From: Halmyre on
In article <85nsarFc38U22(a)mid.individual.net>, toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com says...
> Brian Morrison <bdm(a)fenrir.org.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
> > Fine. I don't really care either way. It's up to the individual to
> > decide what they wish to wear when cycling.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCvg8pqib2k
>

Well, that's my appetite gone for the rest of the month.

--
Halmyre

This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your head clean
off.
From: Adrian on
Halmyre <no.spam(a)this.address> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>> > Fine. I don't really care either way. It's up to the individual to
>> > decide what they wish to wear when cycling.

>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCvg8pqib2k

> Well, that's my appetite gone for the rest of the month.

I wonder if Duhg was amongst 'em.
From: Derek C on
On 21 May, 17:01, bugbear <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> JMS wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:27:58 +0100, Brian Morrison <b...(a)fenrir.org.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 04:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
> >> Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> They should however protect your skull
> >>> in many other more minor types of accident, such as the one I recently
> >>> described.
> >> And yet there will be other minor types of accident where the
> >> intervention of the helmet will lead to greater injury because in those
> >> particular cases the geometry and dynamics of the impact happen to
> >> produce greater rotational forces to the neck and upper spine.
>
> > Yes of course it will.
>
> > Perhaps you could point us to some research where this has been proven
>
> I think it follows from Newton's laws of motion.
>
>     BugBear- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The psycholists always make great play about possible rotational
injuries to the neck and brain stem, and 'risk compensation'. Hard
statistical evidence shows that head injuries to cyclists are far more
common than neck injuries, 38% to 2% (source DfT). Risk compensation
is largely disproved by the large fall in motorist casualties
following the introduction of safety measures such as seat belts.
Peter Clinch claims to have secret evidence in his University library,
known only to him, that cycle helmets increase the risk of injury, but
he never actually quotes any references. If this is true, then it is
his duty to inform us of the dangers! Come on Pete, publish and be
damned! Oh, and not the lying <cyclehelmets.org> please.

Derek C
From: Peter Clinch on
Derek C wrote:

> Risk compensation
> is largely disproved by the large fall in motorist casualties
> following the introduction of safety measures such as seat belts.

Deary me. Plenty of confounding factors for that assertion, as
you'd know if you actually did the reading.

> Peter Clinch claims to have secret evidence in his University library,
> known only to him, that cycle helmets increase the risk of injury, but
> he never actually quotes any references.

Actually, he points out that you haven't done enough of the basic
reading, as you prove time and time again with ridiculous
assertions. You managed to tell Tony Raven there are plural of
studies showing 85% effectiveness in the last week, for example.

And I do quote references to you. And in respeonse you... don't go
and read them, but do say I don't quote references.

> If this is true, then it is
> his duty to inform us of the dangers! Come on Pete, publish and be
> damned! Oh, and not the lying <cyclehelmets.org> please.

I have given you plenty, and there's no evidence you've read them.
Have you actually read the full paper giving the magic 85%
figure, for example?

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: Derek C on
On 22 May, 08:55, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> Derek C wrote:
> > Risk compensation
> > is largely disproved by the large fall in motorist casualties
> > following the introduction of safety measures such as seat belts.
>
> Deary me.  Plenty of confounding factors for that assertion, as
> you'd know if you actually did the reading.
>
> > Peter Clinch claims to have secret evidence in his University library,
> > known only to him, that cycle helmets increase the risk of injury, but
> > he never actually quotes any references.
>
> Actually, he points out that you haven't done enough of the basic
> reading, as you prove time and time again with ridiculous
> assertions.  You managed to tell Tony Raven there are plural of
> studies showing 85% effectiveness in the last week, for example.
>
> And I do quote references to you.  And in respeonse you... don't go
> and read them, but do say I don't quote references.
>
> > If this is true, then it is
> > his duty to inform us of the dangers! Come on Pete, publish and be
> > damned! Oh, and not the lying <cyclehelmets.org> please.
>
> I have given you plenty, and there's no evidence you've read them.
>   Have you actually read the full paper giving the magic 85%
> figure, for example?
>

Oh dear, the 'confounding factors' argument again! If the risk
compensation theory was true (as cars get safer, motorists take bigger
risks), we would still be getting 8000 road deaths per annum in the
UK, rather than less than 3000.

I gave a range of estimates for the effectiveness of cycle helmets in
reducing cyclist deaths, from 10% to 85%. The reality probably lies
somewhere in between.

As to the one exception disproves the rule theory, where you quoted
one elderly cyclist who died despite wearing a helmet, and another one
who survived despite not wearing one. This is just an example of
random chance as applied to individual accidents. I used to be a motor
racing driver and I have seen drivers emerge almost unharmed from a
ball of totally mangled wreckage, and others killed in seemingly quite
minor crashes. Statistics only apply to whole populations, or a
reasonably large sample thereof.

Derek C