|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
The BMA Promote Safer Cycling
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |