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

You have to laugh



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 8th 04, 10:23 PM
Just zis Guy, you know?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default You have to laugh

I was raking over the old Research Report 30 stuff writing a followup
(my questions to the DfT remian unanswered). While I was verifying
the pre-existing pro-helmet stance of the authors (which was easy:
four of them are effectively joined at the hip and have a history of
pro-helmet publications) I came across this gem:

url:http://www.imj.ie/news_detail.php?nNewsId=2518&nVolId=97

Apparently a helmet law for children is right up there with not
allowing children to operate farm machinery in the indicators for a
country which is serious about child safety.

How's that for a sense of perspective?

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
Ads
  #2  
Old February 9th 04, 01:58 AM
Mark Thompson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default You have to laugh

I came across this gem:

url:http://www.imj.ie/news_detail.php?nNewsId=2518&nVolId=97

Apparently a helmet law for children is right up there with not
allowing children to operate farm machinery in the indicators for a
country which is serious about child safety.

How's that for a sense of perspective?


Why on earth does ICEland have a law for barrier fencing around domestic
swimming pools?


  #3  
Old February 9th 04, 08:58 AM
Richard Goodman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default You have to laugh

"Mark Thompson" (change warm for hot)
wrote in message ...

Why on earth does ICEland have a law for barrier fencing around domestic
swimming pools?


You wouldn't have thought it that likely a place like that would have many
of them, but OTOH they have plenty of geothermal energy for hot water and
heating so who knows - maybe they do have significant numbers of heated/hot
water pools in their backgardens ;-). Can't say I saw any when I was there,
but...

Namaskar

Rich


  #4  
Old February 9th 04, 11:35 AM
Simon Brooke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default You have to laugh

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

I was raking over the old Research Report 30 stuff writing a followup
(my questions to the DfT remian unanswered). While I was verifying
the pre-existing pro-helmet stance of the authors (which was easy:
four of them are effectively joined at the hip and have a history of
pro-helmet publications) I came across this gem:

url:http://www.imj.ie/news_detail.php?nNewsId=2518&nVolId=97

Apparently a helmet law for children is right up there with not
allowing children to operate farm machinery in the indicators for a
country which is serious about child safety.


My mother was personally responsible, as a civil servant, for drafting
the legislation which bans children in this country from operating
farm machinery. All her children, without exception, operated farm
machinery during their childhood with her full knowledge and apparent
approval. I learned to drive, age eleven, on an old grey fergie taking
hay bales up to the barn (and reversing a fully loaded trailer of
bales *into* the barn, which was quite a kick at eleven).

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.
  #5  
Old February 9th 04, 11:35 AM
Simon Brooke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default You have to laugh

"Mark Thompson" (change warm for hot) writes:

I came across this gem:

url:http://www.imj.ie/news_detail.php?nNewsId=2518&nVolId=97

Apparently a helmet law for children is right up there with not
allowing children to operate farm machinery in the indicators for a
country which is serious about child safety.

How's that for a sense of perspective?


Why on earth does ICEland have a law for barrier fencing around domestic
swimming pools?


Geothermal energy in abundance. Plenty of really nice outdoor swimming
pools in Iceland, many of them not just warm but hot.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.
  #6  
Old February 9th 04, 03:20 PM
David Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default You have to laugh

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:23:30 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" wrote this:-

I was raking over the old Research Report 30 stuff writing a followup
(my questions to the DfT remian unanswered).


Funny you should mention that. Just this morning in another place
the following was posted.

================================================== ==============

After some discussion via email with the Department for Transport,
they have issued corrections for errors published in 'Bicycle
Helmets - A review of their effectiveness: A critical review of the
Literature, Road Safety Research Report No 30'

Section 5, Post legislation, teenager wearing rate changed to 45%
from the 74% published.

Section 1, Head Injury, emergency admissions, changed from published
2.8% to 0.28%.

The incorrect 2.8% claim made cycling appear 10 more likely to
result in being admitted to hospital than the data would suggest.
One admission in 359 being a cyclist. 'Head injuries' sustained when
bicycling was the primary diagnosis in one in 1051 admissions.

The 74% claim made the helmet law in Victoria appear successful at
increasing helmet wearing rates. In fact the law resulted in 19,229
penalty notices being issued (in a state with about 4.4 million
population), discouraging cycling by over 40% for teenagers and
resulting in less than half of teenagers wearing helmets and this
should be considered. Children's safety was reduced but the reports
overlooks this aspects.

The report RSRR 30 has been in circulation for over a year, freely
available to the public, referred to in Parliament, quoted by Royal
Mail in support of their actions of trying to force postal workers
to wear helmets, resulting in one dismissal that is being challenged
for unfair dismissal.

Other parts of the RSRR 30 report are misleading. The DfT are
interested in providing reliable and accurate information and may
change other parts when they become aware of unreliable data and
comments, published in the report.

I will continue to discuss the misleading/unreliable aspects with
the DfT. Even if the report is fully corrected for misleading
aspects it will still be bias in overall presentation and should be
withdrawn to prevent further damage.

Additional information on helmets is available at
http://www.cyclehelmets.org
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc
http://www.cycle-helmets.com

Sincerely Colin Clarke

================================================== ==============




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
  #7  
Old February 9th 04, 03:43 PM
Just zis Guy, you know?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default You have to laugh

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...

Funny you should mention that. Just this morning in another place
the following was posted.


After some discussion via email with the Department for Transport,
they have issued corrections for errors published in 'Bicycle
Helmets - A review of their effectiveness: A critical review of the
Literature, Road Safety Research Report No 30'


I can't see the corrections yet, but well done Colin Clarke for some good
and patient work. I think it has been far from easy even to get them
started on the process of amending this report.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk


  #8  
Old February 9th 04, 04:55 PM
PK
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default You have to laugh

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
I can't see the corrections yet, but well done Colin Clarke for some
good and patient work. I think it has been far from easy even to get
them started on the process of amending this report.


Maybe you would like to correct the distorted view you gave of the original
article?
http://www.imj.ie/news_detail.php?nN...2518&nVolId=97

To suggest that it argues to :
Apparently a helmet law for children is right up there with not allowing
children to operate farm machinery in the indicators for a country which is
serious about child safety
is a mendacious distortion on your part. It simply lists all the child
safety specific legislation enacted in EEC countries and its conclusion
about the direction Ireland should take indicates the importance it puts on
cycle helmets : ie it does not mention them,

How Should We Proceed in Ireland?

We should learn from experiences elsewhere. Our greatest challenges are
road-related injuries, accidental poisoning and housefires. Comparative
analyses with other EU countries show that we lag far behind the best in
Europe in these areas of child injury prevention. We cannot tolerate a very
low rate of seat belt use and a high number of children travelling
unrestrained or in the front seat of cars. We must ensure that potential
medicinal and household poisons are sold in child-resistant packaging. Our
record in relation to house fires is the worst in the EU and we must ensure
that all households have a functioning smoke alarm. We need to embrace
examples of good practice from other EU countries (most particularly the
Scandanavian countries, the Netherlands and the UK), enact appropriate
legislation and ensure that it is properly enforced15. Otherwise our child
injury toll will continue at its present unacceptably high rate

Guy, if you are going to continue to claim the high moral ground in your
arguments with regard to Paul Smith's mis-use and distortion of data and
articles, you would be best advised to avoid such distortions yourself

pk




  #9  
Old February 9th 04, 05:27 PM
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default You have to laugh

PK wrote:

is a mendacious distortion on your part. It simply lists all the child
safety specific legislation enacted in EEC countries and its conclusion
about the direction Ireland should take indicates the importance it puts on
cycle helmets : ie it does not mention them,


But the paper as a whole does, of course. "Whilst no EU member state has
adopted all ten preventive policy measures that were conducted in recent
research by Towner et al12, Sweden and Spain do show commitment to using
policy to influence the reduction of childhood injury by adopting most
of the measures outlined in Table 1", and what should we find in Table 1
but a clear reference to bicycle helmets for children, followed by a
claim that "Correctly fitted, bicycle helmets reduce the risk of head
and brain injury by 63-88%".

Since the article clearly implies that Ireland should be following
examples of good practice elsewhere, and the only mention of cycle
helmets is a bullet-point figure of how wonderful they are, saying (a)
that it does not mention them on the grounds the conclusion doesn't
specifically mention them where the other content does or (b) does not
at the very least imply it is a road to follow which is good practice is
bordering on the sort of behaviour you're on your high horse about...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

  #10  
Old February 9th 04, 05:35 PM
Just zis Guy, you know?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default You have to laugh

"PK" wrote in message
...

Maybe you would like to correct the distorted view you gave of the

original
article?
http://www.imj.ie/news_detail.php?nN...2518&nVolId=97


Or maybe I wouldn't because maybe I think that lumping lid laws in with
legislation keeping children off farm machinery is a gross distortion of the
actual danger of cycling. And maybe, just maybe, there was one of those
famous "traces of irony" in there.

Well, I apologise to anyone who was misled: I refer to the chart, not to the
body of the article. If you look at the attribution for the chart it is
Towner and Towner, two of the authors of the DfT's "independent" Research
Report 30. They, and two of the other authors, are connected via CAPT
(url:http://www.capt.org.uk/course/Course%20information.doc). All four of
these have prior publications in which they advocate helmets. There are
some reports with them listed as co-authors which advocate compulsion.

I have seen the same chart elsewhere, but not in documents which are freely
available (which is not to say they don't exist and my Googling is
deficient). I am spending Actual Money buying reports from both sides of
the argument, including (God help me) Lee, who co-wrote a masterpiece of
muddled thinking recently.

I asked the DfT last year what was the background of the other two authors,
on the grounds that any review of a controversial subject which includes
among its authors four who have already come out on one side of the argument
is unlikely to reflect a true balance, however well-intentioned and expert
they may be (and I have heard good reports of their other work). The DfT
did not reply.

As usual the basis for their claim is TRT. If TRT were removed from the
equation the whole pro lobby would pretty much disappear.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk


 




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
I laugh in the face of seized bottom brackets... Call me Bob UK 4 August 22nd 03 02:01 PM
Bikeshops that laugh at your bike Man with no pigs. Australia 24 August 15th 03 11:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.