A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The BMA Promote Safer Cycling



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old April 20th 09, 11:52 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected][_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 116
Default The BMA Promote Safer Cycling

On 19 Apr, 21:48, Judith Smith wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:49:47 +0100, "Simon Mason"

wrote:

"Judith Smith" wrote in message .


There you go - 51 words - 500 less than you spouted.


500 *fewer* words, not less words.


Thank you Simon.

If I was to pick up on your every little grammatical slip - then I
would be here all day.


You *are* here all day and in any case, I thought your sole reason
for being here *was* to correct other people's errors and mistakes, or
so you like to keep stating.

--
Simon Mason
Ads
  #72  
Old April 20th 09, 11:59 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected][_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 116
Default The BMA Promote Safer Cycling

On 19 Apr, 21:55, Judith Smith wrote:


There are many people here who will not answer a very simple question:

Do you think on balance that a cycle helmet is more likely to reduce
the risk of injuries to the head in case of an accident, or do you
think that it would increase the risk of injuries?


Simple answer is, I don't care as I never wear one, so have no real
interest in the matter. I don't wear elbow pads and knee pads like
skateboarders might do, so have no interest as to whether they could
protect me either.

I don't wear a crash helmet in my car, like a racing driver might do,
so have no interest as to whether a head on smash in my car might
result in a lesser injury to my head by the same token.

When it is icy, I don't walk to the shops with a plastic hat on, even
though there is an increased risk I might slip and bang my head.

So the upshot is - I don't care.

--
Simon Mason
  #73  
Old April 20th 09, 12:08 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,852
Default The BMA Promote Safer Cycling

Toom Tabard wrote:

The fact that someone asks you a question, does not of course place
you under any obligation to answer it. But, why is it the 'wrong'
question and too narrow?


I suspect it lacks suitable qualification, and because of that is
designed to (mis)lead to a position that is demonstrably unsupportable
by simple comparison to alternatives where a different conclusion is
reached as to how important helmets are.

I personally think (indeed know) on balance that a cycle helmet is
more likely to reduce the risk of injuries to the head in case of an
accident.


Quite likely, but that doesn't specify the severity of the accident.

Also, I personally think there's a fair chance that a helmet similar to
a cycle helmet will reduce the risk of injuries to the head in the case
of a domestic accident in the house, yet practically nobody bothers
wearing such helmets in the house. At a recent orienteering event I
grazed my head on an overhanging tree branch. Looking at comments
afterwards quite a few folk picked up cuts and scratches, so highly
likely that such incidents would be reduced or mitigated with helmets
for all competitors (and in my case this time, officials). Yet I've
never seen anyone orienteering, or setting up a course where there is
less emphasis on speed and light equipment, in a helmet. So by
comparing to the same "reasoning" not applied outside of a bike despite
tangible risks, it can be seen to be dubious reasoning.

I hadn't the slightest difficulty in answering the question as
specified. The fact that you have another question to phrase in
another way is irrelevant and the question you've phrased addresses
different issues. That in no way invalidates the original question.


Indeed, but it is reasonable to point out that the question in itself is
not helpful, and similarly the answer. Or the same question/answer as
applied to accidents in the home would imply it is good sense to wear a
safety helmet there, or the same question/answer applied to orienteering
events would apply there, but it doesn't. So why does it magically
apply to bikes? There's no clearly argued reason why they are a special
case, and if you spend a weekend in Amsterdam you'll see thousands of
people who have grasped that fact.

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/
  #75  
Old April 20th 09, 12:12 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Toom Tabard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 523
Default The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bull****

On 20 Apr, 11:41, Peter Clinch wrote:
Toom Tabard wrote:
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.


So you start with data that's apparently good enough to act as a "good
empirical reason for a public health or safety initiative", but it turns
out it's so bad it will allow a doubling of the wearing rate in a very
short space of time to make no impact on serious head injury rates when
you look at the data afterwards?

And it turns out it's magically just as bad everywhere you look at the
population level, reproducibly so.

And it also turns out when you haven't had such a law and consequently a
big change in the data collection methods, and have a good hard look at
the statistical record in light of naturally evolving wearing rates,
that there appears to be no effect on serious head injuries at the
population level as wearing rates change naturally.

And it turns out where disparate groups (for example, UK juvenile males
and females) have different wearing cultures, their serious injury rates
aren't appreciably differentiated.


No I don't think I said, implied or accept any of that. And I won't
even attempt reasoned discussion of your recognisably specious
twaddle.

Toom

  #76  
Old April 20th 09, 12:19 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,985
Default The BMA Promote Safer Cycling

Peter Clinch wrote:

Toom Tabard wrote:


The fact that someone asks you a question, does not of course place
you under any obligation to answer it. But, why is it the 'wrong'
question and too narrow?


I suspect it lacks suitable qualification, and because of that is
designed to (mis)lead to a position that is demonstrably unsupportable
by simple comparison to alternatives where a different conclusion is
reached as to how important helmets are.


I personally think (indeed know) on balance that a cycle helmet is
more likely to reduce the risk of injuries to the head in case of an
accident.


Quite likely, but that doesn't specify the severity of the accident.


Also, I personally think there's a fair chance that a helmet similar to
a cycle helmet will reduce the risk of injuries to the head in the case
of a domestic accident in the house, yet practically nobody bothers
wearing such helmets in the house.


What does that have to do with the question (and the correct answer to it)?

[That's rhetorical, BTW - there's no need to answer it because we all know
what the perceived connection is.]

At a recent orienteering event I
grazed my head on an overhanging tree branch. Looking at comments
afterwards quite a few folk picked up cuts and scratches, so highly
likely that such incidents would be reduced or mitigated with helmets
for all competitors (and in my case this time, officials). Yet I've
never seen anyone orienteering, or setting up a course where there is
less emphasis on speed and light equipment, in a helmet. So by
comparing to the same "reasoning" not applied outside of a bike despite
tangible risks, it can be seen to be dubious reasoning.


I hadn't the slightest difficulty in answering the question as
specified. The fact that you have another question to phrase in
another way is irrelevant and the question you've phrased addresses
different issues. That in no way invalidates the original question.


Indeed, but it is reasonable to point out that the question in itself is
not helpful, and similarly the answer. Or the same question/answer as
applied to accidents in the home would imply it is good sense to wear a
safety helmet there, or the same question/answer applied to orienteering
events would apply there, but it doesn't. So why does it magically
apply to bikes?


It doesn't, unless you want it to.

There's no clearly argued reason why they are a special
case, and if you spend a weekend in Amsterdam you'll see thousands of
people who have grasped that fact.


You are confusing two separate questions (one of which was not asked).

The factual position about injury is one thing. Any question of legal
compulsion is quite another. Why answer questions on the first with a
permanent eye on the second?
  #77  
Old April 20th 09, 01:49 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Toom Tabard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 523
Default The BMA Promote Safer Cycling

On 20 Apr, 12:08, Peter Clinch wrote:
Toom Tabard wrote:
The fact that someone asks you a question, does not of course place
you under any obligation to answer it. But, why is it the 'wrong'
question and too narrow?


I suspect it lacks suitable qualification, and because of that is
designed to (mis)lead to a position that is demonstrably unsupportable
by simple comparison to alternatives where a different conclusion is
reached as to how important helmets are.

I personally think (indeed know) on balance that a cycle helmet is
more likely to reduce the risk of injuries to the head in case of an
accident.


Quite likely, but that doesn't specify the severity of the accident.

Also, I personally think there's a fair chance that a helmet similar to
a cycle helmet will reduce the risk of injuries to the head in the case
of a domestic accident in the house, yet practically nobody bothers
wearing such helmets in the house. *At a recent orienteering event I
grazed my head on an overhanging tree branch. *Looking at comments
afterwards quite a few folk picked up cuts and scratches, so highly
likely that such incidents would be reduced or mitigated with helmets
for all competitors (and in my case this time, officials). *Yet I've
never seen anyone orienteering, or setting up a course where there is
less emphasis on speed and light equipment, in a helmet. *So by
comparing to the same "reasoning" not applied outside of a bike despite
tangible risks, it can be seen to be dubious reasoning.

I hadn't the slightest difficulty in answering the question as
specified. The fact that you have another question to phrase in
another way is irrelevant and the question you've phrased addresses
different issues. That in no way invalidates the original question.


Indeed, but it is reasonable to point out that the question in itself is
not helpful, and similarly the answer. *Or the same question/answer as
applied to accidents in the home would imply it is good sense to wear a
safety helmet there, or the same question/answer applied to orienteering
events would apply there, but it doesn't. *So why does it magically
apply to bikes? *There's no clearly argued reason why they are a special
case, and if you spend a weekend in Amsterdam you'll see thousands of
people who have grasped that fact.


It was, and still is, merely a simple question to which there can be a
simple answer.

But there is the now the question of whether people about to read your
contribution should be advised to strap themselves into their seat and
fit airbags at head height on the nearest wall.

Toom

  #78  
Old April 20th 09, 02:20 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,852
Default The BMA Promote Safer Cycling

Toom Tabard wrote:

It was, and still is, merely a simple question to which there can be a
simple answer.


It /can/ also be a decidedly loaded question, and given the asker in the
original case the possibility of that being the case is remarkably high.
If you think it is just simple, period, then you're being simplistic,
whether by intent or nature I don't know.

It is also the case that the "simple answer" can very easily be loaded
with far more significance than it really supports, as has often been
done and will doubtless be done again. And since it has often been
done, and doubtless will be done again, it is worth flagging that up.

But there is the now the question of whether people about to read your
contribution should be advised to strap themselves into their seat and
fit airbags at head height on the nearest wall.


Or the question of whether you'll conform to your track record and throw
in some ad hominem attacks on folk that don't agree with you rather than
address the points raised? Oh no, that's just been answered, and you did.

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/
  #79  
Old April 20th 09, 03:09 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Toom Tabard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 523
Default The BMA Promote Safer Cycling

On 20 Apr, 14:20, Peter Clinch wrote:
Toom Tabard wrote:
It was, and still is, merely a simple question to which there can be a
simple answer.


It /can/ also be a decidedly loaded question, and given the asker in the
original case the possibility of that being the case is remarkably high.
*If you think it is just simple, period, then you're being simplistic,
whether by intent or nature I don't know.

It is also the case that the "simple answer" can very easily be loaded
with far more significance than it really supports, as has often been
done and will doubtless be done again. *And since it has often been
done, and doubtless will be done again, it is worth flagging that up.

But there is the now the question of whether people about to read your
contribution should be advised to strap themselves into their seat and
fit airbags at head height on the nearest wall.


Or the question of whether you'll conform to your track record and throw
in some ad hominem attacks on folk that don't agree with you rather than
address the points raised? *Oh no, that's just been answered, and you did.


It's a bit difficult to address the 'points' you raise if they are
mere endless and irrelevant vacuous twaddle.
Socrates had his Plato to expand on every question he raised. What did
I do to deserve you?

Toom

  #80  
Old April 20th 09, 03:36 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
judith smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,883
Default The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bull****

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:52:15 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
wrote:
snip



Peter Keller MB ChB FANZCA



As a doctor, and from the evidence which you have read, - what is your
answer to the simple question :

Do you think on balance that a cycle helmet is more likely to reduce
the risk of injuries to the head in case of an accident, or do you
think that it would increase the risk of injuries.?


(PS this is nothing to do with the "compulsion" argument)




--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cycling is safer with LANCE gone [email protected] Racing 4 July 14th 08 08:17 AM
Critical Mass - productive campaign to promote cycling or... The Nottingham Duck UK 54 September 23rd 05 06:33 AM
Safer Helmet Tilly UK 1 June 17th 05 12:07 PM
MTBing Safer Than You Might Think Bill Wheeler Mountain Biking 15 November 27th 04 02:58 AM
Bridelways now safer Just zis Guy, you know? UK 2 July 29th 03 06:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.