The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
clarif...@live.co.uk
There have recently been some less than honest posts (again) by Guy
Chapman – this time concerning the British Medical Association (BMA)
policy of Promoting Safe Cycling.
In order to provide some balance to his and the BHRF’s biased views
here are some excerpts from the BMA policy paper.
Full details can be found at:
http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promotion_ethics/transport/promotingsafecycling.jsp?page=1
(Successive pages are accessed by clicking the links eg Cycle Helmets
on the LHS)
The BMA : Promoting safe cycling
17 March 2008
Introduction
The British Medical Association (BMA) has undertaken substantial work
in relation to transport and health in the past including accident
prevention and reduction, environmental and health impacts of
transport, studies on drink and drug driving and seat belt
legislation. Following previous research by the Board of Science on
cycling, the BMA established specific policy at its 2006 annual
representative meeting that the Association promotes cycling as a
safe, healthy and sustainable alternative to car use.
Doctors have an interest in cycling for two key reasons:
1. The important role cycling has in the promotion of individuals’
and the nation’s health
2. The need for safe cycling in order to prevent cycle related
injury
Health promotion
The BMA believes that cycling has many advantages to the individual in
terms of improved health and mobility, as well as to society; it is a
sustainable form of transport which has a minimal impact upon the
environment. It is the least polluting way of traveling after walking;
cycles do not produce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Cycles also
require fewer resources to manufacture and maintain compared to other
modes of transport.
While a number of studies demonstrate the positive effect of cycling
on lifespan, health and general well being, the majority of this
research is indirect and based on the findings that moderate intensity
physical activity of any kind produces health benefits. It is the fact
that cycling is a form of exercise which confers these positive
effects.
Cycle helmets
In the UK individuals are not currently legally required to wear a
cycle helmet.
There is much controversy on whether cycle helmet wearing should be
compulsory. A great deal of the controversy relates to whether cycle
helmets reduce injuries, if so what type of injuries they reduce and
further whether cycle helmet legislation discourages cycling. The BMA,
as a part of its policy to improve safe cycling supports compulsory
wearing of cycle helmets when cycling for children and adults. The
Association wants to see an increase in voluntary use prior to the
introduction of cycle helmet legislation and supports initiatives that
so increase such use.
There is extensive literature that reviews the case for and against
the wearing of cycle helmets. The most reliable research comes from
Cochrane Reviews which are based on the best available information
about healthcare interventions. They explore the evidence for and
against the effectiveness and appropriateness of treatments
(medications, surgery, education, etc) in specific circumstances.
This briefing contains an overview of the available evidence.
Rationale
Cycle helmets aim to reduce the risk of serious injury caused by
impacts to the head. Injuries to the head generally take two forms;
skull fractures and brain injuries. While skull fractures can heal,
injuries to the brain, unlike those to the rest of the body, generally
do not and may sometimes have long-term consequences. Though not
always visible and sometimes seemingly minor, brain injury is complex.
It can cause physical, cognitive, social and vocational changes that
affect an individual for a variable time period. In many cases
recovery becomes a lifelong process of adjustments and accommodation
for the individual and those caring for them. Depending on the extent
and the location of the injury, impairments caused by a brain injury
can vary widely. Among the most common impairments are difficulties
with memory, mood and concentration. Others include significant
deficits in organisational and reasoning skills, learning, cognitive
and executive functions.
Function
Cycle helmets perform three functions. Firstly they reduce the
deceleration of the skull and hence the brain by managing impacts.
This is achieved by crushing the soft material contained within a
helmet. Secondly a helmet acts by spreading the area of an impact. As
it is impacted, the expanded polystyrene shell of the helmet
dissipates the energy over a rapidly increasing area like a cone. This
prevents forces from being localized to one concentrated small area.
Finally a helmet plays a vital role by preventing direct contact
between the skull and the impacting object.
Conclusion
Best evidence supports the use of cycle helmets. They have been shown
to reduce the risk of head injury and its severity should it occur.
This does not apply to fatal accidents but in such instances the force
of impact is considered to be so significant that most protection
would fail. As has been illustrated by the case studies, the
consequences of traumatic brain injury are significant not only to the
individual involved, but to their families and to society as a whole.
BMA members, in particular accident and emergency staff see at first
hand the devastating impacts cycling injuries can have. Therefore, as
a part of a range of measures to improve cycling safety, the BMA calls
for cycle helmet wearing to be made compulsory. The Association
recognises that voluntary helmet wearing should increase before the
law is enacted.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>clarif...@live.co.uk considered Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:53:17 +0100
>the perfect time to write:
><Nothing of any consequence removed>.
>Nurse! she's out again!
What a pity she forgot to mention the lies they had to remove after
publication, and the debate where a former medical student pretended
that a human skull is equivalent to a watermelon. But she probably
doesn't know about that - it is, after all, in conflict with her
cherished beliefs, so the only proper response is to stick her fingers
in her ears, chant "laa laa I'm not listening" and then continue to
spout ignorant twaddle as she has right from the word go.
And anyway, the details would cause the link to wrap, and we all know
that the entire Internet is one huge conspiracy to make judith look
stupid when she unwraps links.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.
Judith Smith
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:45:07 +0100, Phil W Lee
><phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>
>>clarif...@live.co.uk considered Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:53:17 +0100
>>the perfect time to write:
>><Nothing of any consequence removed>.
>>Nurse! she's out again!
>
>What a pity she forgot to mention the lies they had to remove after
>publication, and the debate where a former medical student pretended
>that a human skull is equivalent to a watermelon. But she probably
>doesn't know about that - it is, after all, in conflict with her
>cherished beliefs, so the only proper response is to stick her fingers
>in her ears, chant "laa laa I'm not listening" and then continue to
>spout ignorant twaddle as she has right from the word go.
>
>And anyway, the details would cause the link to wrap, and we all know
>that the entire Internet is one huge conspiracy to make judith look
>stupid when she unwraps links.
>
>Guy
I am sorry to publicise up to date information on the BMA - I assume
that you would rather still go by old stuff.
I see that you are still relying on information from 4 years ago -
never one to keep abreast of developments were you?
However, I guess that you will agree that it's good that such an
august professional body supports helmets and has very clearly stated
this fact.
Please do not lie - there was never pretence by anyone that a human
skull is equivalent to a water melon.
There was no water melon dropped on the floor.
What the delegate actually said was:
"I was thinking of dropping this, it's a water melon, on the floor, to
show how effective a helmet is but health and safety suggested that if
the melon does splatter I've got problems..."
This is where people realise that you are actually lying much of the
time. You know, and I know that there was never any such pretence -
but that does not stop your further lies and deceit does it.
Have you asked a small group of kids for their view on cycle helmets
recently so that BHRF can claim it as serious research again?
How many do you need to make the research valid - is it 5 or will 4
suffice?
--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.
JNugent
> clarif...@live.co.uk considered Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:53:17 +0100
> the perfect time to write:
>
> <Nothing of any consequence removed>.
>
> Nurse! she's out again!
Robert...!
Robert Henderson...!
Is that you?
Nick L Plate
> There have recently been some less than honest posts (again) by Guy
> Chapman – this time concerning the British Medical Association (BMA)
> policy of Promoting Safe Cycling.
>
> In order to provide some balance to his and the BHRF’s biased views
> here are some excerpts from the BMA policy paper.
>
>
Nothing, useless, no investigation, no review, no conclusion, zippo.
alan.holmes
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:91hku4dt3j9juqnqj...@4ax.com...
>
> Newsgroup may contain nuts.
Brilliant!
Judith Smith
"No conclusion"?
Reading skills not what they should be?
Conclusion
Best evidence supports the use of cycle helmets. They have been shown
to reduce the risk of head injury and its severity should it occur.
This does not apply to fatal accidents but in such instances the force
of impact is considered to be so significant that most protection
would fail. As has been illustrated by the case studies, the
consequences of traumatic brain injury are significant not only to the
individual involved, but to their families and to society as a whole.
BMA members, in particular accident and emergency staff see at first
hand the devastating impacts cycling injuries can have. Therefore, as
a part of a range of measures to improve cycling safety, the BMA calls
for cycle helmet wearing to be made compulsory. The Association
recognises that voluntary helmet wearing should increase before the
law is enacted.
--
"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
Tony Dragon
> clarif...@live.co.uk considered Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:53:17 +0100
> the perfect time to write:
>
> <Nothing of any consequence removed>.
>
> Nurse! she's out again!
>
We can't have anything about cycle helmets saving injuries published,
can we?
--
Tony the Dragon
Nick L Plate
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:14:01 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate
>
> >On 18 Apr, 20:53, clarificat...@live.co.uk wrote:
> >> There have recently been some less than honest posts (again) by Guy
> >> Chapman – this time concerning the British Medical Association (BMA)
> >> policy of Promoting Safe Cycling.
>
> >> In order to provide some balance to his and the BHRF’s biased views
> >> here are some excerpts from the BMA policy paper.
>
> >> Full details can be found at:http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promotion_ethics/transport/promotingsafe...
>
> >Nothing, useless, no investigation, no review, no conclusion, zippo.
>
> "No conclusion"?
>
> Reading skills not what they should be?
>
could not get access, ok now. Well maybe later.
Simon Mason
<clarif...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2rbku4tlm2j7u4o90...@4ax.com...
>
>
> There have recently been some less than honest posts (again) by Guy
> policy of Promoting Safe Cycling.
The BMA also says it is bad for our health to consume more than two pints of
beer a day, which is tosh as well.
--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/
Marc
>
> <clarif...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2rbku4tlm2j7u4o90...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> There have recently been some less than honest posts (again) by Guy
>> Chapman - this time concerning the British Medical Association (BMA)
>> policy of Promoting Safe Cycling.
>
>
> The BMA also says it is bad for our health to consume more than two
> pints of beer a day, which is tosh as well.
>
IIRC wasn't there a recent admission that the "safe" numbers of alcohol
units was just plucked out of the air, because it sounded about right?
Why do people keep listening the these body technicians and mistake
their declarations for science?
Simon Mason
"Marc" <initial...@btintenret.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> The BMA also says it is bad for our health to consume more than two pints
>> of beer a day, which is tosh as well.
>>
>
> IIRC wasn't there a recent admission that the "safe" numbers of alcohol
> units was just plucked out of the air, because it sounded about right?
>
> Why do people keep listening the these body technicians and mistake their
> declarations for science?
Because some people are in awe of someone who has a few letters after their
name, instead of using their own brain.
Judith Smith
<si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
><clarif...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:2rbku4tlm2j7u4o90...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> There have recently been some less than honest posts (again) by Guy
>> Chapman - this time concerning the British Medical Association (BMA)
>> policy of Promoting Safe Cycling.
>
>
>The BMA also says it is bad for our health to consume more than two pints of
>beer a day, which is tosh as well.
I am sure you are probably right - however I have not seen that - can
you give a reference please?
Judith Smith
Perhaps because they have relevant training and qualifications - just
like the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation - oh - sorry I got that
wrong - they are just a bunch of charlatans.
Simon Mason
"Judith Smith" <judit...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7e7mu4hkob78cg03q...@4ax.com...
>>
>>The BMA also says it is bad for our health to consume more than two pints
>>of
>>beer a day, which is tosh as well.
>
>
> I am sure you are probably right - however I have not seen that - can
> you give a reference please?
Sure>
http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/Iop/PRT/sensible.htm
The sensible drinking message set out in the Lord President's Report on
Alcohol Misuse in 1991 was adopted by the Health of the Nation in 1992. This
promoted the simple message that drinking less than 21 units of alcohol per
week for men and 14 units for women was unlikely to damage health. The
targets set were a reduction in the percentage of men drinking more than 21
units per week from 28% in 1990 to 18% in 2005 and of women drinking more
than 14 units per week from 11% in 1990 to 7% in 2005.
Two years later despite a lack of progress towards these targets, and in
response to a parliamentary question in April 1994, the Government
established an inter-departmental working group. Its purpose was to review
the sensible drinking message in light of possible evidence for a
cardiovascular protective effect afforded by alcohol. Their deliberations
produced the 1995 report entitled 'Sensible Drinking'. In the report they
concluded that daily benchmarks could help individuals decide how much to
drink on single occasions and therefore enable them to avoid episodes of
intoxication with their attendant health and social risks.
Their advice being that the health benefit from drinking related to men aged
over 40 and that the major part of this benefit could be obtained at levels
as low as one unit a day, with the maximum health advantage lying between 1
and 2 units a day. The report went on to state that "regular consumption of
between 3 and 4 units a day by men of all ages will not accrue significant
health risk and consistently drinking 4 or more units a day is not advised
as a sensible drinking level because of the progressive health risk it
carries". As regards females, the health benefit from drinking related to
postmenopausal women with the major part of this benefit being obtained at
levels as low as one unit a day, the maximum health advantage lying between
1 and 2 units a day.
The report stated that "regular consumption of between 2 and 3 units a day
by women of all ages will not accrue any significant health risk and
consistently drinking 3 or more units a day is not advised as a sensible
drinking level because of the progressive health risk it carries". The
significance of the additional 'any' in the recommendation for women is not
clear and has not received any specific comment. In effect this raised the
sensible drinking limits to a maximum of almost 28 units per week for men
and almost 21 units per week for women. These new benchmarks represented a
50% rise on the previous upper limit for women and a 33% increase for men.
>>>
In April 1995 the BMA (British Medical Association) responded with the
recommendation that the sensible drinking limits of 21 units per week for
men and 14 units per week for women should not be relaxed, a position with
which the royal colleges of physicians, psychiatrists, and general
practitioners concur. The conflicting reports concerning sensible drinking
in Britain illustrate that there is no consensus on what is a sensible level
of alcohol consumption, and as a result, there is an inconsistent and
confused public health message.
OG
francis
> Misleading subjectline corrected
Misleading subjectline corrected
Francis
Andy Leighton
Simon Mason <si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Judith Smith" <judit...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:7e7mu4hkob78cg03q...@4ax.com...
>
>>>
>>>The BMA also says it is bad for our health to consume more than two pints
>>>of
>>>beer a day, which is tosh as well.
>>
>>
>> I am sure you are probably right - however I have not seen that - can
>> you give a reference please?
>
> Sure>
> http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/Iop/PRT/sensible.htm
> The sensible drinking message set out in the Lord President's Report on
> Alcohol Misuse in 1991 was adopted by the Health of the Nation in 1992.
The initial figure was plucked out of the air in 1987 due to "a feeling
that you had to say something" according to Richard Smith a member of
Royal College of Physicians who was on the committee that came up with
the number. Googling alcohol "plucked out of the air" gets lots of
newspaper columns on this.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Simon Mason
"Andy Leighton" <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote in message >
> The initial figure was plucked out of the air in 1987 due to "a feeling
> that you had to say something" according to Richard Smith a member of
> Royal College of Physicians who was on the committee that came up with
> the number. Googling alcohol "plucked out of the air" gets lots of
> newspaper columns on this.
Well, I've drunk 100-120 units a week for 30 years, so I must be due to die
very soon!
Just zis Guy, you know?
<francis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Misleading subjectline corrected
>Francis
Ditto :-)
Sir Jeremy
wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:31:31 -0700 (PDT), francis
>
>
> "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
> simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
>
> Newsgroup may contain nuts.
At the end of the day when the government decides that "something must
be done" , whose advice will they follow - the BMA or Guy Chapman?
We're dooomed
Roger Thorpe
too. I'm even more impressed (sort of!).
Roger Thorpe
Marc
And again I would like to understand why anyone pays that much
attention to body technicians?
If I want to know how to cycle safely, I consult a cycling coach, not a
cycle mechanic.
If I want to know how to drive safely I consult a driving instructor,
not a panel beater.
If I want to know how to fly safely I consult a flying instructor , not
a Queen Mary driver
Why then are Doctors presumed to know something about the physics of
accidents just because they are there to glue the body back together?
Simon Mason
"Roger Thorpe" <myinitiald...@warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message >>
>> Well, I've drunk 100-120 units a week for 30 years, so I must be due to
>> die very soon!
>>
> Blimey, I couldn't do even a quarter of that and be a reasonable tester
> too. I'm even more impressed (sort of!).
Well, it's not something to boast about really! I never touch wine or
spirits and can get on the road every day at 6-00am, so it doesn't do me
much harm. Come to think of it, I've cut down a lot. In my 20's I'd have 10
pints of beer a day (3 at dinner) and now I might have 5-6 every evening, so
I've slowed down in my old age.
Tony Dragon
--
Tony the Dragon
Judith Smith
How do you make up this 100/120 units a week - if you don't mind me
asking?
Marc
Is his advice cheaper?
Judith Smith
wrote:
>Misleading subjectline corrected
>
That was very clever - does it serve a purpose?
What's OG - own goal?
Judith Smith
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:31:31 -0700 (PDT), francis
><francis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Misleading subjectline corrected
>>Francis
>
>Ditto :-)
>
>Gu
Well done Guy - very mature.
Excellent- I just love it when the children have to throw their toys
out of the pram.
Have you any suggestions for the next clarification?
--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.
Simon Mason
>>die
>>very soon!
>
>
> How do you make up this 100/120 units a week - if you don't mind me
> asking?
It would be nearer 100 units in a normal week. In an evening, I might have 5
x 440 ml cans of 1.9 units and 2 x 440 ml cans of 2.1 units which is 13.7
units. I then go to bed at 9-00 pm to get up at 5-30 am. I don't get
dehydrated as the stuff is 96% water anyway.
In a week, that is nearly 96 units. If I am not at work the next day, I may
have a couple more which would take the total over 100 units.
Tony Dragon
He gives it free to this NG.
--
Tony the Dragon
Judith Smith
So BP (if it was them) didn't mind you being drunk at work?
Just zis Guy, you know?
<si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>The BMA also says it is bad for our health to consume more than two pints of
>beer a day, which is tosh as well.
One of the more interesting points about this particular piece of work
is that it is deliberately based only on case-control studies, with
all conflicting evidence excluded. If they had adopted this policy in
respect of HRT and coronary heart disease then they would be advising
that HRT prevents heart disease. Luckily they investigated the
conflicting evidence and found that all the case-control studies had
similar confounding factors, leading to a conclusion which was wrong
in both magnitude and sign: the risk is actually slightly /increased/.
Guy
--
Simon Mason
>>Well, it's not something to boast about really! I never touch wine or
>>spirits and can get on the road every day at 6-00am, so it doesn't do me
>>much harm. Come to think of it, I've cut down a lot. In my 20's I'd have
>>10
>>pints of beer a day (3 at dinner) and now I might have 5-6 every evening,
>>so
>>I've slowed down in my old age.
>
>
> So BP (if it was them) didn't mind you being drunk at work?
I worked for Croda then. It was the 1970's and everyone went out for drinks
at dinner, it was considered normal. Nowadays, we have random blood checks
for drugs and alcohol at work. I never drink during the day now anyway, even
on my days off.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<initial...@btintenret.com> wrote:
>And again I would like to understand why anyone pays that much
>attention to body technicians?
>If I want to know how to cycle safely, I consult a cycling coach, not a
>cycle mechanic.
This is essentially what they are doing, much to the irritation of the
"cycle safety=helmets" mob.
Guy
--
Judith Smith
Chapman?
Surely you meant cheap-and-nasty:
"inexpensive but with the disadvantage of being unsuitable to one's
purposes"
Just zis Guy, you know?
<tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>We can't have anything about cycle helmets saving injuries published,
>can we?
Sure we can as long as it makes the point that helmet use is not
correlated with cycle safety in any cyclist population ever studied.
From the BMA pages:
* publicity and education campaigns in order to raise drivers'
awareness of more vulnerable road-users, including cyclists
* the creation of a safer cycling environment (eg improving cycle
routes)
* reductions in vehicle speeds and traffic volume in urban areas
* the provision of cycling training for all children
* recognizing road safety, including cycling proficiency
education, as part of the curriculum for all school children.
This should include basic cycle maintenance, and safety
precautions (eg lights, reflective clothing), information on the
health benefits of cycling, as well as encouraging cycle helmet
use
* ensuring the correct fitting of cycle helmets as poorly fitted
helmets are less effective
* advertising standards officials should ensure that the public
are protected against misleading safety claims from
manufacturers
* cycle manufacturers and retailers should consider supplying a
free cycle helmet (or helmet voucher) with every bike sold
* helmet costs should be reduced substantially. (In the UK helmets
are free of value added tax)
So, the focus is mainly helmets despite the fact that there is no
cyclist population which has ever demonstrated improved safety from
increased levels of helmet use, and helmet use is lowest in those
countries where cycling is safest.
This reminds me, though, of a project I worked on just out of
university. The Boss of an abrasives manufacturer (let's call it the
Wobbly Wheel Company, as everyone there did) wanted us to design a
really clever all-singing all-dancing balance testing system to check
green state wheels before curing and reduce balance failures and
rejection. Fair enough, you say. So as the first step we correlated
balance problems against other factors and found that - guess what? -
they were worst in the morning when the mix was left to normalise for
only about half an hour, and had stabilised by evening when the
normalising time was up to the recommended two hours. We also found
that it was much worse on humid days, and was strongly dependent on
temperature.
So we recommended that he enclose and air condition the mixing bay and
start the mixing crew two hours before the main shift.
What was the response?
Obviously that he wanted us to build the automated balance testing
system first and /then/ look at the mixing bay project, which was
cheaper and would make the balance testing system redundant.
Now, the BMA page hints at this by alluding to the causes of risk, but
then gets onto the hobby-horse of helmets even though it is quite
possible that the risk could be reduced so far by the other measures -
especially training for cyclists and education for drivers - as to
make the problem even less significant than it is now.
In other words, it's a coatrack on which to hang helmet promotion and
completely fails even to acknowledge the fact that helmet use and
cycle safety *are not correlated* in any known cyclist population.
Which is not unexpected; doctors are paternalistic interventionists by
nature. We just shouldn't place too much emphasis on what they say
about subjects outside their expertise, like cycle safety.
Guy
--
Simon Mason
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>
> In other words, it's a coatrack on which to hang helmet promotion and
> completely fails even to acknowledge the fact that helmet use and
> cycle safety *are not correlated* in any known cyclist population.
>
> Which is not unexpected; doctors are paternalistic interventionists by
> nature. We just shouldn't place too much emphasis on what they say
> about subjects outside their expertise, like cycle safety.
>
>
I can't see helmet compulsion for adults ever coming in. The cycling lobby
is huge and when under attack or when needs must, closes ranks and comes
together.
Besides which, the biggest problems are obesity and CO2 emissions and of
course the appalling road deaths in car accidents. Helmets for adult
cyclists is small beer in comparision.
OG
Are you able to point to any instances where mandatory helmet use (which
the BMA is promoting) has made /cycling/ safer?
Alistair Gunn
> So we recommended that he enclose and air condition the mixing bay and
> start the mixing crew two hours before the main shift.
> What was the response?
> Obviously that he wanted us to build the automated balance testing
> system first and /then/ look at the mixing bay project, which was
> cheaper and would make the balance testing system redundant.
I think the clear fault there was giving the client what they needed, as
opposed to what they said they'd wanted! :-)
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Marc
> Just zis Guy, you know? twisted the electrons to say:
>> So we recommended that he enclose and air condition the mixing bay and
>> start the mixing crew two hours before the main shift.
>
>> What was the response?
>
>> Obviously that he wanted us to build the automated balance testing
>> system first and /then/ look at the mixing bay project, which was
>> cheaper and would make the balance testing system redundant.
>
> I think the clear fault there was giving the client what they needed, as
> opposed to what they said they'd wanted! :-)
You have there the major difference between a soft systems analysis and
the hard systems approach.
Up till now the helmets issue has I think , been seen by Whitehall as
requiring a hard systems approach of "Here is our target, reducing
deaths by increasing helmet wearing, how do achieve it" , rather than
the soft systems idea of "What is the problem , from all viewpoints, and
how do we cure or ameliorate it to the best effect for all concerned?"
The same could be said of traffic planning in general since the 60's ,
but now I think I'm seeing some chinks of Soft Systems light appearing
in the talk of shared streets and open spaces.
Judith Smith
<initial...@btintenret.com> wrote:
<snip>
> And again I would like to understand why anyone pays that much
>attention to body technicians?
Perhaps because they are intelligent educated people who can think for
themselves, perhaps they have read some of the relevant literature,
they have a modicum of common sense and are not what may be called
fuckwits.
Now - what about yourself - why could you not understand?
Judith Smith
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
<551 word diatribe snipped>
My word Guy - I really do seem to have rattled your cage.
The BMA are promoting Safer Cycling
It is not difficult - however I suppose I am not surprised that you
can't quite see it - you need at least a modicum of intelligence.
Here we go:
If you wear a helmet then you will have reduced the chances of head
injury if you have an accident.
Therefore you may actually be "free from hurt or damage; unharmed" -
which as you know is what safer means.
Therefore if you wear a helmet - you may be safer.
There you go - 51 words - 500 less than you spouted.
Simon Mason
"Judith Smith" <judit...@live.co.uk> wrote in message .
>
> There you go - 51 words - 500 less than you spouted.
500 *fewer* words, not less words.
Judith Smith
<si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>I can't see helmet compulsion for adults ever coming in. The cycling lobby
>is huge and when under attack or when needs must, closes ranks and comes
>together.
Wishful thinking my old fruit.
The public at large will see it as justice and penance for all those V
signs given out by cyclists, all those riding on the pavement, all
those "Get on the motorway", all those jumping through red lights, all
those ignoring pedestrian crossings, all those .......
Get the drift?
It will happen - just a matter of time.
Why do you think that some of the fuckwits here are actually
anti-helmet?
It is nothing to do with whether helmets are beneficial or not per se;
they just do not want more and more cyclists to wear them (as is
happening each year) as the baseline is not far away.
Judith Smith
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:27:06 +0100, "Simon Mason"
><si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The BMA also says it is bad for our health to consume more than two pints of
>>beer a day, which is tosh as well.
>
>One of the more interesting points about this particular piece of work
>is that it is deliberately based only on case-control studies, with
>all conflicting evidence excluded. If they had adopted this policy in
>respect of HRT and coronary heart disease then they would be advising
>that HRT prevents heart disease. Luckily they investigated the
>conflicting evidence and found that all the case-control studies had
>similar confounding factors, leading to a conclusion which was wrong
>in both magnitude and sign: the risk is actually slightly /increased/.
>
>Guy
Cage still rattling Guy?
Get over it.
All they are doing is promoting safer cycling by encouraging the
wearing of helmets.
Surely, the reason that you encourage your children to wear helmets is
because you know that they will be safer?
The BMA are doing just what you are doing - being responsible.
Judith Smith
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:07:44 +0100, Marc
><initial...@btintenret.com> wrote:
>
>>And again I would like to understand why anyone pays that much
>>attention to body technicians?
>>If I want to know how to cycle safely, I consult a cycling coach, not a
>>cycle mechanic.
>
>This is essentially what they are doing, much to the irritation of the
>"cycle safety=helmets" mob.
>
>Guy
Get over it Guy.
The BMA are made up of intelligent highly educated people who are
capable of assessing the relevant evidence, applying common sense, and
concluding that it is more beneficial to wear a helmet than it is not
too.
They encourage the public to wear a helmet.
It is a bit like you looking at all the evidence and then encouraging
your kids to wear a helmet.
It is called being responsible.
It's not anathema to you - is it?
Simon Mason
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:30:54 +0100, "Simon Mason"
> <si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>I can't see helmet compulsion for adults ever coming in. The cycling lobby
>>is huge and when under attack or when needs must, closes ranks and comes
>>together.
>
>
> Wishful thinking my old fruit.
>
> The public at large will see it as justice and penance for all those V
> signs given out by cyclists, all those riding on the pavement, all
> those "Get on the motorway", all those jumping through red lights, all
> those ignoring pedestrian crossings, all those .......
>
I can't imagine drivers sitting there pouring money into the air in their
steel prisons secretly wishing to get their "revenge" by putting plastic
hats on cyclists' heads? Surely, they secretly wish we would get head
injuries if they hate us so much, so why would they be concerned for our
safety?
Attacks are usually along the lines of "make them pay road tax" and carry
number plates so plod can track them down like they do to car drivers. I've
read a lot of tiresome "lycra lout" articles in newspapers, but not one
Clarkson type has ever wished to *impose* plastic hats on us. They wish us
harm normally.
alan.holmes
"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1-qdnUXHfa8Fl3bU...@bt.com...
> Phil W Lee wrote:
>> clarif...@live.co.uk considered Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:53:17 +0100
>> the perfect time to write:
>>
>> <Nothing of any consequence removed>.
>>
>> Nurse! she's out again!
>>
>
> We can't have anything about cycle helmets saving injuries published, can
> we?
Especially when it has been reported that some people have been badly
injured whilst wearing helmets.
>
> --
> Tony the Dragon
Just zis Guy, you know?
<si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>500 *fewer* words, not less words.
Oh the irony. The most prolific troll this group has ever seen, who
posts bullshit indefinitely after it's been clearly proven to be
bullshit, sees fit to "reduce" the content of a post from someone who,
unlike her, rides a bike and is actually interested in cycling as
something other than an excuse for spewing hate.
And of course she employs the usual Liddite misdirection of assuming
there is no effect on the risk of collision. Funny how often they do
that, as if there was some real-world correlation between helmet use
and cycle safety. Which of course we know there isn't.
Funny, too, how she hasn't castigated the BMA for quoting Crook and
Feikh. Presumably she sees no problem with claiming that helmets are
more than 100% effective.
Still, it gave me an opportunity to visit Google Groups and find that
she's still trolling her bullshit about the page that never changed
<http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/The page that never changed>.
JNugent
> "Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>> clarif...@live.co.uk:
>>> <Nothing of any consequence removed>.
>>> Nurse! she's out again!
>> We can't have anything about cycle helmets saving injuries published, can
>> we?
> Especially when it has been reported that some people have been badly
> injured whilst wearing helmets.
Absolutely.
They won't stop you getting a broken leg or ribs, for a start.
Two people I knew were killed in a motor-bike accident a few years ago (one
was riding pillion). I suppose that means that motor-cycle helmets are of no
use either.
Roger Thorpe
some people just will not let a comment stating that helmets can, in
some circumstances prevent or attenuate an injury go without response.
Even if it's Judith that writes it.
Please prove me wrong.
Roger thorpe
JNugent
> Please prove me wrong.
> Roger thorpe
I am convinced that all Judith wants is for that obvious little factette to
be recognised and acknowledged, and that she would be satisfied with that as
far as the argument goes (though I dare say that she would not let the main
protagonists forget about it for some time thereafter).
Marc
In my best Yul Brunner voice..
" If that's all that's holding things up , I'll drive the hearse!"
OY Judith!
Cycle helmets, might in some circumstances prevent or attenuate and injury!
Now, will you piss off?
Tony Dragon
I do believe that people have been badly hurt while wearing a parachute.
Does that mean it is safe to leap from a flying aircraft without one?
--
Tony the Dragon
Judith Smith
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:49:47 +0100, "Simon Mason"
><si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>500 *fewer* words, not less words.
>
>Oh the irony.
Indeed - you do write a load of shite - and very frequently.
I really can't see why you are getting up tight about this.
The BMA support cycle helmets - get over it.
You encourage your children to wear them - get over it.
I can see why this may produce a moral dilemma.
How's Badger?
Judith Smith
<si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Judith Smith" <judit...@live.co.uk> wrote in message .
>>
>> There you go - 51 words - 500 less than you spouted.
>
>500 *fewer* words, not less words.
Thank you Simon.
If I was to pick up on your every little grammatical slip - then I
would be here all day.
However, I would rather concentrate on the substance so I am sorry I
will not correct your English for you.
Feel free to correct mine if you can't find anything worth saying.
Judith Smith
There are many people here who will not answer a very simple question:
Do you think on balance that a cycle helmet is more likely to reduce
the risk of injuries to the head in case of an accident, or do you
think that it would increase the risk of injuries?
I must admit I do not know why they cannot answer this question.
Judith Smith
'Fraid not - will you?
There are many more to educate yet and other interesting points to
discuss in an adult manner.
Of course many will find that too difficult and will have to cry :
troll.
Tom Crispin
>
>Do you think on balance that a cycle helmet is more likely to reduce
>the risk of injuries to the head in case of an accident, or do you
>think that it would increase the risk of injuries?
>
>I must admit I do not know why they cannot answer this question.
That's because it's the wrong question to ask: it's too narrow.
At a whole population level, do you think that a manatory helmet law
for cyclists would have a positive or negative effect on the health of
the nation?
Others may have a better way to phrase the question, but I think that
I have caught the essence of what should be asked. In answering that
broader question other questions may need to be asked, including your
question above, but your question alone will lead to a Straw Man - but
you know this already. It is a credit to this group that *everyone*
has seen through it and no one will fall for it. It is a discredit to
you that you have so far been unable to set up a Straw Man that works.
But keep trying... some of us, at least, are amused by your
incompetent efforts.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>Do you think on balance that a cycle helmet is more likely to reduce
>>the risk of injuries to the head in case of an accident, or do you
>>think that it would increase the risk of injuries?
>>I must admit I do not know why they cannot answer this question.
>That's because it's the wrong question to ask: it's too narrow.
Indeed. And it's not that people /can't/ answer the question, it's
more that they won't, and for good reason. Paul Smith was fond of
asking "would you rather be passed too close or too fast". Same deal.
The logical fallacy known as begging the question. In his case the
problem was a false dilemma - those are not the only options - but in
the case of helmets it's more subtle, as the question embodies the
assumption that wearing a helmet has no effect on the risk of
crashing.
Well, I guess it /could/ be true that it has no effect, but then you
have to look around for alternative explanations for the observed
failure of any real cyclist population to show reductions in head
injury rates from increases in helmet use, as well as accounting for
the fact that risk compensation has been observed in numerous differ
net scenarios including helmet use.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
Sir Jeremy
> Sir Jeremy wrote:
> > On 19 Apr, 15:37, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chap...@spamcop.net>
> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:31:31 -0700 (PDT), francis
>
> >> <francis.mall...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Misleading subjectline corrected
> >>> Francis
> >> Ditto :-)
>
> >> Guy
> >> --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc
>
> >> "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
> >> simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
>
> >> Newsgroup may contain nuts.
>
> > be done" , whose advice will they follow - the BMA or Guy Chapman?
>
> > We're dooomed
>
> They are going to follow Chapman.
>
> --
> Tony the Dragon- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Question in parliament... Would the minister deny that he ignored the
advice of the British Medical Association in favour of someone posting
on a cycling news group?
Thats almost as silly as suggesting we go to war on the evidence of a
PhD thesis we found on the internet
Judith Smith
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>There are many people here who will not answer a very simple question:
>>
>>Do you think on balance that a cycle helmet is more likely to reduce
>>the risk of injuries to the head in case of an accident, or do you
>>think that it would increase the risk of injuries?
>>
>>I must admit I do not know why they cannot answer this question.
>
>That's because it's the wrong question to ask: it's too narrow.
>
>At a whole population level, do you think that a manatory helmet law
>for cyclists would have a positive or negative effect on the health of
>the nation?
I think it would have a positive effect.
>Others may have a better way to phrase the question, but I think that
>I have caught the essence of what should be asked. In answering that
>broader question other questions may need to be asked, including your
>question above, but your question alone will lead to a Straw Man - but
>you know this already. It is a credit to this group that *everyone*
>has seen through it and no one will fall for it. It is a discredit to
>you that you have so far been unable to set up a Straw Man that works.
>But keep trying... some of us, at least, are amused by your
>incompetent efforts.
Keep wriggling and do not answer the question then - I know that you
do not like answering them - odd attitude for a "teacher".
Child to Mr Crispin (the teacher) "Please sir - is it better that I
wear a cycle helmet when I ride to school rather than not wear one.
Mr Crispin: You are asking the wrong question - it is too difficult
for me.
Child: It is a simple question.
Mr Crispin: No - sorry - you are asking the wrong person - ask your
mother when you get home.
No wonder schools are going down the pan with this attitude from
"teachers"
Judith Smith
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:39:32 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>>Do you think on balance that a cycle helmet is more likely to reduce
>>>the risk of injuries to the head in case of an accident, or do you
>>>think that it would increase the risk of injuries?
>>>I must admit I do not know why they cannot answer this question.
>
>>That's because it's the wrong question to ask: it's too narrow.
>
>Indeed. And it's not that people /can't/ answer the question, it's
>more that they won't, and for good reason. Paul Smith was fond of
>asking "would you rather be passed too close or too fast".
Not comparable question at all. Would you rather be passed at high
speed or low speed is what you are looking for
>The logical fallacy known as begging the question. In his case the
>problem was a false dilemma - those are not the only options - but in
>the case of helmets it's more subtle, as the question embodies the
>assumption that wearing a helmet has no effect on the risk of
>crashing.
Another wriggler.
How come you can ask anyone outside of urc this question - and at
least they will answer it.
Ask it in here - and it's much too difficult for them.
Go for it Guy - tell us all about Risk Compensation.
Ask 5 children if they ride faster when wearing a helmet.
If 4 of them say yes - then this proves that they take Risk
Compensation. and helmets may not be a good thing!!
That was the research which you peddle is it not?
You really are a prat.
I still do not know how you can tell your kids one thing and then say
the exact opposite here.
Peter Keller
>>
>>
>> At the end of the day when the government decides that "something must
>> be done" , whose advice will they follow - the BMA or Guy Chapman?
>>
>> We're dooomed
>
> And again I would like to understand why anyone pays that much
> attention to body technicians?
> If I want to know how to cycle safely, I consult a cycling coach, not a
> cycle mechanic.
> If I want to know how to drive safely I consult a driving instructor,
> not a panel beater.
> If I want to know how to fly safely I consult a flying instructor , not
> a Queen Mary driver
>
> Why then are Doctors presumed to know something about the physics of
> accidents just because they are there to glue the body back together?
Not all doctors.
I, too, (along with our Land Transport Safety Authority) was puzzled as
to why accidents, injuries and deaths to bicyclists were not reducing as
expected after our Mandatory Bicycle Helmet law was enacted and enforced.
To my shame I, like most of the medical profession bought into the
propaganda that helmets were a magic cure-all.
But then I started studying the evidence.
I would say, that if you want to know the possible effects of a helmet
law, study what happened in places which enforced one.
Peter Keller MB ChB FANZCA
--
The Kiwi is very aptly New Zealand's national emblem.
It is a bird which cannot fly.
It only comes out at night.
It has nostrils at the end of its beak,
and it is always poking its nose into things.
Tom Crispin
<judit...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:39:32 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>>There are many people here who will not answer a very simple question:
>>>
>>>Do you think on balance that a cycle helmet is more likely to reduce
>>>the risk of injuries to the head in case of an accident, or do you
>>>think that it would increase the risk of injuries?
>>>
>>>I must admit I do not know why they cannot answer this question.
>>
>>That's because it's the wrong question to ask: it's too narrow.
>>
>>At a whole population level, do you think that a manatory helmet law
>>for cyclists would have a positive or negative effect on the health of
>>the nation?
>
>I think
Evidence indicates the opposite is true.
>>Others may have a better way to phrase the question, but I think that
>>I have caught the essence of what should be asked. In answering that
>>broader question other questions may need to be asked, including your
>>question above, but your question alone will lead to a Straw Man - but
>>you know this already. It is a credit to this group that *everyone*
>>has seen through it and no one will fall for it. It is a discredit to
>>you that you have so far been unable to set up a Straw Man that works.
>>But keep trying... some of us, at least, are amused by your
>>incompetent efforts.
>
>
>Keep wriggling and do not answer the question then - I know that you
>do not like answering them - odd attitude for a "teacher".
>
>Child to Mr Crispin (the teacher) "Please sir - is it better that I
>wear a cycle helmet when I ride to school rather than not wear one.
>
>Mr Crispin: You are asking the wrong question - it is too difficult
>for me.
>
>Child: It is a simple question.
>
>Mr Crispin: No - sorry - you are asking the wrong person - ask your
>mother when you get home.
Complete fabrication of a reply to hypothetical straw man question.
Alan Braggins
>
>That's because it's the wrong question to ask: it's too narrow.
We could ask Judith whether she has stopped beating her children and
see whether she gives us a simple yes or no answer or admits that
sometimes a question can be wrong.
(Obviously this analogy falls over if she actually has children and
admits to beating them rather than admit she was wrong. I think the
"actually has children" is the smaller of those probabilities.)
Toom Tabard
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:07:44 +0100, Marc wrote:
>
> >> At the end of the day when the government decides that "something must
> >> be done" , whose advice will they follow - the BMA or Guy Chapman?
>
> >> We're dooomed
>
> > And again I would like to understand why anyone pays that much
> > attention to body technicians?
> > If I want to know how to cycle safely, I consult a cycling coach, not a
> > cycle mechanic.
> > If I want to know how to drive safely I consult a driving instructor,
> > not a panel beater.
> > If I want to know how to fly safely I consult a flying instructor , not
> > a Queen Mary driver
>
> > Why then are Doctors presumed to know something about the physics of
> > accidents just because they are there to glue the body back together?
>
> Not all doctors.
>
> I, too, (along with our Land Transport Safety Authority) was puzzled as
> to why accidents, injuries and deaths to bicyclists were not reducing as
> expected after our Mandatory Bicycle Helmet law was enacted and enforced.
>
> To my shame I, like most of the medical profession bought into the
> propaganda that helmets were a magic cure-all.
>
> But then I started studying the evidence.
>
> I would say, that if you want to know the possible effects of a helmet
> law, study what happened in places which enforced one.
>
One has, however, to also be aware that when there seems good
empirical reason for a public health or safety initiative, its
introduction is accompanied by an initiative to collect full and
correctly classified data to measure the effect. This data is then
frequently compared to the incomplete and inaccurate data from before
the initiative and can result in considerable disparity between the
statistical result and the expected effect. That frequently masks the
close correspondence between the expected and actual effects.
Toom
Toom Tabard
wrote:
The fact that someone asks you a question, does not of course place
you under any obligation to answer it. But, why is it the 'wrong'
question and too narrow? It is a perfectly valid and reasonable
question per se.
I personally think (indeed know) on balance that a cycle helmet is
more likely to reduce the risk of injuries to the head in case of an
accident.
I hadn't the slightest difficulty in answering the question as
specified. The fact that you have another question to phrase in
another way is irrelevant and the question you've phrased addresses
different issues. That in no way invalidates the original question.
You might want to modify your reference to *everyone* ; There are
several members of this group, including me, who are not controlled by
the thought police who obsessively stalk this group, and who exhibit
some capacity for independent thought.
Toom
Peter Clinch
> One has, however, to also be aware that when there seems good
> empirical reason for a public health or safety initiative, its
> introduction is accompanied by an initiative to collect full and
> correctly classified data to measure the effect. This data is then
> frequently compared to the incomplete and inaccurate data from before
> the initiative and can result in considerable disparity between the
> statistical result and the expected effect. That frequently masks the
> close correspondence between the expected and actual effects.
So you start with data that's apparently good enough to act as a "good
empirical reason for a public health or safety initiative", but it turns
out it's so bad it will allow a doubling of the wearing rate in a very
short space of time to make no impact on serious head injury rates when
you look at the data afterwards?
And it turns out it's magically just as bad everywhere you look at the
population level, reproducibly so.
And it also turns out when you haven't had such a law and consequently a
big change in the data collection methods, and have a good hard look at
the statistical record in light of naturally evolving wearing rates,
that there appears to be no effect on serious head injuries at the
population level as wearing rates change naturally.
And it turns out where disparate groups (for example, UK juvenile males
and females) have different wearing cultures, their serious injury rates
aren't appreciably differentiated.
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.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Mas...@bp.com
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:49:47 +0100, "Simon Mason"
>
> <si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >> There you go - 51 words - 500 less than you spouted.
>
> >500 *fewer* words, not less words.
>
> Thank you Simon.
>
> If I was to pick up on your every little grammatical slip - then I
> would be here all day.
You *are* here all day and in any case, I thought your sole reason
for being here *was* to correct other people's errors and mistakes, or
so you like to keep stating.
--
Simon Mason
Mas...@bp.com
>
> There are many people here who will not answer a very simple question:
>
> Do you think on balance that a cycle helmet is more likely to reduce
> the risk of injuries to the head in case of an accident, or do you
> think that it would increase the risk of injuries?
Simple answer is, I don't care as I never wear one, so have no real
interest in the matter. I don't wear elbow pads and knee pads like
skateboarders might do, so have no interest as to whether they could
protect me either.
I don't wear a crash helmet in my car, like a racing driver might do,
so have no interest as to whether a head on smash in my car might
result in a lesser injury to my head by the same token.
When it is icy, I don't walk to the shops with a plastic hat on, even
though there is an increased risk I might slip and bang my head.
So the upshot is - I don't care.
--
Simon Mason
Peter Clinch
> The fact that someone asks you a question, does not of course place
> you under any obligation to answer it. But, why is it the 'wrong'
> question and too narrow?
I suspect it lacks suitable qualification, and because of that is
designed to (mis)lead to a position that is demonstrably unsupportable
by simple comparison to alternatives where a different conclusion is
reached as to how important helmets are.
> I personally think (indeed know) on balance that a cycle helmet is
> more likely to reduce the risk of injuries to the head in case of an
> accident.
Quite likely, but that doesn't specify the severity of the accident.
Also, I personally think there's a fair chance that a helmet similar to
a cycle helmet will reduce the risk of injuries to the head in the case
of a domestic accident in the house, yet practically nobody bothers
wearing such helmets in the house. At a recent orienteering event I
grazed my head on an overhanging tree branch. Looking at comments
afterwards quite a few folk picked up cuts and scratches, so highly
likely that such incidents would be reduced or mitigated with helmets
for all competitors (and in my case this time, officials). Yet I've
never seen anyone orienteering, or setting up a course where there is
less emphasis on speed and light equipment, in a helmet. So by
comparing to the same "reasoning" not applied outside of a bike despite
tangible risks, it can be seen to be dubious reasoning.
> I hadn't the slightest difficulty in answering the question as
> specified. The fact that you have another question to phrase in
> another way is irrelevant and the question you've phrased addresses
> different issues. That in no way invalidates the original question.
Indeed, but it is reasonable to point out that the question in itself is
not helpful, and similarly the answer. Or the same question/answer as
applied to accidents in the home would imply it is good sense to wear a
safety helmet there, or the same question/answer applied to orienteering
events would apply there, but it doesn't. So why does it magically
apply to bikes? There's no clearly argued reason why they are a special
case, and if you spend a weekend in Amsterdam you'll see thousands of
people who have grasped that fact.
Jules
As a matter of interest: Do you wear a seat-belt in your car? Would you
wear one if it wasn't a legal requirement? Did you wear one before it
was a legal requirement (assuming you are old enough)?
--
J.
Toom Tabard
No I don't think I said, implied or accept any of that. And I won't
even attempt reasoned discussion of your recognisably specious
twaddle.
Toom
JNugent
> Toom Tabard wrote:
>> The fact that someone asks you a question, does not of course place
>> you under any obligation to answer it. But, why is it the 'wrong'
>> question and too narrow?
> I suspect it lacks suitable qualification, and because of that is
> designed to (mis)lead to a position that is demonstrably unsupportable
> by simple comparison to alternatives where a different conclusion is
> reached as to how important helmets are.
>> I personally think (indeed know) on balance that a cycle helmet is
>> more likely to reduce the risk of injuries to the head in case of an
>> accident.
> Quite likely, but that doesn't specify the severity of the accident.
> Also, I personally think there's a fair chance that a helmet similar to
> a cycle helmet will reduce the risk of injuries to the head in the case
> of a domestic accident in the house, yet practically nobody bothers
> wearing such helmets in the house.
What does that have to do with the question (and the correct answer to it)?
[That's rhetorical, BTW - there's no need to answer it because we all know
what the perceived connection is.]
> At a recent orienteering event I
> grazed my head on an overhanging tree branch. Looking at comments
> afterwards quite a few folk picked up cuts and scratches, so highly
> likely that such incidents would be reduced or mitigated with helmets
> for all competitors (and in my case this time, officials). Yet I've
> never seen anyone orienteering, or setting up a course where there is
> less emphasis on speed and light equipment, in a helmet. So by
> comparing to the same "reasoning" not applied outside of a bike despite
> tangible risks, it can be seen to be dubious reasoning.
>> I hadn't the slightest difficulty in answering the question as
>> specified. The fact that you have another question to phrase in
>> another way is irrelevant and the question you've phrased addresses
>> different issues. That in no way invalidates the original question.
> Indeed, but it is reasonable to point out that the question in itself is
> not helpful, and similarly the answer. Or the same question/answer as
> applied to accidents in the home would imply it is good sense to wear a
> safety helmet there, or the same question/answer applied to orienteering
> events would apply there, but it doesn't. So why does it magically
> apply to bikes?
It doesn't, unless you want it to.
> There's no clearly argued reason why they are a special
> case, and if you spend a weekend in Amsterdam you'll see thousands of
> people who have grasped that fact.
You are confusing two separate questions (one of which was not asked).
The factual position about injury is one thing. Any question of legal
compulsion is quite another. Why answer questions on the first with a
permanent eye on the second?
Toom Tabard
It was, and still is, merely a simple question to which there can be a
simple answer.
But there is the now the question of whether people about to read your
contribution should be advised to strap themselves into their seat and
fit airbags at head height on the nearest wall.
Toom
Peter Clinch
> It was, and still is, merely a simple question to which there can be a
> simple answer.
It /can/ also be a decidedly loaded question, and given the asker in the
original case the possibility of that being the case is remarkably high.
If you think it is just simple, period, then you're being simplistic,
whether by intent or nature I don't know.
It is also the case that the "simple answer" can very easily be loaded
with far more significance than it really supports, as has often been
done and will doubtless be done again. And since it has often been
done, and doubtless will be done again, it is worth flagging that up.
> But there is the now the question of whether people about to read your
> contribution should be advised to strap themselves into their seat and
> fit airbags at head height on the nearest wall.
Or the question of whether you'll conform to your track record and throw
in some ad hominem attacks on folk that don't agree with you rather than
address the points raised? Oh no, that's just been answered, and you did.
Toom Tabard
> Toom Tabard wrote:
> > It was, and still is, merely a simple question to which there can be a
> > simple answer.
>
> It /can/ also be a decidedly loaded question, and given the asker in the
> original case the possibility of that being the case is remarkably high.
> If you think it is just simple, period, then you're being simplistic,
> whether by intent or nature I don't know.
>
> It is also the case that the "simple answer" can very easily be loaded
> with far more significance than it really supports, as has often been
> done and will doubtless be done again. And since it has often been
> done, and doubtless will be done again, it is worth flagging that up.
>
> > But there is the now the question of whether people about to read your
> > contribution should be advised to strap themselves into their seat and
> > fit airbags at head height on the nearest wall.
>
> Or the question of whether you'll conform to your track record and throw
> in some ad hominem attacks on folk that don't agree with you rather than
> address the points raised? Oh no, that's just been answered, and you did.
>
It's a bit difficult to address the 'points' you raise if they are
mere endless and irrelevant vacuous twaddle.
Socrates had his Plato to expand on every question he raised. What did
I do to deserve you?
Toom
Judith Smith
<mu...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Peter Keller MB ChB FANZCA
As a doctor, and from the evidence which you have read, - what is your
answer to the simple question :
Do you think on balance that a cycle helmet is more likely to reduce
the risk of injuries to the head in case of an accident, or do you
think that it would increase the risk of injuries.?
(PS this is nothing to do with the "compulsion" argument)
Judith Smith
Haven't you got work to do Clinch?
I hope that you're not skiving and browsing and answering the
newsgroup on public funds.
Judith Smith
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
<snip>
>>Child to Mr Crispin (the teacher) "Please sir - is it better that I
>>wear a cycle helmet when I ride to school rather than not wear one.
>>
>>Mr Crispin: You are asking the wrong question - it is too difficult
>>for me.
>>
>>Child: It is a simple question.
>>
>>Mr Crispin: No - sorry - you are asking the wrong person - ask your
>>mother when you get home.
>
>Complete fabrication of a reply to hypothetical straw man question.
So what would you answer to a child who asked that question?
This seems a very reasonable question to be asked of someone charged
with the education of our children.
Judith Smith
Braggins) wrote:
>In article <tk5nu4hrh919e5cdl...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>That's because it's the wrong question to ask: it's too narrow.
>
>We could ask Judith whether she has stopped beating her children and
>see whether she gives us a simple yes or no answer or admits that
>sometimes a question can be wrong.
You have clearly demonstrated again that you are a prat Bilbo.
The question I asked can clearly be answered - unless you have
something to hide.
I have previously said that it is not in the "stopped beating"
category of question - I am sorry that you cannot understand that.
In answer to you question :
Yes - I have stopped beating my children.
Any chance of an answer from you to my simple question?
Simon Mason
"Jules" <dual....@googlemail.invalid> wrote in message
news:7533ftF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> As a matter of interest: Do you wear a seat-belt in your car? Would you
> wear one if it wasn't a legal requirement? Did you wear one before it was
> a legal requirement (assuming you are old enough)?
I do wear my seat belt in my car and did not wear it before it became law.
Incidentally, my dad crashed his car in 1974 into a telegraph pole which
wiped out the driver's side. He was thrown into the passenger seat and
lived, had he worn a seat belt he would have been killed.
--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/
Just zis Guy, you know?
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>I personally think there's a fair chance that a helmet similar to
>a cycle helmet will reduce the risk of injuries to the head in the case
>of a domestic accident in the house, yet practically nobody bothers
>wearing such helmets in the house.
http://www.thudguard.com/
http://joseelretardo.com/tag/urban-walking-helmet/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
Sir Jeremy
> "Judith Smith" <judithsm...@live.co.uk> wrote in message >>
> >>die
> >>very soon!
>
> > How do you make up this 100/120 units a week - if you don't mind me
> > asking?
>
> It would be nearer 100 units in a normal week. In an evening, I might have 5
> x 440 ml cans of 1.9 units and 2 x 440 ml cans of 2.1 units which is 13.7
> units. I then go to bed at 9-00 pm to get up at 5-30 am. I don't get
> dehydrated as the stuff is 96% water anyway.
>
> In a week, that is nearly 96 units. If I am not at work the next day, I may
> have a couple more which would take the total over 100 units.
>
> --
> Simon Masonhttp://www.simonmason.karoo.net/
You are Glug2 AICMFP
Judith Smith
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:08:26 +0100, Peter Clinch
><p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>I personally think there's a fair chance that a helmet similar to
>>a cycle helmet will reduce the risk of injuries to the head in the case
>>of a domestic accident in the house, yet practically nobody bothers
>>wearing such helmets in the house.
>
>http://www.thudguard.com/
>http://joseelretardo.com/tag/urban-walking-helmet/
>
>Guy
And there we have one fuckwit advising another - many thanks.
Peter Clinch
> It's a bit difficult to address the 'points' you raise if they are
> mere endless and irrelevant vacuous twaddle.
> Socrates had his Plato to expand on every question he raised. What did
> I do to deserve you?
You continue to show little knowledge of the currently available
literature on the subject, or indeed much indication that you have
even been bothered to try and keep abreast of it. Consequently
your opinions, even though you tend to see them too much as facts,
are actually far less informed than you appear to think.
If you don't want me posting to point out your opinions have holes
in them it would be best to close up the holes, rather than pretend
they're not there.
Judith Smith
Yes - I have met loads of people down the pub who had exactly the same
thing happen to one of their relatives.
Also, there were no end of people killed when their cars went in to
canals just after compulsory seat belts came in as well and they
could not escape.
PeterG
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:00:04 +0100, "Simon Mason"
>
> <si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
My brothers mate was down the pub when he was told about a cyclist who
was wearing a cycle helmet when he swerved off the road down a bank
and into some trees.
He was left hanging from the tree by his helmet strap for four hours &
nearly died.
PG
Alan Braggins
>On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:09:06 +0100, Judith Smith
><judit...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:39:32 +0100, Tom Crispin
>><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>>
>>>At a whole population level, do you think that a manatory helmet law
>>>for cyclists would have a positive or negative effect on the health of
>>>the nation?
>>
>>I think
>
>Evidence indicates the opposite is true.
Indeed - a recent paper estimates the negative health impact of a helmet
law would cost the UK about $0.4 billion. (About 0.19 billion pounds,
it's an Australian paper.)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1368064 via
http://www.ecovelo.info/2009/04/20/mandatory-helmet-laws/
Judith Smith
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>Toom Tabard wrote:
>
>> It's a bit difficult to address the 'points' you raise if they are
>> mere endless and irrelevant vacuous twaddle.
>> Socrates had his Plato to expand on every question he raised. What did
>> I do to deserve you?
>
>You continue to show little knowledge of the currently available
>literature on the subject, or indeed much indication that you have
>even been bothered to try and keep abreast of it. Consequently
>your opinions, even though you tend to see them too much as facts,
>are actually far less informed than you appear to think.
>
>If you don't want me posting to point out your opinions have holes
>in them it would be best to close up the holes, rather than pretend
>they're not there.
>
>Pete.
Most people would be able to extract relevant pertinent facts from
"the literature" and use them to prove their point or disprove
another's. You seem to be able to do neither, and only able to throw
in the odd red herring or two.
Given that you appear to be proud of the fact that you represent the
University in your postings - you are not doing very well in terms of
enhancing the reputation of academia.
--
The BMA view of helmets:
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.
Judith Smith
<peter...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> "Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.
>>
>> A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.
>
>My brothers mate was down the pub when he was told about a cyclist who
>was wearing a cycle helmet when he swerved off the road down a bank
>and into some trees.
>He was left hanging from the tree by his helmet strap for four hours &
>nearly died.
>
>
>PG
Bloody hell - someone down the pub only told me that same story last
night.
I wonder if it was the same cyclist?
Oh - hang on - it can't be - the one in the "story" I was told was
eaten by foxes.
Still - goes to show - you can be too careful.
Simon Mason
"Judith Smith" <judit...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pngpu4ds1bout6l3o...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:00:04 +0100, "Simon Mason"
> <si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jules" <dual....@googlemail.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:7533ftF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>
>>> As a matter of interest: Do you wear a seat-belt in your car? Would you
>>> wear one if it wasn't a legal requirement? Did you wear one before it
>>> was
>>> a legal requirement (assuming you are old enough)?
>>
>>I do wear my seat belt in my car and did not wear it before it became law.
>>Incidentally, my dad crashed his car in 1974 into a telegraph pole which
>>wiped out the driver's side. He was thrown into the passenger seat and
>>lived, had he worn a seat belt he would have been killed.
>
>
> Yes - I have met loads of people down the pub who had exactly the same
> thing happen to one of their relatives.
>
>
Goodness, it was more common than I thought then!
Dave Larrington
Simon Mason <si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:
> <clarif...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2rbku4tlm2j7u4o90...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> There have recently been some less than honest posts (again) by Guy
>> Chapman - this time concerning the British Medical Association (BMA)
>> policy of Promoting Safe Cycling.
>
>
> The BMA also says it is bad for our health to consume more than two
> pints of beer a day, which is tosh as well.
It helps if you think of them a ex-medical students rather than doctors.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Cheery urchin reporting for duty.
Toom Tabard
> Toom Tabard wrote:
> > It's a bit difficult to address the 'points' you raise if they are
> > mere endless and irrelevant vacuous twaddle.
> > Socrates had his Plato to expand on every question he raised. What did
> > I do to deserve you?
>
> You continue to show little knowledge of the currently available
> literature on the subject, or indeed much indication that you have
> even been bothered to try and keep abreast of it. Consequently
> your opinions, even though you tend to see them too much as facts,
> are actually far less informed than you appear to think.
>
Mere supposition by you, and totally incorrect.
> If you don't want me posting to point out your opinions have holes
> in them it would be best to close up the holes, rather than pretend
> they're not there.
>
So, the fact that I state I think (indeed know) that it is safer for
me to wear a helmet when cycling
is an 'opinion' with holes, and, since you know better than I what I
think and know, the holes in my opinion can be filled by you writing
about the possible advantages of wearing a helmet in the home?
It is not a matter of whether or not 'I want you posting'. Whether or
what you post is of total disinterest to me. If my statement in
favour of cycle helmets triggers some need in you to write monologues
on wearing helmets in the house that is a matter entirely for you.
Toom
Peter Clinch
> On 20 Apr, 19:49, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>> You continue to show little knowledge of the currently available
>> literature on the subject, or indeed much indication that you have
>> even been bothered to try and keep abreast of it. Consequently
>> your opinions, even though you tend to see them too much as facts,
>> are actually far less informed than you appear to think.
> Mere supposition by you, and totally incorrect.
I merely judge you by what you reveal. When I suggested the responses
to the 2006 BMJ to Hagel et al and Robinson were instructive your reply
strongly suggested you hadn't read them and had no intention of doing so
("the papers you mention are a few in a sea of publications, and
trawling through the responses resolves little"). When I made points
yesterday that were based on, amongst other work, Hewson's 2005 pieces
you dismissed it as "your specious twaddle" with no reference to the
problems you have with the original work even though you /ought/ to be
highly familiar with it if you really are well informed on the matter.
So not mere supposition, working from what you say yourself.
> So, the fact that I state I think (indeed know) that it is safer for
> me to wear a helmet when cycling
> is an 'opinion' with holes, and
I wasn't addressing that particular point, more your posts in general,
such as yesterday's vague arm-waving to "explain" why casualty savings
fail to show up with increased helmet wearing. I pointed out some
holes, where my basis of argument was peer reviewed literature, and you
did some more vague dismissive arm-waving because you either can't or
won't address the issues.
But as it happens, the above is incorrectly stating an opinion as fact
(again...) because you don't have properly quantified information about
how your helmet affects the behaviour of those around you, or how a
bigger, heavier head will increase your chances of striking it against
something at all.
> since you know better than I what I
> think and know, the holes in my opinion can be filled by you writing
> about the possible advantages of wearing a helmet in the home?
I don't know better than you what you think. I do have a good idea from
what you say that what you think and actuality are probably not as
closely aligned as you appear to believe.
The point about wearing a helmet at home is it /may/ make you safer,
just as your cycle helmet /may/ make you safer. Yet you do not behave
identically despite a similar mitigation of similar risks, so I'm just
pointing out logical inconsistencies in your position to demonstrate
it's not on the firmest of ground.
What have you done to deserve me? Like asking what the Emperor did to
deserve some kid saying he had no clothes on... he showed up with no
clothes on.
Mark McNeill
> What have you done to deserve me? Like asking what the Emperor did to
> deserve some kid saying he had no clothes on... he showed up with no
> clothes on.
Are you familiar with the literal meaning of "toom tabard"? I've
wondered in the past if he isn't just trolling.
--
Mark, UK.
Alistair Gunn
> Are you familiar with the literal meaning of "toom tabard"? I've
> wondered in the past if he isn't just trolling.
I pretty much decided that back in December when he felt that wanting
cycle lanes / paths to be as least as good the roads was somehow an
unreasonable and unrealistic concept ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...