Mark Porter in Evening Standard

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Evening Standard's 'Medical Notes' by Mark Porter, yesterday I
believe:

"Why as a doctor I'd prefer my kids to ride without a helmet than
not at all.

"Our resident GP enters the headgear debate and takes a surprisingly
outspoken stance, backed by the facts"

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

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
Just zis Guy, you know? > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> Evening Standard's 'Medical Notes' by Mark Porter, yesterday I
> believe:
>
> "Why as a doctor I'd prefer my kids to ride without a helmet than
> not at all.
>
> "Our resident GP enters the headgear debate and takes a surprisingly
> outspoken stance, backed by the facts"

Facts? Evening Standard?

It's the End Times, I tells 'e!

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Life - loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it.

[Mark McNeill[_2_]]

Response to Just zis Guy, you know?
> Evening Standard's 'Medical Notes' by Mark Porter, yesterday I
> believe:
>
> "Why as a doctor I'd prefer my kids to ride without a helmet than
> not at all.
>
> "Our resident GP enters the headgear debate and takes a surprisingly
> outspoken stance, backed by the facts"



He's got another article out of it today (and good luck to him!):

http://living.scotsman.com/features/Medical-notes-Don39t-let-
helmets.4268320.jp

http://tinyurl.com/5lfh8w


Some interesting stuff in there -

"children are four times more likely
to suffer a head injury as a pedestrian than when they are on their
bikes (so why don't we make them wear helmets when they are walking
along the pavement?)"


I'd not heard that before, and on the face of it, it seems unlikely
without some statistical finagling; I'd be curious to know the source.


--
Mark, UK
"I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people
who believe it."

[bugbear]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Evening Standard's 'Medical Notes' by Mark Porter, yesterday I
> believe:
>
> "Why as a doctor I'd prefer my kids to ride without a helmet than
> not at all.
>
> "Our resident GP enters the headgear debate and takes a surprisingly
> outspoken stance, backed by the facts"

bloody hell.

BugBear

[Roger Merriman]

Dave Larrington > wrote:

> In ,
> Just zis Guy, you know? > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> > Evening Standard's 'Medical Notes' by Mark Porter, yesterday I
> > believe:
> >
> > "Why as a doctor I'd prefer my kids to ride without a helmet than
> > not at all.
> >
> > "Our resident GP enters the headgear debate and takes a surprisingly
> > outspoken stance, backed by the facts"
>
> Facts? Evening Standard?
>
> It's the End Times, I tells 'e!

like the register it's not red topped for nuffing! equally quite
enjoyable in a B movie kind of way on times.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Roger Merriman]

Mark McNeill > wrote:

> Response to Just zis Guy, you know?
> > Evening Standard's 'Medical Notes' by Mark Porter, yesterday I
> > believe:
> >
> > "Why as a doctor I'd prefer my kids to ride without a helmet than
> > not at all.
> >
> > "Our resident GP enters the headgear debate and takes a surprisingly
> > outspoken stance, backed by the facts"
>
>
>
> He's got another article out of it today (and good luck to him!):
>
> <http://living.scotsman.com/features/Medical-notes-Don39t-let-
> helmets.4268320.jp>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5lfh8w
>
>
> Some interesting stuff in there -
>
> "children are four times more likely
> to suffer a head injury as a pedestrian than when they are on their
> bikes (so why don't we make them wear helmets when they are walking
> along the pavement?)"
>
>
> I'd not heard that before, and on the face of it, it seems unlikely
> without some statistical finagling; I'd be curious to know the source.

more likely to fall over on to side maybe? also spend more time walking
than biking?

i spose the question is how and where? they get head injurys?

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Ekul Namsob]

Mark McNeill > wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/5lfh8w

Crikey!

Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 9 Jul, Mark McNeill > wrote:
>
> He's got another article out of it today (and good luck to him!):
>
> http://living.scotsman.com/features/Medical-notes-Don39t-let-
> helmets.4268320.jp
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5lfh8w
>
>
> Some interesting stuff in there -
>
> "children are four times more likely
> to suffer a head injury as a pedestrian than when they are on their
> bikes (so why don't we make them wear helmets when they are walking
> along the pavement?)"
>
> I'd not heard that before, and on the face of it, it seems unlikely
> without some statistical finagling; I'd be curious to know the source.

It sounds perfectly believable to me - and I would not have been
surprised at even higher. Cycling and walking are not dangerous of
tehmselves, what is dangerous is being in close proximity to motor
vehicles driven with teh level of 'care' with which they are sometimes
driven.

The risk of serious head injury per unit time is basically the same
for walking along teh road as for cycling along teh road - the
predominant effect is just the amount of time you are within striking
distance of a moving motor vehicle.

It's perfectly believable that the average child spends four times as
much time as a pedestrian as a cyclist.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Mark McNeill[_2_]]

Response to Ian Smith
> > "children are four times more likely
> > to suffer a head injury as a pedestrian than when they are on their
> > bikes (so why don't we make them wear helmets when they are walking
> > along the pavement?)"
> >
> > I'd not heard that before, and on the face of it, it seems unlikely
> > without some statistical finagling; I'd be curious to know the source.
>
> It sounds perfectly believable to me - and I would not have been
> surprised at even higher. Cycling and walking are not dangerous of
> tehmselves, what is dangerous is being in close proximity to motor
> vehicles driven with teh level of 'care' with which they are sometimes
> driven.
>
> The risk of serious head injury per unit time is basically the same
> for walking along teh road as for cycling along teh road - the
> predominant effect is just the amount of time you are within striking
> distance of a moving motor vehicle.
>
> It's perfectly believable that the average child spends four times as
> much time as a pedestrian as a cyclist.


IOW, the hazard is [more or less] identical, but the risk is four times
greater because the exposure is four times greater. That shouldn't be a
factor in comparing the dangers of different activities, and it's just
the sort of misinterpretation I was thinking of. After all, there are
very many more pedestrians than cave-divers, for instance; although it
would probably be accurate to state that children are *much* more likely
to be killed or injured as pedestrians than as cave-divers, one can't
draw any meaningful conclusions about the comparative dangers of the two
activities from that.


If you're broadly right [and I have no reason to suppose you're not],
surely it would be much more meaningful in this context to use risk per
time unit of exposure, and say that children are about as likely to
suffer a head injury as a pedestrian as when they're on their bikes.


I don't disagree with Dr Porter's general conclusions, but this
statistic still seems iffy. I may well be wrong; I'd still like to know
the source. I'll have a go at getting in touch with him.


--
Mark, UK
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of
fighting a foreign enemy."

[POHB]

"Mark McNeill" wrote
> Some interesting stuff in there -
>
> "children are four times more likely
> to suffer a head injury as a pedestrian than when they are on their
> bikes (so why don't we make them wear helmets when they are walking
> along the pavement?)"

My youngest came home from school Mon, Tues AND Weds this week with a letter
and a sticker saying she'd bumped her head in the playground and been to
welfare. 3 days in a row is a family record. None of the incidents had
involved a bicycle. Playground helmets anyone?

[congokid]

In article >, POHB
> writes

>My youngest came home from school Mon, Tues AND Weds this week with a letter
>and a sticker saying she'd bumped her head in the playground and been to
>welfare. 3 days in a row is a family record. None of the incidents had
>involved a bicycle. Playground helmets anyone?

I'm sure I would have been close to that record as a kid. At one stage I
had a neat row of three large bruises/cuts/bumps along my forehead.

I can't explain why I was prone to tripping over - I wasn't particularly
uncoordinated (and later became quite proficient at Irish dancing) -
apart from perhaps having a slightly larger than normal head.
--
congokid
Eating out in London? Read my tips...
http://congokid.com

[Roger Thorpe[_4_]]

I didn't want to bring this subject up, but since it is Yehuda Moon has
it about right in my opinion, but then I'm ambivalent
http://yehudamoon.com/index.php?date=2008-07-09
Roger Thorpe

[Colin McKenzie]

Mark McNeill wrote:
> Response to Ian Smith
>>The risk of serious head injury per unit time is basically the same
>>for walking along teh road as for cycling along teh road - the
>>predominant effect is just the amount of time you are within striking
>>distance of a moving motor vehicle.
>>
>>It's perfectly believable that the average child spends four times as
>>much time as a pedestrian as a cyclist.
>
> IOW, the hazard is [more or less] identical, but the risk is four times
> greater because the exposure is four times greater. That shouldn't be a
> factor in comparing the dangers of different activities, and it's just
> the sort of misinterpretation I was thinking of. ...

On the other hand, if you're looking to prevent the maximum number of
child deaths/injuries, shouldn't you look at the biggest overall
numbers rather than rates per unit exposure?

> If you're broadly right [and I have no reason to suppose you're not],
> surely it would be much more meaningful in this context to use risk per
> time unit of exposure, and say that children are about as likely to
> suffer a head injury as a pedestrian as when they're on their bikes.

See my sig.

> I don't disagree with Dr Porter's general conclusions, but this
> statistic still seems iffy. I may well be wrong; I'd still like to know
> the source. I'll have a go at getting in touch with him.

It appears in the DfT transport stats every year. For example:
1993 1997 2001 2002
Walk 70.1 57.6 47.7 44.8
Bicycle 46.5 44.9 32.7 29.5
(deaths per billion vehicle Km)
Sorry they're not newer, I don't have time for more dredging today.

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.

[Tim Woodall]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:22:33 +0100,
Mark McNeill > wrote:

> If you're broadly right [and I have no reason to suppose you're not],
> surely it would be much more meaningful in this context to use risk per
> time unit of exposure, and say that children are about as likely to
> suffer a head injury as a pedestrian as when they're on their bikes.

Alternatively, risk per mile - if they're using their bikes to get to
the park rather than walking - then their exposure time might be 1/4 in
the cycling case.

Statistics! :-)

Tim.


--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

[TerryJ]

C
> On the other hand, if you're looking to prevent the maximum number of
> child deaths/injuries, shouldn't you look at the biggest overall numbers
> rather than rates per unit exposure?


I spent some of today summarising gp notes of new patients.several head
injuries to children in the past , one followed by partial paralysis and
a fit and possible permanent problems . No cycles involved in any of them .
TerryJ

[Nigel Cliffe]

TerryJ wrote:
> C
>> On the other hand, if you're looking to prevent the maximum number of
>> child deaths/injuries, shouldn't you look at the biggest overall
>> numbers rather than rates per unit exposure?
>
>
> I spent some of today summarising gp notes of new patients.several
> head injuries to children in the past , one followed by partial
> paralysis and a fit and possible permanent problems . No cycles involved
> in any of
> them . TerryJ

A dangerous statement by TerryJ; The lidites will claim its clear proof
that cycle helmets work in your area !



--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

[Mark McNeill[_2_]]

Response to Colin McKenzie

> On the other hand, if you're looking to prevent the maximum number of
> child deaths/injuries, shouldn't you look at the biggest overall
> numbers rather than rates per unit exposure?

Of course, and I take your point; which is why the Government will have
made more Public Information Films about road safety than cave-diving
safety, although the latter activity is intrinsically more dangerous.

You've made me reconsider this question; I can now see the benefit of
such an interpretation for the wholesale approach, so to speak, of
policy-forming [which we can infer was the original context] - but not
for the retail approach of whether an activity is intrinsically
dangerous enough for a person to wear safety equipment.


> It appears in the DfT transport stats every year. For example:
> 1993 1997 2001 2002
> Walk 70.1 57.6 47.7 44.8
> Bicycle 46.5 44.9 32.7 29.5
> (deaths per billion vehicle Km)
> Sorry they're not newer, I don't have time for more dredging today.


The numbers would work rather better for Dr Porter if we look at
absolute casualties. According to the DfT's 2006 stats, there were 2637
KSIs for pedestrians under 20, and 690 KSIs for cyclists under 20 [the
number of KSIs for cave-diving is unrecorded here ;-)], which would tend
to support the original contention that "children are four times more
likely to suffer a head injury as a pedestrian than when they are on
their bikes". I wouldn't care to use this interpretation myself [what
if cycling magically became so popular that the proportions of
pedestrians and cyclists were reversed? - would we be happy if the
statistics then told us that children are x times more likely to be hurt
on a bike as a pedestrian, simply because they cycle so much more?], but
that's up to the doctor, if he wants to; so long as we know what he's
doing with the figures.


A classic random sig for a helmet thread. ;-)


--
Mark, UK
"The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but
not when it misses."

[al Mossah]

On 9 Jul, 13:26, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> Mark McNeill > wrote:
> > Response to Just zis Guy, you know?
> > > Evening Standard's 'Medical Notes' by Mark Porter, yesterday I
> > > believe:
>
> > > "Why as a doctor I'd prefer my kids to ride without a helmet than
> > > not at all.
>
> > > "Our resident GP enters the headgear debate and takes a surprisingly
> > > outspoken stance, backed by the facts"
>
> > He's got another article out of it today (and good luck to him!):
>
> > <http://living.scotsman.com/features/Medical-notes-Don39t-let-
> > helmets.4268320.jp>
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/5lfh8w
>
> > Some interesting stuff in there -
>
> > "children are four times more likely
> > to suffer a head injury as a pedestrian than when they are on their
> > bikes (so why don't we make them wear helmets when they are walking
> > along the pavement?)"
>
> > I'd not heard that before, and on the face of it, it seems unlikely
> > without some statistical finagling; I'd be curious to know the source.
>
> more likely to fall over on to side maybe? also spend more time walking
> than biking?
>
> i spose the question is how and where? they get head injurys?
>
> roger
> --www.rogermerriman.com

I'm sure that there are more KSIs from cycling in the Netherlands than
in the UK. But cycling in the Netherlands is much safer FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL than in the UK.

If we are successful in increasing the number of cyclists in the UK,
then there will, for sure, be more cyclists KSI'd. But the rate (per
journey, per kilometre, per minute, however you want to measure it)
will probably fall, making it more safer. Sometimes more is less.

Peter.

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, al Mossah > wrote:
>
> I'm sure that there are more KSIs from cycling in the Netherlands
> than in the UK.

How sure? (put it another way - wanna bet?)

I find:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

UK population 60.9 million
Netherlands population 16.6 million

http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Irresistible.pdf

UK bicycle mileage: 0.2 km/person/day
Netherlands mileage: 2.5 km/person/day

UK injury rate 6.0 cyclists injured per 10 million km
Netherlands rate: 1.4 cyclists per 10 million km

So, daily mileage and injuries:

UK : 60.9 x 0.2 = 12.2, 1.22 x 6.0 = 7.31 cyclists per day
NL : 16.6 x 2.5 = 41.5, 4.15 x 1.4 = 5.81 cyclists per day

so, about 25% more injuries in the UK than the NL.

FWIW, slightly more K in the NL than the UK, but since fatalities are
an order of magnitude fewer, teh KSI figures are more in teh UK than
the NL.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|