Ben Goldacre - Helmet 'Bad Science'

[Linford]

Its the arrogance to assume one must know better that astounds me, personally.

I know...I know..!

 

[Linford]

No - it did not make contact with the road. My head also didn't make contact with the road in the other incident. Other parts did and hurt for months.

Given that 30 mph is low for a motorbike and high for a cyclist (I was thundering down College Road, Crystal Palace at the time) the difference is that the most likely impact speed for a cyclist is way, way less than a motorcyclist. This with other factors means that the same person applying the similar models to risks incurred in cycling and motorcycling would come out with very different answers. In my case they straddle the acceptable risk threshold. I take it from srw that he comes to a not dissimilar conclusion.

Given that srw is a professional in this field and Ben and myself have a professional background to evaluate risk - I'm really wondering why you find informed advice so difficult to accept. Doctors are not always right but I think I prefer to take their collective advice on medicine and surgical actions that could impact my life than pander to my own prejudices. But then I wouldn't trust their stats either (Ben being an honourable exception, he actually understands the subject unlike your good self).

The difference is that the very vast majority of motorcyclists wear protective gear and this is what reduces the severity of injuries in a like for like scenario.
srw has zero experience of motorcycling and so cannot possibly stand in a position of authority on such matters...we have yet to establish if his role even involves transport ? Oh, if you were so good at evaluating risk, you may not have a tale to tell yourself...and even more pertinent is that you would not be so dismissive of devices which mitigate against the severity of an injury.

 

[StuartG]

The difference is that the very vast majority of motorcyclists wear protective gear and this is what reduces the severity of injuries in a like for like scenario.
srw has zero experience of motorcycling and so cannot possibly stand in a position of authority on such matters...we have yet to establish if his role even involves transport ? Oh, if you were so good at evaluating risk, you may not have a tale to tell yourself...and even more pertinent is that you would not be so dismissive of devices which mitigate against the severity of an injury.

Thank you for so eloquently stating your position.

AFAIK Einstein never left this planet yet alone approached the speed of light so can you dismiss both general and special relativity as something he could not possibly be more expert than you? I mean dear Linf could you possibly have more to contribute to the light deflection of Venus observed in 1919 by watching a few apples fall? If you don't believe in the efficacy of tested and proven theoretical models of this sort I should switch your SatNav off right now.

Do come back when you want to be serious.

 

[ufkacbln]

So. say 1,000,000 helmets @ £20 to save 8.5 lives. That's £235,000 per life. NICE appear to value life at about £30,000 so would we not be better advised to write a cheque for the benefit of the NHS rather than selfishly buying the ultimate helmet if it could even exist? Frankly the statistics suggest the effort of producing the ultimate helmet is not worth it. Better (and easier?) to create a viral YouTube video on the dangers of chainsaws?

Which brings me nicely to the efficacy of helmet debates. If we are to believe the BBC claim that an hour spent cycling gives around an hour of extra life - would it not be better we devoted the time we spend going nowhere writing stuff in this thread to riding ... a bike with or without?

I think I'll follow the evidence. Toodaloo!

You haven't really read my post have you?

What was actually said was that for every 100 deaths occurring from head injuries the hypothetical helmet would save 8.5 cyclists

Nowhere did I say that ony 100 head injury deaths had occurred.

I'm old enough to remember the argument about whether to wear seatbelts in cars or not.

The facts are that overall, seatbelts reduce injuries and save lives. Nobody argues about that now.

Cyclists should have the sames attitude to helmets Overall they reduce injuries and save lives.

.......and they could save far more lives of the other 91.5% of people who die through head injury had worn them!

Drivers, pedestrians, car passengers and cyslists should have the sames attitude to helmets Overall they reduce injuries and save lives.

Yet somehow these other deaths are acceptable?

 

[srw]

And thus Linf proves Ben Goldacre's point.

...again...

The difference is that the very vast majority of motorcyclists wear protective gear and this is what reduces the severity of injuries in a like for like scenario.

SInce this thread has been well and truly derailed by someone wiffling on about motorbikes, here's some real-world statistics on the subject.

The civil service collects road deaths stats by mode of transport. I'm initially looking at motorised transport only, because each mode of transport is used for a similar job - to transport people (and in some case goods) across a range of distances, from a handful of miles right up to several hundred in one go, and each mode of transport has the ability to go legally at a similar range of speeds, from walking speed right up to 70mph. The number of deaths per billion miles is as follows:

Van occupant - 1
HGV occupant - 2
Car occupant - 4

Can you spot the connection? Any guesses as to the rate of motorcyclist deaths per billion miles ridden? After all, it must be very safe in comparison because a motorcylist is lecturing us on risk and on mitigation. It must be reasonably similar, mustn't it? Perhaps a little high?

No. The number is.....









120 deaths per billion miles ridden.

 

[theclaud]

You need to read my posts more thoroughly...

I think this is the worst piece of advice I've ever seen.

 

[Linford]

...again...

SInce this thread has been well and truly derailed by someone wiffling on about motorbikes, here's some real-world statistics on the subject.

The civil service collects road deaths stats by mode of transport. I'm initially looking at motorised transport only, because each mode of transport is used for a similar job - to transport people (and in some case goods) across a range of distances, from a handful of miles right up to several hundred in one go, and each mode of transport has the ability to go legally at a similar range of speeds, from walking speed right up to 70mph. The number of deaths per billion miles is as follows:

Van occupant - 1
HGV occupant - 2
Car occupant - 4

Can you spot the connection? Any guesses as to the rate of motorcyclist deaths per billion miles ridden? After all, it must be very safe in comparison because a motorcylist is lecturing us on risk and on mitigation. It must be reasonably similar, mustn't it? Perhaps a little high?

No. The number is.....









120 deaths per billion miles ridden.

Source please...and whilst you are about it, can you stick in the cycling and walking ones as well for comparison ?

 

[srw]

Source?
Delighted.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9274/rrcgb2011-01.pdf

You might have noticed I deliberately focussed on motorised transport only - because cycling and walking (both around 50 per billion miles) are different modes functionally. And because it's a pifflingly trivial matter to get well-verified estimates on motorised transport distances (traffic surveys on main roads plus an uplift for minor roads plus independent verification from MOTs with an allowance for new cars) and horribly difficult to get the equivalent for cycling and walking (traffic surveys don't work, and there's no independent verification) - to the extent that the latest report essentially says of cycling "we don't know what the answer really is".)

But since you're determined to mangle yet another set of stats, the answer is about 50.

 

[dellzeqq]

At some stage I'm sure I shall have a serious off - I do enough cycling that I put myself in harm's way quite a lot, although I do usually ride very defensively and have a very low risk appetite for hurting myself. I also know that the difference between "serious off and uninjured", "serious off and minor injuries", "serious off and major injuries" and "serious off and dead" is a matter of dumb luck, and that on my commute a bit of polystyrene isn't going to affect that dumb luck all that much.

I've also done a risk assessment on motorcyling. And I've concluded that I don't want to go anywhere near a motorbike.

quite. The clothes are frightful.

 

[dellzeqq]

Thank you for so eloquently stating your position.

AFAIK Einstein never left this planet yet alone approached the speed of light so can you dismiss both general and special relativity as something he could not possibly be more expert than you? I mean dear Linf could you possibly have more to contribute to the light deflection of Venus observed in 1919 by watching a few apples fall? If you don't believe in the efficacy of tested and proven theoretical models of this sort I should switch your SatNav off right now.

Do come back when you want to be serious.

I just hope this is a challenge you don't live to regret. Linf's knowledge is (in a special sense) unbounded.

 

[Linford]

Source?
Delighted.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9274/rrcgb2011-01.pdf

You might have noticed I deliberately focussed on motorised transport only - because cycling and walking (both around 50 per billion miles) are different modes functionally. And because it's a pifflingly trivial matter to get well-verified estimates on motorised transport distances (traffic surveys on main roads plus an uplift for minor roads plus independent verification from MOTs with an allowance for new cars) and horribly difficult to get the equivalent for cycling and walking (traffic surveys don't work, and there's no independent verification) - to the extent that the latest report essentially says of cycling "we don't know what the answer really is".)

But since you're determined to mangle yet another set of stats, the answer is about 50.

So cycling is actually more than 12 TIMES MORE DANGEROUS as a transport mode than being carried in a car per billion miles travelled (eureka).
We all know that motorcycling is dangerous, and that is why we as motorcyclists look to mitigate with safety gear. Cycling also carries significant risk as your link shows, but you are chosing to ignore this and claiming it is like walking ...... 'HELLOOOO' If people wanted to walk instead of cycle, they would just walk, and unless you do differently, a bicycle is a passenger carrying road vehicle in the eyes of the law.
You might be able to fool a non cyclist by trying to baffle with the BS but it doesn't wash with me (unless you want to claim again that I don't actually cycle ? )

You are trying to sit on both sides of the fence I'm sure with your various arguments. One one hand they are safe, and then on the other hand cyclists keep getting run over by HGV's. It all sounds so incoherent ... and I'm familiar with all of these claims being made.

 

[Linford]

I just hope this is a challenge you don't live to regret. Linf's knowledge is (in a special sense) unbounded.

Do stop trolling Simon...your only interaction with me is when you are in troll mode....go do this elsewhere.

Your appearance here signifies that the others anti's must be struggling with their convictions, who next to gang up from the 'crowd' ?

 

[mcshroom]

Source?
But since you're determined to mangle yet another set of stats.

You said

So cycling is actually more than 12 TIMES MORE DANGEROUS as a transport mode than being carried in a car per billion miles travelled (eureka).

He did

 

[srw]

srw has zero experience of motorcycling and so cannot possibly stand in a position of authority on such matters...

Bear in mind that I'm only going by what I'm seeing on this thread and what I know personally of the people involved. And that argument from authority is a logical fallacy so widespread that it has its own Latin tag ("argumentum ex auctoritate").

But I've spent 17 years working in a risk-related industry and have a risk-related professional qualification - and manage risk (in its widest sense) for a (very handsome) living. Stuart G is a professional statistician - which means he can do the difficult sums and complex thought required to understad risk. Ben Goldacre is a doctor by background, so is trained in understanding individual injuries, and now works in epidemiology - which is the application of risk and statistics to medicine and public health.

We are discussing a matter of risk and public health.

You, Linford, design tools.

 

[mcshroom]

The suspense is killing us