-
^
Cycling death figures
• Total number of cycling deaths in Ontario between January 2006 and December 2010: 129 **(77 involving a car)** • Ages of those killed: 10 to 83 • Total number of those not wearing a helmet: 94 of 129 • Number who died of head injuries: 71 • Number of head-injury deaths where cyclist was not wearing a helmet: 58 (of the 71)I've not had time to read the study in detail yet. In the cases where cars were involved, does the coroner's report state details like the speed at which the cars were travelling etc.? Perhaps there's a stronger correlation between fatal head injuries and being hit by large vehicles, or those travelling at higher speeds or whatever, than that which has been shown for fatalities and non-helmet use?
-
Very small sample. It would only take 10-15 misreports to totally change the results.
In the paper there is one line saying they are relying on helmets being reported in every case. Which can be translated as, there are probably a bunch of deaths where they didn't report the helmet (possibly because of lack of head injury) and we've assumed they didn't wear one.
I'd be interested to know what percentage of the helmeted riders died from neck injuries as this has previously been shown to increase in helmeted riders.
Finally something I thought interesting is that only helmeted riders died hitting other cyclists and pedestrians!?
-
• #4232
I make no report to the "goodness" (academic term) of that article (the journal one; the Star one is garbage). However, in my experience, regarding sample size, you don't get published without it being large enough to make statistically relevant claims.
In regard to ignoring other variables - no idea.
(Did MSc level quants 5 years ago. I forget all of it. And hated it then, anyway).
-
• #4234
Be nice to find out who funded the study too.
.
Afiliations: From the Ofice of the Chief Coroner for Ontario (Persaud, Coleman, Zwolakowski, Lauwers, Cass), Toronto, Ont.; Keenan Research Centre, (Persaud) Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital; the Department of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; the Department of Family and Community (Lauwers), Medicine of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; and the Division of Emergency Medicine (Cass), the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont
Acknowledgements: The authors thank Dr. David Evans for assistance with data collection and analysis. Navindra Persaud is funded by a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and by the Department of Family and Community Medicine at St. Micheal’s Hospital, Toronto, Ont.
-
• #4236
They are funded, tacitly, by their particular institutions, and explicitly, in the case of Navindra Persaud, by "a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and by the Department of Family and Community Medicine at St. Micheal’s Hospital, Toronto, Ont.."
It would also seem that they declared they have no conflict of interest when submitting the article.
-
• #4238
Surely if you want to be cynical, a coroner would want more people to die. Drum up some bizness, innit?
I really doubt there is anything untoward of this article. It someone wants to attack it, use science.
-
I make no report to the "goodness" (academic term) of that article (the journal one; the Star one is garbage). However, in my experience, regarding sample size, you don't get published without it being large enough to make statistically relevant claims.
In regard to ignoring other variables - no idea.
(Did MSc level quants 5 years ago. I forget all of it. And hated it then, anyway).
Sorry didn't mean to seem like I was arguing with you, merely pointing out the flaws as I see them (from my biased position of not wanting a helmet law and not wearin them myself except when forced to), he claims 95% statistical accuracey, which is the standard. But that is based on the assumption that the reports contain all the data required. If the Canadian reports are anything like British ones I doubt they do.
I've not done masters level stats for 15 years! Although I do find it interesting...
Anyway, by comparison, the most often quoted data about injuries and helmets had a sample size of around 3,500 if I remember correctly... As oppossed to this one of 127. Make of that what you will.
The cynical side of me reckons if you peel the funding onion back far enough you might find bike trade money somewhere in there...
One thing that I've always suggested as proof that helmets aren't up to much is the fact that helmet manufacturers are not funding research.
From the style of the question and the writing in the paper I'd suggest he believes helmets saves lives and wants to prove it, but that's my biased opinion.
-
• #4240
They reference that study (from Seattle) and say they used those who suffered brain injuries rather than death, and also that their results are consistent.
The numbers of deaths is obviously going to be limited.
In regard to sample size, I can't explain the magics, but surprisingly small numbers can be informative. We should ask Vidal what he thinks.
They point to some of the limitations of their study, but most they mention involve underestimating.
To be honest, I don't wear a helmet, nor am I clued up in the helmet debate. Just thought this would be an interesting article for those caught up in the "fight."
-
The numbers of deaths is obviously going to be limited.
What we need is a war. A war in which soldiers are deployed on bicycles either wearing a helmet or not, and the enemy's weapons are slabs of tarmac and car bombs.
-
I will just leave this possible repost here
-
Some odd crap on twitter today.
The All Party Cycling Group (a decent resource) retweeted some nonsense by a brain dead Tory MP which suggested that helmet compulsion was obviously a right way to save lives.
I responded to him ( stupidly before checking which party he came from and therefore before realising that he was more interested in compulsion than saving lives) by suggesting that persuasion rather than compulsion was the answer and that compulsion would cost lives.
The result of my over hasty tweet was a vehement attack from some deranged Stalinist cyclist to the effect that I was talking nonsense and that helmets should be banned and there should be no choice in the matter thank you very much.
I don't think that people who adopt such strident stances help the cause of cycling.
-
Would riding this involve a strident stance?
-
More evidence that the people of Nottingham are idiots.
-
^Weird that one of them can say "Our generation used to do the cycling proficiency course at school. We were issued with the Highway Code, tested and got a badge. Whatever happened to that?" while another knows all about Bikeability and the fact that the council is not promoting it:
"I learned that there was only a small number of the 350 primary and secondary schools in Nottinghamshire that offer any sort of cycle training. These figures are not nearly good enough and county council recognise that more must do more to support pro active initiatives to get schools on board with the bikeability scheme.
edscoble
BringMeMyFix
hippy
Khornight2
rhb
Andrew
fatoldbloke
skydancer
cliveo
Ramsaye
deleted
CYOA-
Post a reply
About
Remember kids... always wear a helmet. (The almighty bikeradar helmet thread)
Posted by
head injuries cause tank tops, more likely.