BBCi hates cyclists?

"Richard Burton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

a.. Safety clothing: A helmet is one of the most important pieces equipment for a cyclist.
Wearing a helmet is the best way of reducing the potential dangers of an accident." Apart from
the fact that this statement is unproven and highly disputable, this must be the first time
that helmets have been justified on weather grounds.

I hear and understand all the arguments about compulsion but have to say I'm confused by the line I
read regularly suggesting that helmets do not protect. Someone care to lay out the
evidence/argument? I have a sense that in an attempt to make the anti-compulsion case the pudding is
being over egged.

[I'll declare an interest: I spent a night in hospital a few month ago with partial amnesia
following a mtb fall in Richmond Park. My helmet was smashed like an egg that has been rapped hard
on the table as I cam off the bike sideways and my head whiplashed into the ground]

pk

Richard Burton said:

On a visit to the BBCi website to make sure that they had dropped the crass story about P***
S*****'s impotence, I looked at their new NBW page. Contacts for Sustrans and NBW webpages, but not
the national cycling organisation the CTC! They also have a health page, dedicated to cycling this
week, with lots of contacts, but not the CTC!? see
bbc.co.ukcycling.shtmlOpen ↗

There is a weather page, with advice about cycling in inclement weather, which seems mostly aimed
at putting people off cycling altogether
bbc.co.ukbikeweek.shtmlOpen ↗. In an article about the weather and
how to survive it, it also contains the incredible statement:

"For those who are interested in following the continental lead and want to make more journeys by
bicycle there are a few things that can help with difficult weather conditions:

a.. Safety clothing: A helmet is one of the most important pieces equipment for a cyclist.
Wearing a helmet is the best way of reducing the potential dangers of an accident." Apart from
the fact that this statement is unproven and highly disputable, this must be the first time
that helmets have been justified on weather grounds.

Making a complaint is extremely difficult, as BBCi only accept emails about BBC programmes, and
tell you to contact the individual website by clicking on the "contact us" link. Unfortunately,
none of these links work on any of the cycle pages, so I just sent them an email anyway. I'll also
ring tomorrow.

Before the BBC get that call and the thin edge of the helmet wedge, you could just allow yourself to
acknowledge this from the main page:

"However, increasingly people are arguing that wearing a helmet actually has little effect on the
risk of head injury. The Ontario Coalition for Better Cycling has a very thorough run down on the
arguments and evidence at www.magma.ca/~ocbc/. The British evidence also looks convincing:
www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/helmets/uktrends.pdf."

Not sure I got the feeling that the BBC *hates* cycling either.

Garry

Paul Kelly said:

I hear and understand all the arguments about compulsion but have to say I'm confused by the line
I read regularly suggesting that helmets do not protect. Someone care to lay out the
evidence/argument? I have a sense that in an attempt to make the anti-compulsion case the pudding
is being over egged.

If you look at assessments of the figures for serious head injuries then there's not really much in
the way of good evidence that helmets do much about them. This is not to say that they're useless,
rather that in the sort of impact where you'll have serious trauma a thin sheet of polystyrene
isn't really up to the job of doing much about it. Where they will help is in reducing pain and
aches of something like a bump and graze, but that's hardly life threatening so doesn't get into
the relevant figures.

One could argue that surely reducing the possibilities of bumps and grazes must be a good thing, but
of course there are comfort issues to wearing a polystyrene box too, especially in this weather for
any sort of distance. So you can accept one sort of discomfort to reduce the possibility of another,
but that's hardly a cut and dried case for compulsion.

I usually wear mine for short trips about town: quick hacks where comfort is secondary to getting a
job done. For longer rides, or in any case when it's very hot, I'll usually go without (though
sometimes wear it anyway in winter as it's windproof and helps keep me warm as well as providing
minor knock protection). I'll pretty much always wear one on the MTB as I feel that if I haven't
fallen off at least once I'm just not MTBing.

Quoted message said:

[I'll declare an interest: I spent a night in hospital a few month ago with partial amnesia
following a mtb fall in Richmond Park. My helmet was smashed like an egg that has been rapped hard
on the table as I cam off the bike sideways and my head whiplashed into the ground]

It's entirely probable you'd have had a bloody awful headache for considerably longer than you did,
possible that you're one of the few cases on the thin line where they will make a major difference,
but in statistical terms it seems there's very few people in accidents where helmets make a clear
case between serious head injury and not.

bmj.com1582Open ↗ is quite good reading, with other references you can
follow up for further detail.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

"Paul Kelly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I hear and understand all the arguments about compulsion but have to say

I'm

Quoted message said:

confused by the line I read regularly suggesting that helmets do not protect. Someone care to lay
out the evidence/argument? I have a sense

that

Quoted message said:

in an attempt to make the anti-compulsion case the pudding is being over egged.

The arguments are quite well set out here:
<http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/helmets/helmets.html>

Essentially the suggestion that helmets do not provide any net protection is based at least in part
on the theory of risk compensation, which suggests that when wearing a helmet we are likely to ride
in a less safe manner, thus negating whatever protective effect the helmet may have.

This is backed up by the fact that whole-population and time-series studies have never succeeded in
identifying any correlation between helmet use and injury rates. Pro-helmet research also has a
tendency to be wildly overoptimistic in its claims. The granddaddy of all helmet studies, Thompson,
Rivara and Thompson, accidentally proved that helmets reduce leg injuries by a substantial margin, a
fact which they failed to notice when drawing their conclusions. This does not argue for careful
science. Oh, they also ignored the fact that a large number of those injuries were to parts of the
head not covered y helmets, such as the chin.

The Thompson, Rivara & Thompson study was run by paediatricians, and it is true that children have
the kinds of accidents where a helmet works. Extending that conclusion to draw inferences about
experienced adult cyclists on the road is clearly nonsensical.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

I notice most MTB helmets are huge things, sticking out from the side of the head hugely, with no
side protection I imagine in a tarmac related accident, this pushes the cheek area towards the road,
rather than protecting the wearer, I use a road orientated helmet which is of a much slimmer
profile, which seems to make more sense to me, of course the biggest problem is getting adequate
cooling, sweat running into your eyes is as big a danger as bashing your head, after all a helmet
should protect you in a fall, not contribute to falling, for that reason, one of my primary
considerations when last buying a helmet was to get one that provided adequate cooling.

Ian

Quoted message said:

From: "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]>

Essentially the suggestion that helmets do not provide any net protection is based at least in
part on the theory of risk compensation, which suggests that when wearing a helmet we are likely
to ride in a less safe manner, thus negating whatever protective effect the helmet may have.

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Paul Kelly wrote:

not.

Quoted message said:

bmj.com1582Open ↗ is quite good reading, with other references you can
follow up for further detail.

thanks for that - too long for a quick read. I'll take my time.

pk

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Essentially the suggestion that helmets do not provide any net protection

is

Quoted message said:

based at least in part on the theory of risk compensation, which suggests that when wearing a
helmet we are likely to ride in a less safe manner,

thus

Quoted message said:

negating whatever protective effect the helmet may have.

I used to work in safety management so the idea of risk compensation is not new to me.

Quoted message said:

This does not argue for careful science.

From my skimming of the sources I've seen referenced here and others I found through google, I see a
great deal of bad science on both sides of the argument.

Many of the arguments are put from entrenched positions by people with a vested interest and are
clearly both selective in scope and biased in interpretation

Quoted message said:

The Thompson, Rivara & Thompson study was run by paediatricians, and it is true that children have
the kinds of accidents where a helmet works. Extending that conclusion to draw inferences about
experienced adult cyclists on the road is clearly nonsensical.

ah! balance! (;-) But I suppose that is only to be expected from a cyclist........

pk

Richard Burton said:

bbc.co.ukcycling.shtmlOpen ↗

Holy mother of God! Halfway down: "Go Bent..."

The Dark Side has finally infested Auntie!

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.

you know? said:

Quoted message said:

bbc.co.ukcycling.shtmlOpen ↗

Holy mother of God! Halfway down: "Go Bent..."

The Dark Side has finally infested Auntie!

Nah. It's just Bart Simpson colliding with Helen's cat.

Get bent AND eat my shorts. James

--
homepage.ntlworld.comDscf0632.jpgOpen ↗

In "]news:[email hidden], Garry Broad <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

Not sure I got the feeling that the BBC *hates* cycling either.

There is a fairly substantial BBC building in Caversham, Reading. I have certainly seen a few of
their employees cycling to work. I don't think the BBC particularly *hates* cycling; it is merely
that just like any other media organisation these days they prefer to accentuate the negative and
eliminate the positive - controversy and conflict increases the potential audience.

The attitude of the media was brought home to any Redingensian who had occasion to pass by the Crown
Court recently, when an Asian lady was on trial for the alleged murder of three of her children.
Every bloody media outfit you could imagine was outside that court for days on end ; to the point
where I ended up complaining to the Court Service and the local authority (as did many others from
what I was told ) about the manner in which the satellite vans had parked, ignoring all restrictions
and making some roads virtually impassable by bicycle (must have been even *worse* for drivers).

One day I even overheard a couple of reporters -themselves Asian and presumably from the special
channels now available for the Asian community - mentioning that the BBC and Carlton/Granada
were arguing about who should have the rights to a /documentary/ of the case (whilst it was
still /sub judice/)!

The lady was found /not guilty/. Not a *single* reporter has turned up outside Court since then.

Alex

"Paul Kelly" <[email hidden]> wrote:

|
| "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| "]news:[email hidden]...
| >>
| > Essentially the suggestion that helmets do not provide any net protection is based at least in
| > part on the theory of risk compensation, which suggests that when wearing a helmet we are likely
| > to ride in a less safe manner, thus negating whatever protective effect the helmet may have.
|
| I used to work in safety management so the idea of risk compensation is not new to me.

And the point I always chip in with in helmet threads: for road cycling (commuting mostly) I feel my
greatest danger is from car drivers and the best reduction of risk is to look as vulnerable as
possible (within the bounds of good taste, natch) to them, so I don't wear one.

--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK anweald.co.ukanweald.co.ukOpen ↗

Mr R@t \(2.3 zulu-alpha\) comms room 2 said:

There is a fairly substantial BBC building in Caversham, Reading. I have certainly seen a few of
their employees cycling to work. I don't think the BBC particularly *hates* cycling; it is merely
that just like any other media organisation these days they prefer to accentuate the negative and
eliminate the positive - controversy and conflict increases the potential audience.

True. "100,000 cyclists travelled safely to work this morning and they have all have just
impregnated their wives." wouldn't exactly be stop-press hot news.

James

--
homepage.ntlworld.comDscf0632.jpgOpen ↗

"James Hodson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"100,000 cyclists travelled safely to work this morning and they have all have just impregnated
their wives." wouldn't exactly be stop-press hot news.

I can see the pictures making the front page of the Daily Star, though...

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

Richard Burton said:

On a visit to the BBCi website to make sure that they had dropped the crass story about P***
S*****'s impotence, I looked at their new NBW page. Contacts for Sustrans and NBW webpages, but not
the national cycling organisation the CTC! They also have a health page, dedicated to cycling this
week, with lots of contacts, but not the CTC!? see
bbc.co.ukcycling.shtmlOpen ↗

I see a link to CTC website at the bottom of this page.

Thanks for the links.

Quoted message said:

I hear and understand all the arguments about compulsion but have to say I'm confused by the line
I read regularly suggesting that helmets do not protect. Someone care to lay out the
evidence/argument? I have a sense that in an attempt to make the anti-compulsion case the pudding
is being over egged.

[I'll declare an interest: I spent a night in hospital a few month ago with partial amnesia
following a mtb fall in Richmond Park. My helmet was smashed like an egg that has been rapped hard
on the table as I cam off the bike sideways and my head whiplashed into the ground]

I agree; I was thrown off my folding bike at 12mph head first into the base of a steel lamppost on
an exceptionally badly designed cycle path in Croydon. The result:slightly dented hat; major
concussion.Anyone care to try same without a hat? Did we not have this argument with motor cycle
helmets in the 70's?

Historical note: in one of the World Wars head injuries went up by a ridiculous percentage following
the introduction of tin helmets; the reason? most of the soldiers were killed before the helmets
were introduced.

James Hodson said:

True. "100,000 cyclists travelled safely to work this morning and they have all have just
impregnated their wives." wouldn't exactly be stop-press hot news.

Paul Kelly said:

I hear and understand all the arguments about compulsion but have to say I'm confused by the line
I read regularly suggesting that helmets do not protect. Someone care to lay out the
evidence/argument?

As briefly as I can:

Helmets are designed and tested to withstand direct impacts at low speeds. Outside teh design
envelope there is no good reason for believing they behave in a useful manner.

There is no good statistical evidence demonstrating that helmets reduce injury rates, or even head
injury rates. The statistical evidence that there is generally turns out to be pretty flawed -
things like a quoted reduction in head injuries, when the reduction in cycling was bigger (so teh
rate must have increased), or a reduction in cyclist head injury rates (hurrah for helmets) when the
pedestrian head injury rate fell more (so cyclists wearing helmets protects pedestrians from head
injuries too?).

There are plausible mechanisms by which helmets could make things worse:
+ torsional injury (exacerbated due to increased head diameter)
+ risk compensation by cyclist or driver
+ impeded reactions (a bigger head outline converts a near miss into an impact - which would you
prefer, a tonne of steel missing you, or a tonne of steel with half an inch of polystyrene on the
front hitting you?)

So, the statistics show helmets make things worse for populations as a whole, there are plausible
mechanisms that could explain why/how they make things worse in individual cases, and there's
neither design intention nor testing to show that they make things better in the cases of accidents
that are liable to cause serious head injury.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"Ni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Richard Burton said:

On a visit to the BBCi website to make sure that they had dropped the

crass

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

story about P*** S*****'s impotence, I looked at their new NBW page. Contacts for Sustrans and
NBW webpages, but not the national cycling organisation the CTC! They also have a health page,
dedicated to cycling this week, with lots of contacts, but not the CTC!? see
bbc.co.ukcycling.shtmlOpen ↗

I see a link to CTC website at the bottom of this page.

After three days of ringing the Beeb, I finally got put through to the right person for the health
page, who was charming and was quite willing to put in a link to the CTC today, the 18th. I have had
the electronic response from the emails I have sent, but nothing else. And I still haven't been able
to get the right person for the weather site on the phone; this morning I was refered to the Beeb
inquiry service, and they didn't know either, but took my number and promised someone would ring me
back. Would anyone out there care to wager a large sum of money on whether someone did ring me back?

If anyone else wants to try, the Beeb inquiry line is on 08700 1002222, and the best of luck.

cheers

Rich

martin <[email hidden]> wrote:
:>
:> I agree; I was thrown off my folding bike at 12mph head first into the base of a steel lamppost
:> on an exceptionally badly designed cycle path in Croydon. The result:slightly dented hat; major
:> concussion.Anyone care to try same without a hat? Did we not have this argument with motor cycle
:> helmets in the 70's?

Two points here.

1) This is the exact sort of injury that helmets are designed to work for - slow speed crash with no
other traffic involved.

2) This is also the sort of accident that experienced cyclists don't tend top have, not least cos we
avoid [censored] bike paths.

Helmets have their uses, but they are not a panacea.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune clune.orgclune.orgOpen ↗ Power is delightful. Absolute power is absolutely delightful -
Lord Lester