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 17 Apr 2010 13:37 On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:42:41 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <rhnes5lmhvf0mij21a4oddmkustmudjt72(a)4ax.com>, at 19:44:47 on >Thu, 15 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: > >>>>It is a simple question - not circumstance specific at all - "on >>>>average" >>>> >>>>The fact that you refuse to answer is sufficient. >>> >>>It's a stupid question, you are asking to average completely different >>>things. >> >>J: Does the average motorist ever break the speed limit? >> >>Roland Perry: Don't be stupid it depends if you mean on a motorway or >>not. Totally different things. > >Average motorists often break the speed limit. I'm sure they are >frequently found doing 31mph on deserted urban dual carriageways, for >example. If they weren't, such roads would not be breeding grounds for >speed cameras. > >>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? > >Asking the question again doesn't change the answer. hint: you might >want to look more closely at different kinds of accident than average >kinds of cyclist. Of course you can look at different kinds of accidents; you can look at where the accidents happen, you can look at the speed of cyclists. That does not make the question I posed invalid. I suspect that it is the answer you dislike rather than the question. -- "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 17 Apr 2010 13:34 On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:58:44 +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: > >>(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: Seven pages of references to papers which have commented on the book. Very impressive. >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 I think that four adverts don't count for much at all. You missed off: "A damn good read" - the Insurance Daily (Perhaps you don't know how it works: The publishers send a free copy of the book to the newspapers - and guarantees a "clip" for them somewhere on the cover. They never refuse - and the paper then just picks the best. Good to see that you fell for it) If the author has published a peer reviewed paper in an established journal, then just say so. It is quite possible that he has - if he hasn't, then I would wonder why? Perhaps it would not stand scrutiny? -- "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: Steve Firth on 17 Apr 2010 14:37 Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > In message <1jh3chg.1yi4zw11h06zm2N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, at 11:42:16 > on Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked: > > >> >> >> Which doesn't answer the question about a possible sliding scale, and > >> >> >> the "more" in my question. > >> >> > > >> >> >Which part of the answer do you not understand? > >> >> > >> >> Whether or not the degree of "caution and respect" varies, specifically > >> >> do you give more of it to a vulnerable-looking motorist. > >> > > >> >Why would one give more than that is adequate? > >> > >> Because "adequate" might vary depending upon the perceived vulnerability > >> of the cyclist. Giving more room to a wobbly five year old than a > >> professional looking adult, for example. > > > >Keep digging. > > Keep failing to answer the question. I've answered your question, several times. It's a plain to claim that I have not. > >> >Your claims about the degree of caution shown by a driver are classic > >> >examples of dogma. > >> > >> I would regard it as one kind of common sense for me as a driver to give > >> a wobbly child more room, and another kind of common sense for me to > >> realise that drivers in general might do that. > > > >What you keep claiming as "common sense" is dogma. > > Both sorts of common sense, or just one of them? Oh FFS, have the last word you so clearly desire. I'm not arguing with fuckwits today.
From: Peter Clinch on 17 Apr 2010 16:11 Derek C wrote: > No really. It's just that my scientific training has taught me always > to take scientific research with a pinch of salt You've proven remarkably bad at adding a pinch of salt wherever any particular study you've peeked at the abstract of happens to conform with your gut feelings, however. So you've bashed stats from sceptical studis while ignoring huge gaps in the work that fits your own particular preconception and existing behaviour, and so on. It was when I really started listening to my own scientific training rather than my gut feeling that I changed my mind, after over a decade of wearing a lid on every trip. From what you've written thus far I suspect you're not being nearly as objective about the bvalance of evidence as you like to think. > Don't the CTC have some input into the BHRF > and cyclehelmets.org? More the other way around. Take a look at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1121.html for who's who and there's npbody like Roger Geffen there, even though RG has certainly quoted BHRF material (but because he's read and reviewed it carefully and thinks there's something in it). But even if there was, why would the CTC have any vested interest in promoting a sceptical view of helmet efficacy beyond that's what they genuinely think is the case? 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: Roland Perry on 17 Apr 2010 16:05
In message <1jh3ygf.1ytk18xqx6eruN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, at 19:37:21 on Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked: >> >> >> >> Which doesn't answer the question about a possible sliding >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the "more" in my question. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Which part of the answer do you not understand? >> >> >> >> >> >> Whether or not the degree of "caution and respect" varies, specifically >> >> >> do you give more of it to a vulnerable-looking motorist. >> >> > >> >> >Why would one give more than that is adequate? >> >> >> >> Because "adequate" might vary depending upon the perceived vulnerability >> >> of the cyclist. Giving more room to a wobbly five year old than a >> >> professional looking adult, for example. >> > >> >Keep digging. >> >> Keep failing to answer the question. > >I've answered your question, several times. It's a plain to claim that I >have not. You have not, but I'm getting fed up, so there's an end to it. >> >> >Your claims about the degree of caution shown by a driver are classic >> >> >examples of dogma. >> >> >> >> I would regard it as one kind of common sense for me as a driver to give >> >> a wobbly child more room, and another kind of common sense for me to >> >> realise that drivers in general might do that. >> > >> >What you keep claiming as "common sense" is dogma. >> >> Both sorts of common sense, or just one of them? > >Oh FFS, have the last word you so clearly desire. I'm not that conceding I'm arguing with a brick wall counts as a "last word", but there we are. -- Roland Perry |