Joe D » evidence-based policy

AWWTM: Pickles peddles pointless parking press release

Joe — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 16:55:21 +0000

This week, the Department for Communities and Local Government put out a press release about town centre parking. Unlike last time, they didn’t even have to announce that Pickles is ending The War On The Motorist™. On that point, their work was done for them, by 36 newspapers and the Daily Express. Aren’t they well trained?

This time around, Rubberknickers Pickles is ending The War by lifting restrictions on how much of our town centres can be given over to car parking. The idea is nothing new, of course, but it is assumed that most will have forgotten the previous occasions when it was announced. The “news” is that the paperwork has gone through: the new version of the government’s planning rules are complete.

Continue reading at At War With The Motorist…

AWWTM: Smoothing the flow: pushing more kids into cars

Joe — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 16:54:20 +0000

We know that Boris Johnson’s fantasy of “smoothing traffic flow” will act as an incentive for people to get into their cars and, even more so, for businesses to move more stuff around. In a city like London there is much more potential demand for road space than could ever be supplied, because individuals and businesses who see an empty bit of road will always conjure some reason to fill it. An equilibrium is maintained by the tolerance that individuals have for sitting in traffic and the tolerance that businesses have for spending money doing business on the roads. Add or remove capacity to London’s road network and it will not make the slightest difference to congestion or journey times. It’s not like we haven’t tried it enough time to be sure of that.

Continue reading at At War With The Motorist…

AWWTM: Won’t somebody please think of the children?

Joe — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 16:48:10 +0000

In December 2005, an article of massive importance was published in the British Medical Journal. Doctors counted up the number of children being admitted to A&E with musculoskeletal injuries (breaks and sprains — many of which would have been caused by bicycle-related incidents) on summer weekends and discovered a startling pattern. A new preventative intervention was discovered. They authors say:

Continue reading at At War With The Motorist…

AWWTM: Appendix: Bad Science Bingo in the BMA’s “safe cycling” pages

Joe — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:47:18 +0000

This is just a crude brain dump of a post that comes after the serious series — posts one, two, three, four, five, six, seven and eight.

Sorry, I just can’t get over these extraordinary pages on the BMA’s website. Here’s a very quick run through some of the Bad Science Bingo points that leaped out.

There were the canards, fallacies, and methods of misdirection:

Continue reading at At War With The Motorist…

AWWTM: How did the BMA get bicycle helmets so wrong?

Joe — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:46:04 +0000

In 1958, the UK licensed a drug for treating morning sickness. It worked very well. The studies all showed that pregnant women suffering from morning sickness received much relief with the drug. Three years later it was withdrawn, but not before 2,000 babies were born with birth defects — 20,000 worldwide — three quarters of whom would die in infancy. The drug was, of course, thalidomide. It managed to get licensed because too many of the people studying it were focused on very specific aspects of its activity on the disease states that it was thought to treat, and too few were stepping back and looking at the big picture. It prevented morning sickness, therefore it worked — the logic of the day.

Continue reading at At War With The Motorist…

AWWTM: The BMA, the BMJ, and bicycle helmet policy

Joe — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:44:47 +0000

The reason I pick up the bicycle helmet theme again this week is that the BMJ is running a sidebar poll of their readers (or, more accurately, of cycling tweeters and recipients of Robert Davis’s emails ), asking whether it should be compulsory for adult cyclists to wear helmets.

The BMJ is the journal of the British Medical Association, the professional association and trade union of British doctors. Part of the BMA’s remit it to lobby the government on issues that its members believe are important, and it has some clout in this area. These policies are decided by a representative democracy — a group of members elected by region and by field. In recent years, this body has decided that it is BMA policy to support legislation that would make helmets compulsory for cyclists.

Continue reading at At War With The Motorist…

AWWTM: Risk compensation and bicycle helmets

Joe — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:30:45 +0000

Some months ago I left a series on bicycle helmets hanging while I got distracted with other things. We had looked at what the best evidence for the efficacy of helmets in preventing injury in the event of a crash is, and some of the reasons why we should be cautious about that evidence. We found that if you’re unlucky enough to have been hospitalised while riding a bicycle, you’re less likely to be there with a head or brain injury if you were wearing a helmet at the time of the crash. We noted several ways in which this protective effect is exaggerated and used to mislead, we noted that reduction in injury is from a very low level anyway, and that the research so far done fails to provide any sub-analysis of very different riding styles, such as racing cyclists, mountain bikers, and utility cyclists.

We also made careful note of the fact that a reduction in the rate of head injury in the event of a crash is a different finding to a reduction in the rate of injury and death of bicyclists. We briefly began the exploration of what this means by considering the fact that helmets are not much defence against a motor vehicle.

How could a reduction in head injury in cyclists who crash not mean a reduction in injury and death in bicyclists?

Continue reading at At War With The Motorist…

AWWTM: Can drivers be taught a lesson?

Joe — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:26:54 +0000

M’coblogger Ed thinks there is a case for teaching drivers to behave — specifically by appeals to patriotism. Education programmes are a popular idea amongst cyclists, cash-strapped councils, and road safety types. I dismissed them as a solution that doesn’t work in my own post on revenge and road danger, but didn’t go into any detail. So I thought I better ask: what’s the best evidence we have about driver education programmes?

Continue reading at At War With The Motorist…

AWWTM: Second hand; unused

Joe — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:09:08 +0000

Thinking about how the Cycling Embassy might go about trying to generate political will to progress cycling, I’ve been researching previous failed attempts to advance cycling in this country. So on Amazon I snapped up a second-hand copy of an out-of-print British Medical Association book written in 1992: Cycling: towards health and safety.

Continue reading at At War With The Motorist…

AWWTM: DafT’s deeply regressive fantasy formula

Joe — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:47:17 +0000

Flicking through Google Reader, catching up, something caught my eye in George Monbiot’s latest:

Cost-benefit analysis is systematically rigged in favour of business. Take, for example, the decision-making process for transport infrastructure. The last government developed an appraisal method which almost guaranteed that new roads, railways and runways would be built, regardless of the damage they might do or the paltry benefits they might deliver(8). The method costs people’s time according to how much they earn, and uses this cost to create a value for the development. So, for example, it says the market price of an hour spent travelling in a taxi is £45, but the price of an hour spent travelling by bicycle is just £17, because cyclists tend to be poorer than taxi passengers(9).

I was vaguely aware that the government had complicated infrastructure cost-benefit formulae that included attempts to put value on people’s time, but I wasn’t aware that they had gone so far as to value the time of cyclists versus the time of taxi passengers. So I followed the reference #9. I’ve read some absurd documents in my time, but I wasn’t quite prepared for this.

Continue reading at At War With The Motorist…