomasrojo

Another thread about it here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71849979

This is, I hope, a concise summary of what I found when I looked at the data:

Just to sum up, the RSA is being really sloppy in about three ways here.

• They are pushing their statistics as meaning "likelihood of being killed on the road", which is not what they calculated.
• They are making strong claims of a dataset that is substantially incomplete, and making an unwarranted assumption that the missing data would have no effect
• They are making strong claims from a statistical test that actually shows that we cannot conclude that rates of fatality for helmet-wearers are different from non-helmet-wearers

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71851907&postcount=13

And:

Finally, just for a bit of fun, you can do these relative risk calculations to other Garda collision data.

For example, you can apply this test to Table 34 of the RSA's 2009 Road Collision Fact Book, and you find that unhelmeted motorcyclists are at less risk of death in the event of a collision than helmeted motorcyclists.

6/33 helmeted versus 12/230 unhelmeted
Relative risk: 3.48
95% Confidence Interval: 1.40 -> 8.65

This time the relative risk is statistically significant. So wearing a motorcycle helmet increases your chance of dying in a collision. By RSA logic.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71851965&postcount=14

Capt'n Midnight

Do helmeted cyclists cycle more or less than unhelmeted ones ?

Has anyone separated out higher risk cyclists like road racers from commuters to see if reasons for usage makes a difference ?

tomasrojo

I think something like 13% of cyclists admitted to hospital in the Netherlands were wearing helmets when they acquired the injury, which is higher than the national rate of helmet-wearing. I think the assumption is that many of these are sports cyclists, rather than people getting around.

Not an answer to your questiom, but it ties in with a general assumption, reaonable I guess, that sports cyclists take more risks as a matter of course.

Doctor Bob

One small step closer to our shores...

Mandatory helmet law wouldn’t discourage cycling, says TRL

There is no evidence to support the belief that compulsory helmet-wearing for cyclists would lead to a big drop in cycling, consultant TRL said this week.

TRL’s intervention in the helmet debate came as Jersey became the first jurisdiction in the UK to pass a helmet law, making it compulsory for child cyclists under 14 to wear a helmet. Parents face a £50 fine if their child is caught cycling without one.

https://www.transportxtra.com/magazines/local_transport_today/news/?id=38778

Access to the article unfortunately requires paid subscription and I'm precluded from quoting any more (I presume), though I hope a couple of summarised points won't breach the Sherlock rules.

The author of the TRL report, Richard Cuerden, disputed the notion that such legislation leads to a drop in cycling numbers and stated that the analysis of the fall-off in cycling in Australia in the mid-1990s was 'statistically flawed'. Chris Peck of the CTC criticised the report as 'hastily compiled' and rejected Cuerden's assertion that it wouldn't affect numbers.

It's an interesting development in the debate as I haven't seen the Australian evidence challenged before. I've generally found TRL (Transport Research Laboratory) papers and research to be quite good, but on the face of it this one surprised me. I'd like to know more about the context for the 'hastily compiled' comment.

Edit:

CTC news report, the source of the 'hastily compiled' comment: http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/helmet-law-14s-implemented-island-jersey

TRL Press Release: http://www.trl.co.uk/news-hub/transport-news/trl-press-releases/2014/july/trl%E2%80%99s-independent-review-of-compulsory-cycle-helmet-wearing-informs-jersey-scrutiny-panel/

TRL Report: http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/ScrutinyReports/2014/TRL%20Report%20-%20Compulsory%20Wearing%20of%20Cycle%20Helmets%20-%2014%20July%202014.pdf

buffalo

OT: Doctor Bob, does your name stem from a Muppet sketch? I've always meant to ask.

"Doctor Bob, you've given this hospital a bad name!"
"You're right. Fred is a terrible name for a hospital. I'll give it a better one - how about Eunice?"

Doctor Bob

It sure does!

CramCycle

Doctor Bob wrote: »

The author of the TRL report, Richard Cuerden, disputed the notion that such legislation leads to a drop in cycling numbers and stated that the analysis of the fall-off in cycling in Australia in the mid-1990s was 'statistically flawed'. Chris Peck of the CTC criticised the report as 'hastily compiled' and rejected Cuerden's assertion that it wouldn't affect numbers.

It's an interesting development in the debate as I haven't seen the Australian evidence challenged before. I've generally found TRL (Transport Research Laboratory) papers and research to be quite good, but on the face of it this one surprised me. I'd like to know more about the context for the 'hastily compiled' comment.

Can't find the data but I was under the impression that similar drop rates were seen in one of the Canadian states. Oddly enough in this scenario, if memory serves was that despite the law coming into force, the numbers of cyclists dropping, the number of cyclist deaths per annum remained constant, but this is my memory and could be flawed.

Iwannahurl

loughgill wrote: »

I'm not allowed to post links yet, but the Journal.ie are covering a Poster made by Mayo Co Co Road Safety Officer which claims to use RSA statistics. One of these is "Cyclists not wearing a helmet have two times the risk of being killed". Can anyone comment on the source (including country) and or meaning of this statistic? Does it mean - compared to if the same cyclist was wearing a helmet, or does it mean - compared to cyclists who wear helmets? Or is it, cyclists not wearing a helmet when they crash have two times the risk of being killed (thus ignoring any of the debates re driver risk compensation (overtaking closer to cyclists that have helmets) or cyclist risk compensation).

I'm not convinced of Mayo County Council's road safety promotion methods.

http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/2127.html

RainyDay

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm not convinced of Mayo County Council's road safety promotion methods.

http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/2127.html

Is there anything to be said for another Mass?

tomasrojo

A look at the Jersey under-14 law, and some interesting comments below, including Roger Geffen of the CTC.

http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/saving-the-unicorn

Excellent posting Bez. Just one tiny quibble:
“Significant time and money has been invested in [Cuerden's] report.”

Actually, it was only commissioned after CTC co-ordinated a joint letter, also signed by British Cycling and Sustrans, urging them to delay a vote on the proposed legislation which was originally due to have taken place on April 28th.

We asked for an opportunity for Chris Boardman to be able to give evidence against helmet-compulsion, together with experts on health, assessment of risk etc. Instead they commissioned this rapid desk-based review, inviting us to submit [written] evidence only. They then published the resulting report ONE DAY before the delayed vote on the law, giving us no time whatsoever to comment on it.

See more here: https://www.ctc.org.uk/news/helmet-law-14s-implemented-island-jersey

tomasrojo

I think the suppression of cycling by helmet laws is magicked away by reference to a study by Olivier. If that study is of the same quality as his re-analysis of Ian Walker's data, then I'd be very confident that the observation that helmet laws suppress cycling still stands. (Though it almost certainly applies to Jersey much less that it applied to Australia or New Zealand; Jersey has a 90% helmet wearing rate among under-14s.)


http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=75587

Probably for statistical enthusiasts only, but essentially Olivier claims that smaller datasets are less likely to lead to error than big ones, and that a one-metre passing distance is safe at any speed.

I recall Walker describing him on Twitter (and I paraphrase) as a helmet zealot who abused Walker's data.

tomasrojo

And another Walker on Twitter, Peter Walker of the Guardian:

peterwalker99 @peterwalker99 · Jul 22

Input from Jersey police to report is interesting: they sort of say, quite politely, they have no interest in enforcing helmet law

peterwalker99 @peterwalker99 · Jul 22

On Jersey helmet law, govt official I spoke to more or less conceded there's no evidence base for it. More on Bike Blog tomorrow

(He doesn't seem to have written anything about the Jersey law in the Guardian's Bike Blog.)