helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: john wright on 17 Apr 2010 11:28 On 17/04/2010 16:21, Derek C wrote: > On 17 Apr, 15:58, Roland Perry<rol...(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >> In message<2e3hs5d1bqcb1ffcgev6kns9nbr8t60...(a)4ax.com>, at 17:24:31 on >> Fri, 16 Apr 2010, JMS<jmsmith2...(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >> >>> (PS You suggested that the book may have been "peer reviewed"; do you >>> come across such things regularly?) >> >> It has seven pages of references to papers at the end (apologies for >> stealing your clothes), and the rear cover has twelve "reviews", >> including: >> >> debunking the myths surrounding risk - Financial Times >> stimulating and rewarding - Nature >> giant in the field of risk - New Statesman >> best I have seen on the topic for a long time - Prof Anglia Uni >> >> -- >> Roland Perry > > When you look at any scientific research paper or book, always > consider who is paying for the research (usually big companies or > Governments), as even scientists don't normally work for nothing. You > may remember that tobacco companies produced loads of papers that > proved that smoking was not harmful a few years ago. As for the > Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation and the Man Made Global Warming or > Climate Change groups...................! > > Who would now believe anything that comes from the University of East > Anglia, following the 'Climategate' scandal? That depends how much credence you give to what was hacked. -- John Wright Use your imagination Marvin! Life's bad enough as it is - why invent any more of it.
From: Peter Clinch on 17 Apr 2010 13:07 Derek C wrote: > When you look at any scientific research paper or book, always > consider who is paying for the research (usually big companies or > Governments), as even scientists don't normally work for nothing. You > may remember that tobacco companies produced loads of papers that > proved that smoking was not harmful a few years ago. As for the > Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation and the Man Made Global Warming or > Climate Change groups...................! BHRF don't pay for research. What would they pay with, they have no income? They assess and collate other research. They are, as it happens, working for nothing alongside their day jobs. OTOH, Bell Helmets openly fund some groups putting out quite partisan pro-helmet work. So in light of what you say above it's odd how you're apparently far more prone to believe the latter, funded by a vested interest in flogging hats, and not by the former, with a vested interest in... AFAICT, finding out the truth of the matter of helmet efficacy. 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 17 Apr 2010 13:15 On 17 Apr, 18:07, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > Derek C wrote: > > When you look at any scientific research paper or book, always > > consider who is paying for the research (usually big companies or > > Governments), as even scientists don't normally work for nothing. You > > may remember that tobacco companies produced loads of papers that > > proved that smoking was not harmful a few years ago. As for the > > Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation and the Man Made Global Warming or > > Climate Change groups...................! > > BHRF don't pay for research. What would they pay with, they have > no income? They assess and collate other research. They are, as > it happens, working for nothing alongside their day jobs. > > OTOH, Bell Helmets openly fund some groups putting out quite > partisan pro-helmet work. > > So in light of what you say above it's odd how you're apparently > far more prone to believe the latter, funded by a vested interest > in flogging hats, and not by the former, with a vested interest > in... AFAICT, finding out the truth of the matter of helmet efficacy. > > Pete. > -- No really. It's just that my scientific training has taught me always to take scientific research with a pinch of salt, especially on controversial subjects. Don't the CTC have some input into the BHRF and cyclehelmets.org? Derek C
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 17 Apr 2010 13:20 On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:39:09 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <1m8fs5tn3ait05tnppkpv4i61mftuqhd9r(a)4ax.com>, at 00:38:03 on >Fri, 16 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: > >>>>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". > >Not if none of the peers have (for example) an actuarial background, but >those agreeing with the book, do. Any chance of doing that last sentence in plain English. What have door to door insurance sellers got to do with things? -- 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 17 Apr 2010 13:22
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:52:01 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <2e3hs5d1bqcb1ffcgev6kns9nbr8t60ek2(a)4ax.com>, at 17:24:31 on >Fri, 16 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: > >>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. > >Do you have a peer reviewed study that confirms that point of view? Good - you have lost the plot. In answer to your question: No - nor do I have one which proves you are a knob; but it is obvious it is the case. -- Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers: Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371 All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631 |