Summary: <br> <a href="https://twitter.com/paulcullenit" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer">Paul Cullen</a> is the Health Editor of the Irish Times. His article headlined <a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/almost-70-of-cyclists-without-helmet-at-time-of-head-trauma-1.4030409" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer">Almost 70% of cyclists without helmet at time of head trauma</a>, appeared on the front page of IT last month. <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> The article was sharply criticised in online discussion, including <a href="https://irishcycle.com/2019/10/01/bicycle-helmets-the-irish-media-and-lies-damned-lies-and-statistics/comment-page-1/" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer">in this article by Cian Ginty</a>. <br> <br> <br> <br> In our discussion, I mentioned a number of articles and scientific studies, including <a href="https://www.outsideonline.com/2392955/lets-talk-about-drivers-hitting-cyclists?utm_source=pocket-newtab" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer">this analysis of the reporting of deaths of vulnerable road users by Joe Lindsey</a>, and this <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0361198119825637" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer">study by Kelcie Ralph et al</a>. I also mentioned that <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/?fbclid=IwAR1g5TuI-S1n3vZeq2lyCy181lbPhU62R9PMmWW3jXpgyDTsN0eRan1SWPY#5f86f9a14bfa" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer">international</a> and <a href="https://irishcycle.com/myths/myths-law-breaking/" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer">Irish studies</a> indicate – contrary to popular imagination – motorists break traffic laws more frequently than cyclists.<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> A <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369847818308593?fbclid=IwAR3fP7Rx7zcBtI2yo9olA2XKG-OUD7VSP11Blm5sBn6i7lNkJ_oBak0yVEs#!" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer">study by Dr Alexa Delbosc from of the Monash Institute</a> of Transport Studies, Department of Civil Engineering concluded that “Around half of non-cyclists view cyclists as ‘less than fully human’”, and that these “dehumanization measures were significantly correlated with aggression toward cyclists.”<br> <br> <br> <br> *****<br> <br> <br> <br> <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/man-jailed-indefinitely-for-refusing-to-decrypt-hard-drives-loses-appeal/" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer">Francis<br> Rawls</a> is in an American prison. And that’s where he’s staying. He lost his<br> case at the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. So what has he<br> been convicted of? Nothing.<br> <br> <br> <br> Rawls, a former<br> Philadelphia police officer has been in jail 17 months because he invoked the<br> Fifth Amendment, he said he wouldn’t give self-incriminating information to<br> police investigating him. But the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" data-wpel-link="external" target="_blank" rel="external noopener noreferrer">Fifth<br> Amendment of the US constitution</a> is, you know, the Fifth Amendment. It<br> guarantees the right not to incriminate yourself.<br> <br> <br> <br> The exact text is no<br> person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against<br> himself”. So how come the court denied his appeal, with three judges voting<br> unanimously against him? It’s partly because the information that the police<br> and the courts want him to hand over, and that he is refusing, are the<br> passwords to encrypted external hard drives that were connected to his<br> computer. The police seized them, along with his computer because they believe<br> they contain child porn, and they do have good reason to believe that, and they<br> convinced a judge to give them a warrant to seize and search his computer.<br> <br> <br> <br> The appeals court<br> ruled that forensic examination showed that Rawls had downloaded thousands of<br> files, the hash values of which indicated they were child pornography. That’s a bit of geek-speak but it means they<br> were monitoring his online activity, they didn’t get the actual files, but they<br>
