helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 15 Apr 2010 19:38 On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:25:00 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <1d1cs5tmtuoj2jpi6cjnk44cuj3bupic5s(a)4ax.com>, at 19:15:38 on >Wed, 14 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>>Why is that the only evidence you'll accept (and what makes you think >>>the book hasn't been peer-reviewed)? >> >>Eeeer : I could write a book which was totally at odds with the >>statements in *your* book. Would that make *my* book more acceptable >>than yours - or less? > >It wouldn't. > >>So are you now suggesting that the book has been "peer reviewed"? > >No (although it's been supported a very many people). But "peer >reviewing" simply means going to the bother of finding a group of people >who agree with you. "It's been supported by very many people" ffs So is the Scientology Handbook >>Perhaps I am not so naive as you; just because something appears in a >>book does not make it true, > >And nor does appearing in a peer reviewed paper. It gives something just a little more credibility than something having been read and supported "by very many people". -- 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: Albert T Cone on 16 Apr 2010 10:59 JMS wrote: > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:13:39 +0100, Albert T Cone > <a.k.kirby(a)durham.ac.uk> wrote: > >> JMS wrote: >>> Are you against them by any chance? >> No. I don't wear one myself, if you are interested, because I prefer >> the risk of abrasions and blunt trauma injury to those of torsional >> injury to the neck and spine. Other people may weigh those risks >> differently, but I think that it *should* be a personal choice, and I am >> not in favour of making helmet wearing mandatory. > > > I was not aware that there was any discussion about making helmets > mandatory in the thread. > > I do however love the way that those who are actually anti-helmet like > to introduce the "compulsory argument" when all else fails. > > Well done. I'm afraid that's a straw man. I am not anti-helmet, I simply think, based on the evidence as I understand it, that *for me* the balance of risk/severity of injury is better if *I* don't wear a helmet. I do think that the general perception of the efficacy of helmets is not supported by the evidence. I would prefer that people were better informed. It is a single logical step from me making an informed personal choice to others doing the same, and then one more to the issue of compulsion, so it is unfair to suggest that this was a last-ditch attempt to divert attention from a supposedly failing argument. > And the chance of "torsional injury to the neck and spine." through > wearing a helmet is what exactly? If you mean to query the mechanism, then it is is described well in: J.H. Adams, D.I. Graham, L.S. Murray and G. Scott , Diffuse axonal injury due to non-missile head injury in humans. Ann. Neurol. 12 (1982), pp. 557�563 Evidence that cycling helmets do in-fact contribute to axial torque is given in: Andersson, T., Larsson, P., Sandberg, U., 1993. Chin strap forces in bicycle helmets, Swedish National Testing and Research Institute, Materials and Mechanics, SP report 42 If you mean for me to quantify the risk, then I can't - the statistics are unclear, for all aspects of helmet safety. The potential severity of the injury, *in my opinion*, is such that I give it higher weighting than the potential for abrasion and concussion. Others' opinion may vary.
From: Mike Clark on 16 Apr 2010 12:08 In message <rhnes5lmhvf0mij21a4oddmkustmudjt72(a)4ax.com> JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > wrote: [snip] > For those who missed it - here is the really difficult question for > Roland: > > Do you think that the wearing of a cycle helmet - by the average > cyclist - will most likely reduce or increase the level of injury if > they are involved in an accident? Too which the answer is probably yes > > Presumably the average cyclist is one that has less than two eyes, less than two arms, or less than two legs? Mike -- o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark <\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, "> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and ` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 16 Apr 2010 12:24 On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:21:06 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <82masfFbdqU1(a)mid.individual.net>, at 18:04:15 on Wed, 14 Apr >2010, john wright <john(a)pegasus.f2s.com> remarked: >>>> why do you not point out a single credible paper which supports >>>> your view? >>> >>> Why the obsession that everything in life has to be proved in a "paper"? >> >>I think JMS is using the standard abbreviation for a "published piece >>of peer reviewed research". > >Yes, I appreciate that. But people publish "papers" that contradict each >other, so why the assumption that anything in a "paper" has to be true, >and conversely that anything not in a paper is likely to be untrue (on >the feeble grounds that anyone wanting to prove their opinion is true >should be forced to go to the bother of encapsulating it in a paper)? I do not assume that anything published in a paper is true. I certainly don't assume that every book which is published is true. However, the point is that anything in a paper which has been professionally peer reviewed is much more likely to be correct than that in a book which has not been peer reviewed. I am sorry that you do not have the wit to comprehend this. You're argument that you have "read it in a book" therefore it is true is fallacious. (PS You suggested that the book may have been "peer reviewed"; do you come across such things regularly?) -- "wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being involved in an accident." That august body The CTC (They've already had a slap for lying by the ASA)
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 16 Apr 2010 13:26
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:08:45 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7--ct(a)cam.ac.uk> wrote: >In message <rhnes5lmhvf0mij21a4oddmkustmudjt72(a)4ax.com> > JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > wrote: > >[snip] >> For those who missed it - here is the really difficult question for >> Roland: >> >> Do you think that the wearing of a cycle helmet - by the average >> cyclist - will most likely reduce or increase the level of injury if >> they are involved in an accident? > >Too which the answer is probably yes > >> >> > >Presumably the average cyclist is one that has less than two eyes, less >than two arms, or less than two legs? > >Mike If you were trying to prove yourself a tosser - then spot on. -- 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) |