|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'
OG wrote:
wrote in message ... Guaranteed to jump on the band-wagon with a one liner - but sweet fa to contribute. ! Be fair. Judith doesn't restrict herself to one-liners. Sadly Pete |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:09:24 +0000, Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote: snip She'd also try to portray a bomb in a velodrome as an inevitable consequence of the lifestyle choices inherent in riding a bicycle, and seek to include any casualties so-caused as being directly attributable to the bikes. Hello Anchor: Not exactly - but I will continue to remind you of the facts which you find unpalatable but which are facts all the same: Bicycle helmets have been found to be effective at reducing the incidence and severity of head, brain and upper facial injury. Bicycle helmets have been found to be effective in reducing injury for users of all ages, though particularly for children. In London 2007: Pedestrians : Decrease of 1% to 1,292 in 2007 Fatal or Serious Pedal Cyclist: 8% increase to 461 in 2007 Fatal or Serious Pedal Cyclists account for only about 2% of travel in London. They account for a disproportionate 12% of all KSI casualties (PS - keep the legal gems coming - how's the training coming along?) -- judith If you find 2 abreast cyclists more obstructive than single file ones, you must have been intending to pass dangerously close anyway. Phil ****** Lee. Commenting on a legal gate in a public park: I'd think it comes under the heading of "causing an obstruction", and should be investigated by the police as such. Phil ****** Lee. Traffic Lights not working? Why not try the ****** Lee solution: Phone police for permission to proceed. Not forthcoming?: you can then report it as "Unlawful detention" |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'
"OG" wrote...
"A.Dazzle" wrote in message ... "OG" wrote... "A.Dazzle" wrote in message ... "OG" wrote... snipperty I trust you will join us in fighting this pointless imposition, particularly since you are aware that there is no correlation between compulsory helmet usage and head injury rates. And there's something, somewhere, showing there *is* no correlation? Or is it that there *is not* something, somewhere, showing that there is? Please let me have the link for either, or both. TIA DL Robinson "No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the wearing of helmets" published in BMJ in 2006 (BMJ, 2006;332:722.) It is currently available here http://www.geocities.com/velosecurite/art/6/ac722.pdf It's interesting, but what does it prove? Two things really - on the micro scale (case control studies): helmets do not *in themselves* offer the level of protection often claimed. - on the large scale (whole population studies): compulsory use of helmets does not lead to the significant reduction in head injury rates that proponents expect. The very first sentence says: 'Case-control studies suggest that cyclists who choose to wear helmets have fewer head injuries than non-wearers.' That's reiterated as the first of the summary points. That suggests to me that she is suggesting that studies suggest that helmet wearers have fewer head injuries than non-wearers. OK, she says other figures show it makes no difference. OK, she goes on to suggest that the people who *choose* to wear helmets may be different from the people *forced* to wear helmets. Oh, and maybe the control studies should have considered... And governments should think about... anything not related to the enforced use of helmets But I'm still stuck with: wearing helmets = fewer head injuries. Yes, but you'll also see that those cyclists also have fewer non-head injuries, so whatever causes the fewer head injuries is not simply the protective effect of the helmet itself. and we are also stuck with: more people wearing helmets =/= fewer head injuries In terms of preventing injury to cyclists, compulsion is an ineffective strategy. Is there something, somewhere (not involving long-term mortality, or obesity, or cost-benefit analysis, etc, etc), that says: not wearing helmets = fewer head injuries? Is that needed ? I don't think anyone is talking of banning them. On the other hand, it does seem that compulsion is not an effective strategy for making cycling safer. Or is it just, 'It probably makes no difference, so we shouldn't be obliged by law to wear them!' Or, 'What I do with my head is my business!' Or, 'It's the nanny-state gone mad!' Or, 'I am not a number, I am a free man!' No doubt there are some who argue along those lines, but we should be more concerned with the simple question 'is compulsion going to be effective?', to which the answer appears to be 'No'. One thing definitely worries me... Fig 3 shows a graph related to '... head injuries in accidents not involving motor vehicles ...'. NOT involving motor vehicles! What use is that then? When she says that, 'Collisions with motor vehicles cause nearly all deaths and debilitating head injuries among cyclists.' Wonder if those figures were included in her 10,000+? Looking at the reference for that graph, it relates to a review of the effect of NZ law change in 1994. Povey et al claimed a 28% reduction in head injuries as a result of compulsion being brought in. At the same time that helmet compulsion was brought in, other road safety initiatives were being introduced such as speed controls and anti drink-drive campaigns. DL Robinson points out that Povey's claims did not appear to take into account the effects of these other initiatives and looks at the long term trends before and after compulsion. To isolate the effects of the cycle helmets law as a single factor, she has looked see if there was any significant effect in accidents NOT involving motor vehicles. Hence the graph. Oh, Gee,Thanks, you don't seem to have any trouble reviewing the figures!;-) But is this the best the anti-helmet camp can offer? Surely there must be compelling figures (one way, or the other) from, say, statistics for motorcycle helmets? Let's see if we can review the figures in this paper first, before we start looking elsewhere. Oh, must 'we'?;- OK, let's stick with what we've got. Without doing all the work D L Robinson has done and without her expertise and knowledge, we couldn't have produced something like this, could we? (Or maybe *you* could have.) And we haven't checked all her sources, figures and methods etc, have we? (Or maybe *you* have.) So, why should we accept D L Robinson's findings over the six independent studies that were done? Why should her *one* paper 'trump' those other *six* papers? Were those six studies *all* flawed? (But her work is un-flawed?) Were they not that 'independent'? (But she is totally independent and un-biased?) -- A. Dazzle. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'
"wafflycat" wrote in message ... "Martin" wrote in message ... Any particular reason why folk keep feeding the troll? Perhaps the ice and snow is preventing people from going out on their bikes and they are getting cabin fever |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:59:30 -0000, "A.Dazzle"
said in : It's interesting, but what does it prove? Wrong way round. It is for those who advocate an intervention, to conclusively prove its benefit. As Robinson shows, this they have spectacularly failed to do. Sadly it does not stop them advocating repetition of the same failed experiments... 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 GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 08:58:13 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
said in : Please explain the difference between being hit by a two-and-a-half-tonne 4x4 in the USA and being hit by a two-and-a-half-tonne 4x4 in Parliament Square. Easy. In Parliament Square, only one ambulance comes, it takes twice as long to get there as the American one but still arrives before the first lawyer, and the medic does not ask to see your medical insurance card. 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 GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'
"A.Dazzle" wrote in message ... "OG" wrote... "A.Dazzle" wrote in message ... "OG" wrote... "A.Dazzle" wrote in message ... "OG" wrote... snipperty I trust you will join us in fighting this pointless imposition, particularly since you are aware that there is no correlation between compulsory helmet usage and head injury rates. And there's something, somewhere, showing there *is* no correlation? Or is it that there *is not* something, somewhere, showing that there is? Please let me have the link for either, or both. TIA DL Robinson "No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the wearing of helmets" published in BMJ in 2006 (BMJ, 2006;332:722.) It is currently available here http://www.geocities.com/velosecurite/art/6/ac722.pdf It's interesting, but what does it prove? Two things really - on the micro scale (case control studies): helmets do not *in themselves* offer the level of protection often claimed. - on the large scale (whole population studies): compulsory use of helmets does not lead to the significant reduction in head injury rates that proponents expect. The very first sentence says: 'Case-control studies suggest that cyclists who choose to wear helmets have fewer head injuries than non-wearers.' That's reiterated as the first of the summary points. That suggests to me that she is suggesting that studies suggest that helmet wearers have fewer head injuries than non-wearers. OK, she says other figures show it makes no difference. OK, she goes on to suggest that the people who *choose* to wear helmets may be different from the people *forced* to wear helmets. Oh, and maybe the control studies should have considered... And governments should think about... anything not related to the enforced use of helmets But I'm still stuck with: wearing helmets = fewer head injuries. Yes, but you'll also see that those cyclists also have fewer non-head injuries, so whatever causes the fewer head injuries is not simply the protective effect of the helmet itself. and we are also stuck with: more people wearing helmets =/= fewer head injuries In terms of preventing injury to cyclists, compulsion is an ineffective strategy. Is there something, somewhere (not involving long-term mortality, or obesity, or cost-benefit analysis, etc, etc), that says: not wearing helmets = fewer head injuries? Is that needed ? I don't think anyone is talking of banning them. On the other hand, it does seem that compulsion is not an effective strategy for making cycling safer. Or is it just, 'It probably makes no difference, so we shouldn't be obliged by law to wear them!' Or, 'What I do with my head is my business!' Or, 'It's the nanny-state gone mad!' Or, 'I am not a number, I am a free man!' No doubt there are some who argue along those lines, but we should be more concerned with the simple question 'is compulsion going to be effective?', to which the answer appears to be 'No'. One thing definitely worries me... Fig 3 shows a graph related to '... head injuries in accidents not involving motor vehicles ...'. NOT involving motor vehicles! What use is that then? When she says that, 'Collisions with motor vehicles cause nearly all deaths and debilitating head injuries among cyclists.' Wonder if those figures were included in her 10,000+? Looking at the reference for that graph, it relates to a review of the effect of NZ law change in 1994. Povey et al claimed a 28% reduction in head injuries as a result of compulsion being brought in. At the same time that helmet compulsion was brought in, other road safety initiatives were being introduced such as speed controls and anti drink-drive campaigns. DL Robinson points out that Povey's claims did not appear to take into account the effects of these other initiatives and looks at the long term trends before and after compulsion. To isolate the effects of the cycle helmets law as a single factor, she has looked see if there was any significant effect in accidents NOT involving motor vehicles. Hence the graph. Oh, Gee,Thanks, you don't seem to have any trouble reviewing the figures!;-) But is this the best the anti-helmet camp can offer? Surely there must be compelling figures (one way, or the other) from, say, statistics for motorcycle helmets? Let's see if we can review the figures in this paper first, before we start looking elsewhere. Oh, must 'we'?;- OK, let's stick with what we've got. Without doing all the work D L Robinson has done and without her expertise and knowledge, we couldn't have produced something like this, could we? (Or maybe *you* could have.) And we haven't checked all her sources, figures and methods etc, have we? (Or maybe *you* have.) So, why should we accept D L Robinson's findings over the six independent studies that were done? Why should her *one* paper 'trump' those other *six* papers? Were those six studies *all* flawed? (But her work is un-flawed?) Were they not that 'independent'? (But she is totally independent and un-biased?) -- A. Dazzle. An excellent attitude. I'll leave it up to you to continue in this vein. How should evidence be assessed? How does one judge between 'evidence' that appears to conflict with other 'evidence' . Do you take a claim like 'helmets prevent 85% of head injuries' at face value, or do you examine how the evidence was gathered and work out if it's a justifiable claim. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'
"OG" wrote...
snippery Do you take a claim like 'helmets prevent 85% of head injuries' at face value... No, I don't take that claim. Where was it made, BTW? (And who made it?) Most of the US states have legislation for bicycle helmets. Mainly for younger people: the more vunerable ones. Most laws are for children up until 16 or 17 years, but some are earlier and some later. It's possible to imagine the people who voted on this legislation were all sadly misled and didn't have the good DL Robinson to guide them. That they were all simple people, who believed the claims about helmets preventing 85% of head injuries. (Honestly, would anyone believe such a figure!) Or that they were all in the pay of some helmet-making lobbying cabal. Anything, rather than imagine they were decent, honest, intelligent people, who were acting on the best information they had and in the best interests of their community. (None of which, of course, makes them right!;-) I can't find figures for head injuries, for this younger age group, for each state. I can find total cyclist fatalities per state. But I'll spend some more time looking. A 'basket' of 6 states who introduced the laws against a similar number of states who don't have the legislation should show something. (A 'before and after' comparison.) It would be nice to try, but how does one allow for children being put off cycling by having to wear a helnet? (And getting he figures skewed on a like-for-like basis, because of less children and less time spent, or less miles cycled, etc.) Or allow for risk compensation? -- A. Dazzle. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 00:20:12 -0000, "OG"
wrote: snip Do you take a claim like 'helmets prevent 85% of head injuries' at face value, or do you examine how the evidence was gathered and work out if it's a justifiable claim. I suspect that most people do not take this 'helmets prevent 85% of head injuries' claim at "face value" - the trouble is what is this face value - from where is the quote taken? I don't believe it - but I would like to know who has said it. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'
maria wrote:
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 00:20:12 -0000, "OG" wrote: snip Do you take a claim like 'helmets prevent 85% of head injuries' at face value, or do you examine how the evidence was gathered and work out if it's a justifiable claim. I suspect that most people do not take this 'helmets prevent 85% of head injuries' claim at "face value" - the trouble is what is this face value - from where is the quote taken? I don't believe it - but I would like to know who has said it. Thompson RS, Rivara FP, Thompson DC. A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets. N Engl J Med 1989; If I remember correctly ,they also showed that helmets reduced leg injuries. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Three reasons to hate cameron, red light jumper, smoker AND a tory! | spindrift | UK | 42 | January 30th 08 05:15 PM |
Tory leader NOTICES CROSSAN EV? | U.S.piggybank | UK | 0 | July 26th 06 09:16 PM |
Tory Leadership Contender refutes cycling rumour? | [email protected] | UK | 17 | October 28th 05 10:02 AM |
Tory T injured, Jeff J's Belgium Commuter.. | hippy | Australia | 0 | April 1st 05 01:59 AM |
Time lapse dropology | TonyMelton | Unicycling | 8 | May 12th 04 12:16 AM |