|
|
The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bullshit
On 19 Apr, 16:58, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:07:44 +0100, Marc If I want to know how to cycle safely, I consult a cycling coach, not a cycle mechanic. This is essentially what they are doing, much to the irritation of the "cycle safety=helmets" mob. Tell me more. |
The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bullshit
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:03:49 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate
wrote: If I want to know how to cycle safely, I consult a cycling coach, not a cycle mechanic. This is essentially what they are doing, much to the irritation of the "cycle safety=helmets" mob. Tell me more. The DfT cycle safety consultation being conducted by TRL. Guy -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/ "To every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken Newsgroup may contain nuts. |
The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bullshit
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:02:46 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:03:49 -0700 (PDT), Nick L Plate wrote: If I want to know how to cycle safely, I consult a cycling coach, not a cycle mechanic. This is essentially what they are doing, much to the irritation of the "cycle safety=helmets" mob. Tell me more. The DfT cycle safety consultation being conducted by TRL. Guy Is that the one where you originally posted: "As I mentioned up there a bit I am peripherally involved in a DfT research project into cycle safety" and then sought volunteers: "And anybody who is good with stats and wants to volunteer ......" to let you know I volunteered because I thought I had useful experience (which you were then and are not now aware of) and you vetoed my application with no good reason. Was that the one? Have you seen the thread where Nuxx Bar has asked why you are so despised by so many people? -- 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. |
The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bullshit
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 02:46:25 -0700 (PDT), Toom Tabard
wrote: On 20 Apr, 00:52, Peter Keller wrote: On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:07:44 +0100, Marc wrote: At the end of the day when the government decides that "something must be done" , whose advice will they follow - the BMA or Guy Chapman? We're dooomed * And again I would like to understand why anyone pays that much attention to body technicians? If I want to know how to cycle safely, I consult a cycling coach, not a cycle mechanic. If I want to know how to drive safely I consult a driving instructor, not a panel beater. If I want to know how to fly safely I consult a flying instructor , not a Queen Mary driver Why then are Doctors presumed to know something about the physics of accidents just because they are there to glue the body back together? Not all doctors. * I, too, (along with our Land Transport Safety Authority) was puzzled as to why accidents, injuries and deaths to bicyclists were not reducing as expected after our Mandatory Bicycle Helmet law was enacted and enforced. * To my shame I, like most of the medical profession bought into the propaganda that helmets were a magic cure-all. * But then I started studying the evidence. * I would say, that if you want to know the possible effects of a helmet law, study what happened in places which enforced one. One has, however, to also be aware that when there seems good empirical reason for a public health or safety initiative, its introduction is accompanied by an initiative to collect full and correctly classified data to measure the effect. This data is then frequently compared to the incomplete and inaccurate data from before the initiative and can result in considerable disparity between the statistical result and the expected effect. That frequently masks the close correspondence between the expected and actual effects. Or masks the lack of correspondence between the expected and actual effects. The only conclusions that you can draw from your scenario is that you cannot draw any conclusions. -- (\__/) M. (='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and (")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by everyone you will need use a different method of posting. |
The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bullshit
On 23 Apr, 11:15, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 02:46:25 -0700 (PDT), Toom Tabard wrote: On 20 Apr, 00:52, Peter Keller wrote: On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:07:44 +0100, Marc wrote: At the end of the day when the government decides that "something must be done" , whose advice will they follow - the BMA or Guy Chapman? We're dooomed * And again I would like to understand why anyone pays that much attention to body technicians? If I want to know how to cycle safely, I consult a cycling coach, not a cycle mechanic. If I want to know how to drive safely I consult a driving instructor, not a panel beater. If I want to know how to fly safely I consult a flying instructor , not a Queen Mary driver Why then are Doctors presumed to know something about the physics of accidents just because they are there to glue the body back together? Not all doctors. * I, too, (along with our Land Transport Safety Authority) was puzzled as to why accidents, injuries and deaths to bicyclists were not reducing as expected after our Mandatory Bicycle Helmet law was enacted and enforced. * To my shame I, like most of the medical profession bought into the propaganda that helmets were a magic cure-all. * But then I started studying the evidence. * I would say, that if you want to know the possible effects of a helmet law, study what happened in places which enforced one. One has, however, to also be aware that when there seems good empirical reason for a public health or safety initiative, its introduction is accompanied by an initiative to collect full and correctly classified data to measure the effect. This data is then frequently compared to the incomplete and inaccurate data from before the initiative and can result in considerable disparity between the statistical result and the expected effect. That frequently masks the close correspondence between the expected and actual effects. Or masks the lack of correspondence between the expected and actual effects. The only conclusions that you can draw from your scenario is that you cannot draw any conclusions. Not necessarily. You may not have the statistical proof, but the empirical experience and knowledge of the practitioners in the particular area can be strongly indicative of the true effect and point to the flaws, and the reasons for them, in the statistical analysis. When reality seems at variance with the numbers, it is frequently the numbers which are flawed. There a legions of social, health and safety studies where concentration on the numbers followng the issues receiving concentrated attention, result in problems with comparison with earlier data which wasn't collected under the same spotlight, but where the empirical experience of practitioners not involved in the statistical studies can give some, possibly the best, evidence of the true effect. Toom |
The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bullshit
In message
Toom Tabard wrote: [snip] Not necessarily. You may not have the statistical proof, but the empirical experience and knowledge of the practitioners in the particular area can be strongly indicative of the true effect and point to the flaws, and the reasons for them, in the statistical analysis. When reality seems at variance with the numbers, it is frequently the numbers which are flawed. There a legions of social, health and safety studies where concentration on the numbers followng the issues receiving concentrated attention, result in problems with comparison with earlier data which wasn't collected under the same spotlight, but where the empirical experience of practitioners not involved in the statistical studies can give some, possibly the best, evidence of the true effect. Toom Presumably you can cite some specific examples to substantiate your generalisations above? 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/ |
The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bullshit
Mike Clark wrote:
In message Toom Tabard wrote: [snip] Not necessarily. You may not have the statistical proof, but the empirical experience and knowledge of the practitioners in the particular area can be strongly indicative of the true effect and point to the flaws, and the reasons for them, in the statistical analysis. When reality seems at variance with the numbers, it is frequently the numbers which are flawed. There a legions of social, health and safety studies where concentration on the numbers followng the issues receiving concentrated attention, result in problems with comparison with earlier data which wasn't collected under the same spotlight, but where the empirical experience of practitioners not involved in the statistical studies can give some, possibly the best, evidence of the true effect. Presumably you can cite some specific examples to substantiate your generalisations above? Preferably that take into account the lack of proper control data in a comparative head injury scenario, and where the practitioners have been bombarded with years of unsubstantiated claims (the infamous 85% figure from TRT '89 in particular) about the effectiveness of the proposed intervention to bias their opinion. 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/ |
The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bullshit
Peter Clinch wrote:
Preferably that take into account the lack of proper control data in a comparative head injury scenario, and where the practitioners have been bombarded with years of unsubstantiated claims (the infamous 85% figure from TRT '89 in particular) about the effectiveness of the proposed intervention to bias their opinion. Oh, and also accounts for the fact that the practitioners will only see the end result of the accident, and are unlikely to take any account of the degree to which the proposed intervention may have caused it to happen in the first place. 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/ |
The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bullshit
In article , Mike Clark wrote:
Toom Tabard wrote: [snip] Not necessarily. You may not have the statistical proof, but the empirical experience and knowledge of the practitioners in the particular area can be strongly indicative of the true effect and point to the flaws, and the reasons for them, in the statistical analysis. [...] Presumably you can cite some specific examples to substantiate your generalisations above? Presumably he can't, or he would have done so by now. It's not as if the generalisations above add anything new.... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com