helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Derek C on 24 May 2010 05:55 On 24 May, 10:37, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > Derek C wrote: > > These studies might prove useful: > > >http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffe... > > Well, they might, but many of them are from a source that's been > responsible for some /highly/ questionable work in the area. > > As you'd know if you read the originals with a critical eye, rather than > stopping at the nice sounding headlines. > > Pete. > -- So a reputable educational organisation is wrong and 'cyclehelmets.org' is right? Pull the other one! Derek C
From: Peter Clinch on 24 May 2010 06:47 Derek C wrote: > So a reputable educational organisation is wrong It's not impossible. Further note that education doesn't equate to quality research. > 'cyclehelmets.org' is right? It's not impossible. After all, the editorial board contains folk who work for a "reputable educational organisation", and also who are reputable expert witnesses on cycling safety, and also who run companies trusted by the UK government to test helmets, and also who direct US institutes of traffic safety analysis, and who are consultants in public health, also who are GP principals. And they've got a number of peer-reviewed journal publications under their collective belts too. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that the BHRF /must/ be clueless charlatans because they're not saying what you want them to. I'd wager very good money that any of the editorial have a much better in-depth understanding, and are much better read on the subject, than you are. > Pull the other one! You need to read the evidence yourself to make a proper call. Thus far you have given little evidence that you've got past abstracts and conclusions, so i doubt you can make a proper call. Appealing to qualifications isn't enough, because (a) people can be wrong and (b) there are a good pile of them on the other side as well. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
From: Tony Raven on 24 May 2010 07:48 Derek C wrote: >> >> See: "The Effectiveness of Bicycle Helmets:A Review", Dr. Michael >> Henderson [ISBN 0 T310 6435 6] >> >> Cue the psycholists whining that Guy Chapman's completely made up >> statistics trounce any medical study. > > These studies might prove useful: > > http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffect.html > > They show that cycle helmets reduce injuries to the skull, brain, and > upper face by significant factors. They also show that helmets cut leg injuries by 75%. But I didn't think anyone would still be walking into that elephant trap of the home of Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, the purveyors of the dodgiest helmet research out there. You never did answer my question about their choice of cohorts and why you think their original results are not due entirely to confounding factors they ignored. Would you like to answer it now? -- Tony " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell
From: Derek C on 24 May 2010 08:02 On May 24, 12:48 pm, Tony Raven <tra...(a)gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: > Derek C wrote: > > >> See: "The Effectiveness of Bicycle Helmets:A Review", Dr. Michael > >> Henderson [ISBN 0 T310 6435 6] > > >> Cue the psycholists whining that Guy Chapman's completely made up > >> statistics trounce any medical study. > > > These studies might prove useful: > > >http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffe... > > > They show that cycle helmets reduce injuries to the skull, brain, and > > upper face by significant factors. > > They also show that helmets cut leg injuries by 75%. > > But I didn't think anyone would still be walking into that elephant trap > of the home of Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, the purveyors of the > dodgiest helmet research out there. You never did answer my question > about their choice of cohorts and why you think their original results > are not due entirely to confounding factors they ignored. Would you > like to answer it now? > I have already pointed out that data may be skewed by just looking at hospital admissions and reported accidents, which is why I suggested a truly randomised study. Then the lying whatsits at 'cyclehelmets.org' will have no confounding factors to hide behind. Derek C
From: Naich on 24 May 2010 08:05
On Mon, 24 May 2010, Tony Raven wrote: > Derek C wrote: >>> >>> See: "The Effectiveness of Bicycle Helmets:A Review", Dr. Michael >>> Henderson [ISBN 0 T310 6435 6] >>> >>> Cue the psycholists whining that Guy Chapman's completely made up >>> statistics trounce any medical study. >> >> These studies might prove useful: >> >> http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffect.html >> >> They show that cycle helmets reduce injuries to the skull, brain, and >> upper face by significant factors. > > They also show that helmets cut leg injuries by 75%. Where? Naich. -- http://naich.net ..... My rubbish blog http://asshol.es ..... Stupidity in pictures http://sodwork.com ... A waste of time Motto: The more you complain, the longer God lets you live. |