From: Roland Perry on
In message <74rjs5pba0q249epod7ge2t9u22qja4i8n(a)>, at 18:20:04 on
Sat, 17 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)> remarked:
>>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.

Peer review of a statistical paper (which this sort of risk analysis is)
is useless if none of the peers are suitably qualified.

a person whose job involves calculating insurance *risks* and
payments for insurance companies by studying how *frequently*
*accidents*, fires, deaths, etc. happen

Although they don't all have to work for insurance companies, obviously;
some can work in academia.
Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on
In message <gbsjs5p9lja7v22l6p489n68qequrnhddg(a)>, at 18:37:34 on
Sat, 17 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)> remarked:
>>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.

The question was: "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?"

You will probably find that helmets protect one group of cyclists more
than others, so trying to find a hypothetical "average cyclist" is the
wrong approach. And in some accidents it will protect them, and some it
will make their injury worse.
Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on
In message <bfrjs59q6e2qts7lvlm6guvch8ihkhkopd(a)>, at 18:22:22 on
Sat, 17 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)> 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that in a book which has not been peer reviewed.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.

Personal abuse, excellent.

Now, do I have to add you to the list of people who won't answer my
questions? Perhaps this time it's you who don't like the answer.

Sorry if causing you to flop so spectacularly, means you think I'm a
Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on
In message
<cc8e01ea-cc48-4756-83f4-40b260dc80b0(a)>, at
08:21:53 on Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copeland(a)>
>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...................!

I think one of the interesting things about Adams's book is its
anti-establishment standpoint. But he says people will never agree about

>Who would now believe anything that comes from the University of East
>Anglia, following the 'Climategate' scandal?

Mud sticks, but that mud is washing off quite nicely.
Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on
In message <djrjs5hmkukcnkvk9cdli7vaffr33ms82a(a)>, at 18:34:53 on
Sat, 17 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)> remarked:
>On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:58:44 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)>
>>In message <2e3hs5d1bqcb1ffcgev6kns9nbr8t60ek2(a)>, at 17:24:31 on
>>Fri, 16 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)> 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",
>Seven pages of references to papers which have commented on the book.

Seven pages of papers that he's used as input to the book.

>Very impressive.

Yes, a wonderful bit of wilful misinterpretation on your part.

>>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

It says "Please read this book, it's full of provocative, but helpful,
thinking" Insurance Day.

>If the author has published a peer reviewed paper in an established
>journal, then just say so.

Of course he has, he's even had one of the chapters published in a peer
reviewed journal. Not that I regard that as the sort of silver bullet
you clearly do.

>It is quite possible that he has - if he hasn't, then I would wonder

That obsession is showing again.
Roland Perry