From: Roland Perry on
In message <pihks5th673qr7adsl46ahdm5edot30u59(a)4ax.com>, at 00:38:19 on
Sun, 18 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked:
>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.

Bigger head, more twisting leverage.
--
Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on
In message <sigks59n1dligt9g2qvfkomvpmv9pbmn9t(a)4ax.com>, at 00:23:30 on
Sun, 18 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked:
>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 -

So peer reviews are not, after all, the be all and end all. Thanks for
the u-turn, unexpected though it is.

>or were, as some people would say : "a knob". That is putting things
>mildly.

Don't be a sore loser.
--
Roland Perry
From: Derek C on
On 19 Apr, 19:54, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> > So why are there about 2500 reported killed and seriously injured
> > cyclists in the UK every year?  Only about 2% of journeys are made by
> > bicycle, but cyclists make up 9% of the total KSI (killed and
> > seriously injured) in UK road accidents. This figure has fallen from
> > about 6500 in the mid1980s, a period during which helmet wearing has
> > become much more commonplace!  Figures from the DfT.
>
> Let's be clear... You /are/ the same person criticising BHRF for
> hilariously inept use of statistics, yes?
>
> Pete.
> --
So are you claiming that the DfT (not my) statistics are incorrect
then?

Derek C
From: Derek C on
On 19 Apr, 20:24, Roland Perry <rol...(a)perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <be3a3aaa-61f3-4bb3-8f4a-3bef92de6...(a)b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, at
> 11:03:19 on Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk>
> remarked:
>
> >So why are there about 2500 reported killed and seriously injured
> >cyclists in the UK every year?  Only about 2% of journeys are made by
> >bicycle, but cyclists make up 9% of the total KSI (killed and
> >seriously injured) in UK road accidents.
>
> Maybe it's because of they way they flagrantly disobey traffic law?
> --

Probably doesn't help! About 5% of the cyclists killed in London had
jumped a red light prior to their fatal accidents. OK the the other
95% probably get away with it, but that's not really the point.

Derek C

From: JMS jmsmith2010 on
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:17:40 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <d7gks55jrllho1lc464s2nch2buunmj6jf(a)4ax.com>, at 00:17:16 on
>Sun, 18 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>Peer review of a statistical paper (which this sort of risk analysis is)
>>>is useless if none of the peers are suitably qualified.
>
>>>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.
>
>Oh, you are making things up now. Remember: I said "an actuarial
>background", not "someone calling themselves an actuary".


as a matter of interest - what do you think is the difference between
having an actuarial background and being an actuary.

Are you in either class?

>>(Have you found a suitable paper yet?)
>
>It was the papers that you are so fond of which would need this
>different kind of review. But seeing as you ask, please list some
>papers that support your view (and if possible the credentials of the
>reviewers).


Ah yes - the good old prove the negative.

Sorry sunshine the ball remains in your court.

--
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