|
| Ads |
|
#202
November 13th 05, 09:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:27:44 -0800, said in
: I am begriming to wonder if you know anything at all about the subject you are spending so much time arguing about. I simply pointed out my limitations. What is your point? That you have spent an awful lot of time defending a position for which you have clearly not read the evidential background - let alone read it in a critical fashion. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/...lmets_Timeline gives some of the helmet standards and their introduction dates. Thank you, I have it loading currently. Yep, both ANSI and Snell are there, which is what I was familiar with. It seems that Snell has had several iterations of standards. I am assumming these have gotten better. You assume incorrectly. But why assume? I pointed you to a commentary by an acknowledged expert in the field which states exactly what has happened to the standards over time and why. snip conjecture based on false premise BHSI: Looks like they have a good proposal. BHSI is Randy Swart. Since he practically wrote the CPSC standard. I wrote to him asking why he still quoted the known incorrect 85% figure, and he told me it was because the figure was by now so ingrained in the "injury prevention community" that a change "would not be helpful". Which translates as: don't confuse people with the facts. In case you were wondering, yes I do have copies of many of them. I'm guessing you don't... I've said as much, why did you bother asking? You knew the answer up front. So go and read them. I have not accepted either half. I have questioned one sites methodologies that tell me the site is something other than what it pretends to be. Wrong. By promoting helmet use you implicitly accept the half of the evidence which has been shown to be weakest. Based on that you are excessively sceptical of the evidence collected from around the world over many years which shows that the relationship between head injury rates and helmet use is statistically un measurable. That is to say, sometimes helmet use is correlated with no change in rates, sometimes with an increase, in a couple of cases with a decrease (also experienced by pedestrians, who as a rule do not wear helmets). I have been told that zero delay in getting though the body of research is not allowed; that I am expected to be up to speed right now, let alone the years they have spent doing this. Nope. You are being told that before you start arguing the toss, it is best to be properly informed. There appears to be a double-standard in play. Indeed. Where is your scepticism of the pro-helmet arguments? I'm still waiting.... Remember, you have yet to show any understanding whatsoever of the evidence which underlies the position you have spent some hours arguing, whereas Tony and I can quote chapter and verse. Perhaps you can. I can prove the one site I've tee'd off on is a propaganda site by its construction, inclusions and omissions. False. You have /asserted/ that, but since I know for a fact that the major contributor only became a sceptic after he was asked to testify as an expert witness in a court case, and conducted his own review of the evidence, my personal knowledge is that propaganda is not what's going on. Interestingly you don't denounce BHSI as propaganda. Why is that? BTW, out of all the studies, pro and con, which would be the best half-dozen on either side? Probably the best starting point (in terms of copious references and stating the main points of the case for and against) is Cycle helmets: the case for and against, Hillman M., London: Policy Studies Institute, 1993 - it was written, I believe, for the British Medical Association. These are some of the influential studies: A case control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets, Thompson RS, Rivara FP, Thompson DC. 1989. New England Journal of Medicine: 1989 v320 n21 p1361-7 Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists, Thompson DC, Rivara FP, Thompson RS.. 2002. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: issue 4, 2002 Head injuries to bicyclists and the New Zealand bicycle helmet law, Scuffham P, Alsop J, Cryer C, Langley JD. 2000. Accident Analysis and Prevention: 2000 Jul;32(4):565-73 Injury patterns in cyclists attending an accident and emergency department: a comparison of helmet wearers and non-wearers, Maimaris C, Summers CL, Browning C, Palmer CR. 1994. BMJ: 1994 Jun 11;308(6943):1537-40 Fatal injuries to bicycle riders in Auckland, Sage MD. 1985. NZ Med J: 25 Dec 1985 Vol 98 No 793 Head injuries are declining for child cyclists and pedestrians, but this is not related to helmet wearing data. The Cochrane Collaboration and bicycle helmets, Curnow WJ. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2005;37(3):569-573 Specific patterns of bicycle accident injuries - an analysis of correlation between level of head trauma and trauma mechanism, Möllman FT, Rieger B, Wassmann H. DGNC Köln, 2004. Changes in head injury with the New Zealand bicycle helmet law, Robinson DL. Accident Analysis & Prevention: 2001 Sep;33(5):687-91 Deaths of cyclists in London 1985-92: the hazards of road traffic, Gilbert K, McCarthy M. BMJ;1994:308(6943):1534-7 Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken 
|
|
#203
November 13th 05, 09:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
advisor wanted
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:49:25 -0800, said in
: Ah, the fallacy of the false middle. I wondered when we'd see that. So everything is shaped like a dumbbell in your universe? everything is polarized without a middle ground? How quaint. False. However, the sceptical position is not the opposite of the helmet zealot position. If you can find me anyone who is lying to his legislature to try and get a law banning bicycle helmet use, then you will have found the person who represents the opposite pole to the compulsionists. My view is that it is for those who propose an intervention to make their case - this idea is not normally considered controversial. Thus far they have failed to do so, there being at least as much evidence (and of a generally better type) contradicting them. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
|
|
#204
November 14th 05, 07:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
advisor wanted
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 06:59:28 +0000, Bertie Wiggins
wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:29:07 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 18:01:25 +0000, Bertie Wiggins cycling_remove_bertie@yahoo_dot_co_dot_uk wrote: On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 23:58:12 -0800, wrote: Is a cyclist any more likely to be a victim of a shooting than a pedestrian or motorist? And how many cyclist shooting fatalities/injuries do helmets save each year? What you miss is that there are probably a lot more incidents of motorists deliberately harassing cyclists than pedestrians. That's probably because in towns pedestrians don't usually share the same road space as motorists. Precisley. Perhaps, then, you'd care to answer my earlier questions. Is a cyclist any more likely to be a victim of a shooting than a pedestrian or motorist? And how many cyclist shooting fatalities/injuries do helmets save each year? If you are including people hanging out in front yards and on street corners, then being a pedestrian will probably get you shot more often than the others. Of course, not even SNELL helmets can protect you from that. So what is your point on pedestrians? There are two groups of people, in general, getting shot in cars. One is someone that is a random victim, the other group - and they are more than likely memebrs of gangs or drug operations, are the most frequent. Few cyclists get shot. Of course it is far easier to run them off the road and claim an accident. That is hard to do with the cyclist having a 9mm hole in their head. Now, what other stupidity would you care to discuss? jim
|
|
#205
November 14th 05, 07:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
advisor wanted
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:47:23 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:17:40 -0800, said in : IYes I do. I do projects for businesses in competitive intelligence. As you should well know, none of that ever hits the public nor do we broadcast who we work for. If you do not know anything about that particular field, you can check www.scip.org and any of the UK members. You will see them publish on the field of CI, but not the corporate studies they have done. I have done a lot of work in this area, on contract and employed by medical and pharmaceutical companies. CI does not compare to the rigours of original research. Much of it is a low-level data gathering. Much of it, but not all of it, right? Don't assume that what I do is what you did - low level data gathering. Most research calls for data gathering, doesn't it? It can compare to original research. It depends on the project. But to answer at least one of your points, there is a copyright statement: "Unless otherwise stated, the copyright to all material on this site is owned by the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation. Site content may be copied and redistributed freely so long as the source is acknowledged and it is not modified in any way or reproduced out of context." Correct. The site under question also states that it could not put up any of the other research due to copyright issues. That is a bogus way to skate out on it. Those materials which are copyrighted and appear on the site, appear by permission of the individual authors or publishers. A good example is this: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2017.pdf which is copyright of John Franklin and CTC, the UK's national cyclists; organisation. For some reason the publishers of the 1989 Seattle study are unwilling to grant a copyright release on something for which they (still) make money on reprints. Especially when the requester is openly sceptical of its quality. But do be assured that I have read it (as have all those contributing to the site) and can, if you want proof, quote chapter and verse ,to the extent permitted by "fair use". Are they unwilling or is that just some bs? I seriously doubt the veracity of that claim as it is also used to expalin why NO OTHER research to the opposite is included. Not just that one study. What remains unexplained is how you can presume to judge the quality of research you plainly have not read. What flys right over your head is that I was commenting about a site as that was the first place I have landed. A site, not anyting lese. Apparently, you are incapable of understanding that. So far, you have failed reading comprehension 101. I have said, at least a dozen times, that the first site was my initial visit and that I would get into the others and the research in due time. Were there any words there you fail to understand? I've been told there are some 900 studies. Obviously, I cannot read them all at one sitting and in ..02 nanosecond like you did with 100 percent comprehension. Now, as you have missed this at least a dozen times, let me repeat it one more time for posterity: I have said, at least a dozen times, that the first site was my initial visit and that I would get into the others and the research in due time. Were there any words there you fail to understand? I've been told there are some 900 studies. Obviously, I cannot read them all at one sitting and in .02 nanosecond like you did with 100 percent comprehension. jim
|
|
#206
November 14th 05, 08:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
advisor wanted
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 09:01:10 +0000, Tony Raven
wrote: wrote: IYes I do. I do projects for businesses in competitive intelligence. As you should well know, none of that ever hits the public nor do we broadcast who we work for. If you do not know anything about that particular field, you can check www.scip.org and any of the UK members. You will see them publish on the field of CI, but not the corporate studies they have done. That explains a lot. Collecting business competitor intelligence is not good training for analysing or reviewing scientific research. I have employed a number of people doing what you do over the years and its methodologies just don't apply. It explains why lack of copyright bothers you more than lack of rigorous research methodology. And what you fail to understand is that if there is a problem with those issues mentioned, then the entire site is suspect, especially when what they present is skewed one way simply because of copyright. Do not assume that CI is my complete background. It is not. I have been involved in research of the nature you describe since 1967. SInce 1992 or so, I moved into CI. You are driving the wrong end of the ass in this case. jim
|
|
#207
November 14th 05, 08:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
advisor wanted
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:17:59 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:27:44 -0800, said in : I am begriming to wonder if you know anything at all about the subject you are spending so much time arguing about. I simply pointed out my limitations. What is your point? That you have spent an awful lot of time defending a position for which you have clearly not read the evidential background - let alone read it in a critical fashion. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/...lmets_Timeline gives some of the helmet standards and their introduction dates. Thank you, I have it loading currently. Yep, both ANSI and Snell are there, which is what I was familiar with. It seems that Snell has had several iterations of standards. I am assumming these have gotten better. You assume incorrectly. But why assume? I pointed you to a commentary by an acknowledged expert in the field which states exactly what has happened to the standards over time and why. As I have explained to you time and ahgain and you cannot seem to understand, it takes time to go from one place to another. I am not the genius you are that al;lowed you to do all this in .02 nanosecond. I'll get to stuff bit by bit. So, SNELL B-95 is not any better than the original SNELL/ANSI standard, is your statement? snip conjecture based on false premise BHSI: Looks like they have a good proposal. BHSI is Randy Swart. Since he practically wrote the CPSC standard. I wrote to him asking why he still quoted the known incorrect 85% figure, and he told me it was because the figure was by now so ingrained in the "injury prevention community" that a change "would not be helpful". Which translates as: don't confuse people with the facts. In case you were wondering, yes I do have copies of many of them. I'm guessing you don't... I've said as much, why did you bother asking? You knew the answer up front. So go and read them. In due time, genius. Are you so stupid you haven't gotten the message that it will take me some time to do all this? God, have you a brian that works at all? A dozen times you have seen this, what part of it escapes you? I have not accepted either half. I have questioned one sites methodologies that tell me the site is something other than what it pretends to be. Wrong. By promoting helmet use you implicitly accept the half of the evidence which has been shown to be weakest. Based on that you are excessively sceptical of the evidence collected from around the world over many years which shows that the relationship between head injury rates and helmet use is statistically un measurable. That is to say, sometimes helmet use is correlated with no change in rates, sometimes with an increase, in a couple of cases with a decrease (also experienced by pedestrians, who as a rule do not wear helmets). All I have expressed is my one case of a helmet being destroyed and my head being unscathed. I have been told that zero delay in getting though the body of research is not allowed; that I am expected to be up to speed right now, let alone the years they have spent doing this. Nope. You are being told that before you start arguing the toss, it is best to be properly informed. No, you keep badgering me to look at the work, yet haven't the copurtesy or grace to allow me the time to do it. That IS a fact. There appears to be a double-standard in play. Indeed. Where is your scepticism of the pro-helmet arguments? I'm still waiting.... See immediately above, clown. Remember, you have yet to show any understanding whatsoever of the evidence which underlies the position you have spent some hours arguing, whereas Tony and I can quote chapter and verse. Perhaps you can. I can prove the one site I've tee'd off on is a propaganda site by its construction, inclusions and omissions. False. You have /asserted/ that, but since I know for a fact that the major contributor only became a sceptic after he was asked to testify as an expert witness in a court case, and conducted his own review of the evidence, my personal knowledge is that propaganda is not what's going on. You know? That's as much heresay as anything lese that has been put up vis--a-vis the switch. I am waiting to see those prior to the switch public statements. I did look at one topic given me, it turned up out to be a dry well. Until that prior position can be proved by pubic information, is soes not exist. Interestingly you don't denounce BHSI as propaganda. Why is that? I was looking at the movement of SNELL and ANSI standards and what happened to them in response to the charge that helmets today are less safe than they were. And I am puzzled by the scenario that SNELL B-95 raised the standard height and yet results in a less safe helmet??? I'll need ot look at those standards specifically. BTW, out of all the studies, pro and con, which would be the best half-dozen on either side? Probably the best starting point (in terms of copious references and stating the main points of the case for and against) is Cycle helmets: the case for and against, Hillman M., London: Policy Studies Institute, 1993 - it was written, I believe, for the British Medical Association. These are some of the influential studies: A case control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets, Thompson RS, Rivara FP, Thompson DC. 1989. New England Journal of Medicine: 1989 v320 n21 p1361-7 Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists, Thompson DC, Rivara FP, Thompson RS.. 2002. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: issue 4, 2002 Head injuries to bicyclists and the New Zealand bicycle helmet law, Scuffham P, Alsop J, Cryer C, Langley JD. 2000. Accident Analysis and Prevention: 2000 Jul;32(4):565-73 Injury patterns in cyclists attending an accident and emergency department: a comparison of helmet wearers and non-wearers, Maimaris C, Summers CL, Browning C, Palmer CR. 1994. BMJ: 1994 Jun 11;308(6943):1537-40 Fatal injuries to bicycle riders in Auckland, Sage MD. 1985. NZ Med J: 25 Dec 1985 Vol 98 No 793 Head injuries are declining for child cyclists and pedestrians, but this is not related to helmet wearing data. The Cochrane Collaboration and bicycle helmets, Curnow WJ. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2005;37(3):569-573 Specific patterns of bicycle accident injuries - an analysis of correlation between level of head trauma and trauma mechanism, Möllman FT, Rieger B, Wassmann H. DGNC Köln, 2004. Changes in head injury with the New Zealand bicycle helmet law, Robinson DL. Accident Analysis & Prevention: 2001 Sep;33(5):687-91 Deaths of cyclists in London 1985-92: the hazards of road traffic, Gilbert K, McCarthy M. BMJ;1994:308(6943):1534-7 Thank you for that list. Hopefullly, some of these are on the web. jim
|
|
#208
November 14th 05, 08:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
advisor wanted
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:21:06 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:49:25 -0800, said in : Ah, the fallacy of the false middle. I wondered when we'd see that. So everything is shaped like a dumbbell in your universe? everything is polarized without a middle ground? How quaint. False. However, the sceptical position is not the opposite of the helmet zealot position. If you can find me anyone who is lying to his legislature to try and get a law banning bicycle helmet use, then you will have found the person who represents the opposite pole to the compulsionists. Somehow, in the general case, I think these folks exist and are far more common than we think. In politics, you have the, hopefully, best and, frequently, the worst. My view is that it is for those who propose an intervention to make their case - this idea is not normally considered controversial. Thus far they have failed to do so, there being at least as much evidence (and of a generally better type) contradicting them. jim
|
|
#209
November 14th 05, 09:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
advisor wanted
wrote:
It is, by the way it is assembled and presents information, a propaganda site. It advances one side and denies the other any voice If it did this you wouldn't have found the information you did there. I've not said anything about trusting one source or another. You have demonstrated who you trust by your statements. I have said thsi site is loaded up one-way. That is a fact. A bit like a site that loads up the evidence for Pi not being 3 might be "one way"... That is not a problem of the research, is it? It is a problem of presentation of research. The presentation by the pro-helmet sites is far more obviously skewed than any sceptic sites AFAICT. Do cite exceptions, if you have seen any. It is the fault of the people who have an axe to grind and use whatever figures best support their view. Somewhat like you and Tony do. Wrong again. This is quite self evidently the way that pro-helmet sites and studies work to a far greater degree than skeptics. Do cite exceptions, if you have seen any. I understand your are a super-intelligence and it took you zero time and effort to collect, read, analyze and understand all 900 of those reseach pieces. I haven't read them all. But I have read a number of them, which appears to be a number more than you ever have. Particularly, I have looked at the most oft quoted pro helmet papers from pro-helmet sources, and have found the red flags you keep on about in superabundance. I have not found those to anything like the same extent with population data studies, and AFAICT nor has anyone else. I have already acknowledged that I cannot do that and will be looking into them over time, something you lack the courtesy of affording to me. Arrogant aren't you? Arrogance is assuming the answer before you have done the research, which you persist in doing. Are you dense? As I said quite clearly at the time, it will take some tiome on my side to start wading through all this material. And in the meantime you should stop coming across as if you know all the answers in advance of any research. It isn't just common sense or finding some nice numbers in a table. The key phrase is "selected information." The site promotes one side by inclusion of copyrighted works and excludes the other by misdirection. Actually it includes it with comprehensive references, which anyone doing real research can easily follow. Come back when you've done your research, anywhere you want to do it, and when, and only when, you have then you'll be in a position to say how effective helmets can be expected to be. Not until. 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/
|
|
#210
November 14th 05, 04:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
advisor wanted
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
