Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'

"Marc" wrote...
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.
I'm sure if fitted correctly to knees and elbows, helmets *will* reduce
injuries
to legs and arms. Yeah, I can see that!
You wouldn't be able to cycle very fast, for a start!;-)
With the extra weight and the helmets knocking the handlebars!;-)
And the other road-users would think, 'Loony alert! Loony alert!';-)
And give you a very wide berth.

But seriously, there is a difference between:
'helmets prevent 85% of head injuries' (above)
and what the study *actually said*, which was:
'... we found that riders with helmets had an 85 percent reduction in their
risk of head injury (odds ratio, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval,
0.07 to 0.29 ...'
(according to http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html)
Is that 'reduction in the *risk* of head injury' the same as a 'reduction
in
actual head injuries'?
Is there a mathematician or a statistician in the house?
What does all that 'odds ratio' and 'confidence interval' mean, please?
TIA

--
A. Dazzle.

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.

"A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets"
Thompson, Rivara & Thompson. New England Journal of Medicine 1989,
Vol 320 No 21 p1361-7.

Some critism of this paper: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html

(cyclehelets.org probably has the best online archive of
helmet-related research around, whether you choose to believe their
critiques of the research or not, their reference list is a good place
to start. Sadly many of the original research papers themselvse are
not available online, due to copyright issues.)

Phil

--
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt

"Phil Armstrong" wrote in message
...
maria wrote:

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.

"A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets"
Thompson, Rivara & Thompson. New England Journal of Medicine 1989,
Vol 320 No 21 p1361-7.

Some critism of this paper: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html

(cyclehelets.org probably has the best online archive of
helmet-related research around, whether you choose to believe their
critiques of the research or not, their reference list is a good place
to start. Sadly many of the original research papers themselvse are
not available online, due to copyright issues.)

FWIW "maria" is already aware of a lot of this, being _another_ nym of
judith-the-deranged.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:13:13 +0000, maria
said in
:

I don't believe it - but I would like to know who has said it.

The Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust (aka BeHIT) for one. And they
have continued to say it even though they are fully aware it is
bogus.

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

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 19:36:26 -0000, "Clive George"
said in
:

FWIW "maria" is already aware of a lot of this, being _another_ nym of
judith-the-deranged.

Oh bum. I thought my filters were nuking all that idiocy, but it
seems it has changed its nym pattern. Another regex added.

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

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 18:56:06 +0000, Phil Armstrong
wrote:

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.

"A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets"
Thompson, Rivara & Thompson. New England Journal of Medicine 1989,
Vol 320 No 21 p1361-7.

Some critism of this paper: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html

(cyclehelets.org probably has the best online archive of
helmet-related research around, whether you choose to believe their
critiques of the research or not, their reference list is a good place
to start. Sadly many of the original research papers themselvse are
not available online, due to copyright issues.)

Phil


You must realise that cyclehelmets.org is not an independent website.

It was originally set up with the objective of promoting the message
that cycle helmets are not beneficial to cyclists. I believe, but I
am not sure, that they had a proviso that they would continue this
message unless the evidence forced them to a dramatically different
conclusion - and it hasn't.

Therefore, you will find that there is a semblance of even-handedness;
but once you look in more detail you will see the bias.

19 papers listed on evidence supportive of cycle helmets

57 papers sceptical of helmet effectiveness or promotion.

As I said - hardly the balanced web-site which people like to pretend
it is.

Tread carefully - be sceptical of anything the site promotes.

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 19:36:26 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Phil Armstrong" wrote in message
...
maria wrote:

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.

"A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets"
Thompson, Rivara & Thompson. New England Journal of Medicine 1989,
Vol 320 No 21 p1361-7.

Some critism of this paper: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html

(cyclehelets.org probably has the best online archive of
helmet-related research around, whether you choose to believe their
critiques of the research or not, their reference list is a good place
to start. Sadly many of the original research papers themselvse are
not available online, due to copyright issues.)

FWIW "maria" is already aware of a lot of this, being _another_ nym of
judith-the-deranged.



I just love it - anyone who posts via individual and using Agent is
me!! I've posted the stats before - see if you can find them.

anyway keep it up - I love the attention - good to see you can't keep
away from me ;-)


(you really are a ****wit)


--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 19:36:26 -0000, "Clive George"
said in
:

FWIW "maria" is already aware of a lot of this, being _another_ nym of
judith-the-deranged.

Oh bum. I thought my filters were nuking all that idiocy, but it
seems it has changed its nym pattern. Another regex added.

It's easy enough to tell from the writing style - he uses hyphens -
where other punctuation would be more conventional - like this


-dan

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 11:11:15 +0000, Daniel Barlow
wrote:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 19:36:26 -0000, "Clive George"
said in
:

FWIW "maria" is already aware of a lot of this, being _another_ nym of
judith-the-deranged.

Oh bum. I thought my filters were nuking all that idiocy, but it
seems it has changed its nym pattern. Another regex added.

It's easy enough to tell from the writing style - he uses hyphens -
where other punctuation would be more conventional - like this


-dan


I think you are getting me confused with someone else; I very rarely
use hyphens. I think they can be quite confusing; particularly when
you don't want to be misunderstood.


judith

--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.

On Feb 4, 11:30*am, "wafflycat"
wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message

...

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Squashme
wrote this:-

Why wasn't the victim wearing body armour, you may ask?

They didn't even mention the h-word.

Speaking of which...

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...s-major-implic...

http://info.beachcroft.co.uk/ve/ZZ7230J72Cj62Bw73n

Quite right. If you're not going to wear a helmet, because of some
**** along the lines of "I don't have to do anything that other people
say I should, because I'm using a morally superior form of transport",
that's your choice. But if that choice of yours contributes towards
subsequent injuries that you receive, why on Earth should someone else
pay for what is your decision?

It cuts both ways. If you get to decide whether or not you do
something, you must also be responsible for the consequences. You
can't have one without the other.