helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Tony Raven on 25 May 2010 09:05 Derek C wrote: > > 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. > What you wear on your head is up to you but I very much question your claim to have read many of the underlying papers. You have only really talked about the TRL paper and clearly didn't spot the serious flaws in that that I have pointed out to you and which you have ignored. You clearly haven't read the TRT 1989 paper because you've not been able to make any comment of substance or relevance about confounding and the choice of cohorts. And if you haven't read the TRT paper which is the origin point of most helmet benefit papers you can hardly be said to be well read on the subject. So please wear what you want on your head but don't pretend its done on the basis of an analytical review of the literature. -- Tony " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell
From: Andy Leighton on 25 May 2010 09:09 On Tue, 25 May 2010 05:21:31 -0700 (PDT), Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > > Well, put it this way. Having read 'cyclehelmets.org' and many of the > underlying papers, The papers or the abstracts? -- Andy Leighton => andyl(a)azaal.plus.com "The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 25 May 2010 14:58 On Tue, 25 May 2010 10:42:55 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: <snip> >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. I see the web-site says: BHRF is grateful for the support of its patrons and their acknowledgement of the need for a comprehensive, objective and evidence-based analysis of all the evidence relating to cycle helmets, cycling promotion and health. Patrons assist the work of the BHRF in pursuing its objectives towards this end. Being a patron does not signify agreement with any particular point of view in favour or against cycle helmets. I would guess that if *anyone* was asked if they would be a "patron" of such a body - they would say of course say that they would - they would acknowledge of the need for a comprehensive, objective and evidence-based analysis of all the evidence relating to cycle helmets, cycling promotion and health. I wonder if the "patrons" really understand what the webpages are up to. I can't believe that they are involved in the day to day editorial decisions. Perhaps that is left to Chapman. (well that's OK then !!) "Being a patron does not signify agreement with any particular point of view in favour or against cycle helmets." - unlike the webpages then. It is a set of web-pages - that is clearly anti-helmet and biased. It however likes to appear to be unbiased - and goes out of its way to try and gain that respectability. -- 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: JMS jmsmith2010 on 25 May 2010 15:03 On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:39:20 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >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. Right - so Derek has read many of the underlining papers and has come to a different conclusion to you. You therefore conclude that he has not read then "carefully". You are a nasty piece of work Clinch. Do your brats wear cycle helmets? If so - why? -- 2008 DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates Per billion passenger kilometers: Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 541 Pedestrians 382 All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3814 Pedestrians : 1666 (Pedal cyclist casualties up 9% - pedestrians up 2%: Cycling is becoming more dangerous each year when compared to walking as a means of transport)
From: Tony Raven on 10 Jun 2010 11:57
Derek C wrote: > >> >> Abstract >> >> At least one person per day attending the A&E department at King's >> College Hospital has sustained injuries from uneven pavements. The >> injuries have a significant morbidity as well as mortality of 1%. >> >> I can't understand your maths. >> > > It's a special form of Maths called Psycholist Mathematics, understood > only by them. It allows them to discount or rubbish all facts, surveys > and statistics that they don't like. Please read <cyclehelmets.org> > for some good examples of this! Why would you understand the maths - you've never read the source paper and you never retain information you are given. The maths is given in the paper (and there is no evidence that the researchers involved were cyclists since they were medics in an A&E Department of a major hospital researching pedestrian injuries) "These data obtained in 3 months suggests yearly numbers of injuries from uneven pavements in our department are around 400. Extrapolation to a national level suggests there may be upwards of 60000 cases." "The injuries have a significant morbidity as well as a mortality of 1%." 60,000 estimated cases nationally and a mortality rate of 1% gives an estimated 600 deaths a year from uneven pavements - about the same as the number killed by motor vehicles. Now that wasn't such difficult maths was it? Perhaps it's all those bumps on your helmeted head that are causing your confusion. Tony |