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.

Toom