Wearing A Helmet Puts Cyclists At Risk
We'll start off with an easy one today to illustrate the total disregard for the scientific method that is so prevalent in today's "science".
This one comes from ScienceDaily . Apparently we shouldn't wear our helmets when riding a bicycle - nevermind the $50 ticket - it may be hazardous to our health! How, do you ask, was this conclusion drawn? Let's take a look at the "research"...
Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist (traffic psychologist ??) from the University of Bath, used a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to record data from over 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol.
He found that drivers were as much as twice as likely to get particularly close to the bicycle when he was wearing the helmet.
Across the board, drivers passed an average of 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches) closer with the helmet than without.
And the conclusions drawn from this rigorous experimentation?
"This study suggests wearing a helmet might make a collision more likely in the first place.
It shows that when drivers overtake a cyclist, the margin for error they leave is affected by the cyclist’s appearance.
By leaving the cyclist less room, drivers reduce the safety margin that cyclists need to deal with obstacles in the road... as well as the margin for error in their judgments."
What?? Supposition + Supposition + Supposition = Fact ??
Dr Walker suggests the reason drivers give less room to cyclists wearing helmets is down to how cyclists are perceived as a group. “We know from research that many drivers see cyclists as a separate subculture, to which they don’t belong.”
Dr. Walker's degree in a fringe, pseudo field come into play...
“As a result they hold stereotyped ideas about cyclists, often judging all riders by the yardstick of the lycra-clad street-warrior.
“This may lead drivers to believe cyclists with helmets are more serious, experienced and predictable than those without.
“The idea that helmeted cyclists are more experienced and less likely to do something unexpected would explain why drivers leave less space when passing.
“In reality, there is no real reason to believe someone with a helmet is any more experienced than someone without.
He suggests communication is the answer...
“The best answer is for different types of road user to understand each other better. Most adult cyclists know what it is like to drive a car, but relatively few motorists ride bicycles in traffic, and so don’t know the issues cyclists face.
“There should definitely be more information on the needs of other road users when people learn to drive, and practical experience would be even better.
“When people try cycling, they nearly always say it changes the way they treat other road users when they get back in their cars.”
Yet even more conclusions can be drawn...
The study also found that large vehicles, such as buses and trucks, passed considerably closer when overtaking cyclists than cars. The average car passed 1.33 metres (4.4 feet) away from the bicycle, whereas the average truck got 19 centimetres (7.5 inches) closer and the average bus 23 centimetres (9 inches) closer. However, there was no evidence of 4x4s (SUVs) getting any closer than ordinary cars.
Previously reported research from the project showed that drivers of white vans overtake cyclists an average 10 centimetres (4 inches) closer than car drivers.
Leading to yet another "experiment"...
To test another theory, Dr Walker donned a long wig to see whether there was any difference in passing distance when drivers thought they were overtaking what appeared to be a female cyclist. Whilst wearing the wig, drivers gave him an average of 14 centimetres (5.5 inches) more space when passing.
Maybe they just thought is was a strange guy in a wig... Maybe the drivers wanted to avoid explaining an accident with a transvestite hooker...
In future research, Dr Walker hopes to discover whether this was because female riders are seen as less predictable than male riders, or because women are not seen riding bicycles as often as men on the UK’s roads.
Even to me that seems a bit chauvinistic...
It seems Dr. Walker is more interested in job security than science. He has more "experiments" planned and will no doubt author the government pamphlets to communicate to car drivers the need to be mindful of the psychology of a bicyclist.
The Doctor claims drivers not only behave differently around bicyclists, but differently to bicyclists wearing helmets and those without. Where does this "hard data" come from. Thin air. Even in a court of law a witness cannot testify to what someone was thinking. I would hope scientific research is a bit more rigorous than our justice system in determining facts.
If we look at the scientific method we see it was not followed - he must have the "Cliff Notes" version. I won't get into all the details of the scientific method but the highlights are Observation, Description, Prediction. Control, and Falsifiability (or the elimination of plausible alternatives). Did the Doctor monitor the driving habits of people in the same location when no bicyclist was around? Or if a pedestrian was around?
What the good Doctor did was a Field Experiment - which are notoriously subjective and in the field of social sciences, nearly impossible to corroberate. There was no control in this experiment, and too many variables were involved. It is therefore a quasi-experiment and not subject to empirical methodology. The conclusions drawn from such quasi-experiments cannot be verified and are totally subjective, effectively rendering them useless.
Let's see some more science in your method doctor before you publish such an outlandish claim. And ScienceDaily - shame on you for putting this on your site.
Doctor Walker's research has been accepted for publication in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention which is available to you at the low annual rate of $1,485.26.
This one comes from ScienceDaily . Apparently we shouldn't wear our helmets when riding a bicycle - nevermind the $50 ticket - it may be hazardous to our health! How, do you ask, was this conclusion drawn? Let's take a look at the "research"...
Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist (traffic psychologist ??) from the University of Bath, used a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to record data from over 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol.
He found that drivers were as much as twice as likely to get particularly close to the bicycle when he was wearing the helmet.
Across the board, drivers passed an average of 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches) closer with the helmet than without.
And the conclusions drawn from this rigorous experimentation?
"This study suggests wearing a helmet might make a collision more likely in the first place.
It shows that when drivers overtake a cyclist, the margin for error they leave is affected by the cyclist’s appearance.
By leaving the cyclist less room, drivers reduce the safety margin that cyclists need to deal with obstacles in the road... as well as the margin for error in their judgments."
What?? Supposition + Supposition + Supposition = Fact ??
Dr Walker suggests the reason drivers give less room to cyclists wearing helmets is down to how cyclists are perceived as a group. “We know from research that many drivers see cyclists as a separate subculture, to which they don’t belong.”
Dr. Walker's degree in a fringe, pseudo field come into play...
“As a result they hold stereotyped ideas about cyclists, often judging all riders by the yardstick of the lycra-clad street-warrior.
“This may lead drivers to believe cyclists with helmets are more serious, experienced and predictable than those without.
“The idea that helmeted cyclists are more experienced and less likely to do something unexpected would explain why drivers leave less space when passing.
“In reality, there is no real reason to believe someone with a helmet is any more experienced than someone without.
He suggests communication is the answer...
“The best answer is for different types of road user to understand each other better. Most adult cyclists know what it is like to drive a car, but relatively few motorists ride bicycles in traffic, and so don’t know the issues cyclists face.
“There should definitely be more information on the needs of other road users when people learn to drive, and practical experience would be even better.
“When people try cycling, they nearly always say it changes the way they treat other road users when they get back in their cars.”
Yet even more conclusions can be drawn...
The study also found that large vehicles, such as buses and trucks, passed considerably closer when overtaking cyclists than cars. The average car passed 1.33 metres (4.4 feet) away from the bicycle, whereas the average truck got 19 centimetres (7.5 inches) closer and the average bus 23 centimetres (9 inches) closer. However, there was no evidence of 4x4s (SUVs) getting any closer than ordinary cars.
Previously reported research from the project showed that drivers of white vans overtake cyclists an average 10 centimetres (4 inches) closer than car drivers.
Leading to yet another "experiment"...
To test another theory, Dr Walker donned a long wig to see whether there was any difference in passing distance when drivers thought they were overtaking what appeared to be a female cyclist. Whilst wearing the wig, drivers gave him an average of 14 centimetres (5.5 inches) more space when passing.
Maybe they just thought is was a strange guy in a wig... Maybe the drivers wanted to avoid explaining an accident with a transvestite hooker...
In future research, Dr Walker hopes to discover whether this was because female riders are seen as less predictable than male riders, or because women are not seen riding bicycles as often as men on the UK’s roads.
Even to me that seems a bit chauvinistic...
It seems Dr. Walker is more interested in job security than science. He has more "experiments" planned and will no doubt author the government pamphlets to communicate to car drivers the need to be mindful of the psychology of a bicyclist.
The Doctor claims drivers not only behave differently around bicyclists, but differently to bicyclists wearing helmets and those without. Where does this "hard data" come from. Thin air. Even in a court of law a witness cannot testify to what someone was thinking. I would hope scientific research is a bit more rigorous than our justice system in determining facts.
If we look at the scientific method we see it was not followed - he must have the "Cliff Notes" version. I won't get into all the details of the scientific method but the highlights are Observation, Description, Prediction. Control, and Falsifiability (or the elimination of plausible alternatives). Did the Doctor monitor the driving habits of people in the same location when no bicyclist was around? Or if a pedestrian was around?
What the good Doctor did was a Field Experiment - which are notoriously subjective and in the field of social sciences, nearly impossible to corroberate. There was no control in this experiment, and too many variables were involved. It is therefore a quasi-experiment and not subject to empirical methodology. The conclusions drawn from such quasi-experiments cannot be verified and are totally subjective, effectively rendering them useless.
Let's see some more science in your method doctor before you publish such an outlandish claim. And ScienceDaily - shame on you for putting this on your site.
Doctor Walker's research has been accepted for publication in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention which is available to you at the low annual rate of $1,485.26.
