CTC Helmet Policy

[judith]

I understand that CTC's policy on helmets is to let the individual
decide; I quite agree.

However, I am surprised that they actually sit on the fence without
coming down on one side or another.

Surely they could say:

on the basis of existing scientific research we recommend that
cyclists wear helmets
or
on the basis of existing scientific research we recommend that
cyclists do not wear helmets

followed by - we will review our recommendations as additional
research results are published

Can they really not decide on the basis of current research, or is it
that it is much easier to sit on the fence and it causes less
aggravation with their members.?

[Neil Williams[_2_]]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:13:28 +0100, judith >
wrote:

>Can they really not decide on the basis of current research, or is it
>that it is much easier to sit on the fence and it causes less
>aggravation with their members.?

I would prefer that they did not have a policy on it myself, and that
they allow the individual to read all of the material available on the
subject (or indeed not to do so and to just decide either way on a
whim, as is the individual's prerogative) and make their own decision
either way. Summing it up in a single policy is a bit simplistic.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

[Peter Clinch]

judith wrote:
> I understand that CTC's policy on helmets is to let the individual
> decide; I quite agree.
>
> However, I am surprised that they actually sit on the fence without
> coming down on one side or another.
>
> Surely they could say:
>
> on the basis of existing scientific research we recommend that
> cyclists wear helmets
> or
> on the basis of existing scientific research we recommend that
> cyclists do not wear helmets

If you look at the scientific evidence you'll find that the fence
is actually the smartest place to sit at the moment, because it
tells you that (a) the evidence itself is far from perfect, and (b)
from what we /can/ usefully say, helmets do pretty much nothing,
give or take error bars (which given (a) above are actually
non-trivial, but are not any more likley to go up than down).

And with that to back you up it's pretty daft paying any great
attention to helmets at all. There certainly isn't enough evidence
to say you /should/ wear them, and there is also certainly
insufficient evidence to say you should *not*. So it isn't
"surely" one or the other, it's "we can't tell, it could be either".

> Can they really not decide on the basis of current research, or is it
> that it is much easier to sit on the fence and it causes less
> aggravation with their members.?

They really *can't* decide on the basis of current research,
because the current research says they do nothing give or take
error bars which could go either way.

It's actually the honest thing to do. I'll grant you it probably
doesn't look that way if you want it in black and white, but it
isn't black and white, it's an even grey... or perhaps a mottled
one. But not /conclusive/ either way that anyone either should or
should not wear one.

You'll see other interpretations of the data to mine, of course,
and in both directions. But that's just further grist to the mill
that one can't really be sure about the benefits, be they positive
or negative.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[judith]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:16:31 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:13:28 +0100, judith >
>wrote:
>
>>Can they really not decide on the basis of current research, or is it
>>that it is much easier to sit on the fence and it causes less
>>aggravation with their members.?
>
>I would prefer that they did not have a policy on it myself, and that
>they allow the individual to read all of the material available on the
>subject (or indeed not to do so and to just decide either way on a
>whim, as is the individual's prerogative) and make their own decision
>either way. Summing it up in a single policy is a bit simplistic.
>
>Neil


You could be right - however - I think it is usual that campaigning
organisations do have a clear stance on such matters. (Historical :
seat belts, breath tests, mobiles, speed cameras - I think that most
motoring organisations at least expressed a view one way or the other)

[Steve C[_2_]]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> judith wrote:
>>

Judith is a troll.

The Wikipedia definition for those who mis-use or don't undestand the
term - "An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone
who posts controversial ... messages in an online community, such as an
online discussion forum ..., with the intention of baiting other users
into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic
discussion" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) and has been
added to my kill file because this poster is intent of stirring up
trouble. First of all about using cycle paths and now helmets.

Why on earth are you lot feeding her/him the entire time? If you must
reply can you add 'Judith' to the subject so my filter will pick it up
and delete it?

Steve C

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:13:28 +0100, judith >
said in >:

>Surely they could say:
>on the basis of existing scientific research we recommend that
>cyclists wear helmets
>or
>on the basis of existing scientific research we recommend that
>cyclists do not wear helmets

Or they could say "on the basis of existing scientific research we
recommend that cyclists read the research and make up their own
mind based on their cycling,their routes, their towns and their
perception of risk."

You are, in this newsgroup, only one degree of separation from the
CTC policy makers. They read some but not all posts, and several of
us are in contact with people from CTC. In my case, pretty much
daily email contact with the campaigns team. So I can answer this
with a reasonable degree of certainty.

You're unlikely to find CTC advocating any one size fits all
solution to any supposed cycling problem.

CTC think that leaving it to the individual, recognising the vast
diversity of individual cycling experiences, is far and away the
smartest move. The pro-helmet lobby would love CTC to come down one
way or another, but CTC is more about presenting evidence, helping
people make informed choices, and supporting them in the informed
choices they make, often against quite outrageous cluelessness at
various levels of officialdom.

Do join, it is a very fine organisation.

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

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:25:41 +0100, Steve C >
said in >:

>The Wikipedia definition for those who mis-use or don't undestand the
>term

/me goes off to delete the Internet troll article

No, better not. Too much drahma on WP right now. We nuked an
article cited by an SEO as a great article he'd created which
yielded 18% better conversion rates than any other web advert. He
failed the intelligence test: spam Wikipedia if you must, but if you
crow about it in print, expect the outcome to be sub-optimal for you
and your client.

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

[judith]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:25:01 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:13:28 +0100, judith >
>said in >:
>
>>Surely they could say:
>>on the basis of existing scientific research we recommend that
>>cyclists wear helmets
>>or
>>on the basis of existing scientific research we recommend that
>>cyclists do not wear helmets
>
>Or they could say "on the basis of existing scientific research we
>recommend that cyclists read the research and make up their own
>mind based on their cycling,their routes, their towns and their
>perception of risk."
>

They could I agree. However I suspect that the vast majority of
cyclists - me included - do not have the time to read and the ability
to absorb the research and arrive at a measured opinion.


>CTC think that leaving it to the individual, recognising the vast
>diversity of individual cycling experiences, is far and away the
>smartest move. The pro-helmet lobby would love CTC to come down one
>way or another

in the same way that the anti-helmet lobby would


>but CTC is more about presenting evidence, helping
>people make informed choices, and supporting them in the informed
>choices they make


I did however point out earlier that they do not do this on their
website. They clearly reference anti-helmet pages - but you have to
be a member to read the pro-helmet research.

This is hardly the action of presenting evidence and helping
people make informed choices.

Has there ever been a survey carried out to see what cyclists think
about the question? (and before someone suggests that I am - I am not
suggesting that this would validate or invalidate the reasons for and
against helmets)

I suspect that it would show that the vast majority of cyclists do
believe that helmets are better than no helmets.

This may not be something which the CTC would wish to acknowledge as
it may show that the vast majority are against their (unstated)
official view.

[northwesterner[_2_]]

Its 21st century Labour britain. Helmets will be compulsory. The fine will
be automatic. We will soon have to register our bikes, maybe a license. Oh,
that will cost too.
Minorities, of course, will be exempt from this. Parents will be fined if
their kids whizz their BMX no cycling bits etc

Only the voters can prevent this next year.

[Peter Fox[_5_]]

judith wrote:
> I understand that CTC's policy on helmets is to let the individual
> decide; I quite agree.
>
> However, I am surprised that they actually sit on the fence without
> coming down on one side or another.
>
That's just as stupid as saying the AA should recommend '4x4s' or not.
But then that's how you are isn't it.

--
Peter (Prof) Fox
Multitude of things for beer, cycling, Morris and curiosities at
<http://vulpeculox.net>

[Peter Fox[_5_]]

judith wrote:
> They could I agree. However I suspect that the vast majority of
> cyclists - me included - do not have the time to read and the ability
> to absorb the research and arrive at a measured opinion.

Doesn't stop you bleating on about it though does it?
Try a little bit of STFU.



--
Peter (Prof) Fox
Multitude of things for beer, cycling, Morris and curiosities at
<http://vulpeculox.net>

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:26:46 +0100, judith >
said in >:

>>Or they could say "on the basis of existing scientific research we
>>recommend that cyclists read the research and make up their own
>>mind based on their cycling,their routes, their towns and their
>>perception of risk."

>They could I agree. However I suspect that the vast majority of
>cyclists - me included - do not have the time to read and the ability
>to absorb the research and arrive at a measured opinion.

The solution is not toe expect someone else to make up your mind for
you. I think that people making up their minds what others should
do based on some abstracted idea of the experience others might be
having, is a source of the problem, not any part of the solution.

>>CTC think that leaving it to the individual, recognising the vast
>>diversity of individual cycling experiences, is far and away the
>>smartest move. The pro-helmet lobby would love CTC to come down one
>>way or another

>in the same way that the anti-helmet lobby would

What anti-helmet lobby? Name some individual exemplars. I am, I
think, on the "inside" of the anti-compulsion lobby, but I can't
recall ever having met anyone who would seek to ban helmet use.

>>but CTC is more about presenting evidence, helping
>>people make informed choices, and supporting them in the informed
>>choices they make

>I did however point out earlier that they do not do this on their
>website. They clearly reference anti-helmet pages - but you have to
>be a member to read the pro-helmet research.

It's at http://www.cyclheemts.org. which exists for the sole purpose
of analysing the evidence. If you don't trust their analysis you
are free to get the original papers, which they cite, and work
through them yourself. I have a library of some hundreds of
helmet-related documents myself; it amused me when BeHIT accused me
of not wanting people to make an informed choice, but of course they
meant a choice informed only by the evidence they like.

What is your view of the relentless propaganda put out by
organisations like BeHIT and indeed the government? Do you think it
is reasonable to expect people to see a figure, go and read the
research, and realise that the figure is a theoretical prediction
which is based on comparing completely different groups of cyclists,
and has never been shown to happen in any real cyclist population?

As far as I am concerned "it's much more complex than you think,
you'll have to make up your own mind" is as close as you get to a
single right answer here.

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

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:18:51 +0100, "northwesterner"
> said in
>:

>Its 21st century Labour britain. Helmets will be compulsory. The fine will
>be automatic. We will soon have to register our bikes, maybe a license. Oh,
>that will cost too.
>Minorities, of course, will be exempt from this. Parents will be fined if
>their kids whizz their BMX no cycling bits etc
>
>Only the voters can prevent this next year.

This was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Official
Monster Raving Loony party.

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

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:42:19 +0100, Peter Fox
> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>> They could I agree. However I suspect that the vast majority of
>> cyclists - me included - do not have the time to read and the ability
>> to absorb the research and arrive at a measured opinion.
>
>Doesn't stop you bleating on about it though does it?
>Try a little bit of STFU.


Thanks you for your contribution - very mature.

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:44:31 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

<snip>

>The solution is not toe expect someone else to make up your mind for
>you. I think that people making up their minds what others should
>do based on some abstracted idea of the experience others might be
>having, is a source of the problem, not any part of the solution.

I agree - it is a complex subject - there is no easy answer. However,
I see no reason why "an authority" (like the CTC) should not say
something like on the balance of probability, the current evidence
says that you are better of not wearing a helmet than wearing one (or
vice versa)


>>>CTC think that leaving it to the individual, recognising the vast
>>>diversity of individual cycling experiences, is far and away the
>>>smartest move. The pro-helmet lobby would love CTC to come down one
>>>way or another
>
>>in the same way that the anti-helmet lobby would
>
>What anti-helmet lobby? Name some individual exemplars. I am, I
>think, on the "inside" of the anti-compulsion lobby, but I can't
>recall ever having met anyone who would seek to ban helmet use.

I was under the impression that there was an anti-helmet lobby - if
you are telling me that there is no such thing, then I must believe
you.

(I would put people who object to compulsory helmets on the basis that
it "would deter people from cycling" rather on a sound scientific
argument that they are more dangerous when worn than when not worn -
to be good examples of an any-helmet lobby)

(I will not repeat them here (I would hate to be accused of trolling -
but I think that some of the arguments against helmets (compulsory or
not) are ridiculous in the extreme)

>>I did however point out earlier that they do not do this on their
>>website. They clearly reference anti-helmet pages - but you have to
>>be a member to read the pro-helmet research.



>It's at http://www.cyclheemts.org. which exists for the sole purpose
>of analysing the evidence. If you don't trust their analysis you
>are free to get the original papers, which they cite, and work
>through them yourself. I have a library of some hundreds of
>helmet-related documents myself; it amused me when BeHIT accused me
>of not wanting people to make an informed choice, but of course they
>meant a choice informed only by the evidence they like.

Looking at the site - I am not immediately convinced of the
impartially of cyclehelmets.org:

Whilst cyclehelmets.org strives to be objective in its selection of
information for presentation, there is more helmet-sceptic material on
this web site than that supportive of helmets. This is in part a
matter of copyright (we provide references to journals but cannot
generally give direct access), but largely because there is a far
wider range of arguments and sources that cast doubt upon one or more
aspects of helmet efficacy. cyclehelmets.org is not helmet-sceptic on
principle, but because pro-helmet predictions are so often
contradicted by real-world experience.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1004

The following comment is hardly that of an impartial bystander with no
axe to grind:

"<we are>....concerned that helmet laws have led almost universally to
large declines in the number of people who cycle
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1004

>What is your view of the relentless propaganda put out by
>organisations like BeHIT and indeed the government? Do you think it
>is reasonable to expect people to see a figure, go and read the
>research, and realise that the figure is a theoretical prediction
>which is based on comparing completely different groups of cyclists,
>and has never been shown to happen in any real cyclist population?


I cannot find anything on Google re BeHit - do you know where I can
find their views.

I do not think it is reasonable for someone to see "a figure" - and
even understand it every time.

As I have said - it is obviously a very complex subject - and I
believe that the vast majority of cyclists do not have the ability to
understand the arguments.

Therefore it would make much sense for any authoritative body to
provide a recommendation based on the evidence to date.

CTC seem unwilling to do that.

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:37:42 +0100, Peter Fox
> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>> I understand that CTC's policy on helmets is to let the individual
>> decide; I quite agree.
>>
>> However, I am surprised that they actually sit on the fence without
>> coming down on one side or another.
>>
>That's just as stupid as saying the AA should recommend '4x4s' or not.
>But then that's how you are isn't it.


Thank you for your "contribution".

[Peter Clinch]

judith wrote:

> I agree - it is a complex subject - there is no easy answer. However,
> I see no reason why "an authority" (like the CTC) should not say
> something like on the balance of probability, the current evidence
> says that you are better of not wearing a helmet than wearing one (or
> vice versa)

On the current evidence, the balance of probability is that you are
no better off wearing one than not, or vice versa.

So that is a *very* good reason to specifically *not* say you're
better off doing one the other.

> I was under the impression that there was an anti-helmet lobby - if
> you are telling me that there is no such thing, then I must believe
> you.

An analogy, of sorts follows. Note befrore I start that the apples
below are not full analogues of helmets, the point is to illustrate
an attitude to interventional procedures and the use of terms "pro"
and "anti"...

"An apple a day keeps the doctor away", and indeed it is widely
held, for sound nutritional reasons, that fruit is good for us.
But campaigner A. says it goes further, if you eat /5/ apples a day
you'll be immune to cancer, and she has documented proof of 1000
folk who eat 5 apples a day who never got cancer, so that must be
right. Sceptic B. then pipes up and says actually that's not very
good proof, I don't think you can say that without a much higher
standard of proof. Campaigner A. then accuses B. of being "anti
apple".

Do you think B. is "anti apple", or is he just pointing at holes in
the evidence that apples eaten in large amounts cure cancer?

> (I would put people who object to compulsory helmets on the basis that
> it "would deter people from cycling" rather on a sound scientific
> argument that they are more dangerous when worn than when not worn -
> to be good examples of an any-helmet lobby)

There is good evidence that promoting helmets /does/ deter people
from cycling. It is known that cycling is, on balance, good for
health and will typically extend lives. We know that through sound
scientific argument.
Objecting to compulsory helmets isn't "anti helmet", it's "anti
compulsion". Guy is "anti-compulsion", but if he's "anti-helmet",
how come he's proud of the picture of him on the cover of a copy of
Velo Vision magazine where he's clearly wearing a helmet?

> (I will not repeat them here (I would hate to be accused of trolling -
> but I think that some of the arguments against helmets (compulsory or
> not) are ridiculous in the extreme)

Some of them are, just as some of the arguments in favour of them
are ridiculous. But the bottom line is that the best evidence of
what happens when helmet wearing is increased is the track record
of what *has* happened as helmet wearing has increased. Nothing
much in summary, though the information is not perfect.
Observation of what *has* happened when helmets have been actively
promoted is that cycling is reduced, but you don't have to actively
promote them for people to choose to wear them.

> I cannot find anything on Google re BeHit - do you know where I can
> find their views.

BHIT, the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust, "BeHIT" is an ironic
ammendment.

> As I have said - it is obviously a very complex subject - and I
> believe that the vast majority of cyclists do not have the ability to
> understand the arguments.
>
> Therefore it would make much sense for any authoritative body to
> provide a recommendation based on the evidence to date.

They have: they say "choose yourself". And that's not irresponsible.

Firstly, the evidence to date does not allow them to sensibly
commit one way or the other.

Secondly, since the evidence says they don't change much, it
doesn't actually *matter* which way individuals choose as far as
their health in a serious accident goes.

> CTC seem unwilling to do that.

Do you think they should commit to a position for or against
something when the best the evidence can tell them is neither for
or against is supported by the evidence?

Black and White are not the only options. There is grey as well.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:32:01 +0100, Peter Clinch
> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>
>> I agree - it is a complex subject - there is no easy answer. However,
>> I see no reason why "an authority" (like the CTC) should not say
>> something like on the balance of probability, the current evidence
>> says that you are better of not wearing a helmet than wearing one (or
>> vice versa)
>
>On the current evidence, the balance of probability is that you are
>no better off wearing one than not, or vice versa.

I am sorry - I was aiming the post at people who had common sense and
who could comprehend English.

Thanks for your contribution - good bye.






>So that is a *very* good reason to specifically *not* say you're
>better off doing one the other.
>
>> I was under the impression that there was an anti-helmet lobby - if
>> you are telling me that there is no such thing, then I must believe
>> you.
>
>An analogy, of sorts follows. Note befrore I start that the apples
>below are not full analogues of helmets, the point is to illustrate
>an attitude to interventional procedures and the use of terms "pro"
>and "anti"...
>
>"An apple a day keeps the doctor away", and indeed it is widely
>held, for sound nutritional reasons, that fruit is good for us.
>But campaigner A. says it goes further, if you eat /5/ apples a day
>you'll be immune to cancer, and she has documented proof of 1000
>folk who eat 5 apples a day who never got cancer, so that must be
>right. Sceptic B. then pipes up and says actually that's not very
>good proof, I don't think you can say that without a much higher
>standard of proof. Campaigner A. then accuses B. of being "anti
>apple".
>
>Do you think B. is "anti apple", or is he just pointing at holes in
>the evidence that apples eaten in large amounts cure cancer?
>
>> (I would put people who object to compulsory helmets on the basis that
>> it "would deter people from cycling" rather on a sound scientific
>> argument that they are more dangerous when worn than when not worn -
>> to be good examples of an any-helmet lobby)
>
>There is good evidence that promoting helmets /does/ deter people
>from cycling. It is known that cycling is, on balance, good for
>health and will typically extend lives. We know that through sound
>scientific argument.
>Objecting to compulsory helmets isn't "anti helmet", it's "anti
>compulsion". Guy is "anti-compulsion", but if he's "anti-helmet",
>how come he's proud of the picture of him on the cover of a copy of
>Velo Vision magazine where he's clearly wearing a helmet?
>
>> (I will not repeat them here (I would hate to be accused of trolling -
>> but I think that some of the arguments against helmets (compulsory or
>> not) are ridiculous in the extreme)
>
>Some of them are, just as some of the arguments in favour of them
>are ridiculous. But the bottom line is that the best evidence of
>what happens when helmet wearing is increased is the track record
>of what *has* happened as helmet wearing has increased. Nothing
>much in summary, though the information is not perfect.
>Observation of what *has* happened when helmets have been actively
>promoted is that cycling is reduced, but you don't have to actively
>promote them for people to choose to wear them.
>
>> I cannot find anything on Google re BeHit - do you know where I can
>> find their views.
>
>BHIT, the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust, "BeHIT" is an ironic
>ammendment.
>
>> As I have said - it is obviously a very complex subject - and I
>> believe that the vast majority of cyclists do not have the ability to
>> understand the arguments.
>>
>> Therefore it would make much sense for any authoritative body to
>> provide a recommendation based on the evidence to date.
>
>They have: they say "choose yourself". And that's not irresponsible.
>
>Firstly, the evidence to date does not allow them to sensibly
>commit one way or the other.
>
>Secondly, since the evidence says they don't change much, it
>doesn't actually *matter* which way individuals choose as far as
>their health in a serious accident goes.
>
>> CTC seem unwilling to do that.
>
>Do you think they should commit to a position for or against
>something when the best the evidence can tell them is neither for
>or against is supported by the evidence?
>
>Black and White are not the only options. There is grey as well.
>
>Pete.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:46:23 +0100, judith >
said in >:

>I agree - it is a complex subject - there is no easy answer. However,
>I see no reason why "an authority" (like the CTC) should not say
>something like on the balance of probability, the current evidence
>says that you are better of not wearing a helmet than wearing one (or
>vice versa)

That would work if there was an easy answer. There isn't one.

>I was under the impression that there was an anti-helmet lobby - if
>you are telling me that there is no such thing, then I must believe
>you.

I've never seen any evidence of it, and I like to think that I would
know.

>(I would put people who object to compulsory helmets on the basis that
>it "would deter people from cycling" rather on a sound scientific
>argument that they are more dangerous when worn than when not worn -
>to be good examples of an any-helmet lobby)

No, that would be a perfectly rational reason for opposing helmet
laws. The health benefits of cycling are well documented,
deterrence is a potentially significant public health issue.

You also make the classic mistake of reversed burden of proof: it is
for the pro-helmet lobby to prove that helmets improve safety when
worn, not for those who oppose compulsion to prove that they are
more dangerous. In order to justify a helmet law you need to prove
the following:

* That cycling is especially dangerous
* That this danger manifests itself especially in head injuries
* That cycle helmets are an effective way of mitigating the risk
* That the benefits of a law outweigh any likely disbenefits

Actually it turns out that helmet laws fail all four of these
criteria. Cycling is not especially dangerous, the proportion of
head injuries is the same as for pedestrians, helmets are not
designed for the major source of danger and have never been shown to
reduce risk in a real cyclist population, and the benefits in injury
treatment costs alone, ignoring any health benefits, are less than
the cost of the helmets, ignoring enforcement of the law, and taking
an optimistic estimate of injuries saved.

There is no good argument, as far as I can tell, for a helmet law.
There are, however, many bad arguments, of which "think of the
children" and "if only one life can be saved" are the two most
egregious and the two most widely used.

But arguing against a helmet law is a very long way indeed from
being anti-helmet.

>Looking at the site - I am not immediately convinced of the
>impartially of cyclehelmets.org:

I would not be able to judge that, being on the editorial board.
Perhaps you think that a group set up to campaign for a helmet law
is more objective?

>Whilst cyclehelmets.org strives to be objective in its selection of
>information for presentation, there is more helmet-sceptic material on
>this web site than that supportive of helmets. This is in part a
>matter of copyright (we provide references to journals but cannot
>generally give direct access), but largely because there is a far
>wider range of arguments and sources that cast doubt upon one or more
>aspects of helmet efficacy. cyclehelmets.org is not helmet-sceptic on
>principle, but because pro-helmet predictions are so often
>contradicted by real-world experience.
>http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1004

Yup, very fair. The pro-helmet research is all of the same type, a
type notoriously prone to confounding and other errors. This type
of research seeks to predict what will happen if an intervention is
applied, but every time that is tested it is found that the
predictions are wrong in both magnitude and sign. Sure, lots of
people have followed the same protocol and produced the same
erroneous result, but that's happened before in the case of HRT and
coronary heart disease, and it was wrong there as well.

>The following comment is hardly that of an impartial bystander with no
>axe to grind:
>"<we are>....concerned that helmet laws have led almost universally to
>large declines in the number of people who cycle
>http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1004

What's wrong with being concerned that the intervention supposed to
improve safety has, in every single documented case, eroded the only
thing which is provably linked with improved safety, i.e. more
people cycling? I'd say that a "safety" intervention which is not
known to improve safety but which impacts negatively on something
which *is* known to improve safety, is a valid cause for concern.

>I cannot find anything on Google re BeHit - do you know where I can
>find their views.

All over the place. I don't think they are of much value, though -
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/BeHIT

>I do not think it is reasonable for someone to see "a figure" - and
>even understand it every time.

Neither do I, especially when the figure is discredited, but that
doesn't stop BeHIT from using the known false 85% figure and
misrepresenting it into the bargain.

>As I have said - it is obviously a very complex subject - and I
>believe that the vast majority of cyclists do not have the ability to
>understand the arguments.

I think you are wrong, but most of the pro-helmet lobby will agree
with you, which is why they like to cherry-pick a few bits of
evidence and ten tell people what they should do. Though I suspect
their justification is more that if people form a different view
from them, then it must be everyone else who is wrong.

>Therefore it would make much sense for any authoritative body to
>provide a recommendation based on the evidence to date.

They do. They recommend you make your own choice.

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

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:46:25 +0100, judith >
said in >:

>>On the current evidence, the balance of probability is that you are
>>no better off wearing one than not, or vice versa.

>I am sorry - I was aiming the post at people who had common sense and
>who could comprehend English.

So was Pete. Apparently you failed. Pete's post is exactly right.

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

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:24:54 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:46:25 +0100, judith >
>said in >:
>
>>>On the current evidence, the balance of probability is that you are
>>>no better off wearing one than not, or vice versa.
>
>>I am sorry - I was aiming the post at people who had common sense and
>>who could comprehend English.
>
>So was Pete. Apparently you failed. Pete's post is exactly right.
>
>Guy

Apologies - I thought he was deliberately misinterpreting what I said.

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:59:10 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

<snip>

>>Looking at the site - I am not immediately convinced of the
>>impartially of cyclehelmets.org:
>
>I would not be able to judge that, being on the editorial board.

Perhaps you can tell us if "editorially" - just as much credence and
space is given to the pro-helmet stance as to the no-helmet stance?
Editorially are the board without bias one way or the other?


>Perhaps you think that a group set up to campaign for a helmet law
>is more objective?

No they would obviously have a bias - and I would not expect them to
be balanced.

www.cyclehelmets.org is promoted as being balanced - I am suggesting
that it does not appear to be so.

<snip>

>>The following comment is hardly that of an impartial bystander with no
>>axe to grind:
>>"<we are>....concerned that helmet laws have led almost universally to
>>large declines in the number of people who cycle
>>http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1004
>
>What's wrong with being concerned that the intervention supposed to
>improve safety has, in every single documented case, eroded the only
>thing which is provably linked with improved safety, i.e. more
>people cycling?

Perhaps it should say so if this is the case - this is the first that
I have seen the argument for more cyclists is not just because it is a
good thing - but in order to improve safety for all cyclists.




>>I cannot find anything on Google re BeHit - do you know where I can
>>find their views.
>
>All over the place. I don't think they are of much value, though -
>http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/BeHIT

Someone else has pointed out that the correct name is BHIT.

Taking the **** out of an organisations name may be considered by some
to be a sign of immaturity

What would you say if people referred to your organisation as
www.cycleknobs.org ?

[Marc[_2_]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

>
> There is no good argument, as far as I can tell, for a helmet law.
> There are, however, many bad arguments, of which "think of the
> children" and "if only one life can be saved" are the two most
> egregious and the two most widely used.

Funnily enough that's exactly the line that Vicki Bristow
Communications Manager
Safer Roads Partnership in West Mercia
www.srpwestmercia.org.uk used when I queried her grouping of illegal
activities and helmet wearing in her questionarre "Research has
demonstrated that correctly fitted helmets can reduce the severity of
head injuries by up to 85 per cent so even if this saves one life surely
it is worth it?"


she finally ( after a few more interchanges) ended up with

"We feel wearing cycle helmets is an important issue and I'm afraid
you're not going to change our minds on that.

As I've said previously we don't feel any further correspondence is
necessary as there is nothing more to say on the matter. "


If you want copies of the interchanges Gut feel free to ask, I'm afraid
that my end was rather brusque, but I coudn't be bothered to wait too
long for their rather obvious answers.

[Marc[_2_]]

judith wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:59:10 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Looking at the site - I am not immediately convinced of the
>>> impartially of cyclehelmets.org:
>> I would not be able to judge that, being on the editorial board.
>
> Perhaps you can tell us if "editorially" - just as much credence and
> space is given to the pro-helmet stance as to the no-helmet stance?
> Editorially are the board without bias one way or the other?
>
>

Would you ask the same question of NASA or the BSI regarding the amount
of time/space they give to round earth and flat earth theories?

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:46:12 +0100, judith >
said in >:

>Perhaps you can tell us if "editorially" - just as much credence and
>space is given to the pro-helmet stance as to the no-helmet stance?
>Editorially are the board without bias one way or the other?

You'd need to cite some no-helmet research first, so I could check.
I can't think of much which falls into that category. It is not
surprising that the site is dominated by analysis of pro-helmet
research, since pro-helmet research conducted by pro-helmet
researchers and published in pro-helmet journals dominates the
field.

>www.cyclehelmets.org is promoted as being balanced - I am suggesting
>that it does not appear to be so.

To you. That's because you have succumbed to the fallacy of the
false middle. Scepticism is the default in the scientific method;
in this case scepticism /is/ neutrality.

>>What's wrong with being concerned that the intervention supposed to
>>improve safety has, in every single documented case, eroded the only
>>thing which is provably linked with improved safety, i.e. more
>>people cycling?

>Perhaps it should say so if this is the case - this is the first that
>I have seen the argument for more cyclists is not just because it is a
>good thing - but in order to improve safety for all cyclists.

And yet you claim to have perused cyclehelmets.org. Go to that
site, and see what is the most prominent thing on the home page.

>Taking the **** out of an organisations name may be considered by some
>to be a sign of immaturity

Unless, of course, the organisation concerned has chosen a name
which is pronounced "Be hit".

>What would you say if people referred to your organisation as
>www.cycleknobs.org ?

Or how about www.polystyrenefoamdeflectorbeanies.org, that would be
much better.

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

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

"judith" > wrote in message
...
>
> They could I agree. However I suspect that the vast majority of
> cyclists - me included - do not have the time to read and the ability
> to absorb the research and arrive at a measured opinion.
>

If you are not prepared to do some research in order to arrive at an
informed opinion then it could be argued that you don't have a right to an
opinion.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/study_38_percent_of_people

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:01:07 +0100, Marc
> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:59:10 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Looking at the site - I am not immediately convinced of the
>>>> impartially of cyclehelmets.org:
>>> I would not be able to judge that, being on the editorial board.
>>
>> Perhaps you can tell us if "editorially" - just as much credence and
>> space is given to the pro-helmet stance as to the no-helmet stance?
>> Editorially are the board without bias one way or the other?
>>
>>
>
>Would you ask the same question of NASA or the BSI regarding the amount
>of time/space they give to round earth and flat earth theories?

What an odd attempt at an analogy.

I would expect them to use common sense.

If NASA have a page on "flat-earth" theories - I see no problem with
them saying something like "On the basis of scientific research, NASA
fully supports the belief that the earth is round - and gives no
support whatsoever to the theory of flat-earth"

Does that help you?

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:05:59 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:46:12 +0100, judith >
>said in >:
>
>>Perhaps you can tell us if "editorially" - just as much credence and
>>space is given to the pro-helmet stance as to the no-helmet stance?
>>Editorially are the board without bias one way or the other?
>
>You'd need to cite some no-helmet research first, so I could check.
>I can't think of much which falls into that category. It is not
>surprising that the site is dominated by analysis of pro-helmet
>research, since pro-helmet research conducted by pro-helmet
>researchers and published in pro-helmet journals dominates the
>field.

I know of no evidence on no-helmet research so I can't.

It seems odd to me that you don't "know" of any - have you never seen
any - is it never discussed editorially?


>>www.cyclehelmets.org is promoted as being balanced - I am suggesting
>>that it does not appear to be so.
>
>To you. That's because you have succumbed to the fallacy of the
>false middle. Scepticism is the default in the scientific method;
>in this case scepticism /is/ neutrality.
>
>>>What's wrong with being concerned that the intervention supposed to
>>>improve safety has, in every single documented case, eroded the only
>>>thing which is provably linked with improved safety, i.e. more
>>>people cycling?
>
>>Perhaps it should say so if this is the case - this is the first that
>>I have seen the argument for more cyclists is not just because it is a
>>good thing - but in order to improve safety for all cyclists.
>
>And yet you claim to have perused cyclehelmets.org. Go to that
>site, and see what is the most prominent thing on the home page.

On my browser - the Main topics - key facts - down the LHS.

I now assume that you mean the graph which is off-screen on my
browser.

Having briefly looked at it I must confess to being none-the wiser -
it is not clear to me what point is supposed to be being made.

The only thing which appears to make sense - is that the data may be
twelve years old!!

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:14:33 +0100, "Adam Lea" >
wrote:

>
>"judith" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> They could I agree. However I suspect that the vast majority of
>> cyclists - me included - do not have the time to read and the ability
>> to absorb the research and arrive at a measured opinion.
>>
>
>If you are not prepared to do some research in order to arrive at an
>informed opinion then it could be argued that you don't have a right to an
>opinion.
>
>http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/study_38_percent_of_people
>


I have said earlier that I believe that I am typical of many cyclists.

What percentage of cyclists do YOU think will be minded to read the
relevant research before deciding whether wearing helmets is for them
or not.

I would hazard a guess at less than 10% - but I have no idea.

Perhaps www.cyclehelmets.org could say how many unique hits they get
per month (per IP address) - that will be an indication of the number
of people who are researching for themselves.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:52:48 +0100, judith >
said in >:

On the basis of scientific research, cyclehelmets.org fully supports
the belief that cyclehelmets are legitimately a matter for
individual choice - and gives no support whatsoever to the theory of
helmet laws.

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

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:05:28 +0100, judith >
said in >:

>>>Perhaps you can tell us if "editorially" - just as much credence and
>>>space is given to the pro-helmet stance as to the no-helmet stance?
>>>Editorially are the board without bias one way or the other?

>>You'd need to cite some no-helmet research first, so I could check.
<snip>

>I know of no evidence on no-helmet research so I can't.

Exactly. I can't think of any offhand either. So maybe when you
say that the site should devote more space to it, you are arguing in
the abstract and without benefit of detailed knowledge. I am sure
that, should such research become available, we will analyse it, but
right now we can only analyse that which exists.

>It seems odd to me that you don't "know" of any - have you never seen
>any - is it never discussed editorially?

I don't recall making any claim to omniscience, but you're not
making any sense here. I have conducted literature searches and
have discussed the research which is published as it is published.
You state that there is a deficiency in analysis of one type of
research, yet you are not able to cite examples of such research
where said deficiency is manifest. What makes you so sure that this
stuff exists, that you are using scare quotes and asserting that is
absence is evidence of bias?

>>>Perhaps it should say so if this is the case - this is the first that
>>>I have seen the argument for more cyclists is not just because it is a
>>>good thing - but in order to improve safety for all cyclists.

>>And yet you claim to have perused cyclehelmets.org. Go to that
>>site, and see what is the most prominent thing on the home page.

>On my browser - the Main topics - key facts - down the LHS.
>I now assume that you mean the graph which is off-screen on my
>browser.

I had no idea you were visually impaired. Or are you simply using
an incredibly ancient computer? You have to be at 640x480 before
that graph disappears to the right.

It's time for you to stop wasting everybody's time. Go away,
research the subject and come back when you have an informed
opinion.

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

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:59:19 +0100, Marc
> said in
>:

>"We feel wearing cycle helmets is an important issue and I'm afraid
>you're not going to change our minds on that.

Fairly typical. Nothing you can do about a closed mind, other than
mock them.

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

[Sir Jeremy]

On 26 Jul, 13:59, Marc > wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>
>
> > There is no good argument, as far as I can tell, for a helmet law.
> > There are, however, many bad arguments, of which "think of the
> > children" and "if only one life can be saved" are the two most
> > egregious and the two most widely used.
>
> Funnily enough that's exactly the line that Vicki Bristow
> Communications Manager
> Safer Roads Partnership in West Merciawww.srpwestmercia.org.ukused when I queried her grouping of illegal
> activities and helmet wearing in her questionarre *"Research has
> demonstrated that correctly fitted helmets can reduce the severity of
> head injuries by up to 85 per cent so even if this saves one life surely
> it is worth it?"
>
> she finally ( after a few more interchanges) ended up with
>
> "We feel wearing cycle helmets is an important issue and I'm afraid
> you're not going to change our minds on that.
>
> As I've said previously we don't feel any further correspondence is
> necessary as there is nothing more to say on the matter. "
>
> If you want copies of the interchanges Gut feel free to ask, I'm afraid
> that my end was rather brusque, but I coudn't be bothered to wait too
> long for their rather obvious answers.


They've made their minds up about speed cameras and helmets and that's
that. No amount of reasoned argument is going to change their
position. Now do you see what Safespeed have been banging on about all
these years?

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:25:23 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:52:48 +0100, judith >
>said in >:
>
>On the basis of scientific research, cyclehelmets.org fully supports
>the belief that cyclehelmets are legitimately a matter for
>individual choice - and gives no support whatsoever to the theory of
>helmet laws.
>
>Guy

any chance on your answer to:
Perhaps you can tell us if "editorially" - just as much credence and
space is given to the pro-helmet stance as to the no-helmet stance?
Editorially are the board without bias one way or the other?


Do you leave it up to your kids to decide as to whether they wear
helmets or not - which do you recommend that they do?

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:43:59 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:05:28 +0100, judith >
>said in >:
<snip>


>>On my browser - the Main topics - key facts - down the LHS.
>>I now assume that you mean the graph which is off-screen on my
>>browser.
>
>I had no idea you were visually impaired. Or are you simply using
>an incredibly ancient computer? You have to be at 640x480 before
>that graph disappears to the right.

Thanks for your concern but I am not visually impaired and my computer
is quite new and you are wrong : I am currently at 800 x 600 and I
have to scroll to see all of the page horizontally.

>It's time for you to stop wasting everybody's time. Go away,
>research the subject and come back when you have an informed
>opinion.
>
>Guy


I came here hoping to find out a balance view - I am sorry that you
and the organisations referred to can't help.

I am truly amazed - that you said :

It's at http://www.cyclheemts.org. which exists for the sole purpose
of analysing the evidence. If you don't trust their analysis you
are free to get the original papers, which they cite, and work
through them yourself. I have a library of some hundreds of
helmet-related documents


"which exists for the sole purpose of analysing the evidence." - but
there is no "no-helmet" research to appraise! Well there we go.

I am hence truly gobsmacked that you and cyclehelmets.org - much more
experts on the matter than I am - have never seen any no-helmet
research.

However, I accept that you are right and there is none.

[Marc[_2_]]

judith wrote:

>
>> It's time for you to stop wasting everybody's time. Go away,
>> research the subject and come back when you have an informed
>> opinion.
>>
>> Guy
>
>
> I came here hoping to find out a balance view


Liar, you did nothing of the sort. Your only use here is as a way of
introducing others to facts and opinions, once those people have been
introduced then you have no further use and will be ignored, until you
bring up another subject that is worth explanation. You will never be
convinced, that's not your purpose, but your witterings allow
information to be bounced of you to others. Your use in this thread is
now ended.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:19:00 +0100, judith >
said in >:

>any chance on your answer to:
>Perhaps you can tell us if "editorially" - just as much credence and
>space is given to the pro-helmet stance as to the no-helmet stance?
>Editorially are the board without bias one way or the other?

Answered at length already. If you believe that there is some
research which has been missed, you need to cite it, because if it
is not there then it is almost certainly because we do not know
about it. You may hypothesis the existence of such studies, but
absent your citing them, you have no justification for drawing any
inference from their absence other than that they do not exist.

>Do you leave it up to your kids to decide as to whether they wear
>helmets or not - which do you recommend that they do?

Yes, and none of your business.

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

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:42:18 +0100, judith >
said in >:

>>I had no idea you were visually impaired. Or are you simply using
>>an incredibly ancient computer? You have to be at 640x480 before
>>that graph disappears to the right.

>Thanks for your concern but I am not visually impaired and my computer
>is quite new and you are wrong : I am currently at 800 x 600 and I
>have to scroll to see all of the page horizontally.

Then your browser is taking up too much of your screen real-estate
with crap. Which is of tangential relevance only; you claim to have
spent time looking at the site, the "safety in numbers" thesis is
prominent, which leads me to conclude that you are not reading in
any kind of depth.

>I came here hoping to find out a balance view - I am sorry that you
>and the organisations referred to can't help.

False. I and others have tried to help, you have in return
demonstrated obstinacy and shallowness. If you want
www.whyjudithshouldorshouldnotwearaplastichat.com then I am afraid I
cannot provide it. You are in the role of horse here, we have led
you to water, guided your head down and dipped your tongue in the
stuff, the rest really is up to you.

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

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:17:51 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> said in
>:

>They've made their minds up about speed cameras and helmets and that's
>that. No amount of reasoned argument is going to change their
>position. Now do you see what Safespeed have been banging on about all
>these years?

Abject nonsense on a stick. You go back in the archives of this
group and dig up the first time I mentioned helmets, you will see
that I have changed my position very considerably in response to the
evidence. You'll also find places where we showed Smith where he
was wrong, and he discounted this using variants on "laa laa I'm not
listening". Your comment is, in fact, the precise opposite of the
truth.

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

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:48:20 +0100, Marc
> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>
>>
>>> It's time for you to stop wasting everybody's time. Go away,
>>> research the subject and come back when you have an informed
>>> opinion.
>>>
>>> Guy
>>
>>
>> I came here hoping to find out a balance view
>
>
>Liar, you did nothing of the sort.


>Your only use here is as a way of
>introducing others to facts and opinions,

<snip>


> Your use in this thread is
>now ended.


Fraid not.

I like the bit where you say :

"Your only use here is as a way of
introducing others to facts and opinions"

this approach must be so novel in URC for you to comment on it - we
wouldn't want that would we.

[John Kane]

On Jul 26, 10:09*am, judith > wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:14:33 +0100, "Adam Lea" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"judith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> They could I agree. *However I suspect that the vast majority of
> >> cyclists - me included - do not have the time to read and the ability
> >> to absorb the research and arrive at a measured opinion.
>
> >If you are not prepared to do some research in order to arrive at an
> >informed opinion then it could be argued that you don't have a right to an
> >opinion.
>
> >http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/study_38_percent_of_people
>
> I have said earlier that I believe that I am typical of many cyclists.
>
> What percentage of cyclists do YOU think will be minded to read the
> relevant research before deciding whether *wearing helmets is for them
> or not.
>
> I would hazard a guess at less than 10% - but I have no idea.

Given that relatively few cyclists seem to read this news group you
are not typical. Most cyclists are not even aware of the
controversy.
Since you are aware of it and appear literate and are apparently
interested in the topic there is really no excuse for not reading some
of the reseach.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

[Marc[_2_]]

judith wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:48:20 +0100, Marc
> > wrote:
>
>> judith wrote:
>>
>>>> It's time for you to stop wasting everybody's time. Go away,
>>>> research the subject and come back when you have an informed
>>>> opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Guy
>>>
>>> I came here hoping to find out a balance view
>>
>> Liar, you did nothing of the sort.
>
>
>> Your only use here is as a way of
>> introducing others to facts and opinions,
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> Your use in this thread is
>> now ended.
>
>
> Fraid not.
>

Fraid so, you might witter on, you may even get some replies, but your
use is ended. You've been used to show how opinion based fact finding is
wrong, and you have been used to show how stupid a troll can be, that
use has now come to an end, for the moment, I'm sure you will be of use
in the future for showing , again, how stuoid you can be.

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:49:55 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

<snip>

>>Do you leave it up to your kids to decide as to whether they wear
>>helmets or not - which do you recommend that they do?
>
>Yes, and none of your business.
>
>Guy


I am sorry if it touched a nerve it was the photos on your web page
-the link of which you provided.

They looked too young to have made an informed decision for
themselves.

Did you not "recommended" which they did? If so which was it?

Or are you saying that they had the ability to decide on the best
course of action for themselves?

Which did they chose?

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:43:25 +0100, March
> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:48:20 +0100, Marc
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> judith wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It's time for you to stop wasting everybody's time. Go away,
>>>>> research the subject and come back when you have an informed
>>>>> opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Guy
>>>>
>>>> I came here hoping to find out a balance view
>>>
>>> Liar, you did nothing of the sort.
>>
>>
>>> Your only use here is as a way of
>>> introducing others to facts and opinions,
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> Your use in this thread is
>>> now ended.
>>
>>
>> Fraid not.
>>
>
>Fraid so, you might witter on, you may even get some replies, but your
>use is ended. You've been used to show how opinion based fact finding is
>wrong, and you have been used to show how stupid a troll can be, that
>use has now come to an end, for the moment, I'm sure you will be of use
>in the future for showing , again, how stuoid you can be.


any chance of explaining what you meant by : "Your only use here is as
a way of introducing others to facts and opinions"

why would you object to introducing "facts and opinions" to others?

Is there some hierarchy in urc which has a "need-to-know" philosophy
when it comes to "facts"?

[Peter Clinch]

judith wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:32:01 +0100, Peter Clinch
> > wrote:
>
>> judith wrote:
>>
>>> I agree - it is a complex subject - there is no easy answer. However,
>>> I see no reason why "an authority" (like the CTC) should not say
>>> something like on the balance of probability, the current evidence
>>> says that you are better of not wearing a helmet than wearing one (or
>>> vice versa)
>> On the current evidence, the balance of probability is that you are
>> no better off wearing one than not, or vice versa.
>
> I am sorry - I was aiming the post at people who had common sense and
> who could comprehend English.
>
> Thanks for your contribution - good bye.

Read it again. And then again and again if you still don't get it.
I'm not trying to take the ****, I'm trying to give you the best
answer available.

The evidence suggests there is no clear positive effect from
wearing a helmet. Thus it is silly to say you should wear one.

The evidence also suggests there is no clear negative effect from
wearing a helmet. Thus it is silly to say you should /not/ wear one.

That is why "an authority" should not say /either/ of the above
choices. They are not the only choices.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:53:01 +0100, judith >
said in >:

>>>Do you leave it up to your kids to decide as to whether they wear
>>>helmets or not - which do you recommend that they do?

>>Yes, and none of your business.

>I am sorry if it touched a nerve it was the photos on your web page
>-the link of which you provided.

It doesn't touch a nerve at all, it's just none of your business.

>They looked too young to have made an informed decision for
>themselves.

Ages 14 and 11.

>Did you not "recommended" which they did? If so which was it?

None of your business.

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

[Peter Clinch]

judith wrote:

> I came here hoping to find out a balance view - I am sorry that you
> and the organisations referred to can't help.

BHRF seek to assess all the helmet research available to them.
They can only do that with research that has been published. If
there is no research on some aspect, that they haven't assessed it
doesn't mean they're useless, it means their hands are tied by the
cold hard light of reality. One can only do what is possible, and
they lack the funds and resources to commission their own research.

> "which exists for the sole purpose of analysing the evidence." - but
> there is no "no-helmet" research to appraise! Well there we go.
>
> I am hence truly gobsmacked that you and cyclehelmets.org - much more
> experts on the matter than I am - have never seen any no-helmet
> research.

Well, if you were going to commission some "no helmet" research how
would you go about it? Research on the effects of helmets is done
by comparing what happens after helmets are introduced as an
intervention and seeing if there's a change from the pre-helemt
state. Since there is nowhere on the planet that has gone from a
helmeted default and tested what happens when you change to a
non-helmeted state you're a bit snookered for available data.
That's at the population level, smaller case control studies have
other, very well documented problems for being used to assess
helmet efficacy.

So, how would you design the experiment? If you can't answer the
question, why are you aazed that nobody's done the research?

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Peter Clinch]

judith wrote:

> Perhaps you can tell us if "editorially" - just as much credence and
> space is given to the pro-helmet stance as to the no-helmet stance?
> Editorially are the board without bias one way or the other?

Editorially, they will say what they think.

If they are presented with work which is self-evidently poor (say,
the recent(ish) Cook and Sheikh paper which due to a mistake in the
methods actually "proves" helmets are 186% effective at reducing
injuries, which is obviously impossible) then they will say it is
poor. If it doesn't have big holes in it then they will say it
looks fair to them.
So they are "biased" in favour of what looks to them like good
science. The pro-helmet data is not reproducible and has clear
methodological falws, the population level sceptical data appears
much better, so that is what is supported editorially.

> www.cyclehelmets.org is promoted as being balanced - I am suggesting
> that it does not appear to be so.

I've read a fair bit of the original source they summarise (I'm a
clinical scientist working in the NHS at a teaching
hopsital/University and have a medical research library a few
minutes down the corridor from my desk, and as someone who used to
wear a helmet every trip for a decade I was concerned about my
safety). I think they're fair when they say the evidence that is
sceptical is not unreasonable, and that the evidence that says
helmets are great is largely tosh that should never have got past
peer review. That is my personal and professional opinion. When I
presented pro and sceptical papers in comparsion at my work Journal
Club my professional scientist colleagues were amazed at how poor
the pro-helmet data was. They didn't find obvious flaws in the
population studies, beyond the ones the authors themselves take the
trouble to point out.

> Perhaps it should say so if this is the case - this is the first that
> I have seen the argument for more cyclists is not just because it is a
> good thing - but in order to improve safety for all cyclists.

On the one hand you claim you haven't the time to look at things
and just want a pithy one line summary, and on the other you
complain people don't give you all the gory details. We can't do
both. But the Safety In Numbers effect is quite well documented,
and you can guess where you can find the references by now.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:59:01 +0100, Peter Clinch
> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:32:01 +0100, Peter Clinch
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> judith wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree - it is a complex subject - there is no easy answer. However,
>>>> I see no reason why "an authority" (like the CTC) should not say
>>>> something like on the balance of probability, the current evidence
>>>> says that you are better of not wearing a helmet than wearing one (or
>>>> vice versa)
>>> On the current evidence, the balance of probability is that you are
>>> no better off wearing one than not, or vice versa.
>>
>> I am sorry - I was aiming the post at people who had common sense and
>> who could comprehend English.
>>
>> Thanks for your contribution - good bye.
>
>Read it again. And then again and again if you still don't get it.
> I'm not trying to take the ****, I'm trying to give you the best
>answer available.


As I said in a reply to another poster - I misread your response - I
thought that you were taking the pee. I apologise.

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:40:52 +0100, Peter Clinch
> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you can tell us if "editorially" - just as much credence and
>> space is given to the pro-helmet stance as to the no-helmet stance?
>> Editorially are the board without bias one way or the other?
>
>Editorially, they will say what they think.
>
>If they are presented with work which is self-evidently poor (say,
>the recent(ish) Cook and Sheikh paper which due to a mistake in the
>methods actually "proves" helmets are 186% effective at reducing
>injuries, which is obviously impossible) then they will say it is
>poor. If it doesn't have big holes in it then they will say it
>looks fair to them.
>So they are "biased" in favour of what looks to them like good
>science. The pro-helmet data is not reproducible and has clear
>methodological falws, the population level sceptical data appears
>much better, so that is what is supported editorially.
>
>> www.cyclehelmets.org is promoted as being balanced - I am suggesting
>> that it does not appear to be so.
>
>I've read a fair bit of the original source they summarise (I'm a
>clinical scientist working in the NHS at a teaching
>hopsital/University and have a medical research library a few
>minutes down the corridor from my desk, and as someone who used to
>wear a helmet every trip for a decade I was concerned about my
>safety). I think they're fair when they say the evidence that is
>sceptical is not unreasonable, and that the evidence that says
>helmets are great is largely tosh that should never have got past
>peer review. That is my personal and professional opinion. When I
>presented pro and sceptical papers in comparsion at my work Journal
>Club my professional scientist colleagues were amazed at how poor
>the pro-helmet data was. They didn't find obvious flaws in the
>population studies, beyond the ones the authors themselves take the
>trouble to point out.
>
>> Perhaps it should say so if this is the case - this is the first that
>> I have seen the argument for more cyclists is not just because it is a
>> good thing - but in order to improve safety for all cyclists.
>
>On the one hand you claim you haven't the time to look at things
>and just want a pithy one line summary, and on the other you
>complain people don't give you all the gory details. We can't do
>both. But the Safety In Numbers effect is quite well documented,
>and you can guess where you can find the references by now.
>
>Pete.

Many thanks - you have made some of the things much clearer (which is
what I was hoping for)

[Peter Clinch]

judith wrote:

> As I said in a reply to another poster - I misread your response - I
> thought that you were taking the pee. I apologise.

Apology accepted, but did you take on board what I said about no
clear reason to wear one, and /also/ no clear reason not to wear one?

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:38:26 +0100, Peter Clinch
> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>
>> As I said in a reply to another poster - I misread your response - I
>> thought that you were taking the pee. I apologise.
>
>Apology accepted, but did you take on board what I said about no
>clear reason to wear one, and /also/ no clear reason not to wear one?
>
>Pete.


no - not yet - I am still not convinced - but will read some of the
referenced papers.

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

"judith" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:14:33 +0100, "Adam Lea" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"judith" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> They could I agree. However I suspect that the vast majority of
>>> cyclists - me included - do not have the time to read and the ability
>>> to absorb the research and arrive at a measured opinion.
>>>
>>
>>If you are not prepared to do some research in order to arrive at an
>>informed opinion then it could be argued that you don't have a right to an
>>opinion.
>>
>>http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/study_38_percent_of_people
>>
>
>
> I have said earlier that I believe that I am typical of many cyclists.
>
> What percentage of cyclists do YOU think will be minded to read the
> relevant research before deciding whether wearing helmets is for them
> or not.
>
> I would hazard a guess at less than 10% - but I have no idea.
>
> Perhaps www.cyclehelmets.org could say how many unique hits they get
> per month (per IP address) - that will be an indication of the number
> of people who are researching for themselves.
>
>

Depends on what question you ask. Asking someone "Do you prefer to wear a
helmet when cycling" is not the same question as " Do you think cyclists
should wear helmets".

You may be right that not many people would read up on the subject before
voicing an opinion. It is a flaw of democracy that ignorant, ill informed
and prejudiced opinions carry as much weight as objective and thought out
opinions.

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:21:22 +0100, "Adam Lea" >
wrote:

>
>"judith" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:14:33 +0100, "Adam Lea" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"judith" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> They could I agree. However I suspect that the vast majority of
>>>> cyclists - me included - do not have the time to read and the ability
>>>> to absorb the research and arrive at a measured opinion.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If you are not prepared to do some research in order to arrive at an
>>>informed opinion then it could be argued that you don't have a right to an
>>>opinion.
>>>
>>>http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/study_38_percent_of_people
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have said earlier that I believe that I am typical of many cyclists.
>>
>> What percentage of cyclists do YOU think will be minded to read the
>> relevant research before deciding whether wearing helmets is for them
>> or not.
>>
>> I would hazard a guess at less than 10% - but I have no idea.
>>
>> Perhaps www.cyclehelmets.org could say how many unique hits they get
>> per month (per IP address) - that will be an indication of the number
>> of people who are researching for themselves.
>>
>>
>
>Depends on what question you ask. Asking someone "Do you prefer to wear a
>helmet when cycling" is not the same question as " Do you think cyclists
>should wear helmets".
>
>You may be right that not many people would read up on the subject before
>voicing an opinion. It is a flaw of democracy that ignorant, ill informed
>and prejudiced opinions carry as much weight as objective and thought out
>opinions.
>


I am firmly of the opinion that the vast majority of cyclists will not
be bothered/able to research the subject adequately for them to make
an informed judgment.

I look forward to www.cyclehelmets.org sharing their access figures
(from the UK) - or perhaps more likely - the reason why they won't.

[Peter Clinch]

judith wrote:

> I look forward to www.cyclehelmets.org sharing their access figures
> (from the UK) - or perhaps more likely - the reason why they won't.

Speaking for my own websites, I don't publish access figures
because it doesn't actually impart any useful information. If you
want to learn to use hiking poles, wash down gear, choose a
rucksack, bake rhubarb crumble muffins or get your children started
on bikes it tells you useful stuff about all of those. It wouldn't
be any more or less useful if anyone knew how many people visited
it, but I would have to waste time collating figures that meant
something rather than actually work on something that might be of
some use to someone...

So how's "because it's a waste of time that would be better spent
on toehr things" for a reason?

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Trevor A Panther[_2_]]

"judith" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:42:19 +0100, Peter Fox
> > wrote:
>
>>judith wrote:
>>> They could I agree. However I suspect that the vast majority of
>>> cyclists - me included - do not have the time to read and the ability
>>> to absorb the research and arrive at a measured opinion.
>>
>>Doesn't stop you bleating on about it though does it?
>>Try a little bit of STFU.
>
>
> Thanks you for your contribution - very mature.
>

sorry Judith

u r a troll

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

[Sir Jeremy]

On 26 Jul, 17:00, "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:17:51 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> > said in
> >:
>
> >They've made their minds up about speed cameras and helmets and that's
> >that. No amount of reasoned argument is going to change their
> >position. Now do you see what Safespeed have been banging on about all
> >these years?
>
> Abject nonsense on a stick. *You go back in the archives of this
> group and dig up the first time I mentioned helmets, you will see
> that I have changed my position very considerably in response to the
> evidence. *You'll also find places where we showed Smith where he
> was wrong, and he discounted this using variants on "laa laa I'm not
> listening". *Your comment is, in fact, the precise opposite of the
> truth.
>
> 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


Your position is nether here nor there. Its the fact that the "safety
partnerships" position is fixed and won't be changed by either (a)
safespeed's evidence on speed cameras or (b) the evidence presented on
cycle helmets.

Does your hatred mean you always have to disagree even when someone is
agreeing with you? Jeez, Nuxx's right about you

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:47:51 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> said in
>:

>Your position is nether here nor there. Its the fact that the "safety
>partnerships" position is fixed and won't be changed by either (a)
>safespeed's evidence on speed cameras or (b) the evidence presented on
>cycle helmets.

The former because it is abject nonsense based on statistical
sophistry performed by a kook, the latter because it is irrelevant
to road safety.

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

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:47:51 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> said in
>:

>Does your hatred mean you always have to disagree even when someone is
>agreeing with you? Jeez, Nuxx's right about you

Oh, missed that ps. What hatred? Who am I supposed to hate, again?
Apart from spammers, I mean?

I find it hard to see how anything referencing Safespeed is
agreement with anything, I'm afraid, since Smith made things up and
then challenged people to refute them, exactly as the pro-helmet
crowd have, so that puts you on the wrong side of the fence in any
kind of truth-v-evidence competition.

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

[gary2006uk]

On 26 Jul, 12:59, "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 11:46:23 +0100, judith >
> said in >:
>
> >I agree - it is a complex subject - there is no easy answer. However,
> >I see no reason why "an authority" (like the CTC) should not say
> >something like on the balance of probability, the current evidence
> >says that you are better of not wearing a helmet than wearing one (or
> >vice versa)
>
> That would work if there was an easy answer. There isn't one.
>
> >I was under the impression that there was an anti-helmet lobby - if
> >you are telling me that there is no such thing, then I must believe
> >you.
>
> I've never seen any evidence of it, and I like to think that I would
> know.
>
> >(I would put people who object to compulsory helmets on the basis that
> >it "would deter people from cycling" rather on a sound scientific
> >argument that they are more dangerous when worn than when not worn -
> >to be good examples of an any-helmet lobby)
>
> No, that would be a perfectly rational reason for opposing helmet
> laws. The health benefits of cycling are well documented,
> deterrence is a potentially significant public health issue.
>
> You also make the classic mistake of reversed burden of proof: it is
> for the pro-helmet lobby to prove that helmets improve safety when
> worn, not for those who oppose compulsion to prove that they are
> more dangerous. In order to justify a helmet law you need to prove
> the following:
>
> * That cycling is especially dangerous
> * That this danger manifests itself especially in head injuries
> * That cycle helmets are an effective way of mitigating the risk
> * That the benefits of a law outweigh any likely disbenefits
>
> Actually it turns out that helmet laws fail all four of these
> criteria. Cycling is not especially dangerous, the proportion of
> head injuries is the same as for pedestrians, helmets are not
> designed for the major source of danger and have never been shown to
> reduce risk in a real cyclist population, and the benefits in injury
> treatment costs alone, ignoring any health benefits, are less than
> the cost of the helmets, ignoring enforcement of the law, and taking
> an optimistic estimate of injuries saved.
>
> There is no good argument, as far as I can tell, for a helmet law.
> There are, however, many bad arguments, of which "think of the
> children" and "if only one life can be saved" are the two most
> egregious and the two most widely used.
>
> But arguing against a helmet law is a very long way indeed from
> being anti-helmet.
>
> >Looking at the site - I am not immediately convinced of the
> >impartially of cyclehelmets.org:
>
> I would not be able to judge that, being on the editorial board.
> Perhaps you think that a group set up to campaign for a helmet law
> is more objective?
>
> >Whilst cyclehelmets.org strives to be objective in its selection of
> >information for presentation, there is more helmet-sceptic material on
> >this web site than that supportive of helmets. This is in part a
> >matter of copyright (we provide references to journals but cannot
> >generally give direct access), but largely because there is a far
> >wider range of arguments and sources that cast doubt upon one or more
> >aspects of helmet efficacy. cyclehelmets.org is not helmet-sceptic on
> >principle, but because pro-helmet predictions are so often
> >contradicted by real-world experience.
> >http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1004
>
> Yup, very fair. The pro-helmet research is all of the same type, a
> type notoriously prone to confounding and other errors. This type
> of research seeks to predict what will happen if an intervention is
> applied, but every time that is tested it is found that the
> predictions are wrong in both magnitude and sign. Sure, lots of
> people have followed the same protocol and produced the same
> erroneous result, but that's happened before in the case of HRT and
> coronary heart disease, and it was wrong there as well.
>
> >The following comment is hardly that of an impartial bystander with no
> >axe to grind:
> >"<we are>....concerned that helmet laws have led almost universally to
> >large declines in the number of people who cycle
> >http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1004
>
> What's wrong with being concerned that the intervention supposed to
> improve safety has, in every single documented case, eroded the only
> thing which is provably linked with improved safety, i.e. more
> people cycling? I'd say that a "safety" intervention which is not
> known to improve safety but which impacts negatively on something
> which *is* known to improve safety, is a valid cause for concern.
>
> >I cannot find anything on Google re BeHit - do you know where I can
> >find their views.
>
> All over the place. I don't think they are of much value, though -http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/BeHIT
>
> >I do not think it is reasonable for someone to see "a figure" - and
> >even understand it every time.
>
> Neither do I, especially when the figure is discredited, but that
> doesn't stop BeHIT from using the known false 85% figure and
> misrepresenting it into the bargain.
>
> >As I have said - it is obviously a very complex subject - and I
> >believe that the vast majority of cyclists do not have the ability to
> >understand the arguments.
>
> I think you are wrong, but most of the pro-helmet lobby will agree
> with you, which is why they like to cherry-pick a few bits of
> evidence and ten tell people what they should do. Though I suspect
> their justification is more that if people form a different view
> from them, then it must be everyone else who is wrong.
>
> >Therefore it would make much sense for any authoritative body to
> >provide a recommendation based on the evidence to date.
>
> They do. They recommend you make your own choice.
>
> 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

its the same with wearing a helmet for rock climbing and
mountaineering.its reccomended but its up to the individual if that
person decides to wear a helmet.i havent seen climbers wearing
helmets.ive been mountaineering for 47 years in the uk and have not
met any climbers wearing helmets.they would not save your head if you
fell on your head,but quite convenient for compressing the climber
into the helmet to make it easier to carry the climber down on a
rescue.a helmet might be fine for small stones hitting your head,or if
you trip on a path and hit your head but no good for hard impact like
a direct head impact with a vehicle or road.ok up to 10 mph i think.a
motorcycling helmet would be safer,it saved my head in an accident,a
cycling helmet would have been in bits and your head.
gareth
cycling since 1961

[Rob Oldfield[_2_]]

"judith" > wrote in message
...

Fine. You ****ed up being able to read. And now you've claimed that you're
suddenly learnt how to.

Now. How about actually answering the points that he made?

[Clive George]

"judith" > wrote in message
...

> Thanks for your concern but I am not visually impaired and my computer
> is quite new and you are wrong : I am currently at 800 x 600 and I
> have to scroll to see all of the page horizontally.

"quite new" - 800x600? Even my telly manages 1024x768, and that's really
crap. boggle...

[Tim Woodall]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:19:08 +0100,
Clive George > wrote:
> "judith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Thanks for your concern but I am not visually impaired and my computer
>> is quite new and you are wrong : I am currently at 800 x 600 and I
>> have to scroll to see all of the page horizontally.
>
> "quite new" - 800x600? Even my telly manages 1024x768, and that's really
> crap. boggle...
>
IIRC my eeepc does 800x480. But I'm often using Lynx - on this computer
that's 128x48 text mode. On the eeepc it's less.

(Cyclehelmets.org doesn't work in lynx, purely because of a crap bit of
javascript to load the frames. 20 lines of php and the problem would go
away.)

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/

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:40:46 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
> said in
>:

>(Cyclehelmets.org doesn't work in lynx, purely because of a crap bit of
>javascript to load the frames. 20 lines of php and the problem would go
>away.)

Mail John Franklin, he's the webmonster.

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

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:45:25 GMT, "Trevor A Panther"
> wrote:

>
>
>
>"judith" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:42:19 +0100, Peter Fox
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>judith wrote:
>>>> They could I agree. However I suspect that the vast majority of
>>>> cyclists - me included - do not have the time to read and the ability
>>>> to absorb the research and arrive at a measured opinion.
>>>
>>>Doesn't stop you bleating on about it though does it?
>>>Try a little bit of STFU.
>>
>>
>> Thanks you for your contribution - very mature.
>>
>
>sorry Judith
>
>u r a troll


Thanks you for your contribution - very mature.

[Marc[_2_]]

judith wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:45:25 GMT, "Trevor A Panther"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "judith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:42:19 +0100, Peter Fox
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> judith wrote:
>>>>> They could I agree. However I suspect that the vast majority of
>>>>> cyclists - me included - do not have the time to read and the ability
>>>>> to absorb the research and arrive at a measured opinion.
>>>> Doesn't stop you bleating on about it though does it?
>>>> Try a little bit of STFU.
>>>
>>> Thanks you for your contribution - very mature.
>>>
>> sorry Judith
>>
>> u r a troll
>
>
> Thanks you for your contribution - very mature.
>
And accurate. Of course what we need is another point of view , to get a
balanced opinion...

I wonder how long we will have to wait until we get a point of view that
says that "she" isn't a troll?

[Chris Malcolm]

judith > wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:25:23 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:

>>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:52:48 +0100, judith >
>>said in >:
>>
>>On the basis of scientific research, cyclehelmets.org fully supports
>>the belief that cyclehelmets are legitimately a matter for
>>individual choice - and gives no support whatsoever to the theory of
>>helmet laws.
>>
>>Guy

> any chance on your answer to:
> Perhaps you can tell us if "editorially" - just as much credence and
> space is given to the pro-helmet stance as to the no-helmet stance?
> Editorially are the board without bias one way or the other?

You seem to be confusing political objectivity, which gives equal
space to either side of a dispute, and scientific objectivity, which
gives each argument the space it needs by virtue of the logic and
evidence.

Unfortunately for cyclists, whether or not it is a good idea to wear a
cycle helmet is a scientific question which has become not only a
political question but a commercial one, because it is in the
interests of those who profit from cycle helmets to lobby the
politicians.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

[Chris Malcolm]

judith > wrote:

> I am hence truly gobsmacked that you and cyclehelmets.org - much more
> experts on the matter than I am - have never seen any no-helmet
> research.

> However, I accept that you are right and there is none.

You don't have to accept it. You have at your disposal the world wide
web and google, which for the purposes of finding scientific research
has the useful specialised google scholar search. While assessing the
value of a scientific paper takes just as long as it always did,
finding out whether a certain category of paper exists is now many
orders of magnitude faster than it used to be.

If you really don't have the small amount of time required you should
eaily be able to identify a reputable academic scientist working in
the area and ask them. Academic scientists are paid out of the public
purse precisely to oblige them to give the results of their research
free to enquirers.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

[JNugent[_4_]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:18:51 +0100, "northwesterner"
> > said in
> >:
>
>> Its 21st century Labour britain. Helmets will be compulsory. The fine will
>> be automatic. We will soon have to register our bikes, maybe a license. Oh,
>> that will cost too.
>> Minorities, of course, will be exempt from this. Parents will be fined if
>> their kids whizz their BMX no cycling bits etc
>>
>> Only the voters can prevent this next year.
>
> This was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Official
> Monster Raving Loony party.

Perhaps it was - but if it was, it's the most realistic and "normal"
thing I've ever heard them say (and I am well aware that most of their
utterances are deliberately "odd").

[judith]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:30:06 +0100, wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 21:22:20 +0100, Peter Clinch
> wrote:
>
>>judith wrote:
>>
>>> I look forward to www.cyclehelmets.org sharing their access figures
>>> (from the UK) - or perhaps more likely - the reason why they won't.
>>
>>Speaking for my own websites, I don't publish access figures
>>because it doesn't actually impart any useful information. If you
>>want to learn to use hiking poles, wash down gear, choose a
>>rucksack, bake rhubarb crumble muffins or get your children started
>>on bikes it tells you useful stuff about all of those. It wouldn't
>>be any more or less useful if anyone knew how many people visited
>>it, but I would have to waste time collating figures that meant
>>something rather than actually work on something that might be of
>>some use to someone...
>>
>>So how's "because it's a waste of time that would be better spent
>>on toehr things" for a reason?
>>
>>Pete.


I was purely asking for unique access figures from the uk - not any
break down of the areas accessed.

That would at least give the maximum number of people who may have
been looking at the research.

The figures will not need any collating.

[judith]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:08:28 +0100, "Rob Oldfield" >
wrote:

>
>"judith" > wrote in message
...
>
>Fine. You ****ed up being able to read. And now you've claimed that you're
>suddenly learnt how to.
>
>Now. How about actually answering the points that he made?
>
>

Hello Rob - welcome aboard - I see that you are new here.

Do you usually post under a different name - you remind me of someone
else who posts here.

(PS - I realise that you're new to this lark - but it's bad form to
use a totally fictitious e-mail address)

[Peter Clinch]

judith wrote:

> I was purely asking for unique access figures from the uk - not any
> break down of the areas accessed.
> That would at least give the maximum number of people who may have
> been looking at the research.

Not at all.
According to that assumption, nobody could have read the research
before there was a site that collated it, as pre-cyclehelmets.org
zero people accessed it so "therefore" zero people was the maximum
number reading the research. That is obviously not the case, so
the assumption is wrong.

> The figures will not need any collating.

But they won't tell you much that's (a) hard or (b) useful. You
just seem to have decided the lack of it in some way suspicious, a
bit like the CTC /not/ telling people what they should do. It
isn't suspicious, it's just a bit of a waste of time that folk
really have better things to spend on. The BHRF isn't anybody's
day job, it has *very* finite resources.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[judith]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:43:29 +0100, Peter Clinch
> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>
>> I was purely asking for unique access figures from the uk - not any
>> break down of the areas accessed.
>> That would at least give the maximum number of people who may have
>> been looking at the research.
>
>Not at all.
>According to that assumption, nobody could have read the research
>before there was a site that collated it, as pre-cyclehelmets.org
>zero people accessed it so "therefore" zero people was the maximum
>number reading the research. That is obviously not the case, so
>the assumption is wrong.
>
>> The figures will not need any collating.
>
>But they won't tell you much that's (a) hard or (b) useful. You
>just seem to have decided the lack of it in some way suspicious, a
>bit like the CTC /not/ telling people what they should do. It
>isn't suspicious, it's just a bit of a waste of time that folk
>really have better things to spend on. The BHRF isn't anybody's
>day job, it has *very* finite resources.
>
>Pete.


So this site is a must read for anyone researching the pros and cons
of wearing a helmet and is said to be the most authoritative summary
and source of references to the research that there is.

But we won't tell you how many unique IP addresses from the uk access
this site on a monthly basis as that will show that there are in fact
very few people actually researching the pro/anti helmet per month.

(And you criticise other bodies for not releasing "figures" !)

[Marc[_2_]]

judith wrote:

>
> (PS - I realise that you're new to this lark - but it's bad form to
> use a totally fictitious e-mail address)

Says who?

I've been knocking about usenet since 1994, and this is the first time I
have ever heard that twaddle.

[judith]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:36:46 +0100, Marc
> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>
>>
>> (PS - I realise that you're new to this lark - but it's bad form to
>> use a totally fictitious e-mail address)
>
>Says who?
>
>I've been knocking about usenet since 1994, and this is the first time I
>have ever heard that twaddle.

"knocking about" is probably the correct term.


Many references - eg

When you post an article, make sure that the return e-mail address in
its From: or Reply-To: headers is correct, since it is considered
inappropriate to post an article to which people are unable to
respond by e-mail.


http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1/

Perhaps the BT one may be of interest - you perhaps ought to read it -
it will be in your contract.

USENET NEWSGROUPS - ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY (AUP)

[Peter Clinch]

judith wrote:

> So this site is a must read for anyone researching the pros and cons
> of wearing a helmet

No, but it is a good start as it can save you a lot of hunting,
since they've done a lot of the hunting already. But you don't
/have/ to do it that way, and indeed if you're suspicious of their
trustworthiness you'd be a damn fool to rely on them.

> and is said to be the most authoritative summary
> and source of references to the research that there is.

I've not come across a better one. Have you?

> But we won't tell you how many unique IP addresses from the uk access
> this site on a monthly basis as that will show that there are in fact
> very few people actually researching the pro/anti helmet per month.

You've assumed an answer there. I don't know what the answer is,
not being in BHRF (though I am on their e-mailing list), but what I
can say is that your assumption is not /necessarily/ correct. My
guess is it's just something nobody has time for... But what does
it actually prove if there are few or many looking at it? That's
beside the point that it *is* there.

Over the last couple of days you've made the point that probably
not many are people are reading it or would want to, and would thus
benefit from a pithy one line summary. But it's a simple case of
what they /want/ not really being sesnible, or entirely possible.
You illustrated that quite nicely, when I gave you as simple a
summary as possible, and asked if you'd taken it on board, and you
said no, you wanted to look at the research first... which was
*exactly* what everyone told you would be needed to have an answer
you were satisfied with in the first place!

So do you now see why people didn't just say it's A or it's B?

Give peeople a one line summary and what they'll do is believe it
if it fits their preconceived assumption or discount it if it's
not. The only way for people to get an answer on a contentious
issue that they'll be happy with is for them to do the deciding.
If it's informed deciding then so much the better, but you can't
force that on folk.

> (And you criticise other bodies for not releasing "figures" !)

Do I? Where did I do that?

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Rob Oldfield[_2_]]

"judith" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:36:46 +0100, Marc
> > wrote:
>
>>judith wrote:
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1/
>

Ah yes. That would be from 1999. I presume you missed that fact.

> Perhaps the BT one may be of interest - you perhaps ought to read it -
> it will be in your contract.
>
> USENET NEWSGROUPS - ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY (AUP)
>

You mean this one?
http://www2.bt.com/static/i/btretail/panretail/acceptableuse/usenet.html

Nothing in there that I can see about fake addresses.

It does however say "You must not maliciously try to incite other newsgroup
users to deviate from the stated topic of the group. Attempts to anger
others and to draw them into off topic debates are known as 'trolling'."

Anyway... since this is a cycling newsgroup instead of usenet etiqutte...
are you still going to avoid the original response?

[judith]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:56:50 +0100, "Rob Oldfield" >
wrote:

>
>
>"judith" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 10:36:46 +0100, Marc
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>judith wrote:
>>
>> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1/
>>
>
>Ah yes. That would be from 1999. I presume you missed that fact.

No - given that I was replying to Marc (rather than you) who had
said:

I've been knocking about usenet since 1994, and this is the first time
I have ever heard that twaddle.

I thought it was particularly relevant

Have you never heard of it either?

<snip>

>Anyway... since this is a cycling newsgroup instead of usenet etiqutte...
>are you still going to avoid the original response?

I thought it evaded the issue and I was letting it go. However, as
you have raised it:

Simple question - is either of the following statements true:

On the balance of probability wearing a helmet is likely to do more
harm to the cyclist than not wearing one.

On the balance of probability not wearing a helmet is Lilly to do more
harm to the cyclist than wearing one.

[Marc[_2_]]

judith wrote:

>
>> Anyway... since this is a cycling newsgroup instead of usenet etiqutte...
>> are you still going to avoid the original response?
>
> I thought it evaded the issue and I was letting it go. However, as
> you have raised it:
>
> Simple question - is either of the following statements true:
>
> On the balance of probability wearing a helmet is likely to do more
> harm to the cyclist than not wearing one.
>
> On the balance of probability not wearing a helmet is Lilly to do more
> harm to the cyclist than wearing one.


"On the balance of probability not wearing a helmet is Lilly to do more
harm to the cyclist than wearing one." Is a question without a
question mark ( something you are prone to do. The answer to which is
Lilly, ( whoever she is) probably doesn't care.

[Peter Clinch]

judith wrote:

> Simple question - is either of the following statements true:
>
> On the balance of probability wearing a helmet is likely to do more
> harm to the cyclist than not wearing one.

No, as you've already been told.

> On the balance of probability not wearing a helmet is Lilly to do more
> harm to the cyclist than wearing one.

No, as you've already been told.

On the balance of probability, given the current evidence, a helmet
will likely make no difference, either positive or negative, to a
cyclist wearing one.

Positive and negative effects are not the only options. Zero
effect is a third possibility.

The current evidence is subject to error, but there's no reason to
assume it goes more one way than the other at the population level
on a road journey. The current evidence also only concerns itself
with serious injury. There is insufficient information for a good
call to be made with minor injuries.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[judith]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:07:38 +0100, Marc
> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>
>>
>>> Anyway... since this is a cycling newsgroup instead of usenet etiqutte...
>>> are you still going to avoid the original response?
>>
>> I thought it evaded the issue and I was letting it go. However, as
>> you have raised it:
>>
>> Simple question - is either of the following statements true<? added so that people realise that it is a question>
>>
>> On the balance of probability wearing a helmet is likely to do more
>> harm to the cyclist than not wearing one.
>>
>> On the balance of probability not wearing a helmet is likely to do more
>> harm to the cyclist than wearing one.
>
>
>"On the balance of probability not wearing a helmet is Lilly to do more
> harm to the cyclist than wearing one." Is a question without a
>question mark ( something you are prone to do. The answer to which is
>Lilly, ( whoever she is) probably doesn't care.


Why many thanks for the English lesson - and the effect that my spell
check had introduced - I've corrected that as well - much appreciated

Anyway - any chance of answering the question above - it should be
quite easy for you?

(Did you see the post on using fake e-mail addresses I posted - I
didn't see a response from you - perhaps you missed it)

[Rob Oldfield[_2_]]

>judith wrote:
>
> I thought it evaded the issue and I was letting it go. However, as
> you have raised it:
>

So you take me pointing out that you had avoided Peter's original points as
an invitation to post another simplistic "have you stopped beating your
wife?" type thing.

Jolly good. You're definitely a troll, I think.

[Marc[_2_]]

judith wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:07:38 +0100, Marc
> > wrote:
>
>> judith wrote:
>>
>>>> Anyway... since this is a cycling newsgroup instead of usenet etiqutte...
>>>> are you still going to avoid the original response?
>>> I thought it evaded the issue and I was letting it go. However, as
>>> you have raised it:
>>>
>>> Simple question - is either of the following statements true<? added so that people realise that it is a question>
>>>
>>> On the balance of probability wearing a helmet is likely to do more
>>> harm to the cyclist than not wearing one.
>>>
>>> On the balance of probability not wearing a helmet is likely to do more
>>> harm to the cyclist than wearing one.
>>
>> "On the balance of probability not wearing a helmet is Lilly to do more
>> harm to the cyclist than wearing one." Is a question without a
>> question mark ( something you are prone to do. The answer to which is
>> Lilly, ( whoever she is) probably doesn't care.
>
>
> Why many thanks for the English lesson - and the effect that my spell
> check had introduced - I've corrected that as well - much appreciated

A pity you don't use punctuation in a standard way, here's some of the
punctuation that's been missing in the last few days. I presume you
lost it behind the fridge?

............!????????::::::::::;;
>
> Anyway - any chance of answering the question above -

None whatsoever!
it should be
> quite easy for you?
>
> (Did you see the post on using fake e-mail addresses I posted - I
> didn't see a response from you - perhaps you missed it)

I can't remember, I only pay attention to you when it is useful ( to me)
to do so, at other ( most) times , I ignore your whitterings.

[judith]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:10:48 +0100, Peter Clinch
> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>
>> Simple question - is either of the following statements true:
>>
>> On the balance of probability wearing a helmet is likely to do more
>> harm to the cyclist than not wearing one.
>
>No, as you've already been told.
>
>> On the balance of probability not wearing a helmet is Lilly to do more
>> harm to the cyclist than wearing one.
>
>No, as you've already been told.
>
>On the balance of probability, given the current evidence, a helmet
>will likely make no difference, either positive or negative, to a
>cyclist wearing one.
>
>Positive and negative effects are not the only options. Zero
>effect is a third possibility.

Good - some clarity:

On the balance of probability, given the current evidence, a helmet
will likely make no difference, either positive or negative, to a
cyclist wearing one.


Perhaps the CTC and www.cyclehelmets.org will put it on their web
sites.

I'm sure it will help many people so simply stated.

[judith]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:43:57 +0100, Marc
> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:07:38 +0100, Marc
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> judith wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Anyway... since this is a cycling newsgroup instead of usenet etiqutte...
>>>>> are you still going to avoid the original response?
>>>> I thought it evaded the issue and I was letting it go. However, as
>>>> you have raised it:
>>>>
>>>> Simple question - is either of the following statements true<? added so that people realise that it is a question>
>>>>
>>>> On the balance of probability wearing a helmet is likely to do more
>>>> harm to the cyclist than not wearing one.
>>>>
>>>> On the balance of probability not wearing a helmet is likely to do more
>>>> harm to the cyclist than wearing one.
>>>
>>> "On the balance of probability not wearing a helmet is Lilly to do more
>>> harm to the cyclist than wearing one." Is a question without a
>>> question mark ( something you are prone to do. The answer to which is
>>> Lilly, ( whoever she is) probably doesn't care.
>>
>>
>> Why many thanks for the English lesson - and the effect that my spell
>> check had introduced - I've corrected that as well - much appreciated
>
>A pity you don't use punctuation in a standard way, here's some of the
>punctuation that's been missing in the last few days. I presume you
>lost it behind the fridge?
>
>...........!????????::::::::::;;


Good one.

I know that you weren't aware of netiquette regarding e-mail addresses
- any idea if it covers ****wits correcting simple punctuation?

[Peter Clinch]

judith wrote:

> Good - some clarity:
>
> On the balance of probability, given the current evidence, a helmet
> will likely make no difference, either positive or negative, to a
> cyclist wearing one.

I did put quite a lot of caveats there which you've now missed out.
Without the caveats it doesn't actually say quite the same thing.

> Perhaps the CTC and www.cyclehelmets.org will put it on their web
> sites.

CTC direct you to cyclehelmets.org. BHRF in turn provide the
information from which people can make up their own conclusions.
The above (albeit with caveats) was mine. It is not necessarily
the same as everyone else's.

> I'm sure it will help many people so simply stated.

But I stated it that simply before now and asked if you'd taken it
on board, and you said no you hadn't because you wanted to check
the references, so it didn't help you last time you were told it.

If you tell someone that and they don't look further they will
generally say (and we know they will, we see it again and again and
agian and again) that common sense say's that can't be right, that
a helmet saved their life, etc. etc. I suspect that's why the
"read this first" actually provides you with information to make a
sound basis for the conclusion.

After all, the likes of BHIT tell you quite plainly cycle helmets
must make you better off, so you can trust that completely with no
further evidence, yes?

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[judith]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:03:01 +0100, Peter Clinch
> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>
>> Good - some clarity:
>>
>> On the balance of probability, given the current evidence, a helmet
>> will likely make no difference, either positive or negative, to a
>> cyclist wearing one.
>
>I did put quite a lot of caveats there which you've now missed out.
> Without the caveats it doesn't actually say quite the same thing.

The only caveat is for "serious injuries"

So add in "serious injuries" and you are saying:

On the balance of probability, given the current evidence, a helmet
will likely make no difference to serious injuries, either positive or
negative, to a cyclist wearing one.



>> Perhaps the CTC and www.cyclehelmets.org will put it on their web
>> sites.
>
>CTC direct you to cyclehelmets.org.

Yes - as I have said before I am surprised as I do not think it is
impartial.

The message it tries and succeeds to put across is that helmets are
not beneficial to cyclists - which I do not think is impartial advice.
> BHRF in turn provide the
>information from which people can make up their own conclusions.
>The above (albeit with caveats) was mine. It is not necessarily
>the same as everyone else's.
>
>> I'm sure it will help many people so simply stated.
>
>But I stated it that simply before now and asked if you'd taken it
>on board, and you said no you hadn't because you wanted to check
>the references, so it didn't help you last time you were told it.

I disagree - it didn't help as I don't think that you ever stated it
so clearly as you have above.

Other people were saying that I should also "read the evidence" so I
was trying to do that.

>If you tell someone that and they don't look further they will
>generally say (and we know they will, we see it again and again and
>agian and again) that common sense say's that can't be right, that
>a helmet saved their life, etc. etc. I suspect that's why the
>"read this first" actually provides you with information to make a
>sound basis for the conclusion.
>
>After all, the likes of BHIT tell you quite plainly cycle helmets
>must make you better off, so you can trust that completely with no
>further evidence, yes?

No - they have a biased point of view in the same way as
cyclehelmet.org. do - and I am aware of criticisms of what they have
said.

At least what you say (with the addition of serious as above) is quite
clear.


>
>Pete.

[Peter Clinch]

judith wrote:

> The only caveat is for "serious injuries"
>
> So add in "serious injuries" and you are saying:
>
> On the balance of probability, given the current evidence, a helmet
> will likely make no difference to serious injuries, either positive or
> negative, to a cyclist wearing one.

You failed to put in the bit about confidence limits. For a
/proper/ statement you'd need to assess the size of the error bars
properly.

And you also failed to put the bit in about referring to road use only.

And there's a pile of other qualifications too if I was taking the
time to do it as well as I could, which I didn't because time is
finite and I'm alternating with a DIY project. If you look at
Hewson's work you'll find he devotes considerable space pointing to
all of the holes in the dataset he's forced to use (the best
available not being very good, in fact), as he did when interviewed
in the Graun recently for a pro-helmet piece.

In other words, the reason not to make a simple statement is the
simplified version is *not the same* as the complex one. It isn't
just a neat precis job, you need to point out and reference all
sorts of issues. Which is in fact what BHRF do, because they're
trying to do it properly rather than the way you seem to want it.

You can't always get what you want (but if you try sometimes, you
might find you get what you need).

> Yes - as I have said before I am surprised as I do not think it is
> impartial.

So on the one hand you want impartiality, but at the same time on
the other you want a definite statement from data which cannot
actually be accurately and confidently distilled into a definite
statement... In other words you set them an impossible task, and
then complain that they can't do it.

> The message it tries and succeeds to put across is that helmets are
> not beneficial to cyclists - which I do not think is impartial advice.

But what if the evidence says that's the case? The idea is to give
the best information possible, whether or not is politically
uncomfortable or appears "partial" to one side or the other of a
debate. I've read a moderate chunk of the original research and I
think their stance is fair. Their critiques expose genuine flaws,
nobody's stopping anyone else, including the pro-helmet lobby, of
critiquing helmet sceptic work, but when they do (see, for example,
Hagel et al in the BMJ in 2006) their work is self evidently very
poor: check out the Rapid Responses to that article in the BMJ,
which tears it apart quite thoroughly.
How can you say they are not balanced if you haven't read the stuff
they're working from? The fact is you are not in a position to
make an informed judgement until you've done the reading. Not got
time to do the reading? Well, it's a shame but the fact is that's
what you need to really decide if BHRF is impartial or not.

Science doesn't work with "impartiality" the way the BBC are
expected to. If a group of impartial scientists reviews the
evidence for creationism and evolution side by side they are not
being "biased" if they conclude the former is much weaker than the
latter and doesn't deserve house-space.

> I disagree - it didn't help as I don't think that you ever stated it
> so clearly as you have above.

But it is not impartial advice by your standards, so why should you
trust it?

> Other people were saying that I should also "read the evidence" so I
> was trying to do that.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. You'd not read so much that you didn't
quote TRT's comedy science as "balance", even though you'll find
their work in the references available at cyclehelmets.org.
Reading the evidence takes a long time. There is a lot of it. You
can't come back in 10 minutes and say you've done it because it
takes a lot longer than that, and you'll need the resources of a
good library for a lot of it that can't be found on the web for
copyright reasons. So if you're going to read it then read it,
don't just "try" and jump to another poorly supported conclusion in
a few hours or even minutes.
If you don't have the time that *is* fair enough, but in that case
you will not be in a position to make a fair judgement of the
impartiality of BHRF in what they say about the evidence. It is
also the case you'll have to simply trust people. I have to trust
Hewson's statistics, the maths is beyond me, but his credentials
and the lack of holes picked in his work since publication leads me
to trust him, and those parts of his work I /do/ understand well
strike me as fair and reasonable.

> No - they have a biased point of view in the same way as
> cyclehelmet.org. do - and I am aware of criticisms of what they have
> said.

It's not the same at all. One has apparently started off with the
conclusion "cycle helmets are good, now let's look for some more
evidence to convince the doubters" while the other has said, "how
do we know if these are good or bad? Let's look at the evidence
and see for ourselves and then we'll draw conclusions according to
what we find".

One is very much *not* the antithesis of the other. One is faith
looking for science to justify it, the other is science.

> At least what you say (with the addition of serious as above) is quite
> clear.

Well it's more complicated than that, so I'm afraid to say if you
found it clear then you haven't /really/ understood the nature of
the evidence and the degree to which it can be objectively
distilled. It does not distill to a single pithy statement. I
reduced it to something like that primarily to demonstrate that
your insistence of A or B, one or the other, was missing the
possibility of C. It is a *broad* representation of /my/ view, but
I don't think it would be right, certainly not impartial, for BHRF
to say it in a headline statement. I think what they do, provide a
lot of discussion with cross references, is agreat deal closer to
impartiality than the "clear statement" you keep on demanding while
complaining they're not impartial.

It would be a bit like[1] the DfH stating clearly that you should
eat salt sprinkled on your food, period, or you should not eat salt
sprinkled on your food, period, or that it made no difference
whether or not you ate salt sprinkled on your food, period, without
any further qualification and discussion. It is *not* that clear
and simple but depends upon a huge host of other factors.

Pete.

[1] but only a bit. We know rather more about what salt does to
people than we do about cycle helmets.
--
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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[judith]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:09:47 +0100, Peter Clinch
> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>
>> The only caveat is for "serious injuries"
>>
>> So add in "serious injuries" and you are saying:
>>
>> On the balance of probability, given the current evidence, a helmet
>> will likely make no difference to serious injuries, either positive or
>> negative, to a cyclist wearing one.
>
>You failed to put in the bit about confidence limits. For a
>/proper/ statement you'd need to assess the size of the error bars
>properly.
>
>And you also failed to put the bit in about referring to road use only.
>
>And there's a pile of other qualifications too if I was taking the
>time to do it as well as I could, which I didn't because time is
>finite and I'm alternating with a DIY project. If you look at
>Hewson's work you'll find he devotes considerable space pointing to
>all of the holes in the dataset he's forced to use (the best
>available not being very good, in fact), as he did when interviewed
>in the Graun recently for a pro-helmet piece.
>
>In other words, the reason not to make a simple statement is the
>simplified version is *not the same* as the complex one. It isn't
>just a neat precis job, you need to point out and reference all
>sorts of issues. Which is in fact what BHRF do, because they're
>trying to do it properly rather than the way you seem to want it.
>
>You can't always get what you want (but if you try sometimes, you
>might find you get what you need).
>
>> Yes - as I have said before I am surprised as I do not think it is
>> impartial.
>
>So on the one hand you want impartiality, but at the same time on
>the other you want a definite statement from data which cannot
>actually be accurately and confidently distilled into a definite
>statement... In other words you set them an impossible task, and
>then complain that they can't do it.
>
>> The message it tries and succeeds to put across is that helmets are
>> not beneficial to cyclists - which I do not think is impartial advice.
>
>But what if the evidence says that's the case? The idea is to give
>the best information possible, whether or not is politically
>uncomfortable or appears "partial" to one side or the other of a
>debate. I've read a moderate chunk of the original research and I
>think their stance is fair. Their critiques expose genuine flaws,
>nobody's stopping anyone else, including the pro-helmet lobby, of
>critiquing helmet sceptic work, but when they do (see, for example,
>Hagel et al in the BMJ in 2006) their work is self evidently very
>poor: check out the Rapid Responses to that article in the BMJ,
>which tears it apart quite thoroughly.
>How can you say they are not balanced if you haven't read the stuff
>they're working from? The fact is you are not in a position to
>make an informed judgement until you've done the reading. Not got
>time to do the reading? Well, it's a shame but the fact is that's
>what you need to really decide if BHRF is impartial or not.
>
>Science doesn't work with "impartiality" the way the BBC are
>expected to. If a group of impartial scientists reviews the
>evidence for creationism and evolution side by side they are not
>being "biased" if they conclude the former is much weaker than the
>latter and doesn't deserve house-space.
>
>> I disagree - it didn't help as I don't think that you ever stated it
>> so clearly as you have above.
>
>But it is not impartial advice by your standards, so why should you
>trust it?
>
>> Other people were saying that I should also "read the evidence" so I
>> was trying to do that.
>
>Up to a point, Lord Copper. You'd not read so much that you didn't
>quote TRT's comedy science as "balance", even though you'll find
>their work in the references available at cyclehelmets.org.
>Reading the evidence takes a long time. There is a lot of it. You
>can't come back in 10 minutes and say you've done it because it
>takes a lot longer than that, and you'll need the resources of a
>good library for a lot of it that can't be found on the web for
>copyright reasons. So if you're going to read it then read it,
>don't just "try" and jump to another poorly supported conclusion in
>a few hours or even minutes.
>If you don't have the time that *is* fair enough, but in that case
>you will not be in a position to make a fair judgement of the
>impartiality of BHRF in what they say about the evidence. It is
>also the case you'll have to simply trust people. I have to trust
>Hewson's statistics, the maths is beyond me, but his credentials
>and the lack of holes picked in his work since publication leads me
>to trust him, and those parts of his work I /do/ understand well
>strike me as fair and reasonable.
>
>> No - they have a biased point of view in the same way as
>> cyclehelmet.org. do - and I am aware of criticisms of what they have
>> said.
>
>It's not the same at all. One has apparently started off with the
>conclusion "cycle helmets are good, now let's look for some more
>evidence to convince the doubters" while the other has said, "how
>do we know if these are good or bad? Let's look at the evidence
>and see for ourselves and then we'll draw conclusions according to
>what we find".
>
>One is very much *not* the antithesis of the other. One is faith
>looking for science to justify it, the other is science.
>
>> At least what you say (with the addition of serious as above) is quite
>> clear.
>
>Well it's more complicated than that, so I'm afraid to say if you
>found it clear then you haven't /really/ understood the nature of
>the evidence and the degree to which it can be objectively
>distilled. It does not distill to a single pithy statement. I
>reduced it to something like that primarily to demonstrate that
>your insistence of A or B, one or the other, was missing the
>possibility of C. It is a *broad* representation of /my/ view, but
>I don't think it would be right, certainly not impartial, for BHRF
>to say it in a headline statement. I think what they do, provide a
>lot of discussion with cross references, is agreat deal closer to
>impartiality than the "clear statement" you keep on demanding while
>complaining they're not impartial.
>
>It would be a bit like[1] the DfH stating clearly that you should
>eat salt sprinkled on your food, period, or you should not eat salt
>sprinkled on your food, period, or that it made no difference
>whether or not you ate salt sprinkled on your food, period, without
>any further qualification and discussion. It is *not* that clear
>and simple but depends upon a huge host of other factors.
>
>Pete.
>
>[1] but only a bit. We know rather more about what salt does to
>people than we do about cycle helmets.

Many thanks for the time you have spent on this - it is appreciated.

[Trevor A Panther[_2_]]

"Rob Oldfield" > wrote in message
...
>
>>judith wrote:
>>
>> I thought it evaded the issue and I was letting it go. However, as
>> you have raised it:
>>
>
> So you take me pointing out that you had avoided Peter's original points as
> an invitation to post another simplistic "have you stopped beating your
> wife?" type thing.
>
> Jolly good. You're definitely a troll, I think.
>
One problem is that Peter is a well established "troll feeder" which is just
as bad!

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

[Peter Clinch]

judith wrote:

> Many thanks for the time you have spent on this - it is appreciated.

As is that note...

For the record it took me a lot longer to come to anything like an
informed judgement of BHRF's information than you've had on it so
far, and I /strongly/ suspect I was shouting the odds about it
being poor for rather longer than you've been before I finally got
to the library.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:29:49 GMT, "Trevor A Panther"
> said in
>:

>One problem is that Peter is a well established "troll feeder" which is just
>as bad!

Or maybe he's assuming good faith despite mounting evidence to the
contrary.

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

[Peter Clinch]

Trevor A Panther wrote:

> One problem is that Peter is a well established "troll feeder" which is
> just as bad!

I try and make distinctions. For example, Nuxx Barr and most of
the uk.tosspot crowd reside in the killfile, so I give them very
little sustenance. Beyond that I am mindful that there is a
distinction between malice and unintentional point-missing, and my
current thinking is that Judith is in the latter category.

Yes, I get it wrong, but I get it right from time to time too and
I'd sooner haul in a few salvageable cases at the expense of some
bandwidth waste than operate in a clique that /only/ accepts posts
of a high calibre and casts aside anyone who ever asks a stupid
question.

The tools are there to deal with it if you want to bother setting
them up.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Mike Clark]

In message >
judith > wrote:

[snip]
>
> I agree - it is a complex subject - there is no easy answer. However,
> I see no reason why "an authority" (like the CTC) should not say
> something like on the balance of probability, the current evidence
> says that you are better of not wearing a helmet than wearing one (or
> vice versa)
>

Or they could say.

"It is a complex subject where there is no clear evidence one way or
the other."

The type of question you need to ask yourself is, are you concerned
about the overall population level health aspects associated with
cycling, or alternatively are you more concerned about only certain
types of health risk encountered by a minority of the population?

For example would you be happy to see an increased population risk of
death from cardiovascular disease as a result of introduction of
compulsory helmet wearing?

Mike
--
M.R. Clark PhD, Reader in Therapeutic and Molecular Immunology
Cambridge University, Department of Pathology
Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1QP
Tel +44 (0)1223 333705 Web http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/

[judith]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:35:24 +0100, Mike Clark >
wrote:

>In message >
> judith > wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>> I agree - it is a complex subject - there is no easy answer. However,
>> I see no reason why "an authority" (like the CTC) should not say
>> something like on the balance of probability, the current evidence
>> says that you are better of not wearing a helmet than wearing one (or
>> vice versa)
>>
>
>Or they could say.
>
>"It is a complex subject where there is no clear evidence one way or
>the other."

But they don't say that - perhaps they should state that clearly if
that is what they believe.

The point is that it *is* a complex subject and I understand that
there is no easy answer. But - I still believe that the CTC are
wanting to appear to be sitting on the fence on this - which is fine
if they would just say so - but in reality I think they believe that
helmets are not beneficial to cyclists and they promote this view.

As I have pointed out - the information they provide to the public
(non-members) is:

"Several recent reports (including four papers in peer-reviewed
medical journals) have found no link between changes in helmet wearing
rates and cyclists' safety - and there are even cases where safety
seems to have worsened as helmet-wearing increased."

(I must assume that there are no "peer-reviewed" articles which are
pro-helmet as I am sure that they would have highlighted this as well
and perhaps even provided links to them)

I note that they only provide links to the four reports which support
the helmets are not beneficial to cyclists point of view - I think you
must be a member to read the other reports.

One of the links is to cyclehelmets.org which clearly believes that
helmets are not beneficial to cyclists.

Why not provide a clear link to the BMA's stance on helmets at this
same place?

(as an aside the link they do give to the BMA's paper elsewhere is
broken - as is their link to "The Journal also published a
counter-opinion by four academics who have long pressed for helmet
laws." - conspiracy or what???;-)

All I am saying is that the CTC should make their stance much, much
clearer, and they should offer some clear advice to people who would
like to understand the issues better.

There is obviously quite a vocal "helmets are not beneficial to
cyclists" lobby - and I suspect that they are pulling the strings in
the CTC.

[Mike Clark]

In message >
judith > wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:35:24 +0100, Mike Clark >
> wrote:
>
> >In message >
> > judith > wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >>
> >> I agree - it is a complex subject - there is no easy answer. However,
> >> I see no reason why "an authority" (like the CTC) should not say
> >> something like on the balance of probability, the current evidence
> >> says that you are better of not wearing a helmet than wearing one (or
> >> vice versa)
> >>
> >
> >Or they could say.
> >
> >"It is a complex subject where there is no clear evidence one way or
> >the other."
>
> But they don't say that - perhaps they should state that clearly if
> that is what they believe.
>
> The point is that it *is* a complex subject and I understand that
> there is no easy answer.

Good so you accept the position.

> But - I still believe that the CTC are wanting to appear to be sitting
> on the fence on this - which is fine if they would just say so - but
> in reality I think they believe that helmets are not beneficial to
> cyclists and they promote this view.

Well since you've snipped part of my response you've also snipped a
possible good reason why the CTC have a difficulty in making a
recommendation. Should the CTC be more concerned with the overall
population benefits or should they also have concerns for a minority of
individuals?

Advice one way or the other might end up being to the benefit of some
individuals and the detriment of other individuals.


>
> As I have pointed out - the information they provide to the public
> (non-members) is:
>
> "Several recent reports (including four papers in peer-reviewed
> medical journals) have found no link between changes in helmet wearing
> rates and cyclists' safety - and there are even cases where safety
> seems to have worsened as helmet-wearing increased."
>
> (I must assume that there are no "peer-reviewed" articles which are
> pro-helmet as I am sure that they would have highlighted this as well
> and perhaps even provided links to them)

Why must you assume that last point? Isn't an alternative interpretation
that since the intuitive conclusion made by many is that helmets must be
of benefit, it is noteworthy that evidence for the counter-intuitive
conclusion exists.

Part of the problem is that the two sides of the debate have tended to
be addressed with different types of study.

On the one hand you have population level data that suggests that
overall the introduction of compulsory cycle helmets in several
countries does not reduce the injury rate per km cycled but does have
the perverse effect of reducing the total km cycled and the total number
of cyclists. Other longitudinal population data suggests that in line
with changes in helmet wearing over time, which varies between different
groups by gender, age and social background, there is not strong
evidence for a protective effect amongst those groups who wear a helmet.

On the other hand you have case controlled studies where individuals who
have been involved in an accident are compared for rates of wearing
helmets and types of injuries. Whilst there is some evidence in these
studies for the protective effect of helmets against some types of
injury (including perversely leg injuries in one study), there are good
reasons to question the way the data is collected and controlled.

If there were strong protective effects of wearing helmets you would
expect to see a benefit at the population level, not just in a case
controlled study.

>
> I note that they only provide links to the four reports which support
> the helmets are not beneficial to cyclists point of view - I think you
> must be a member to read the other reports.
>
> One of the links is to cyclehelmets.org which clearly believes that
> helmets are not beneficial to cyclists.

Cyclehelmets.org presents links to research papers that are both pro-
and anti- helmet.

>
> Why not provide a clear link to the BMA's stance on helmets at this
> same place?
>
> (as an aside the link they do give to the BMA's paper elsewhere is
> broken - as is their link to "The Journal also published a
> counter-opinion by four academics who have long pressed for helmet
> laws." - conspiracy or what???;-)

I think the fact that medical practitioners who have bothered to look in
detail at the available evidence can't reach a unanimous viewpoint
illustrates that the available evidence is not clear cut.

>
> All I am saying is that the CTC should make their stance much, much
> clearer, and they should offer some clear advice to people who would
> like to understand the issues better.

Which clear advice would that be? "Helmets may or may not be of
advantage or of disadvantage in some cycling related accidents."

Which is another way of saying what Pete Clinch has been saying, that
the differences between studies are within the likely error bars for the
data.

>
> There is obviously quite a vocal "helmets are not beneficial to
> cyclists" lobby - and I suspect that they are pulling the strings in
> the CTC.
>

Actually there are vocal lobbies on both sides of the argument.

Mike
--
M.R. Clark PhD, Reader in Therapeutic and Molecular Immunology
Cambridge University, Department of Pathology
Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1QP
Tel +44 (0)1223 333705 Web http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/

[judith]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:32:16 +0100, Mike Clark >
wrote:

>In message >
> judith > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:35:24 +0100, Mike Clark >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In message >
>> > judith > wrote:
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >>
>> >> I agree - it is a complex subject - there is no easy answer. However,
>> >> I see no reason why "an authority" (like the CTC) should not say
>> >> something like on the balance of probability, the current evidence
>> >> says that you are better of not wearing a helmet than wearing one (or
>> >> vice versa)
>> >>
>> >
>> >Or they could say.
>> >
>> >"It is a complex subject where there is no clear evidence one way or
>> >the other."
>>
>> But they don't say that - perhaps they should state that clearly if
>> that is what they believe.
>>
>> The point is that it *is* a complex subject and I understand that
>> there is no easy answer.
>
>Good so you accept the position.
>
>> But - I still believe that the CTC are wanting to appear to be sitting
>> on the fence on this - which is fine if they would just say so - but
>> in reality I think they believe that helmets are not beneficial to
>> cyclists and they promote this view.
>
>Well since you've snipped part of my response you've also snipped a
>possible good reason why the CTC have a difficulty in making a
>recommendation. Should the CTC be more concerned with the overall
>population benefits or should they also have concerns for a minority of
>individuals?
>
>Advice one way or the other might end up being to the benefit of some
>individuals and the detriment of other individuals.


Possible - but if that are for choice then they could give a more
balanced presentation than they do at the moment.

>> As I have pointed out - the information they provide to the public
>> (non-members) is:
>>
>> "Several recent reports (including four papers in peer-reviewed
>> medical journals) have found no link between changes in helmet wearing
>> rates and cyclists' safety - and there are even cases where safety
>> seems to have worsened as helmet-wearing increased."
>>
>> (I must assume that there are no "peer-reviewed" articles which are
>> pro-helmet as I am sure that they would have highlighted this as well
>> and perhaps even provided links to them)
>
>Why must you assume that last point? Isn't an alternative interpretation
>that since the intuitive conclusion made by many is that helmets must be
>of benefit, it is noteworthy that evidence for the counter-intuitive
>conclusion exists.
>

In which case why do the CTC not provide links to "peer-reviewed"
articles which are pro-helmet?


>Part of the problem is that the two sides of the debate have tended to
>be addressed with different types of study.
>
>On the one hand you have population level data that suggests that
>overall the introduction of compulsory cycle helmets in several
>countries does not reduce the injury rate per km cycled.

And this is the nub of the article - they do not want compulsion for
helmets. So the arguments have to be presented that there is no
benefit - otherwise if there is - then compulsion will come.

[Mike Clark]

In message >
judith > wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:32:16 +0100, Mike Clark >
> wrote:
[snip]
> >On the one hand you have population level data that suggests that
> >overall the introduction of compulsory cycle helmets in several
> >countries does not reduce the injury rate per km cycled.
>
> And this is the nub of the article - they do not want compulsion for
> helmets. So the arguments have to be presented that there is no
> benefit - otherwise if there is - then compulsion will come.
>

No the results of the population study(ies) are the results of the
population study(ies).

I prefer evidence based decision making but sometimes (often)
politicians make decisions that are contrary to the evidence because
they believe it will win them the popular vote.

The public often go by intuition and without any real understanding of
the issues.

In science and medicine you learn that intuition can often mislead you.


Mike
--
M.R. Clark PhD, Reader in Therapeutic and Molecular Immunology
Cambridge University, Department of Pathology
Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1QP
Tel +44 (0)1223 333705 Web http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/

[Chris Malcolm]

judith > wrote:

> Simple question - is either of the following statements true:

> On the balance of probability wearing a helmet is likely to do more
> harm to the cyclist than not wearing one.

> On the balance of probability not wearing a helmet is Lilly to do more
> harm to the cyclist than wearing one.

Omission of the third possibility, the tragic handicap of black and
white thinkers the world over.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

[Chris Malcolm]

judith > wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:01:07 +0100, Marc
> > wrote:

>>judith wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:59:10 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Looking at the site - I am not immediately convinced of the
>>>>> impartially of cyclehelmets.org:
>>>> I would not be able to judge that, being on the editorial board.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you can tell us if "editorially" - just as much credence and
>>> space is given to the pro-helmet stance as to the no-helmet stance?
>>> Editorially are the board without bias one way or the other?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Would you ask the same question of NASA or the BSI regarding the amount
>>of time/space they give to round earth and flat earth theories?

> What an odd attempt at an analogy.

> I would expect them to use common sense.

If common sense worked we wouldn't have had to invent science. As it
happens one of the areas in which research has shown common sense to
be often very seriously mistaken is the assessment of safety and risk
in situations where there is a low risk of a serious injury.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

[Roos Eisma]

Chris Malcolm > writes:

>judith > wrote:

>> Simple question - is either of the following statements true:

>> On the balance of probability wearing a helmet is likely to do more
>> harm to the cyclist than not wearing one.

>> On the balance of probability not wearing a helmet is Lilly to do more
>> harm to the cyclist than wearing one.

>Omission of the third possibility, the tragic handicap of black and
>white thinkers the world over.

Start with "define 'the cyclist'" and you'll end up with lots more
possibilities :-)

Roos

[Roos Eisma]

Chris Malcolm > writes:

>If common sense worked we wouldn't have had to invent science. As it
>happens one of the areas in which research has shown common sense to
>be often very seriously mistaken is the assessment of safety and risk
>in situations where there is a low risk of a serious injury.

And a lot of decisions don't even involve common sense.
When Pete and I play Bezique (a card game) we find that we are prepared to
battle a lot more for certain 10 point scores (for example the last
trick) than for others because our gut feeling of what is important
doesn't actually involves thinking about it.

Roos

[Peter Clinch]

Roos Eisma wrote:

> And a lot of decisions don't even involve common sense.
> When Pete and I play Bezique (a card game) we find that we are prepared to
> battle a lot more for certain 10 point scores (for example the last
> trick) than for others because our gut feeling of what is important
> doesn't actually involves thinking about it.

Must try that 50 point last trick variation one of these days...

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Alan Braggins]

In article >, Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>I try and make distinctions. For example, Nuxx Barr and most of
>the uk.tosspot crowd reside in the killfile, so I give them very
>little sustenance. Beyond that I am mindful that there is a
>distinction between malice and unintentional point-missing, and my
>current thinking is that Judith is in the latter category.

She's boasted of having won a bet on the length of thread she could
provoke by controversial cross-posting. She might _also_ suffer from
unintentional point-missing, but she is, at least at times, definitely
a malicious troll.

[Peter Clinch]

Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article >, Peter Clinch wrote:
>> I try and make distinctions. For example, Nuxx Barr and most of
>> the uk.tosspot crowd reside in the killfile, so I give them very
>> little sustenance. Beyond that I am mindful that there is a
>> distinction between malice and unintentional point-missing, and my
>> current thinking is that Judith is in the latter category.
>
> She's boasted of having won a bet on the length of thread she could
> provoke by controversial cross-posting. She might _also_ suffer from
> unintentional point-missing, but she is, at least at times, definitely
> a malicious troll.

That "current thinking" was back at the weekend.
I was wrong.
She's in the Bozo Bin now, since she has demonstrated beyond all
possible doubt she is a Bozo.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Trevor A Panther[_2_]]

"Peter Clinch" > wrote in message
...
> Alan Braggins wrote:
>> In article >, Peter Clinch wrote:
>>> I try and make distinctions. For example, Nuxx Barr and most of
>>> the uk.tosspot crowd reside in the killfile, so I give them very
>>> little sustenance. Beyond that I am mindful that there is a
>>> distinction between malice and unintentional point-missing, and my
>>> current thinking is that Judith is in the latter category.
>>
>> She's boasted of having won a bet on the length of thread she could
>> provoke by controversial cross-posting. She might _also_ suffer from
>> unintentional point-missing, but she is, at least at times, definitely
>> a malicious troll.
>
> That "current thinking" was back at the weekend.
> I was wrong.
> She's in the Bozo Bin now, since she has demonstrated beyond all
> possible doubt she is a Bozo.
>
> 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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/


About bl**dy time.

I do actually think you are mostly a sensible poster and have things to say
that are relevant

BUT

You are, undoubtably, an inveterate troll feeder and destroy your credibility
by persisting in feeding all the trolls on here!

How many strikes did it eventually take to disengage from "judith"

We all have faults ( I tend to be a boring old f*rt -- that's because I am!).
Quite frequently I type up a long response to some topic -- and then delete it
all -- because I know it is against the "flow" and it is also based on my own
prejudices!

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

[Peter Clinch]

Trevor A Panther wrote:

> You are, undoubtably, an inveterate troll feeder and destroy your
> credibility by persisting in feeding all the trolls on here!

Well Trevor, since my killfile keeps the worst examples out of my view I
say you're wrong. When was the last time I "persistently" fed Steve
Firth, for example? I fire the odd mortar back at JNugent, say once a
month or so, when I see a post through someone else's reply. TrollB I
haven't fired at for a *long* time.
So "persisting in feeding all the trolls on here" just isn't backed up
by the posting evidence.

> How many strikes did it eventually take to disengage from "judith"

Too many.

But there are still cases of people labelled as Trolls by many when
they're really not. "Groupthink" moderation on who can be responded to
is just as good a way of killing a good usenet group as persisting in
responding to everything.

Any "credibility" I have will be based on what usefullness I have
provided. If people want to know about recumbents I'm probably worth
listening to because regulars know I'm not entirely uninformed on the
matter. Whether or not I've gone over the top in arguing with
certifiable ******* about the price of milk doesn't alter that.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:11:27 +0100, Peter Clinch
> said in
>:

>But there are still cases of people labelled as Trolls by many when
>they're really not. "Groupthink" moderation on who can be responded to
>is just as good a way of killing a good usenet group as persisting in
>responding to everything.

Yes. Sometimes people genuinely are clueless and in need of help,
other times they play the part of someone clueless and in need of
help in order to suck people in and troll them. That appears to be
judith's MO.

On the shed, there is a kook called Mehran Basti with whom some
sport was had.

On Wikipedia we have endless problems with people who are seen as
trolls by a majority, but a minority will fiercely defend them,
usually because they are tenacious advocates of a fringe view that
the minority supports. Global warming deniers and 9/11 conspiracy
theorists rail that accounts are blocked and banned because they are
advocating a view that The Man does not want heard, but actually
it's because they are a titanic waste of everyone's time and in the
end we run out of patience.

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

[Matt B]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:11:27 +0100, Peter Clinch
> > said in
> >:
>
>> But there are still cases of people labelled as Trolls by many when
>> they're really not. "Groupthink" moderation on who can be responded to
>> is just as good a way of killing a good usenet group as persisting in
>> responding to everything.
>
> Yes. Sometimes people genuinely are clueless and in need of help,
> other times they play the part of someone clueless and in need of
> help in order to suck people in and troll them.

You missed an important and plausible explanation - that /you/ might
actually be mistaken in your interpretation of the available data.

> On Wikipedia we have endless problems with people who are seen as
> trolls by a majority, but a minority will fiercely defend them,
> usually because they are tenacious advocates of a fringe view that
> the minority supports.

Presumably you would have said the same thing about those who disagreed
with the "global cooling" hypothesis in the 1970s. How would Darwin
supporters have faired on there in the second half of the 19th century?

--
Matt B

[judith]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:39:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:11:27 +0100, Peter Clinch
> said in
>:
>
>>But there are still cases of people labelled as Trolls by many when
>>they're really not. "Groupthink" moderation on who can be responded to
>>is just as good a way of killing a good usenet group as persisting in
>>responding to everything.
>
>Yes. Sometimes people genuinely are clueless and in need of help,
>other times they play the part of someone clueless and in need of
>help in order to suck people in and troll them. That appears to be
>judith's MO.


No - on the contrary.

There are many people here who will say "look at the evidence - look
at the research" when discussing such things as cycle helmets. This
is an almost unreasonable response when anyone supports the wearing of
helmets.

There are of course the others who cannot post anything, unless it is
anti-motorist.

I first visited this group when I was told it was full of the most
bigoted, unreasonable people a colleague had ever seen on usenet. They
were not wrong.

However, once you start pointing out inconsistencies on what people
have said, when they start denying what they have said, when they
start accusing you of saying something you haven't, and you ask for
the evidence - then that is a totally different ball game.

I suspect, from some of the things said, that many of the guilty
parties are stuck in academia without much exposure to the real world.


Feel free to ignore what I say - or more likely, just say it is more
trolling.
--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible.

[Roger Thorpe[_4_]]

judith wrote:

> No - on the contrary.
>
> There are many people here who will say "look at the evidence - look
> at the research" when discussing such things as cycle helmets. This
> is an almost unreasonable response when anyone supports the wearing of
> helmets.

I think that you'll find there are a number of us here who occasionally,
often or even always wear helmets because we believe they offer some
limited protection. I've written such in the past and can't complain
that the reception I received was unreasonable. It certainly makes life
easier to keep quiet, and the anti helmet group have well rehearsed
arguments at their fingertips, but I think that the only person who
wanted me *not* to wear my hat was the one that claimed that to do so
was a silent vote for compulsion. And I think that they had a point.
By and large we seemed to come to an agreement that helmets were an area
where opinions were divided and we'd reduce further discussion.
But then this is a forum to exchange views, no-one has to win the argument.


> There are of course the others who cannot post anything, unless it is
> anti-motorist.
>
A lot of our experiences make us opposed to some behaviour by some
motorists. I've never come across pure anti-all-motorist invective.
> I first visited this group when I was told it was full of the most
> bigoted, unreasonable people a colleague had ever seen on usenet. They
> were not wrong.
They haven't been to uk.rec.driving or uk.transport. Pop your head
around one of those doors and advocate speed limits or speed cameras.
There's a new challenge for you.
I thought that you were treated fairly well, until it became clear that
you were just trying to prolong the thread. You've got a nit-picking,
and disingenuous approach which comes across as insincere. Are you
surprised that no-one here trusts you?

> However, once you start pointing out inconsistencies on what people
> have said, when they start denying what they have said, when they
> start accusing you of saying something you haven't, and you ask for
> the evidence - then that is a totally different ball game.
>
> I suspect, from some of the things said, that many of the guilty
> parties are stuck in academia without much exposure to the real world.
>
Academia actually is in the real world.
--
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
> the two are incompatible.
I'm not quite sure that you mean that. Do you?

[judith]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:51:36 +0100, Roger Thorpe
> wrote:

<snip>


>> I suspect, from some of the things said, that many of the guilty
>> parties are stuck in academia without much exposure to the real world.
>>
>Academia actually is in the real world.


I rest my case.

>> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
>> the two are incompatible.
>I'm not quite sure that you mean that. Do you?

It's not mine - but I take it to mean "you can promote cycling" or
"you can promote helmets" - you cannot do both as the promotion of
both would not be compatible.

I copied it from somewhere round here - I thought it was pure **** as
well - but I thought it would give people a laugh.




--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible.

[Marc[_2_]]

judith wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:39:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:11:27 +0100, Peter Clinch
>> > said in
>> >:
>>
>>> But there are still cases of people labelled as Trolls by many when
>>> they're really not. "Groupthink" moderation on who can be responded to
>>> is just as good a way of killing a good usenet group as persisting in
>>> responding to everything.
>> Yes. Sometimes people genuinely are clueless and in need of help,
>> other times they play the part of someone clueless and in need of
>> help in order to suck people in and troll them. That appears to be
>> judith's MO.
>
>
> No - on the contrary.
>
> There are many people here who will say "look at the evidence - look
> at the research" when discussing such things as cycle helmets. This
> is an almost unreasonable response when anyone supports the wearing of
> helmets.

Why?