From: JMS jmsmith2010 on
On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:04:08 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
<del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>On May 24, 1:30�pm, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I think BHRF would /love/ clear-cut evidence. �If it turns out that
>> cyclists can genuinely be much, much safer, why wouldn't all the
>> cyclists that make up BHRF's editorial board be happy that they high
>> quality evidence they could save their own skins?
>>
>> You have yet to provide any reason why BHRF have anything to gain by
>> deliberate lying. �They have a lot to /lose/. �Professional reputations,
>> personal safety, blood on their hands and a great deal of private,
>> unpaid time.
>>
>> If there weren't /really/ holes in the evidence, what would anyone gain
>> by inventing some?
>>
>> Pete.
>> --
>Come on Pete! The BHRF and 'cyclehelmets.org' are just a pressure
>group formed by psycholists who just want to go on behaving exactly as
>they always have, with no Government interference or compulsion. They
>are worried that if too many cyclists start wearing helmets, then it
>will be easier to make them compulsory. I just hope they all feel
>suitably guilty about all the cyclists that have been killed or brain
>damaged after being taken in by their rhetoric and advice.
>
>Derek C



And there you have it in a nut-shell.

There is example, after example, of a psycholist introducing
"compulsion" in to any disagreement about helmets.

They just cannot accept that a cycle helmet may do more good than harm
to the person wearing it.

Hence the mantra : "You must *not* admit that there is *any* benefit
in a cycle helmet"


There are so many of them who actually refuse to answer that question
- because then of course their stupidity will be confirmed.


I do despair about the "balance" of cyclehelmets.org - there just is
none.






--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.

The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)

From: Peter Clinch on
pk wrote:
> "Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:85vsbfFe41U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> pk wrote:
>>
>>> I have not looked at the original paper
>>
>> You should. It has far better glaring holes than the protection of legs.
>
>
> that may well be so, but the rest of my post addressed directly your
> rebuttal of the paper on grounds of leg injury data..
>
> care to comment on that point?

Okay.
"I would actually place little credence on much of the recorded injury
data" doesn't actually help the case for the recorded data the paper
relies upon to make its conclusions.

Your theory for better results for helmet wearers is interesting, but
it's supposition which would need to be properly accounted for in a
/decent/ piece of work. It isn't. A more obvious criticism is the
disparity between case and control groups, which would also account
quite readily for the disparity.

The basic message is the paper isn't really anything to give sound
conclusions. So folk need to stop quoting their 85% mantra. Not even
its own authors seem to believe it any more, judging by subsequent
revisions.

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: Peter Clinch on
Derek C wrote:
> I will leave it to scientifically intelligent people who have read the
> BHRF 'cyclehelmets.org' website to decide about that!

Scientifically educated people ought to know that the best way to decide
on whether comments on other published data are on or off track is to
work through them having read the original material themselves. You
still show scant signs of having ever done that.

Furthermore, you persist in failing to apply the scepticism you apply to
BHRF text to any other, just taking it on faith that anyone agreeing
with your basic stance /must/ be completely right.

/I/ don't agree word for word with everything BHRF says. That doesn't
mean I can safely conclude everything they put out is drivel. Actually
do some of the reading (no, /really/ do and do the reading) and I think
you'll find there's a lot more thinking to be done than you've so far
been willing to do.

As for "psycholists who just want to go on behaving exactly as
they always have", before I started reading I'd worn a helmet every trip
for years, so "behaving as I always had" wouldn't be without a helmet.
And look further into it and you'd find folk on the BHRF editorial board
who used to enthusiastically endorse helmet wearing, for themselves and
others. So if they were happy to wear them once, what suddenly changed?

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: Derek C on
On May 25, 10:42 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> > I will leave it to scientifically intelligent people who have read the
> > BHRF 'cyclehelmets.org' website to decide about that!
>
> Scientifically educated people ought to know that the best way to decide
> on whether comments on other published data are on or off track is to
> work through them having read the original material themselves.  You
> still show scant signs of having ever done that.
>
> Furthermore, you persist in failing to apply the scepticism you apply to
> BHRF text to any other, just taking it on faith that anyone agreeing
> with your basic stance /must/ be completely right.
>
> /I/ don't agree word for word with everything BHRF says.  That doesn't
> mean I can safely conclude everything they put out is drivel.  Actually
> do some of the reading (no, /really/ do and do the reading) and I think
> you'll find there's a lot more thinking to be done than you've so far
> been willing to do.
>
> As for "psycholists who just want to go on behaving exactly as
> they always have", before I started reading I'd worn a helmet every trip
> for years, so "behaving as I always had" wouldn't be without a helmet.
> And look further into it and you'd find folk on the BHRF editorial board
> who used to enthusiastically endorse helmet wearing, for themselves and
> others.  So if they were happy to wear them once, what suddenly changed?
>

Well, put it this way. Having read 'cyclehelmets.org' and many of the
underlying papers, I remain sceptical about their claims and
particularly their summaries. I shall continue to wear a cycle helmet,
as the overwhelming evidence on balance points to a significant
reduction in fatal or serious head injuries when doing so.

Derek C
From: Peter Clinch on
Derek C wrote:

> Well, put it this way. Having read 'cyclehelmets.org' and many of the
> underlying papers,

FSVO "many". I've quite often asked if you've read such and such and
there's a deafening silence.

> I remain sceptical about their claims and
> particularly their summaries. I shall continue to wear a cycle helmet,
> as the overwhelming evidence on balance

On balance that you happen to have read, and as it appears, not very
carefully.

I don't have any problem with your choice, just your pretense that
you've done a truly thorough job of getting the answer you have.

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/