The danger of riding without a helmet

On 23/11/2010 08:56, Tony Raven wrote:
Derek C wrote:
On Nov 23, 7:14 am, Tony Raven wrote:
Charles Bryant wrote:
In article ,
JMS wrote:
}Why do you think the doctors are claiming that cycle helmets have
}reduced head injuries?
Possibly they have too narrow a view of the situation.
For years they used to recommend smoking as being good for you. It took
Richard Doll's ground-breaking epidemiological study to show they were
wrong. They have made similar mistakes with hormone replacement
therapy, stomach ulcers, silicone implants.............

I believe that A&E doctors see many cycling casualties who have
suffered some degree of head injury, especially those who were not
wearing cycle helmets. Hence there is some justification for their
claims.


But this is not about cases they have seen but historical patient records.

The problem is, as with my earlier analogy on the safety of Trabants and
Fords, they only see a subset of cyclist who have had accidents that need
hospital treatment. In the UK they are misled by the majority of the people
they see not having worn a helmet not realising that the majority of cyclists
don't wear a helmet either so all they are seeing is a reflection of the
cycling population, not anything specific about not wearing a helmet.

Australia is a slightly different story. It is a reaction to a detailed study
that was recently published that showed helmets were not worth wearing. The
trouble is yet again they have failed to look at their data against
population norms. So while 85-100% of those admitted to their hospital were
wearing helmets, official data on helmet wearing in Sydney, where their
hospital is located, shows that only 80% of the cycling population wear
helmets i.e. helmet wearers are over-represented in those being admitted to
their hospital. This is the same result found by Curnow where in all cases
the percentage of helmet wearers in the hospital data was in all cases higher
than the percentage of cyclists in the local population wearing helmets.

There is also the possibility of selection bias too. As one of the main
hospitals in the city the more difficult cases will tend to end up there
whereas the simpler injuries may well be dealt with at other hospitals in the
city just in the same way that Stoke Mandeville is not a good place to look
if you want to know about typical spinal injuries rather than extreme cases.

Tony

Would it be fair to summarise your prepared response as a Paisleyesque:

"No Compulsion! Not never, not no-how. All the evidence is meaningless, no
matter where it comes from, who produces it, how it is gathered and how
written up. No Surrender!"?

JNugent wrote:

Would it be fair to summarise your prepared response as a Paisleyesque:

"No Compulsion! Not never, not no-how. All the evidence is meaningless,
no matter where it comes from, who produces it, how it is gathered and
how written up. No Surrender!"?

How do you know the evidence is meaningless if you haven't actually read
the publications in question? So you might not like my review of the
research but at least I am working from a position of knowledge and not
ignorance as you are doing.

Tony

On 23/11/2010 22:35, Tony Raven wrote:

JNugent wrote:

Would it be fair to summarise your prepared response as a Paisleyesque:

"No Compulsion! Not never, not no-how. All the evidence is meaningless, no
matter where it comes from, who produces it, how it is gathered and how
written up. No Surrender!"?

How do you know the evidence is meaningless if you haven't actually read the
publications in question?

That absolutely does not matter. That's because I express no opinion either
way about whether helmets ought to be made compulsory.

So it isn't about me. It's about you.

So you might not like my review of the research but
at least I am working from a position of knowledge and not ignorance as you
are doing.

Don't even *think* of trying to bully me with reference to my "ignorance". I
am well aware of my own ignorance of the vast majority things (see another
post in a different thread near here).

The difference is that I am prepared to accept it. You?

Once again, this isn't about me. It's all about you and your studied and
determined rejection of any suggestion that cycle helmets might work. You are
literally incapable of accepting any positive evidence on the topic.

Aren't you?

As for me... it's not a matter which keeps me awake at night. It worries you
though, doesn't it? Are you *that* worried about (as one ukpm poster put it)
"looking like a tit"?

JNugent wrote:
On 23/11/2010 22:35, Tony Raven wrote:

JNugent wrote:

Would it be fair to summarise your prepared response as a Paisleyesque:

"No Compulsion! Not never, not no-how. All the evidence is
meaningless, no
matter where it comes from, who produces it, how it is gathered and how
written up. No Surrender!"?

How do you know the evidence is meaningless if you haven't actually
read the
publications in question?

That absolutely does not matter. That's because I express no opinion
either way about whether helmets ought to be made compulsory.

Yes it does. You characterised my assessment of the research as "all
the evidence is meaningless" without having a clue as to whether my
assessment was valid or not.


So it isn't about me. It's about you.


Nice attempt at deflection. But it is about you and your "don't confuse
me with the facts" attitude

So you might not like my review of the research but
at least I am working from a position of knowledge and not ignorance
as you
are doing.

Don't even *think* of trying to bully me with reference to my
"ignorance". I am well aware of my own ignorance of the vast majority
things (see another post in a different thread near here).

The difference is that I am prepared to accept it. You?


I am very well qualified to assess research and do it professionally.
So unless you have similar expertise it seems I know what I'm talking
about and you don't.


Once again, this isn't about me. It's all about you and your studied and
determined rejection of any suggestion that cycle helmets might work.
You are literally incapable of accepting any positive evidence on the
topic.

Aren't you?


Not at all. Unlike you I started as a helmet wearer and came to my
current position on helmets as a result of evaluating the research on
both sides. As far as I can tell you have taken your position as a
mantra from the beginning and are prepared to rubbish anyone that says
otherwise even though you proudly admit ignorance of the evidence.

As for me... it's not a matter which keeps me awake at night. It worries
you though, doesn't it? Are you *that* worried about (as one ukpm poster
put it) "looking like a tit"?

I wasn't the one up at one in the morning writing about it. When new
research is published and discussed I try and give my professional
assessment for the benefit of those interested and those who might not
have access to the source material I do. Its just a hazard of the topic
that it comes with ignorant spouting on the subject by the likes of you
and Derek. Whether you consider I look like a tit really doesn't bother
me but if you think it bolsters your position be my guest.

HAND

Tony

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:01:15 +0000, Tony Raven
wrote:

snip


I am very well qualified to assess research and do it professionally.
So unless you have similar expertise it seems I know what I'm talking
about and you don't.


Excellent - I am a smart arse - and you are stupid.


Well worthy of Porky Chapman.


--


"Then back to my club on Pall Mall "

Tony Raven - pretentious tosser

On 24/11/2010 07:01, Tony Raven wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 23/11/2010 22:35, Tony Raven wrote:
JNugent wrote:

Would it be fair to summarise your prepared response as a Paisleyesque:

"No Compulsion! Not never, not no-how. All the evidence is meaningless, no
matter where it comes from, who produces it, how it is gathered and how
written up. No Surrender!"?

How do you know the evidence is meaningless if you haven't actually read the
publications in question?

That absolutely does not matter. That's because I express no opinion either
way about whether helmets ought to be made compulsory.

Yes it does. You characterised my assessment of the research as "all the
evidence is meaningless" without having a clue as to whether my assessment
was valid or not.

Your approach may or may not be a valid approach. I made and make no comment
on that either way. It's up to others to judge for themselves.

So we'll serve round your attempt at deflection.

So it isn't about me. It's about you.

Nice attempt at deflection. But it is about you and your "don't confuse me
with the facts" attitude

I am not interested in whether or not cyclists should be compelled to wear
helmets whilst cycling. I have stated this several times in the past. I don't
have an axe of any description to grind on the topic. I therefore follows
that I am not interested in the evidence either, since it could only lead to
one of two outcomes and I have no preference for either.

What *has* caught my attention is the school playground way in which the
argument is conducted. Hence my summarising of your position.

So you might not like my review of the research but
at least I am working from a position of knowledge and not ignorance as you
are doing.

Don't even *think* of trying to bully me with reference to my "ignorance".
I am well aware of my own ignorance of the vast majority things (see
another post in a different thread near here).
The difference is that I am prepared to accept it. You?

I am very well qualified to assess research and do it professionally. So
unless you have similar expertise it seems I know what I'm talking about and
you don't.

You're not prepared to accept your own ignorance. OK. I can live with that.

But you are (again) either refusing to accept facts or failing to spot them.

The fact is that I am not trying to sway the argument on helmets one way or
the other (see above). It isn't the substantive issue which has caught my
attention here - it's the process adopted which has done that. And your part
in that process is one of the most interesting bits of it.

Once again, this isn't about me. It's all about you and your studied and
determined rejection of any suggestion that cycle helmets might work. You
are literally incapable of accepting any positive evidence on the topic.
Aren't you?

Not at all. Unlike you I started as a helmet wearer and came to my current
position on helmets as a result of evaluating the research on both sides.

Bzzzt! Error alert!

I have no position, and have never expressed an opinion, on whether cycling
helmets should be compulsory. You will search Google in vain for imaginary
evidence in order to seek to undermine that (for you, rather inconvenient) fact.

You are barking up entirely the wrong tree. As already observed, it isn't
about me. It's about you.

As
far as I can tell you have taken your position as a mantra from the beginning
and are prepared to rubbish anyone that says otherwise even though you
proudly admit ignorance of the evidence.

What "position" is that?

Your apology will be accepted graciously, as will your admission of
misunderstanding and error.

But I shan't hold my breath.

As for me... it's not a matter which keeps me awake at night. It worries
you though, doesn't it? Are you *that* worried about (as one ukpm poster
put it) "looking like a tit"?

I wasn't the one up at one in the morning writing about it.

My hours are my business, and your remarking on that simply shows how
desperate you are for an argument - doesn't it?

When new research
is published and discussed I try and give my professional assessment for the
benefit of those interested and those who might not have access to the source
material I do. Its just a hazard of the topic that it comes with ignorant
spouting on the subject by the likes of you and Derek.

If you were just a little less intense and... er... "focused" on this topic,
you would immediately realise your error. This "spouting" is all in your own
mind. I have never expressed any opinion on whether helmets should be
compulsory.

So are you going to apologise?

Whether you consider I
look like a tit really doesn't bother me but if you think it bolsters your
position be my guest.

Again, you miss the point by a mile. That's at least the third time in one post.

It was an anti-helmet cyclist poster here who who gave that as the reason,
spelling out his principled objection as "You look like a tit when you're
wearing a helmet".

I merely remind you of that fact (if you had forgotten it) or advise you of
it (if you didn't already know).

I would never express any opinion on what you or anyone look like. I was
quoting a cyclist poster uncritically. He might have been right. He might
have been wrong. I don't care.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:20:00 +0000, JMS wrote:

..


Excellent - I am a smart arse - and you are stupid.


Well worthy of Porky Chapman.


Well posted from an insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody,
abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beast who sired you and then
killed himself in recognition of what he had done

--

snip

--
67.4% of statistics are made up.