|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |