For Bill Z...

For Bill Z, and anyone else who might have an interest but has not
read this report:

quote begins

Monday 25th April 2005

Helmet compulsion boffins lack "scientific rigour"

Bicycle helmet law lobbyists repeatedly quote aged studies by US
authors Thompson, Rivara and Thompson that claim very high protective
benefit of bicycle helmets. However, a report in the May 2005 issue of
Accident Analysis & Prevention criticises the methods used by the
authors, and undermines the credibility of much of their helmet
findings.

The 1989 case/control study by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson is the
most widely quoted 'helmets save lives' claim, citing a 85 percent
reduction in head injuries and 88 percent in brain injuries. Such
claims have never been confirmed in studies of large populations and
have long been lambasted by those opposed to compulsory helmet laws.

Now there's a review in an influential journal to back up those who
pour scorn on Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, said Avery Burdett,
chairman of the Ontario Coalition for Better Cycling.

"In the past, Thompson, Rivara and Thompson have rejected all
criticisms of their review and simply re-stated their claims. They
might find it more difficult to do the same to criticisms in a
refereed article in a reputable journal," said Burdett.

Australian academic W.J Curnow wrote the report and is scathing of
Thompson, Rivara and Thompson's methodolgy and the helmet compulsion
laws based on their much criticised findings:

"The study concludes that the association between wearing helmets and
reduced head injury is compelling and legislation is likely to help,
but this is hardly credible because it also admits to not answering
the crucial question of cause and effect.

"Demand for protection of the head stems from fear of fatal and
disabling injury to it. A public accustomed to soldiers, miners and
construction workers wearing protective helmets naturally looked to
the similar products on offer for cyclists, not realising the critical
difference between protecting the brain within a stationary head
struck by a fast-moving object and that of a moving person in
collision. Due to their evolution, bicycle helmets are more suited to
the former purpose than what they are used for. This undesirable
result has come about because the design of helmets has not been
guided by research on mechanisms of brain injury. Consequently,
bicycle helmets have been a controversial issue for 20 years or more."

And Thompson, Rivara and Thompson's work was based on heavy, hardshell
helmets, no longer produced:

"Due to the decline in use of hard-shell helmets, past findings of
their efficacy are not applicable to most helmets now used."

Curnow said Thompson, Rivara and Thompson's studies did not possess
"scientific rigour."

And this is the point that has been raised with the British Medical
Association. Last year it changed its stance on helmet compulsion: the
BMA went from pro-helmet, anti-compulsion (based on its own 1999
report) to a stance of helmet compulsion for all adult and child
cyclists.

The BMA has promised to review this decision. The report in Accident
Analysis & Prevention will be used by anti-compulsionists to show that
the BMA did not use "scientific rigour" when it over-turned the advice
of its own 1999 report, using erroneous death stats provided by the
Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust, a political lobbying organisation
funded by the Freemasons.

The full reference is: Curnow, W.J., 2005. The Cochrane Collaboration
and bicycle helmets. Accid. Anal. Prev. 37 (3) 569-574.

quote ends

Now, if we do word counts...

The entire article: 550 words
Avery Burdett: 41 words - 7.5%
W.J. Curnow: 186 words - 33.8%
Carleton Reid: 323 words - 58.7%

On reading the article, it does appear that the study with the
greatest reported effect of cycle helmet use is unredeemably flawed,
and that this is a common feature of studies supporting helmet use and
compulsion; and this conclusion comes from man with two degrees in a
peer-reviewed journal, presumably not a "biased" "moron" "asshole".

Would Bill, now that he has read the article care to let us know if he
still believes it is not worth reading based on the Reid's brief quote
of Burdett?

And if he - or anyone - would like to read (assuming they have not
already done so) the full report, it can be found he

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/curnow.pdf

writes:

For Bill Z, and anyone else who might have an interest but has not
read this report:

quote begins

Monday 25th April 2005

Helmet compulsion boffins lack "scientific rigour"
snip
Anything that starts with "boffins" is not worth reading - it is on
face value shear propaganda.

BTW, in case you don't know, I've never supported mandatory helmet
laws and have gone to the trouble of writing to my elected
representatives to oppose them. I cited examples such as the
significant number of people we have in town who ride bicycles very
short distances to a nearby train station, traveling on quiet
residential streets, and taking a train about 50 km to San Francisco.
Any additional risk they may take due to not using helmets is more
than paid for by the reduced risks of auto accidents due to trains
having such a good safety record. Meanwhile, they may have no safe
place to leave a helmet (bikes left at the station are sometimes
vandalized) and might not want to lug a helmet around all day while on
foot.

That sort of comment gets your representative's attention. A mindless
rant disparaging helmets won't.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 01:50:26 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Anything that starts with "boffins" is not worth reading - it is on
face value shear propaganda.

Ah, so you *didn't* read it. Thanks for the confirmation.

That sort of comment gets your representative's attention. A mindless
rant disparaging helmets won't.

LOL! One day you might understand on how many levels that comment is
fallacious, but I'm not holding my breath.

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

Bill Z. wrote:
writes:

For Bill Z, and anyone else who might have an interest but has not
read this report:

quote begins

Monday 25th April 2005

Helmet compulsion boffins lack "scientific rigour"
snip
Anything that starts with "boffins" is not worth reading - it is on
face value shear propaganda.

OK, here is the article, with the parts to which you object excised.
Is it worth reading now?

edited article begins
Monday 25th April 2005

Bicycle helmet law lobbyists repeatedly quote aged studies by US
authors Thompson, Rivara and Thompson that claim very high protective
benefit of bicycle helmets. However, a report in the May 2005 issue of
Accident Analysis & Prevention criticises the methods used by the
authors, and undermines the credibility of much of their helmet
findings.

The 1989 case/control study by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson is the
most widely quoted 'helmets save lives' claim, citing a 85 percent
reduction in head injuries and 88 percent in brain injuries. Such
claims have never been confirmed in studies of large populations and
have long been lambasted by those opposed to compulsory helmet laws.

Australian academic W.J Curnow wrote the report and is scathing of
Thompson, Rivara and Thompson's methodolgy and the helmet compulsion
laws based on their much criticised findings:

"The study concludes that the association between wearing helmets and
reduced head injury is compelling and legislation is likely to help,
but this is hardly credible because it also admits to not answering
the crucial question of cause and effect.

"Demand for protection of the head stems from fear of fatal and
disabling injury to it. A public accustomed to soldiers, miners and
construction workers wearing protective helmets naturally looked to
the similar products on offer for cyclists, not realising the critical
difference between protecting the brain within a stationary head
struck by a fast-moving object and that of a moving person in
collision. Due to their evolution, bicycle helmets are more suited to
the former purpose than what they are used for. This undesirable
result has come about because the design of helmets has not been
guided by research on mechanisms of brain injury. Consequently,
bicycle helmets have been a controversial issue for 20 years or more."

And Thompson, Rivara and Thompson's work was based on heavy, hardshell
helmets, no longer produced:

"Due to the decline in use of hard-shell helmets, past findings of
their efficacy are not applicable to most helmets now used."

Curnow said Thompson, Rivara and Thompson's studies did not possess
"scientific rigour."

And this is the point that has been raised with the British Medical
Association. Last year it changed its stance on helmet compulsion: the
BMA went from pro-helmet, anti-compulsion (based on its own 1999
report) to a stance of helmet compulsion for all adult and child
cyclists.

The BMA has promised to review this decision. The report in Accident
Analysis & Prevention will be used by anti-compulsionists to show that
the BMA did not use "scientific rigour" when it over-turned the advice
of its own 1999 report, using erroneous death stats provided by the
Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust, a political lobbying organisation
funded by the Freemasons.

The full reference is: Curnow, W.J., 2005. The Cochrane Collaboration
and bicycle helmets. Accid. Anal. Prev. 37 (3) 569-574.

edited article ends

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 01:50:26 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Anything that starts with "boffins" is not worth reading - it is on
face value shear propaganda.

Ah, so you *didn't* read it. Thanks for the confirmation.

I didn't read some clown's post. I might add that anything with a
title that contains the word "boffins" would not make it into any
respectable journal or conference proceedings.

Oh, and I actually did read through it (quickly) - I just snipped it
all and wrote it off as trash given how the title started with such
rubbish.

You guys really are shameless, aren't you.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:31:37 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Anything that starts with "boffins" is not worth reading - it is on
face value shear propaganda.

Ah, so you *didn't* read it. Thanks for the confirmation.

I didn't read some clown's post.

This is, to quote you, a copy and paste from the article which you
refuse to confirm or deny having read. Your comment above provides
the clinching proof that you have not read it. Good work, Bill,
you've made yourself look a complete arse.

You guys really are shameless, aren't you.

Says the man who has finally admitted after some days of argument on
the topic that, no, he didn't actually read the article properly.

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:31:37 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Anything that starts with "boffins" is not worth reading - it is on
face value shear propaganda.

Ah, so you *didn't* read it. Thanks for the confirmation.

I didn't read some clown's post.

This is, to quote you, a copy and paste from the article which you
refuse to confirm or deny having read. Your comment above provides
the clinching proof that you have not read it. Good work, Bill,
you've made yourself look a complete arse.

Hey nitwit - I said the article was not worth reading, pointing out
its infantile title. Can you understand simple English?


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

In article ,
(Bill Z.) writes:

I might add that anything with a
title that contains the word "boffins" would not make it into any
respectable journal or conference proceedings.

"boffin" != "buffoon".

According to http://www.answers.com/topic/boffin

"n. Chiefly British Slang.
A scientist, especially one engaged in research."


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

(Tom Keats) writes:

In article ,
(Bill Z.) writes:

I might add that anything with a
title that contains the word "boffins" would not make it into any
respectable journal or conference proceedings.

"boffin" != "buffoon".

According to http://www.answers.com/topic/boffin

"n. Chiefly British Slang.
A scientist, especially one engaged in research."


You don't use slang in a respectable article.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 22:44:57 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Hey nitwit - I said the article was not worth reading, pointing out
its infantile title. Can you understand simple English?

This invites two questions:

o having failed to read the article, why do you feel it necessary to
comment at all?

o having been informed that Burdett is a minor source in the story,
which is written by a pro-helmet specialist cycling journalist, why
are you still arguing the toss?

And did I read you accusing someone of being insulting earlier on?
Looks like a clear case of hypocrisy.

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