What did he do that for!?
Tom Crispin
in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.
Why?
The owner of OYB has invited Boris to open his new bike garage in late
June. The new Mayor of London has agreed.
JNugent
> I have heard from a friend that Boris Johnson walked into On Your Bike
> in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.
> Why?
Because he wanted one? As a present? A raffle prize?
Does it really matter? And does it really matter to you?
> The owner of OYB has invited Boris to open his new bike garage in late
> June. The new Mayor of London has agreed.
Fair enough.
vernon
"Tom Crispin" <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
news:4d7m24tg6dqh0rob0...@4ax.com...
>I have heard from a friend that Boris Johnson walked into On Your Bike
> in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.
>
> Why?
Why not?
I went into a bike shop last year and bought a helmet for the first time.
I've even worn it once or twice.....
Paul Boyd
> I have heard from a friend that Boris Johnson walked into On Your Bike
> in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.
>
> Why?
Why not? It's his choice.
--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
Martin
Tom Crispin wrote:
> I have heard from a friend that Boris Johnson walked into On Your Bike
> in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.
>
> Why?
Probably saw a picture of all your school children wearing MFHs, and
thought "One of them will protect me next time I jump a red light."
I noticed that the majority of cyclists in Bristol City centre about
rush hour time are now wearing MFHs, this is up from 50%ish mid winter.
(A lot of people have probably gotten one with their new spring bike).
Phone Box
news:4d7m24tg6dqh0rob0...@4ax.com...
Why? Because he wants helmet hair :)
M-gineering
> I have heard from a friend that Boris Johnson walked into On Your Bike
> in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.
>
> Why?
>
Disguise?
--
/Marten
info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> I have heard from a friend that Boris Johnson walked into On Your Bike
>> in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.
> >
>> Why?
>
>Probably saw a picture of all your school children wearing MFHs, and
>thought "One of them will protect me next time I jump a red light."
Yes. The Daily Mirror's cameras won't be able to pick out the
distinctive Boris mop.
>I noticed that the majority of cyclists in Bristol City centre about
>rush hour time are now wearing MFHs, this is up from 50%ish mid winter.
>(A lot of people have probably gotten one with their new spring bike).
I have noticed that most London commuters seem to be wearing h*lm*ts
now.
Colin McKenzie
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> I have heard from a friend that Boris Johnson walked into On Your Bike
>> in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.
> Does it really matter? And does it really matter to you?
If true, it does matter. Someone who views cycling as a practical
method of transport has apparently been persuaded either
- that it is dangerous
or
- that wearing a helmet sets a good example.
Both are false and will undermine his efforts, reported elsewhere, to
increase cycling levels in London.
Colin McKenzie
--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.
JNugent
> JNugent wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> I have heard from a friend that Boris Johnson walked into On Your Bike
>>> in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.
>> Does it really matter? And does it really matter to you?
> If true, it does matter. Someone who views cycling as a practical method
> of transport has apparently been persuaded either
> - that it is dangerous
> or
> - that wearing a helmet sets a good example.
> Both are false and will undermine his efforts, reported elsewhere, to
> increase cycling levels in London.
And?
I am well aware that that is the view of some, apparently including you.
I don't know that it is correct, or that the proponents of helmets are
wrong. I merely note that you say it is correct and that the "other
side" are wrong.
Others, with on the face of it (I have to say) better qualifications,
say something different.
There was a similar long argument about the fitting of seatbelts in
motor vehicles with more than two wheels. Then a longer one about
wearing them. For part of the same period, there was a long public
argument about whether it would be right to force motor-cyclists to wear
helmets. This helmet business is deja vu all over again.
I wonder whether the desire to "look cool" plays a part in it.
As for people - whether influential or not - buying cycle helmets - are
they under a duty to agree with you (and TC) and to do as you choose to
so? Or are they free to make up their own minds?
Martin
JNugent wrote:
> Colin McKenzie wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>>>> I have heard from a friend that Boris Johnson walked into On Your Bike
>>>> in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.
>
>>> Does it really matter? And does it really matter to you?
>
>> If true, it does matter. Someone who views cycling as a practical
>> method of transport has apparently been persuaded either
>> - that it is dangerous
>> or
>> - that wearing a helmet sets a good example.
>
>> Both are false and will undermine his efforts, reported elsewhere, to
>> increase cycling levels in London.
>
> And?
>
> I am well aware that that is the view of some, apparently including you.
>
> I don't know that it is correct, or that the proponents of helmets are
> wrong. I merely note that you say it is correct and that the "other
> side" are wrong.
>
> Others, with on the face of it (I have to say) better qualifications,
> say something different.
For a start, Colin cycles, whereas many helmet proponents don't
> There was a similar long argument about the fitting of seatbelts in
> motor vehicles with more than two wheels. Then a longer one about
> wearing them.
Did fitting of seatbelts, or their compulsory use stop more than a
handful of people driving?
I doubt it.
Did the compulsory use of seatbelts increase road safety?
Again I doubt it.
(I am not going to look up the figures).
> For part of the same period, there was a long public
> argument about whether it would be right to force motor-cyclists to wear
> helmets. This helmet business is deja vu all over again.
Will helmet compulsion reduce cycling numbers?
Yes, if examples like Australia are anything to go by.
Will helmet compulsion do anything to increase safety for cyclists?
No. It is likely to decrease the safety for individual people who carry
on cycling.
> As for people - whether influential or not - buying cycle helmets - are
> they under a duty to agree with you (and TC) and to do as you choose to
> so? Or are they free to make up their own minds?
They are free to make up their own minds, but in doing so they should
remember that they could be setting an example, e.g. in this case the
dangerisation of cycling.
JNugent
> JNugent wrote:
>> Colin McKenzie wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>> I have heard from a friend that Boris Johnson walked into On Your Bike
>>>>> in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.
>>>> Does it really matter? And does it really matter to you?
>>> If true, it does matter. Someone who views cycling as a practical
>>> method of transport has apparently been persuaded either
>>> - that it is dangerous
>>> or
>>> - that wearing a helmet sets a good example.
>>> Both are false and will undermine his efforts, reported elsewhere, to
>>> increase cycling levels in London.
>> And?
>> I am well aware that that is the view of some, apparently including you.
>> I don't know that it is correct, or that the proponents of helmets are
>> wrong. I merely note that you say it is correct and that the "other
>> side" are wrong.
>> Others, with on the face of it (I have to say) better qualifications,
>> say something different.
> For a start, Colin cycles, whereas many helmet proponents don't
Well, those who argued for the breathalyser back in the sixties weren't
all drink-drivers (they weren't even all drivers). But more seriously, I
would tend to treat non-expert and unqualified opinion more sceptically
than (for instance) that of experienced A&E doctors.
>> There was a similar long argument about the fitting of seatbelts in
>> motor vehicles with more than two wheels. Then a longer one about
>> wearing them.
> Did fitting of seatbelts, or their compulsory use stop more than a
> handful of people driving?
> I doubt it.
That's absolutely not the issue. If it had, it wouldn't have stopped the
law from being enacted, would it?
> Did the compulsory use of seatbelts increase road safety?
> Again I doubt it.
> (I am not going to look up the figures).
Don't introduce red herrings. "Road safety in general" isn't the issue
(and is always widened far too much for sensible debate). The issue (for
seatbelts was whether injuries to vehicle passengers would reduce and/or
be less serious. The issue for motor-bike helmets was the same.
The only proper measure of whether seatbelts and motor-bike helmets (and
compulsion in either case) have been successful is to look at that outcome.
>> For part of the same period, there was a long public argument about
>> whether it would be right to force motor-cyclists to wear helmets.
>> This helmet business is deja vu all over again.
> Will helmet compulsion reduce cycling numbers?
> Yes, if examples like Australia are anything to go by.
See above. It's not an issue. If cycling is as attractive as many claim
(especially with the way that the price of oil is going), making it
safer (yes, I know you might say it wouldn't be) is going to simply
increase its attractions.
> Will helmet compulsion do anything to increase safety for cyclists?
> No. It is likely to decrease the safety for individual people who carry
> on cycling.
I prefer to trust the submissions of health professionals and
statisticians on that issue.
>> As for people - whether influential or not - buying cycle helmets -
>> are they under a duty to agree with you (and TC) and to do as you
>> choose to so? Or are they free to make up their own minds?
> They are free to make up their own minds, but in doing so they should
> remember that they could be setting an example, e.g. in this case the
> dangerisation of cycling.
Er... exactly.
You aren't related to John Prescott, are you?
john....@gmail.com
wrote:
> I have noticed that most London commuters seem to be wearing h*lm*ts
> now.
You reckon?
If I'd been forced to hazard a guess, I'd have gone for much closer to
20%.
Might try to keep a mental tally over the next couple of days.
John
james...@googlemail.com
It would appear that as the Standard's bitch he feel obliged to
respond positively to their stupid campaign that he should wear a
helmet because why would anybody not do so
They seem to think he bought it in Evans though.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23484525-details/Come+on+Boris%2C+everyone+prefers+blonds+wearing+a+cycle+helmet/article.do
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23484376-details/Boris%3A+I+admit+I+need+to+start+wearing+a+helmet/article.do
Colin McKenzie
> Martin wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>
>> Will helmet compulsion reduce cycling numbers?
>> Yes, if examples like Australia are anything to go by.
>
> See above. It's not an issue. If cycling is as attractive as many claim
> (especially with the way that the price of oil is going), making it
> safer (yes, I know you might say it wouldn't be) is going to simply
> increase its attractions.
And making it appear more dangerous (or be less convenient) is known
to reduce them.
>> Will helmet compulsion do anything to increase safety for cyclists?
>> No. It is likely to decrease the safety for individual people who
>> carry on cycling.
> I prefer to trust the submissions of health professionals and
> statisticians on that issue.
Health professionals, on the whole, do not move on from the default
'it must be better than nothing' position. Good statisticians have
been effective in debunking research that appears to show safety
benefits from helmet-wearing.
>>> As for people - whether influential or not - buying cycle helmets -
>>> are they under a duty to agree with you (and TC) and to do as you
>>> choose to so? Or are they free to make up their own minds?
>
>> They are free to make up their own minds, but in doing so they should
>> remember that they could be setting an example, e.g. in this case the
>> dangerisation of cycling.
More to the point, they should make up their minds on the basis of
evidence rather than misinformation and propaganda.
I am writing to Boris.
Tom Crispin
<ne...@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:
>I am writing to Boris.
Poor man!
He pops out of the office during his morning coffee break to do a bit
of private shopping, and within 24hrs his choice in headwear is
plastered all over Usenet, and a few days later his mailbox is stuffed
full of good advice over his personal choices. ;-) Hehehe.
Tom Crispin
Hmmm. For three consecutive weeks I have cycled with children along
the A200 to Tower Bridge and back, leaving at 3.30, arriving TB at
4.30, then back to Blackheath at 5.30 - or thereabouts.
I would estimate that 80% of cyclists we see, and a lot use the A200,
wear helmets. 3.30 - 5.30 is prime commuter time. I'm doing the ride
again with another group today. I will try counting.
I'm doing the ride once again on Friday afternoon to go to a Cycling
England training session at London Bridge. I will try counting then
too.
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>On May 14, 6:15 pm, Tom Crispin
><kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>> I have heard from a friend that Boris Johnson walked into On Your Bike
>> in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> The owner of OYB has invited Boris to open his new bike garage in late
>> June. The new Mayor of London has agreed.
>
>It would appear that as the Standard's bitch he feel obliged to
>respond positively to their stupid campaign that he should wear a
>helmet because why would anybody not do so
>
>They seem to think he bought it in Evans though.
With the claim that the owner of On Your Bike invited Boris to open
their new bike garage late next month, I think my source of
information is more reliable than The Standard's. And OYB is closer
to City Hall than Evans.
>http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23484525-details/Come+on+Boris%2C+everyone+prefers+blonds+wearing+a+cycle+helmet/article.do
>http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23484376-details/Boris%3A+I+admit+I+need+to+start+wearing+a+helmet/article.do
spindrift
<kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 16:18:17 -0700 (PDT), james.de...@googlemail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On May 14, 6:15 pm, Tom Crispin
> ><kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> >> I have heard from a friend that Boris Johnson walked into On Your Bike
> >> in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.
>
> >> Why?
>
> >> The owner of OYB has invited Boris to open his new bike garage in late
> >> June. The new Mayor of London has agreed.
>
> >It would appear that as the Standard's bitch he feel obliged to
> >respond positively to their stupid campaign that he should wear a
> >helmet because why would anybody not do so
>
> >They seem to think he bought it in Evans though.
>
> With the claim that the owner of On Your Bike invited Boris to open
> their new bike garage late next month, I think my source of
> information is more reliable than The Standard's. And OYB is closer
> to City Hall than Evans.
>
>
>
> >http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23484376-details...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
rant mode on/
A rank capitulation to the sinister puppet masters at the Evening
Standard and a craven kow-towing to the pro-helmet lobby, who, as has
been proven, cont p94
rant mode off/
burtthebike
"JNugent" <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote in message
news:H6KdnX-J-cD...@pipex.net...
> Colin McKenzie wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>
> And?
>
> I am well aware that that is the view of some, apparently including you.
>
> I don't know that it is correct, or that the proponents of helmets are
> wrong. I merely note that you say it is correct and that the "other side"
> are wrong.
>
> Others, with on the face of it (I have to say) better qualifications, say
> something different.
Then you don't accept that world renowned professors are qualified to
comment? e.g. John Adams, Robinson, Hillman.
>
> There was a similar long argument about the fitting of seatbelts in motor
> vehicles with more than two wheels. Then a longer one about wearing them.
> For part of the same period, there was a long public argument about
> whether it would be right to force motor-cyclists to wear helmets. This
> helmet business is deja vu all over again.
And the evidence for seatbelts and for motorcycle helmets is extremely weak,
and the seat belt law would probably never have been enacted if the research
commissioned by the DfT's previous incarnation had been released. It's
called the Isles report and there is a copy of it posted on the web, just
google for it. It's conclusions were that there would be a reduction in
deaths and injuries to drivers and front seat passengers, but that there
would be more deaths and injuries to cyclists, pedestrians and rear seat
passengers, more than would be saved, so the overall effect would be
negative. Why do you think this report was suppressed?
>
> I wonder whether the desire to "look cool" plays a part in it.
More like not looking a gullible prat.
>
> As for people - whether influential or not - buying cycle helmets - are
> they under a duty to agree with you (and TC) and to do as you choose to
> so? Or are they free to make up their own minds?
Anybody is free to make up their own mind, but they need to be in possession
of the facts to be able to do so. I've just completed a dissertation on
cycle helmets, on people's perceptions of them and the risks of cycling, and
it appears that many people are influenced by the highly inaccurate
advertising about helmets, all of which exaggerates the risks of cycling and
the effectiveness of helmets. People who think that helmets are effective
also think that cycling is much more dangerous than it is. This advertising
is not done by the manufacturers, they would be prosecuted on advertising
legislation, but by the fanatical do-gooders like BHIT, who still claim that
helmets prevent 85% of head injuries, but they are not alone. That figure
and other unprovable statements and exhortations to wear helmets are
repeated by councils, the DfT, charities and many cyclists themselves.
As an ex-helmet wearer, I and many others were persuaded by the facts:
nowhere that has introduced a helmet law, or where large rises in
helmet-wearing have occurred can show any reduction in risk to cyclists,
only a large fall in the number of cyclists, and therefore a large reduction
in the number of people getting regular daily exercise. Given that it is
much more dangerous not to take exercise than it is to ride a bike, by
somewhere between 20 and 250 to one, the health effects of helmet laws and
promotion are highly negative, and I mean highly. It is utterly incredible
that organisations which claim to be promoting public health, e.g. BMA, not
only supports helmet promotion, but wants a law. Hypocrisy doesn't really
cover it.
Peter Pan
> Both are false and will undermine his efforts, reported elsewhere, to
> increase cycling levels in London.
Here we go again, the fuse has been lit for another 50K message thread
about helmets.
Rob Morley
JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> But more seriously, I
> would tend to treat non-expert and unqualified opinion more
> sceptically than (for instance) that of experienced A&E doctors.
A panel beater sees plenty of bent cars, but would you trust him to do
the job of an accident investigator?
TimB
wrote:
> As an ex-helmet wearer, I and many others were persuaded by the facts:
> nowhere that has introduced a helmet law, or where large rises in
> helmet-wearing have occurred can show any reduction in risk to cyclists,
> only a large fall in the number of cyclists, and therefore a large reduction
> in the number of people getting regular daily exercise. Given that it is
> much more dangerous not to take exercise than it is to ride a bike, by
> somewhere between 20 and 250 to one, the health effects of helmet laws and
> promotion are highly negative, and I mean highly. It is utterly incredible
> that organisations which claim to be promoting public health, e.g. BMA, not
> only supports helmet promotion, but wants a law. Hypocrisy doesn't really
> cover it.
For the umpteenth time, wearing a helmet is not the same as compulsory
helmet wearing. Yes, it's clear that compulsion reduces cycling
levels, forces more people into cars, increases risk and levels of
poor health etc etc. But that's no reason why someone who has a helmet
should not voluntarily wear the thing to cycle. Anything
(well...almost ) that gets more people cycling is good and if they
won't do it without a helmet then let them get on with it, with one.
The BMA etc would only be hypocrites if they knew one thing was
appropriate but did the other because of some hidden agenda. But they
don't. They simply haven't looked at the evidence and thought it
through properly. Ditto the media.
Tim
Rob Morley
TimB <timbu...@onetel.net> wrote:
> For the umpteenth time, wearing a helmet is not the same as compulsory
> helmet wearing.
But it will likely lead to it - as helmets are seen to be more widely
accepted compulsion looms ever nearer.
Roger Merriman
could try redlight jumping or speed cameras!
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Marz
Maybe he wanted to go mountain biking.
JNugent
> "JNugent" <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> Colin McKenzie wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>> And?
>> I am well aware that that is the view of some, apparently including you.
>> I don't know that it is correct, or that the proponents of helmets are
>> wrong. I merely note that you say it is correct and that the "other
>> side" are wrong.
>> Others, with on the face of it (I have to say) better qualifications,
>> say something different.
> Then you don't accept that world renowned professors are qualified to
> comment? e.g. John Adams, Robinson, Hillman.
In what academic disciplines do those no-doubt very distinguished
persons hold chairs?
I ask because obviously, most professors will actually be laymen on this
issue. A friend of mine is a (retired) professor of Greek. How that
qualifies him to speak with authority on anything but Greek would not be
clear (ITSWIM).
>> There was a similar long argument about the fitting of seatbelts in
>> motor vehicles with more than two wheels. Then a longer one about
>> wearing them. For part of the same period, there was a long public
>> argument about whether it would be right to force motor-cyclists to
>> wear helmets. This helmet business is deja vu all over again.
> And the evidence for seatbelts and for motorcycle helmets is extremely
> weak, and the seat belt law would probably never have been enacted if
> the research commissioned by the DfT's previous incarnation had been
> released. It's called the Isles report and there is a copy of it posted
> on the web, just google for it. It's conclusions were that there would
> be a reduction in deaths and injuries to drivers and front seat
> passengers, but that there would be more deaths and injuries to
> cyclists, pedestrians and rear seat passengers, more than would be
> saved, so the overall effect would be negative. Why do you think this
> report was suppressed?
I don't know that it *was* "suppressed", so I would not dream of
attempting an answer to such a loaded question.
You'd probably be better off asking it in alt.conspiracy-theories.
>> I wonder whether the desire to "look cool" plays a part in it.
> More like not looking a gullible prat.
Well, that answers part of the question. Thanks for that.
>> As for people - whether influential or not - buying cycle helmets -
>> are they under a duty to agree with you (and TC) and to do as you
>> choose to so? Or are they free to make up their own minds?
> Anybody is free to make up their own mind, but they need to be in
> possession of the facts to be able to do so.
Why? We don't insist on it in other activities.
And who gets to decide what being in "possession of the facts to be able
to do so" actually means?
[ ... ]
> As an ex-helmet wearer, I and many others were persuaded by the facts:
> nowhere that has introduced a helmet law, or where large rises in
> helmet-wearing have occurred can show any reduction in risk to cyclists,
> only a large fall in the number of cyclists, and therefore a large
> reduction in the number of people getting regular daily exercise. Given
> that it is much more dangerous not to take exercise than it is to ride a
> bike, by somewhere between 20 and 250 to one, the health effects of
> helmet laws and promotion are ...
Yes, yes, yes... I've encountered that line before. It is so precisely
constructed and worded as to smack of evasion and sleight-of-hand (and
I'm not having a go at you for putting it).
But I was hoping it would not be adduced in a sensible discussion,
because it can be distilled down to: "Cycling is good and there must be
as much of it as possible despite all and any of the risks - this means
that no measures which we think might make it look 'uncool' must be
enacted".
One can't argue against that, since it is consciously constructed as an
evasion of the point (by misdirecting attention to a different point).
Similarly, you can't argue for it, since it has no reasonable,
widely-acceptable premise at its base. The BMA apparently doesn't accept
it, for a start.
> highly negative, and I mean highly. It is
> utterly incredible that organisations which claim to be promoting public
> health, e.g. BMA, not only supports helmet promotion, but wants a law.
> Hypocrisy doesn't really cover it.
I'll lay my own cards on the table: I don't really care all that much
about it either way (similarly for motor-cycle helmets).
But I am struck by the similarity of this issue to the dispute (which
raged on for years) about making the wearing of seat-belts (and to a
lesser extent, motor-bike helmets) compulsory. I hardly ever wore a
seat-belt before it was made an offence not to. Now, I don't even think
about it. 25 years have elapsed since then and it's second nature.
I think all the same entrenched positions are on show here. Some used to
argue against belts on the anecdotal basis that a bloke down the pub
once heard of this other bloke who drove into a canal at dead of night
and if he'd been wearing a belt he'd have drowned, etc. It was possible
to translate this: wearing a belt looked uncool. Deja vu.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
If the choice lay between him and a driver who repeatedly bent the cars,
yes.
Rob Morley
JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> Rob Morley wrote:
>
> > A panel beater sees plenty of bent cars, but would you trust him to
> > do the job of an accident investigator?
>
> If the choice lay between him and a driver who repeatedly bent the
> cars, yes.
That would be silly - the choice is between the panel beater and the
insurance claims adjuster.
JNugent
In that different case, the answer is simple: the qualified professional
who understands the issues.
I don't think an accident investigator and an insurance claims adjuster
are necessarily the same thing, BTW.
Pete
> burtthebike wrote:
<snip>
>
>> Then you don't accept that world renowned professors are qualified to
>> comment? e.g. John Adams, Robinson, Hillman.
>
> In what academic disciplines do those no-doubt very distinguished
> persons hold chairs?
>
> I ask because obviously, most professors will actually be laymen on this
> issue. A friend of mine is a (retired) professor of Greek. How that
> qualifies him to speak with authority on anything but Greek would not be
> clear (ITSWIM).
>
A&E doctors are laymen on the issue to a much higher degree. Few of
them will have any experience in the causes of the incidents that they
have to treat, whereas evaluating the accuracy of published research &
statistics is something your average Professor will do, almost by
definition.
John Adams specialises in risk management and is has published work in
this area. That's a pretty good starting point, even if his prime field
is Geography. I haven't checked the others.
Pete
JNugent
> JNugent wrote:
>> burtthebike wrote:
> <snip>
>>> Then you don't accept that world renowned professors are qualified to
>>> comment? e.g. John Adams, Robinson, Hillman.
>> In what academic disciplines do those no-doubt very distinguished
>> persons hold chairs?
>> I ask because obviously, most professors will actually be laymen on
>> this issue. A friend of mine is a (retired) professor of Greek. How
>> that qualifies him to speak with authority on anything but Greek would
>> not be clear (ITSWIM).
> A&E doctors are laymen on the issue to a much higher degree. Few of
> them will have any experience in the causes of the incidents that they
> have to treat, whereas evaluating the accuracy of published research &
> statistics is something your average Professor will do, almost by
> definition.
I agree. That is one reason why any position taken up by organisations
such as the BMA on promoting cycling (in the claimed interests of wider
improvements in health) are automatically of dubious value (because they
ignore so many relevant points and counter-arguments along the way).
> John Adams specialises in risk management and is has published work in
> this area. That's a pretty good starting point, even if his prime field
> is Geography. I haven't checked the others.
Well, maybe.
I'd be more impressed with studies of the effects of accidents on the
micro-scale, rather than the macro-scale. That's why I would tend to
value studies more highly where they are to do with what happened (and
what might or might not happen in slightly different circumstances) in a
particular cohort of injury incidents.
When a researcher's conclusions are drawn rather too widely on the
macro-scale - "Yes, you could protect this rider and that rider but it
might tend to reduce the amount of cycling, which might lead to an
increase in obesity and a reduction in fitness over the next four
decades" - I take the view that this is an unhelpful diversion which is
being twisted to suit different agenda and to misdirect. That sort of
argument would have been laughed at in the context of the debates about
motor-bike helmets and seat-belts. Indeed, similar arguments ("there was
this bloke whose car caught fire and he couldn't get his belt undone")
*were* derided.
burtthebike
"TimB" <timbu...@onetel.net> wrote in message
news:02612b29-e7df-49b3...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
So people who demand a law without bothering to look at the evidence aren't
hypocrites? What are they then? Merely fools perhaps. Fools rush
in.......
Whether they've looked at the evidence or not, they are calling for a law,
and have encouraged helmet-wearing for many years. As a supposedly
reputable and influential body, they really ought to be looking at the
evidence before they adopt such extreme and unjustified positions, otherwise
they are irresponsible, and in terms of public health, hypocritical.
Perhaps you think that a body concerned with public health which adopts
policies which will seriously negatively affect the public health is not
hypocritical. I beg to differ.
TimB
wrote:
> "TimB" <timburf...@onetel.net> wrote in message
I repeat, hypocrisy is a matter of motivation and awareness. They may
be mad, bad and dangerous to listen to, but that isn't necessarily
hypocritical.
Tim
Rob Morley
JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
They are distinctly different roles - you introduced a bad driver
so I thought I'd bring in another character too. The investigator is
concerned with determining exactly what happened and how, the
insurance guy is concerned with the specific damage done but is also
mindful of broader issues of costs and trends.
john....@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 16:17:02 -0700 (PDT), john.sab...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On 14 May, 21:28, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
> >wrote:
>
> >> I have noticed that most London commuters seem to be wearing h*lm*ts
> >> now.
> >If I'd been forced to hazard a guess, I'd have gone for much closer to
> >20%.
> I would estimate that 80% of cyclists we see, and a lot use the A200,
> wear helmets.
I reckon it's a lot lower than that, though well above the 20% I came
up with last night.
My utterly unscientific 'observations' at commuter o'clock this
morning
consisted of counting a couple of small groups as we were bunched
at lights: the first was 5:2 unhelmeted:helmeted, the second was 3:3.
On the way home I forgot to keep any sort of tally at all, but I
reckon
40-50% isn't out of line. (Both journeys along the A200.)
More anecdotal data includes large quantities of hi-vis, and it would
appear that summer commuters pay more attention to red lights
than their winter brethren.
On a totally different note, I saw my first ever Segway today, on the
pavement just up the road from Condor. Its rider? driver? pilot?
obviously took himself *way* too seriously, checking his lights were
on at 4 in the afternoon.
John
Daniel Barlow
> On a totally different note, I saw my first ever Segway today, on the
> pavement just up the road from Condor. Its rider? driver? pilot?
> obviously took himself *way* too seriously, checking his lights were
> on at 4 in the afternoon.
There was a segway rider making a tit of himself on one of the london
streetskates a few years ago. How we laughed when his battery went
flat halfway around.
-dan
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> said in
<4d7m24tg6dqh0rob0...@4ax.com>:
>I have heard from a friend that Boris Johnson walked into On Your Bike
>in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.
Because Jon Snow, a Liddite, has been goading him.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Mark
wrote:
IIRC a government minister stated that they would wait until the
number of people volatarily wearing helmets reached a certain level
before making them mandatory. So, by choosing to wear a helmet, you
are bringing the law closer whether you like it or not.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org
Mark
What? How can results on a "micro-scale" be more useful. Cherry
picking a few anecdotes to support one's case is not appropriate.
_
It's very useful if you wish to support a position which is not supported
by facts.
JNugent
I agree with the thrust of that and did not suggest otherwise.
Medical studies should concentrate on injuries which have taken place
(or not) and how the incidents would have turned out with (or without)
protective equipment.
JNugent
Indeed. And that is why "arguments" about the alleged disadvantages of
protective equipment are analagous to those old public-bar tales of the
Bloke Who Ended Up In The Canal In A Burning Car And Couldn't Undo The
Seat-Belt. That was all about not wanting to look uncool too.
And if a resercher carrying out a study into the efficacy of protective
equipment wants to produce meaningful result, he should simply
concentrate on the simple matter in hand - whether protective equipment
(of whatever sort, in whatever context) minimises or obviates injury.
Any thoughts he might have about about collateral effects of being
required to behave differently are nothing to do with his study.
john....@gmail.com
> > >On 14 May, 21:28, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
> > >> I have noticed that most London commuters seem to be wearing h*lm*ts
> > >> now.
> > I would estimate that 80% of cyclists we see, and a lot use the A200,
> > wear helmets.
> I reckon 40-50% isn't out of line.
This evening's count was 30:24 in favour of bare heads for
bicycle users between Tower Bridge and Charlton. Strip
out the 8 unhelmeted pavement-cycling yoofs and the
balance switches to a bare majority of helmet wearers.
Helmet wearing does not, on this sample, seem to act as
a predictor of cycling behaviour. However, pavement
cycling on the one hand, and timorous gutter-hugging
on the other, do seem to offer an accurate prediction
for helmet wearing.
John
Tom Crispin
>On 16 May, 00:12, john.sab...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >On 14 May, 21:28, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
>
>> > >> I have noticed that most London commuters seem to be wearing h*lm*ts
>> > >> now.
>> > I would estimate that 80% of cyclists we see, and a lot use the A200,
>> > wear helmets.
>> I reckon 40-50% isn't out of line.
>
>This evening's count was 30:24 in favour of bare heads for
>bicycle users between Tower Bridge and Charlton. Strip
>out the 8 unhelmeted pavement-cycling yoofs and the
>balance switches to a bare majority of helmet wearers.
Interesting.
I cycled from Tooley Street (London Bridge) to Lee at 5pm (I live a
few doors down, and on the same road, as the infamous "butchery in the
bakery" murder of last Saturday).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7394025.stm
The route I chose was on the north side of the Thames, crossing the
river at Tower Bridge, then through St Katherine's Dock, Limehouse
Basin, and Docklands, and crossing the Thames again at the Greenwich
Foot Tunnel, through Greenwich Park then across Blackheath 'til I
arrived home.
Helmeted cyclists: 48
Unhelmeted cyclists: 21
I am confident that this is a fairly accurate count, and includes all
cyclists whether on the pavement or not.
I forgot to count cyclists on my journey to London Bridge.
burtthebike
"JNugent" <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote in message
news:14KdnSfiOt5eLrDV...@pipex.net...
Fundamentally incorrect. Responsible medical research will look into any
unintended side effects as well as the intended effect, so why should
investigation into "protective equipment" be any different? Iny your world,
something would be effective if it protected a single person, but killed
thousands in side effects, which is pretty much what cycle helmets do,
without any evidence that they have protected a single person of course.
You seem to think that anecdotal evidence should be taken into account when
it is pro "protective equipment" but not when it is anti. The case for
cycle helmets is pretty much based on anecdote, apart from some extremely
weak research which has never been repeated, but the evidence against their
effectiveness is both robust and repeated.
BTW, cycle helmets have been specifically excluded by the H&S Executive from
being defined as "protective equipment".
Toby Sleigh
"Tom Crispin" <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
news:4d7m24tg6dqh0rob0...@4ax.com...
>I have heard from a friend that Boris Johnson walked into On Your Bike
> in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.
>
"Boris Johnson has blown it already
The Mayor should never, ever, have agreed to wear a cycling helmet. Doesn't
he get why?"
Complete article here;
http://tinyurl.com/3v5oy8
Rob Morley
JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> And if a resercher carrying out a study into the efficacy of
> protective equipment wants to produce meaningful result, he should
> simply concentrate on the simple matter in hand - whether protective
> equipment (of whatever sort, in whatever context) minimises or
> obviates injury. Any thoughts he might have about about collateral
> effects of being required to behave differently are nothing to do
> with his study.
That is just plain wrong - you can't ignore factors like risk
compensation without invalidating the results.
_
You can if you're JNugent.
JNugent
> "JNugent" <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote in message
[ ... ]
>> And if a resercher carrying out a study into the efficacy of
>> protective equipment wants to produce meaningful result, he should
>> simply concentrate on the simple matter in hand - whether protective
>> equipment (of whatever sort, in whatever context) minimises or
>> obviates injury. Any thoughts he might have about about collateral
>> effects of being required to behave differently are nothing to do with
>> his study.
> Fundamentally incorrect. Responsible medical research will look into
> any unintended side effects as well as the intended effect, so why
> should investigation into "protective equipment" be any different? Iny
> your world, something would be effective if it protected a single
> person, but killed thousands in side effects, which is pretty much what
> cycle helmets do, without any evidence that they have protected a single
> person of course. You seem to think that anecdotal evidence should be
> taken into account when it is pro "protective equipment" but not when it
> is anti. The case for cycle helmets is pretty much based on anecdote,
> apart from some extremely weak research which has never been repeated,
> but the evidence against their effectiveness is both robust and repeated.
"Responsible medical research" is just a phrase you are using in order
to try to invalidate medical research.
Sociology *isn't* medicine and sociological observations and guesses do
not constitute medical research.
> BTW, cycle helmets have been specifically excluded by the H&S Executive
> from being defined as "protective equipment".
Does that mean that the words have lost their ordinary everyday English
meanings?
JNugent
"Risk compensation"?
*Is* there any evidence that cyclists of similar experience and skills
will crash more often while wearing a helmet than they do without them?
If there isn't, what are you talking about?
JNugent
Do you actually have any evidence (or can you point to any evidence)
that a cyclists of similar skill and experience levels will cycle more
dangerously whilst wearing helmets?
Or is that bit just made up, in furtherance of the "Don't Make Us Wear
Helmets - They're SO Uncool" campaign?
Don't forget, we've had all this before, twice within easy living
memory, with seatbelts and motor-bike helmets. The opponents (I was one
of them in the case of seatbelts) were wrong then and they're probably
wrong now.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<toby....@gmail.com> said in <8NydnXGSH6i...@bt.com>:
>
>"Boris Johnson has blown it already
>The Mayor should never, ever, have agreed to wear a cycling helmet. Doesn't
>he get why?"
>Complete article here;
>http://tinyurl.com/3v5oy8
Cracking read :-) Misses the point a bit (since plastic hats are
not a defence against the feared consequences, and cycling is not
actually dangerous anyway), but spot on in that outright defiance is
the best response to handwringers and nannies.
burtthebike
"JNugent" <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote in message
Sorry everyone, I'd forgotten what a lifeless troll JNugent was.
Rob Morley
I don't know - we're discussing possible research and factors that
might affect the outcome, and until the research has been done we won't
know which are the significant factors so all possible aspects of the
situation must be considered.
>
> If there isn't, what are you talking about?
What about that study that might have shown that car drivers give
helmeted cyclists less room?
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>> JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>>> And if a resercher carrying out a study into the efficacy of
>>>> protective equipment wants to produce meaningful result, he should
>>>> simply concentrate on the simple matter in hand - whether
>>>> protective equipment (of whatever sort, in whatever context)
>>>> minimises or obviates injury. Any thoughts he might have about
>>>> about collateral effects of being required to behave differently
>>>> are nothing to do with his study.
>>> That is just plain wrong - you can't ignore factors like risk
>>> compensation without invalidating the results.
>> "Risk compensation"?
>> *Is* there any evidence that cyclists of similar experience and
>> skills will crash more often while wearing a helmet than they do
>> without them?
> I don't know - we're discussing possible research and factors that
> might affect the outcome, and until the research has been done we won't
> know which are the significant factors so all possible aspects of the
> situation must be considered
So there's no evidence of a risk compensation aspect?
>> If there isn't, what are you talking about?
> What about that study that might have shown that car drivers give
> helmeted cyclists less room?
What about it?
Who did it? At what level in the academic pecking order (I take it that
it was condicted at a university or by a respected research
institution)? What were their methods? What was the evidence? What were
their conclusions? Is any other branch of academia taking it seriously?
Is anything else going to happen about it or has it all been quietly
forgotten?
Nick Kew
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 09:10:59 +0100, "Toby Sleigh"
> <toby....@gmail.com> said in <8NydnXGSH6i...@bt.com>:
>
> >
> >"Boris Johnson has blown it already
> >The Mayor should never, ever, have agreed to wear a cycling helmet.
> >Doesn't he get why?"
> >Complete article here;
> >http://tinyurl.com/3v5oy8
>
> Cracking read :-) Misses the point a bit (since plastic hats are
> not a defence against the feared consequences, and cycling is not
> actually dangerous anyway), but spot on in that outright defiance is
> the best response to handwringers and nannies.
Um, doesn't miss the point at all. He's making a point that
is neither pro- nor anti- cyclehelmets as such: they're just
a hook to hang a little rant on. And as a high-flyin' London
journo, he presumably knows Boris. Looks like a bit of a
ribbing, and doubtless has an "in-joke" layer that's
obscure to ordinary folks like us.
--
not me guv
PK
news:20080518042523.618330af@bluemoon...
>>
> What about that study that might have shown that car drivers give
> helmeted cyclists less room?
>
Junk science (researcher using himself as test subject and lack of proper
experimental controls) with about as much credibility as the 85% helmet
report
Just zis Guy, you know?
<designer...@yahoo.com> said in
<W8GdnbEJZ8Q3rK3V...@bt.com>:
>Junk science (researcher using himself as test subject and lack of proper
>experimental controls) with about as much credibility as the 85% helmet
>report
No, just a very small sample size. He made the same journey with
and without, a number of times, so it's not obvious what controls
you'd want in addition. Too small to draw any robust inference, but
at least the measurements stand up to scrutiny and the assumptions
are not contradicted by his own published results elsewhere. So
more credible than TR&T (as if that would be hard).
JNugent
IOW, even if it's correct, it's merely anecdotal. Not a "study" at all,
in the accepted sense of that term.
Mark McNeill
> >Junk science (researcher using himself as test subject and lack of proper
> >experimental controls) with about as much credibility as the 85% helmet
> >report
>
> No, just a very small sample size. He made the same journey with
> and without, a number of times, so it's not obvious what controls
> you'd want in addition. Too small to draw any robust inference, but
> at least the measurements stand up to scrutiny and the assumptions
> are not contradicted by his own published results elsewhere. So
> more credible than TR&T (as if that would be hard).
Funded by the Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council,
researched by Dr Ian Wilson at Bath University, and published in
"Accident Analysis & Prevention"; not that any of that guarantees robust
science, but since JNugent has contributed nothing to this discussion
except the appeal to authority argument, it's possible he may find
something there to be impressed by. ;-)
As to sample size, the data relating to helmets are derived from
interaction with more than two thousand vehicles. By comparison, TR&T's
paper was based on 235 patients with head injuries, and two control
groups of 433 and 558.
Dr Wilson's findings are consistent with TRL549, "Drivers? perceptions
of cyclists", which reported that motorists regard helmeted cyclists as
being on average more predictable than unhelmeted cyclists; and that
motorists are likely to pass unhelmeted cyclists with more room and less
speed.
Auto sig is appropriate for a helmet thread. ;-)
--
Mark, UK
"The War Office kept three sets of figures - one to mislead the public,
another to mislead the Cabinet and the third to mislead itself."
Tom Crispin
For once I tend to agree with you. It's not much more than anecdotal.
Still, anecdotal evidence is preferable to fundamentally flawed
conclusions.
JNugent
> Response to Just zis Guy, you know?
>>> Junk science (researcher using himself as test subject and lack of proper
>>> experimental controls) with about as much credibility as the 85% helmet
>>> report
>> No, just a very small sample size. He made the same journey with
>> and without, a number of times, so it's not obvious what controls
>> you'd want in addition.
What checks were in place to assess differences in his own behaviour
when wearing a helmet as compared with when not wearing a helmet?
Were there any?
Can you see the obvious difficulty if there weren't?
>> Too small to draw any robust inference, but
>> at least the measurements stand up to scrutiny and the assumptions
>> are not contradicted by his own published results elsewhere. So
>> more credible than TR&T (as if that would be hard).
> Funded by the Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council,
> researched by Dr Ian Wilson at Bath University, and published in
> "Accident Analysis & Prevention"; not that any of that guarantees robust
> science, but since JNugent has contributed nothing to this discussion
> except the appeal to authority argument, it's possible he may find
> something there to be impressed by. ;-)
The so-called "appeal to authority argument" is no more than a request
that "research" is assessed on its scientific merits - if any.
Sir Jeremy
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 09:10:59 +0100, "Toby Sleigh"
>
>
>
> >"Boris Johnson has blown it already
> >The Mayor should never, ever, have agreed to wear a cycling helmet. Doesn't
> >he get why?"
> >Complete article here;
> >http://tinyurl.com/3v5oy8
>
> Cracking read :-) Misses the point a bit (since plastic hats are
> not a defence against the feared consequences, and cycling is not
> actually dangerous anyway), but spot on in that outright defiance is
> the best response to handwringers and nannies.
>
> Guy
> --
>
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Quite agree, which is why I ignore the motorway speed limit
Daniel Barlow
> What checks were in place to assess differences in his own behaviour
> when wearing a helmet as compared with when not wearing a helmet?
>
> Were there any?
>
> Can you see the obvious difficulty if there weren't?
What, you think he might be unconsciously changing his behaviour
according to his perception of the risk involved? Hmm. I wonder if
there's a name for that phenomenon.
-dan
Rob Morley
JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> So there's no evidence of a risk compensation aspect?
Just as there's no evidence that wearing a helmet significantly
mitigates serious head injuries.
>
> >> If there isn't, what are you talking about?
>
> > What about that study that might have shown that car drivers give
> > helmeted cyclists less room?
>
> What about it?
>
It's research that suggested a risk compensation effect associated
with helmet wearing. That's what we're discussing - safety, helmets,
research ...
JNugent
Yes - junk science.
JNugent
Proper, controlled, scientific research - or just any old subjective and
anecdotal observation from which it it is just about possible to refine
a position in accordance with the already-drawn conclusions?
john....@gmail.com
wrote:
> >This evening's count was 30:24 in favour of bare heads for
> >bicycle users between Tower Bridge and Charlton.
> The route I chose was on the north side of the Thames, crossing the
> river at Tower Bridge, then through St Katherine's Dock, Limehouse
> Basin, and Docklands, and crossing the Thames again at the Greenwich
> Foot Tunnel, through Greenwich Park then across Blackheath 'til I
> arrived home.
>
> Helmeted cyclists: 48
> Unhelmeted cyclists: 21
Curious disparity: I wonder if it's to do with different sorts
of roads?
If your route was predominantly along the riverside or through
Wapping, maybe cyclists using less trafficed routes are more
likely to be helmeted? (Likely to be that helmeted riders choose
less traffic, I guess.) Of course,if your route was along the
Highway then this speculation falls.
John
Just zis Guy, you know?
<pete...@virgin.net> said in
<972ebf40-71cf-44b5...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>Quite agree, which is why I ignore the motorway speed limit
Your sociopathic response to laws limiting the danger you pose to
others has no obvious relevance to handwringers demanding illusory
protection against a not terribly significant risk.
JNugent
> Sir Jeremy <pete...@virgin.net>:
>> Quite agree, which is why I ignore the motorway speed limit
> Your sociopathic response to laws limiting the danger you pose to
> others has no obvious relevance to handwringers demanding illusory
> protection against a not terribly significant risk.
That reminds me of the judge's remarks (quoted in "What The Papers
Didn't Mean To Say" ed. Fritz Spiegl; Scouser Press 1965):
"I think it inexcusable it was not said this clothing had no trace of
petrol on it. I hope this practice of not mentioning negative findings
is not common and will never be repeated".
Tom Crispin
My route was through St Katherine's Dock then along the canals and
river to Canary Wharf. At that point helmets were outnumbering
unhelmeted by about 4:1 or 5:1. I then took the main commuter route
to the Greenwich Foot Tunnel (GFT), and by the time I got there the
ratio had dropped to about 3:1. In Greenwich Park I saw at least 6
unhelmeted children and teenagers riding on the footpaths.
Helmets seem most popular with off-road commuters and least popular
with recreational cyclists.
Sir Jeremy
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 14:56:53 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> <972ebf40-71cf-44b5-8490-63c3dd2a0...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >Quite agree, which is why I ignore the motorway speed limit
>
> Your sociopathic response to laws limiting the danger you pose to
> others has no obvious relevance to handwringers demanding illusory
> protection against a not terribly significant risk.
>
> Guy
> --
>
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Ironic really isn't it?
You and Spindrift can probably dig up some bogus statistic to show
that I (and just about everyone else on Britains motorways) are
putting millions of lives at risk by travelling at illegal (>70mph)
speeds. Yet there's no political will to do much about us.
On the other hand there's growing political will to impose helmets on
cyclists and your bleatings will no difference at all.
Rob Morley
JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> Proper, controlled, scientific research - or just any old subjective
> and anecdotal observation from which it it is just about possible to
> refine a position in accordance with the already-drawn conclusions?
Given your espousal of deliberately blinkered research into the
effectiveness of helmets I suspect that as far as you're concerned
anything you agree with falls into the first category and anything you
disagree with falls into the second.
Rob Morley
Do you think you got away with that?
The Luggage
> Medical studies should concentrate on injuries which have taken place
> (or not) and how the incidents would have turned out with (or without)
> protective equipment
Just how do you propose this can be done? If someone has an accident
while wearing a helmet, should they go back out and do it again
without one to see if they die next time?
Attempting to do physical modelling on helmet performance doesn't work
either as there are too many factors that are not well enough
understood. Rotational brain injury is probably a good example.
So perhaps the best way of analysing helmet effectiveness might be to
look at large groups of people where, for example the rate of helmet
wearing has changed significantly, and then looking at the accident
statistics before & after. Yes, there will be a number of confounding
factors, including levels of cycling, changes in driver behaviour etc.
However, for a big enough change in a single factor, it should be
possible at least to correlate an effect even if you can't prove a
causal relationship.
Funnily enough this data is available, and has been analysed. It
showed that there was no discernible effect from wearing helmets.
TL
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> Medical studies should concentrate on injuries which have taken place
>> (or not) and how the incidents would have turned out with (or without)
>> protective equipment
> Just how do you propose this can be done? If someone has an accident
> while wearing a helmet, should they go back out and do it again
> without one to see if they die next time?
Is that what is done for other types of accident injury, then?
Of course not. So why do you ask such a silly, strawman, question?
> Attempting to do physical modelling on helmet performance doesn't work
> either as there are too many factors that are not well enough
> understood. Rotational brain injury is probably a good example.
> So perhaps the best way of analysing helmet effectiveness might be to
> look at large groups of people where, for example the rate of helmet
> wearing has changed significantly, and then looking at the accident
> statistics before & after. Yes, there will be a number of confounding
> factors, including levels of cycling, changes in driver behaviour etc.
> However, for a big enough change in a single factor, it should be
> possible at least to correlate an effect even if you can't prove a
> causal relationship.
Yes, that might be one way of doing it. Looking at comparable accident
outcomes (yes, there will be a number of problems in comparison) is
another. There may be more methods than those two.
> Funnily enough this data is available, and has been analysed. It
> showed that there was no discernible effect from wearing helmets.
In that case, what have you to worry about? The government won't insist
that you look uncool for nothing, will they?
JNugent
With what?
Anecdote is not science. It is one of the first things that any fresher
is warned agaisnt.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
I do say that medical research should concentrate on medical matters and
should leave anecdotal sociology to the er... sociologists.
You disagree, I take it?
robindoug...@googlemail.com
Yes, but it's also likely he was unconsciously changing his behaviour
according to his expectation of the results. If he'd started with the
suspicion that cars passed helmeted cyclists with *more* room, it's
possible he'd have unconsciously ridden closer to the gutter when
wearing the thing.
(I'm convinced that helmets are useless, but give the devil his due
and all that.)
Robin Johnson
Rob Morley
The effectiveness of helmets cannot be evaluated simply by looking at
the medical outcome of some accidents and speculating what might have
happened differently, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
JNugent
As Mr Hansen would say: "Nice try".
I am suggesting nothing of the sort, as you well know.
Accidents which occur with and without helmets are what need to be
compared. Facts compared with facts.
"Speculation" (in terms of unidentified people being allegedly put off
cycling in the future by a future requirement to use helmets) is what
the sociology fans would prefer to see.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<pete...@virgin.net> said in
<bd90611f-3f31-40ed...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>> Your sociopathic response to laws limiting the danger you pose to
>> others has no obvious relevance to handwringers demanding illusory
>> protection against a not terribly significant risk.
> You and Spindrift can probably dig up some bogus statistic to show
>that I (and just about everyone else on Britains motorways) are
>putting millions of lives at risk by travelling at illegal (>70mph)
>speeds. Yet there's no political will to do much about us.
Not sure what the supposed relevance of that comment is. The link
between speed and both risk and severity of collisions is well
established.
>On the other hand there's growing political will to impose helmets on
>cyclists and your bleatings will no difference at all.
No, not really. The political will is at least as lacking now as it
has ever been. The 1980s and early 1990s was the peak time for
that, the present Government has repeatedly made it clear that it
does not view it as a productive subject for legislation. A few
(mainly non-cycling) zealots does not amount to anything much, other
than a continued nuisance.
Ever seen a picture of Britain's leading helmet promoter?
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Angela_Lee
The Luggage
> The Luggage wrote:
> > Funnily enough this data is available, and has been analysed. It
> > showed that there was no discernible effect from wearing helmets.
>
> In that case, what have you to worry about? The government won't insist
> that you look uncool for nothing, will they?
Apprently, yes they will. It has already been stated that compulsion
will be considered once enough people wear helmets voluntarily.
Despite the existence of the evidence I have mentioned.
And my choice not to wear a helmet has zilch to do with looking
'uncool'. As an engineer, I'm much more interested in whether it has
any benefit than in how it might look to me or others. Since the
evidence appears not to back up any health benefit claims, I choose
not to wear one because I find them inconvenient and uncomfortable. If
there was a benefit, that would outweigh considerations of comfort or
convenience, as it does with my use of hi-vis clothing, lights etc.
TL
JNugent
That's more or less what people used to say about seatbelts.
I remember a newspaper article reporting a "study" which purported to
show that a passenger strapping in was expressing lack of confidence in
the driver and that a driver fastening his seatbelt was subconsciously
preparing for an accident. Anything rather than admit a desire not to
look uncool.
Sir Jeremy
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 14:36:57 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> <bd90611f-3f31-40ed-ba23-8d4e848fc...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> Your sociopathic response to laws limiting the danger you pose to
> >> others has no obvious relevance to handwringers demanding illusory
> >> protection against a not terribly significant risk.
> > You and Spindrift can probably dig up some bogus statistic to show
> >that I (and just about everyone else on Britains motorways) are
> >putting millions of lives at risk by travelling at illegal (>70mph)
> >speeds. Yet there's no political will to do much about us.
>
> Not sure what the supposed relevance of that comment is. The link
> between speed and both risk and severity of collisions is well
> established.
>
> >On the other hand there's growing political will to impose helmets on
> >cyclists and your bleatings will no difference at all.
>
> No, not really. The political will is at least as lacking now as it
> has ever been. The 1980s and early 1990s was the peak time for
> that, the present Government has repeatedly made it clear that it
> does not view it as a productive subject for legislation. A few
> (mainly non-cycling) zealots does not amount to anything much, other
> than a continued nuisance.
>
> Ever seen a picture of Britain's leading helmet promoter?
>
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Angela_Lee
>
One shouldn't laugh, she is doubtless a nice lady and very sincere
Just zis Guy, you know?
<pete...@virgin.net> said in
<1c9da9e8-8fe1-4440...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Angela_Lee
>One shouldn't laugh, she is doubtless a nice lady and very sincere
Sincere, for sure, but a lot of people have called her vicious and
ruthless - and not the cycling crowd, either, families she's tried
to coerce into acting as poster children.
burtthebike
"Sir Jeremy" <pete...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1c9da9e8-8fe1-4440...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 20 May, 23:23, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 14:36:57 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> <pete.a...@virgin.net> said in
> <bd90611f-3f31-40ed-ba23-8d4e848fc...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Angela_Lee
>
One shouldn't laugh, she is doubtless a nice lady and very sincere
Roads to hell are paved with do-gooder intentions.
John Kane
<kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:55:02 +0100, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> >PK wrote:
> >> "Rob Morley" <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >>news:20080518042523.618330af@bluemoon...
>
> >>> What about that study that might have shown that car drivers give
> >>> helmeted cyclists less room?
>
> >> proper experimental controls) with about as much credibility as the 85%
> >> helmet report
>
> >IOW, even if it's correct, it's merely anecdotal. Not a "study" at all,
> >in the accepted sense of that term.
>
> For once I tend to agree with you. It's not much more than anecdotal.
> Still, anecdotal evidence is preferable to fundamentally flawed
> conclusions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I disagree with the anecdotal. If you read the paper it is
considerably more than that but at the very best it has to be
considered only crude pilot.
Still as it stands, it's the only paper I've seen that even attempts
to study the issue and deserves some praise for that ( plus for
getting a respectable granting agency to fund it).
John Kane Kingston ON Canada
John Kane Kingston ON Canada
Dave Larrington
burtthebike <burtt...@blueyonder.co.uk> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:
I'm sure $DICTATOR was very nice and sincere too, as long as one happened to
agree with him.
Do you see what I did there? Eh? EH??
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Drugs are good, except when they kill you.
Mark
<smert.s...@privacy.net> wrote:
>In news:UrZYj.29871$ie5....@newsfe05.ams2,
>burtthebike <burtt...@blueyonder.co.uk> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
>tell us:
>> "Sir Jeremy" <pete...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>> news:1c9da9e8-8fe1-4440...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> On 20 May, 23:23, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 14:36:57 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
>>> <pete.a...@virgin.net> said in
>>> <bd90611f-3f31-40ed-ba23-8d4e848fc...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>>>
>>>
>>> Ever seen a picture of Britain's leading helmet promoter?
>>>
>>> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Angela_Lee
>>>
>>
>> One shouldn't laugh, she is doubtless a nice lady and very sincere
>
>I'm sure $DICTATOR was very nice and sincere too, as long as one happened to
>agree with him.
>
>Do you see what I did there? Eh? EH??
One for the *nix shell script programmers??
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org
Just zis Guy, you know?
<69kncsF...@mid.individual.net>:
>I'm sure $DICTATOR was very nice and sincere too, as long as one happened to
>agree with him.
>
>Do you see what I did there? Eh? EH??
/me has an email from Mike Godwin stashed away somewhere...
Sir Jeremy
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 05:43:45 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> <1c9da9e8-8fe1-4440-bbd1-2d0bff4f4...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >>http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Angela_Lee
> >One shouldn't laugh, she is doubtless a nice lady and very sincere
>
> Sincere, for sure, but a lot of people have called her vicious and
> ruthless - and not the cycling crowd, either, families she's tried
> to coerce into acting as poster children.
>
> Guy
> --
>
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Never heard of her before now, and can't say whether she's justified
in her stance. This NG is quick to villify anyone they don't agree
with though
Rob Morley
JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> Rob Morley wrote:
> > The effectiveness of helmets cannot be evaluated simply by looking
> > at the medical outcome of some accidents and speculating what might
> > have happened differently, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
>
> As Mr Hansen would say: "Nice try".
>
> I am suggesting nothing of the sort, as you well know.
I know nothing of the sort. If you intended to convey a different
message it wasn't apparent.
>
> Accidents which occur with and without helmets are what need to be
> compared. Facts compared with facts.
The cycling population as a whole is what needs to be studied -
studying only accidents is looking at effects rather than causes.
>
> "Speculation" (in terms of unidentified people being allegedly put
> off cycling in the future by a future requirement to use helmets) is
> what the sociology fans would prefer to see.
>
I'm talking about what happens now in terms of cyclist and
driver attitudes and behaviour, and whether helmet use has a
significant influence on these.
Peter Clinch
> As Mr Hansen would say: "Nice try".
>
> I am suggesting nothing of the sort, as you well know.
>
> Accidents which occur with and without helmets are what need to be
> compared. Facts compared with facts.
If you think it's that simple then you're mistaken. If you compare a
helmeted crash with an unhelmeted crash and expect anything useful out
of the comparison then you need to be sure that all possible factors are
equivalent, which is as good as impossible, and that the crashes are
representative of crashes that are typical in the population as a whole,
which is as good as impossible.
In short, even if you could design suitable experiments (and I doubt
that you can) you're not actually going to learn anything much about
crashes people actually have and how they are affected.
> "Speculation" (in terms of unidentified people being allegedly put off
> cycling in the future by a future requirement to use helmets) is what
> the sociology fans would prefer to see.
ITYM Epidemiology, which is used because it works better than the
alternatives. And it's not the "sociology fans", it's the mass public
health experts.
(As Mr. Hansen would say: "Nice try".)
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/
Just zis Guy, you know?
<pete...@virgin.net> said in
<ab45a0cc-c3c3-474a...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
[ob. Angie Lee]
>Never heard of her before now, and can't say whether she's justified
>in her stance. This NG is quick to villify anyone they don't agree
>with though
No, she is not justified in her stance, as most of us are fully
aware (see http://www.cyclehelmets.org for some examples of why
she's wrong, the fact that she continues to state falsehoods after
their falsity has been pointed out is a large part of her problem).
I don't think this group is given to vilifying those who disagree,
only those who continue to assert extreme positions after
significant problems with them have been pointed out. Paul Smith is
a case in point here: lengthy attempts were made to engage in
reasoned debate before it became apparent that he lacked any ability
to challenge his own preconceptions.
I have seen several people come here as helmet advocates and change
their minds, which does not indicate to me a dismissive attitude to
those who disagree, but rather one of engaging and informing.
Since most of the uk.tosspot trolls who come here, do so in order to
"inform" us that we are wrong about many of the choices we make on a
daily basis, and show absolutely no willingness to accept that the
choices we make are valid for us, it is unsurprising that their
input is often met with a swift rebuff.
Mark T
>>Never heard of her before now, and can't say whether she's justified
>>in her stance. This NG is quick to villify anyone they don't agree
>>with though
>
> No, she is not justified in her stance, as most of us are fully
> aware (see [snippity]
Wow, that was a well reasoned, calmly thought out post.
<reads next post on newsreader>
/ "By examining the turds which emanate form the place from which you
/ normally speak and thus (correctly) identifying that you are a
/ worthless trolling fuckwit."
Ah, that's more like it.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
said in <Xns9AADE492...@130.133.1.4>:
>Wow, that was a well reasoned, calmly thought out post.
>
><reads next post on newsreader>
>
>/ "By examining the turds which emanate form the place from which you
>/ normally speak and thus (correctly) identifying that you are a
>/ worthless trolling fuckwit."
>
>Ah, that's more like it.
The posts are tailored to the apparent intellect of the person to
whom I am responding, obviously :-)