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 19 Apr 2010 17:48 On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:20:47 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >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. Sorry Roland - just in case someone comes across this post on its own. I said : >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that in a book which has not been peer reviewed. To which you replied: >Do you have a peer reviewed study that confirms that point of view? On that fatuous comment - I dismissed it - and said that you were a knob. I stand by that. I trust it was a weak joke of yours which backfired, as I cannot believe that you said what you did in all seriousness - as even you are not that stupid. -- The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children. The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries. This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK. Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 19 Apr 2010 18:03 On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:27:26 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >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. Sorry - was that the report from a coroner's court or such like; perhaps an autopsy? -- 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
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 19 Apr 2010 18:14 On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:25:44 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7--ct(a)cam.ac.uk> wrote: >In message <be3a3aaa-61f3-4bb3-8f4a-3bef92de6773(a)b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> > Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 19 Apr, 16:47, Mike Clark <mrc7-...(a)cam.ac.uk> wrote: >[snip] >> > What is an "average cyclist"? As far as I can see from looking at >> > the statistics the "average cyclist", is a cyclist who never has a >> > serious injury as a result of a cycling accident. >> > >> >> 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. >> >> Derek C > >You've given me the numbers for cyclists who have been reported as >having had a serious accident. You've conveniently ignored the total >number of cyclists, or number of cyclists who haven't been reported as >KSI'd. > >I was addressing the discussion about averages, not extremes of the >distribution. > >What is your definition of an "average cyclist"? If it really worries you - why not ask the DTi - it is a term which they use often in their reports. How about - it's not the man on the Clapham Omnibus - it's the woman who rides up its inside :-) -- 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
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 22 Apr 2010 14:43 On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 20:33:07 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >Roland Perry wrote: >> >> I did the Cambridge University Maths Faculty statistics course for a >> year (only the fresher year I'm afraid), but some of that has probably >> stuck. > > There is no such course. Please don't encourage him. Most people would just have said "I did maths in the first year at Uni" Not sufficient for Pretentious Perry.
From: Roland Perry on 23 Apr 2010 08:25
In message <11dus5h14usv7d3ess5i2e62jvri67jvku(a)4ax.com>, at 18:25:02 on Wed, 21 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>>You have yet to provide any proof that Risk Compensation is applicable >>>to cyclists in *any* way >> >>I have, but you have gone to extreme lengths to say it's not proof >>(simply because of the peer-reviewed issue), rather than the more >>academically rigorous approach of saying why you disagree with the >>actual arguments in the book. > >All you have done is mention a book. > >You have not even given any relevant quotes. > >Do you really think that that is sufficient "proof"? > >Perhaps you could quote a paragraph or two which mentions cyclists - >and the effect of risk compensation on them? > >I assume that cyclists are actually mentioned > >Are they? Cycle helmets pages 144-147 But carry on being an ostrich, reading the book will be bad for your blood pressure. -- Roland Perry |