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
  #61  
Old April 19th 09, 10:50 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,166
Default The BMA Promote Safer Cycling

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:39:32 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

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?
I must admit I do not know why they cannot answer this question.


That's because it's the wrong question to ask: it's too narrow.


Indeed. And it's not that people /can't/ answer the question, it's
more that they won't, and for good reason. Paul Smith was fond of
asking "would you rather be passed too close or too fast". Same deal.
The logical fallacy known as begging the question. In his case the
problem was a false dilemma - those are not the only options - but in
the case of helmets it's more subtle, as the question embodies the
assumption that wearing a helmet has no effect on the risk of
crashing.

Well, I guess it /could/ be true that it has no effect, but then you
have to look around for alternative explanations for the observed
failure of any real cyclist population to show reductions in head
injury rates from increases in helmet use, as well as accounting for
the fact that risk compensation has been observed in numerous differ
net scenarios including helmet use.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Newsgroup may contain nuts.
Ads
  #62  
Old April 19th 09, 10:52 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Sir Jeremy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 566
Default The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bull****

On 19 Apr, 16:11, Tony Dragon wrote:
Sir Jeremy wrote:
On 19 Apr, 15:37, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:31:31 -0700 (PDT), francis


wrote:
Misleading subjectline corrected
Francis
Ditto :-)


Guy
--http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc


"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken


Newsgroup may contain nuts.


At the end of the day when the government decides that "something must
be done" , whose advice will they follow - the BMA or Guy Chapman?


We're dooomed


They are going to follow Chapman.

--
Tony the Dragon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



Question in parliament... Would the minister deny that he ignored the
advice of the British Medical Association in favour of someone posting
on a cycling news group?
Thats almost as silly as suggesting we go to war on the evidence of a
PhD thesis we found on the internet
  #63  
Old April 19th 09, 11:09 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
judith smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,883
Default The BMA Promote Safer Cycling

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:39:32 +0100, Tom Crispin
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?

I must admit I do not know why they cannot answer this question.


That's because it's the wrong question to ask: it's too narrow.

At a whole population level, do you think that a manatory helmet law
for cyclists would have a positive or negative effect on the health of
the nation?


I think it would have a positive effect.


Others may have a better way to phrase the question, but I think that
I have caught the essence of what should be asked. In answering that
broader question other questions may need to be asked, including your
question above, but your question alone will lead to a Straw Man - but
you know this already. It is a credit to this group that *everyone*
has seen through it and no one will fall for it. It is a discredit to
you that you have so far been unable to set up a Straw Man that works.
But keep trying... some of us, at least, are amused by your
incompetent efforts.



Keep wriggling and do not answer the question then - I know that you
do not like answering them - odd attitude for a "teacher".

Child to Mr Crispin (the teacher) "Please sir - is it better that I
wear a cycle helmet when I ride to school rather than not wear one.

Mr Crispin: You are asking the wrong question - it is too difficult
for me.

Child: It is a simple question.

Mr Crispin: No - sorry - you are asking the wrong person - ask your
mother when you get home.


No wonder schools are going down the pan with this attitude from
"teachers"

--

"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.


  #64  
Old April 19th 09, 11:19 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
judith smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,883
Default The BMA Promote Safer Cycling

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:50:13 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:39:32 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

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?
I must admit I do not know why they cannot answer this question.


That's because it's the wrong question to ask: it's too narrow.


Indeed. And it's not that people /can't/ answer the question, it's
more that they won't, and for good reason. Paul Smith was fond of
asking "would you rather be passed too close or too fast".


Not comparable question at all. Would you rather be passed at high
speed or low speed is what you are looking for



The logical fallacy known as begging the question. In his case the
problem was a false dilemma - those are not the only options - but in
the case of helmets it's more subtle, as the question embodies the
assumption that wearing a helmet has no effect on the risk of
crashing.


Another wriggler.

How come you can ask anyone outside of urc this question - and at
least they will answer it.

Ask it in here - and it's much too difficult for them.

Go for it Guy - tell us all about Risk Compensation.

Ask 5 children if they ride faster when wearing a helmet.

If 4 of them say yes - then this proves that they take Risk
Compensation. and helmets may not be a good thing!!

That was the research which you peddle is it not?

You really are a prat.

I still do not know how you can tell your kids one thing and then say
the exact opposite here.


--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.

  #65  
Old April 20th 09, 12:52 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Keller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 802
Default The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bull****

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:07:44 +0100, Marc wrote:




At the end of the day when the government decides that "something must
be done" , whose advice will they follow - the BMA or Guy Chapman?

We're dooomed


And again I would like to understand why anyone pays that much
attention to body technicians?
If I want to know how to cycle safely, I consult a cycling coach, not a
cycle mechanic.
If I want to know how to drive safely I consult a driving instructor,
not a panel beater.
If I want to know how to fly safely I consult a flying instructor , not
a Queen Mary driver

Why then are Doctors presumed to know something about the physics of
accidents just because they are there to glue the body back together?


Not all doctors.

I, too, (along with our Land Transport Safety Authority) was puzzled as
to why accidents, injuries and deaths to bicyclists were not reducing as
expected after our Mandatory Bicycle Helmet law was enacted and enforced.

To my shame I, like most of the medical profession bought into the
propaganda that helmets were a magic cure-all.

But then I started studying the evidence.

I would say, that if you want to know the possible effects of a helmet
law, study what happened in places which enforced one.

Peter Keller MB ChB FANZCA


--
The Kiwi is very aptly New Zealand's national emblem.
It is a bird which cannot fly.
It only comes out at night.
It has nostrils at the end of its beak,
and it is always poking its nose into things.
  #66  
Old April 20th 09, 01:05 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tom Crispin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,229
Default The BMA Promote Safer Cycling

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:09:06 +0100, Judith Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:39:32 +0100, Tom Crispin
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?

I must admit I do not know why they cannot answer this question.


That's because it's the wrong question to ask: it's too narrow.

At a whole population level, do you think that a manatory helmet law
for cyclists would have a positive or negative effect on the health of
the nation?


I think


Evidence indicates the opposite is true.

Others may have a better way to phrase the question, but I think that
I have caught the essence of what should be asked. In answering that
broader question other questions may need to be asked, including your
question above, but your question alone will lead to a Straw Man - but
you know this already. It is a credit to this group that *everyone*
has seen through it and no one will fall for it. It is a discredit to
you that you have so far been unable to set up a Straw Man that works.
But keep trying... some of us, at least, are amused by your
incompetent efforts.



Keep wriggling and do not answer the question then - I know that you
do not like answering them - odd attitude for a "teacher".

Child to Mr Crispin (the teacher) "Please sir - is it better that I
wear a cycle helmet when I ride to school rather than not wear one.

Mr Crispin: You are asking the wrong question - it is too difficult
for me.

Child: It is a simple question.

Mr Crispin: No - sorry - you are asking the wrong person - ask your
mother when you get home.


Complete fabrication of a reply to hypothetical straw man question.
  #67  
Old April 20th 09, 10:35 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Alan Braggins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,869
Default The BMA Promote Safer Cycling

In article , Tom Crispin wrote:

That's because it's the wrong question to ask: it's too narrow.


We could ask Judith whether she has stopped beating her children and
see whether she gives us a simple yes or no answer or admits that
sometimes a question can be wrong.
(Obviously this analogy falls over if she actually has children and
admits to beating them rather than admit she was wrong. I think the
"actually has children" is the smaller of those probabilities.)
  #68  
Old April 20th 09, 10:46 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Toom Tabard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 523
Default The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bull****

On 20 Apr, 00:52, Peter Keller wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:07:44 +0100, Marc wrote:

At the end of the day when the government decides that "something must
be done" , whose advice will they follow - the BMA or Guy Chapman?


We're dooomed


* And again I would like to understand why anyone pays that much
attention to body technicians?
If I want to know how to cycle safely, I consult a cycling coach, not a
cycle mechanic.
If I want to know how to drive safely I consult a driving instructor,
not a panel beater.
If I want to know how to fly safely I consult a flying instructor , not
a Queen Mary driver


Why then are Doctors presumed to know something about the physics of
accidents just because they are there to glue the body back together?


Not all doctors.

* I, too, (along with our Land Transport Safety Authority) was puzzled as
to why accidents, injuries and deaths to bicyclists were not reducing as
expected after our Mandatory Bicycle Helmet law was enacted and enforced.

* To my shame I, like most of the medical profession bought into the
propaganda that helmets were a magic cure-all.

* But then I started studying the evidence.

* I would say, that if you want to know the possible effects of a helmet
law, study what happened in places which enforced one.


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.

Toom

  #69  
Old April 20th 09, 11:31 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Toom Tabard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 523
Default The BMA Promote Safer Cycling

On 19 Apr, 22:39, Tom Crispin
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?


I must admit I do not know why they cannot answer this question.


That's because it's the wrong question to ask: it's too narrow.

At a whole population level, do you think that a manatory helmet law
for cyclists would have a positive or negative effect on the health of
the nation?

Others may have a better way to phrase the question, but I think that
I have caught the essence of what should be asked. *In answering that
broader question other questions may need to be asked, including your
question above, but your question alone will lead to a Straw Man - but
you know this already. *It is a credit to this group that *everyone*
has seen through it and no one will fall for it. *It is a discredit to
you that you have so far been unable to set up a Straw Man that works.
But keep trying... some of us, at least, are amused by your
incompetent efforts.


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? It is a perfectly valid and reasonable
question per se.

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.

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.

You might want to modify your reference to *everyone* ; There are
several members of this group, including me, who are not controlled by
the thought police who obsessively stalk this group, and who exhibit
some capacity for independent thought.

Toom

  #70  
Old April 20th 09, 11:41 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,852
Default The BMA Recycle BeHIT Bull****

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.

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/
 




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 03:58 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 05:23 PM.


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.