Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation

On 18 Apr, 00:26, JMS wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:07:25 +0100, Peter Clinch

wrote:
Derek C wrote:

When you look at any scientific research paper or book, always
consider who is paying for the research (usually big companies or
Governments), as even scientists don't normally work for nothing. *You
may remember that tobacco companies produced loads of papers that
proved that smoking was not harmful a few years ago. As for the
Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation and the Man Made Global Warming or
Climate Change groups...................!

BHRF don't pay for research. *What would they pay with, they have
no income? *They assess and collate other research. *They are, as
it happens, working for nothing alongside their day jobs.

Was it the BHRF in their other guise as cyclehelmets.org, who were
criticised *together with the CTC for lying by the Advertising
Standards Authority?


"wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being
involved in an accident."

That august body The CTC

(They've already had a slap for lying by the ASA)

Some of the statistical arguments used in the 'cyclehelmets.org'
summaries against the pro-helmet papers are positively ridiculous,
whereas any anti-helmet papers are praised up to the nines, however
weak the underlying methodology. Hardly unbiased! Even if the writers
of these summaries are unpaid, they still obviously have a vested
interest in the subject.

Derek C

Derek C wrote:

So can you prove that a 5.8% increase in head weight and an extra inch
of radius is likely to cause an increased risk of head injuries? No.

That provides a bigger thing to get hit and makes it more difficult
to hold up, away from an impact.

What degree of proof do you need that muscles find more work more
difficult, and bigger things get hit by stuff more than small things?

Even if you can think of a scenario where the extra inch of radius
might cause you to bang your head where you might not have done so not
wearing a helmet

If you seriously /can't/ then you have zero imagination.

your head and skull are still being protected by the
helmet.

Protected to the lamentably low standard offered by a cycle helmet,
yes. But that's not the same thing as guaranteed protection from
any unpleasantness.

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/

Derek C wrote:

Some of the statistical arguments used in the 'cyclehelmets.org'
summaries against the pro-helmet papers are positively ridiculous,

I don't think you're in a position to usefully comment after some
of your own "statistical" summaries. Let's see, the balance of
reports are in favour of helmets being a big win, so on balance
they're likely to be a big win. And that /huge/ (not) sample in
the TRL paper you were bashing on about, and so on. I think from
what I've seen Dorothy Robinson, professional statistician, knows
more about what she's doing with stats than Derek C.

whereas any anti-helmet papers are praised up to the nines, however
weak the underlying methodology. Hardly unbiased!

That you're still unable to tell the difference between helmet
sceptic and anti helmet is a very clear indication of your own
bias, scientific training or not.

Even if the writers
of these summaries are unpaid, they still obviously have a vested
interest in the subject.

You wouldn't do unpaid work if you didn't have an interest. And
the interest among a body of /cyclists/ is how can they, and their
fellow cyclists, be reasonably safe. And they (and I) appear to
think that pushing a non-solution as if it is highly effective is
misdirected effort of little help to anyone except manufacturers of
cycle helmets.

What do these people have to gain by downplaying something that
allegedly makes their own lives much safer? What's in it for them?
What's in it for the CTC (many of whose members wear and advocate
helmets) to be, as /you/ suggest, "anti helmet"? They can get some
of their members dead and **** off lots of others who wear them...
well, that's worth doing isn't it?

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/

Derek C wrote:

Who would now believe anything that comes from the University of East
Anglia, following the 'Climategate' scandal?


Would that be the "scandal" in which it has been established that no
scientific misconduct took place?


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...quiry-reports/

On Apr 18, 7:36*pm, Adam Lea wrote:
Derek C wrote:

Who would now believe anything that comes from the University of East
Anglia, following the 'Climategate' scandal?

Would that be the "scandal" in which it has been established that no
scientific misconduct took place?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...econd-cru-inqu...

So it's OK to make up data and refuse to peer review any paper that
disagrees with the status quo then?

Derek C

On 18 Apr, 15:09, Peter Clinch wrote:
Derek C wrote:
Some of the statistical arguments used in the 'cyclehelmets.org'
summaries against the pro-helmet papers are positively ridiculous,

I don't think you're in a position to usefully comment after some
of your own "statistical" summaries. *Let's see, the balance of
reports are in favour of helmets being a big win, so on balance
they're likely to be a big win. *And that /huge/ (not) sample in
the TRL paper you were bashing on about, and so on. *I think from
what I've seen Dorothy Robinson, professional statistician, knows
more about what she's doing with stats than Derek C.

whereas any anti-helmet papers are praised up to the nines, however
weak the underlying methodology. Hardly unbiased!

That you're still unable to tell the difference between helmet
sceptic and anti helmet is a very clear indication of your own
bias, scientific training or not.

* Even if the writers
of these summaries are unpaid, they still obviously have a vested
interest in the subject.

You wouldn't do unpaid work if you didn't have an interest. *And
the interest among a body of /cyclists/ is how can they, and their
fellow cyclists, be reasonably safe. *And they (and I) appear to
think that pushing a non-solution as if it is highly effective is
misdirected effort of little help to anyone except manufacturers of
cycle helmets.

What do these people have to gain by downplaying something that
allegedly makes their own lives much safer? *What's in it for them?
* What's in it for the CTC (many of whose members wear and advocate
helmets) to be, as /you/ suggest, "anti helmet"? *They can get some
of their members dead and **** off lots of others who wear them...
well, that's worth doing isn't it?

I'm glad to hear that there are some sensible members of the CTC!

Derek C

Derek C wrote:

I'm glad to hear that there are some sensible members of the CTC!

Tim Gill is one. He wears a helmet too, but in his summary of
cycling safety for children and young people he presents a very
well done precis of the helmet debate, in which he concludes
there's much less of a clear conclusion than you seem to think
there is. He at least has the grace to admit that his wearing is
based on a "what if" gut feeling rather than rigorous science.

http://www.ncb.org.uk/dotpdf/open%20...ill_200512.pdf
is worth your while reading.

Back to the question from before though: in whose vested interest
is it to deprecate the perceptions of cycle helmet efficacy if they
really are a particularly worthwhile safety measure?

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/

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010, Derek C wrote:
On 18 Apr, 12:29, Ian Smith wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr, Derek C wrote:
*On 17 Apr, 22:04, Ian Smith wrote:

Exactly - and the whole point about the torsional injuries
scenario is that a helmet increase the lever arm and friction
on the road surface. * So saying 'how can a helmet make
matters worse (not including the effects which will be
exacerbated by the extra weight and extra diameter)?' is
completely pointless.

*An average person's head weighs about 5 Kg. My cycle helmet
weights *less than 300 g and adds about an inch to the radius of
my head,

So you agree that your helmet increases the weight of your head
and increases the radius of your head.

*so not a very significant change.

But then you just dismiss this, with no justification.

So can you prove that a 5.8% increase in head weight and an extra
inch of radius is likely to cause an increased risk of head
injuries? No. Thought not!

I don't need to prove it does, I merely need to observe that it
_might_. It is your argument that depends on proving something,
namely that it has no effect.

Even if you can think of a scenario where the extra inch of radius
might cause you to bang your head where you might not have done so
not wearing a helmet, your head and skull are still being protected
by the helmet.

So you agree that such cases could exist. Thank you. There's no need
then for me to prove anything, since you agree with me.

Anyway, now we're back to the case of which hurts more - hitting your
helmeted head on a solid object, or not hitting your unhelmeted head.
I know which I prefer.


--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

In message
JMS wrote:

[snip]

That does not make the question I posed invalid.



What is an "average cyclist"? As far as I can see from looking at the
statistics the "average cyclist", is a cyclist who never has a serious
injury as a result of a cycling accident.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
" || _`\,_ |__\ \ | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

On 19 Apr, 16:47, Mike Clark wrote:
In message
* * * * * JMS wrote:

[snip]



That does not make the question I posed invalid.

What is an "average cyclist"? As far as I can see from looking at the
statistics the "average cyclist", is a cyclist who never has a serious
injury as a result of a cycling accident.

Mike
--
*o/ \\ * *// * * * *|\ * ,_ o * * *Mike Clark
\__,\\ *// * __o * | \ / */\, * "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
*" * *|| * _`\,_ *|__\ *\ | caving, antibody engineer and
* ` * *|| *(_)/ (_) | * \corn computer user"

So why are there about 2500 reported killed and seriously injured
cyclists in the UK every year? Only about 2% of journeys are made by
bicycle, but cyclists make up 9% of the total KSI (killed and
seriously injured) in UK road accidents. This figure has fallen from
about 6500 in the mid1980s, a period during which helmet wearing has
become much more commonplace! Figures from the DfT.

Derek C