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 19:17 On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:09:47 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <74rjs5pba0q249epod7ge2t9u22qja4i8n(a)4ax.com>, at 18:20:04 on >Sat, 17 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> 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. > >Actuary: > 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. So a "peer" with a statistical background but not calling himself an actuary would not be acceptable to review such a paper. (Have you found a suitable paper yet?) PS - any "peer" would be better than "a number of people who have read the book" -- "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 19:23 On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:16:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <bfrjs59q6e2qts7lvlm6guvch8ihkhkopd(a)4ax.com>, at 18:22:22 on >Sat, 17 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that in a book which has not been peer reviewed.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. > >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 >knob. I suspect Roland that anyone reading your fatuous post above : "Do you have a peer reviewed study that confirms that point of view?" would conclude that you had indeed lost the plot - or were, as some people would say : "a knob". That is putting things mildly. -- "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 19:26 On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:07:25 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(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. Was it the BHRF in their other guise as cyclehelmets.org, who were criticised together with the CTC for lying by the Advertising Standards Authority? -- "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 19:30 On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:11:24 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >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. AS a matter of interest - do you encourage your children to wear cycle helmets when out on their bikes? > 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? They are against them - just like many here - because they know damn well that compulsion will come once a certain percentage of the cycling population wear helmets. -- "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 19:38
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 21:13:41 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <gbsjs5p9lja7v22l6p489n68qequrnhddg(a)4ax.com>, at 18:37:34 on >Sat, 17 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> 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. Feel free to list those cases where it was found that a helmet made things worse in a real accident - rather than in an insurance man's imagination. A list of one will be a good start. -- There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury. The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances and it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence should wear one. Mr Justice Griffith Williams |