A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

More on Australia's helmet law propaganda.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 21st 19, 01:33 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default More on Australia's helmet law propaganda.

Not sure if I mentioned this, but Professor Raphael Grzebieta has said
in a media release that in their as yet unpublished paper, they intend
to discredit the prior research into the health benefits of regular cycling.

So much for the professor and his colleagues keeping an open mind,
remaining objective and following the science!

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/sc...ry-helmet-laws

"Next the authors will be looking at the health benefits of cycling when
not using a helmet versus the health benefits of introducing MHL on a
population rate basis.

“There are numerous claims that the benefits of cycling far outweigh the
‘disbenefit’ of introducing mandatory helmet laws,” Professor Grzebieta
says. “We are highly sceptical of this claim and suspect poor
assumptions are being made in the scientific methodology.”"


Wow. I've written to the university research integrity unit, as have
numerous others.

--
JS
Ads
  #2  
Old February 21st 19, 06:35 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default More on Australia's helmet law propaganda.

On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 12:34:07 AM UTC, James wrote:
Not sure if I mentioned this, but Professor Raphael Grzebieta has said
in a media release that in their as yet unpublished paper, they intend
to discredit the prior research into the health benefits of regular cycling.

So much for the professor and his colleagues keeping an open mind,
remaining objective and following the science!

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/sc...ry-helmet-laws

"Next the authors will be looking at the health benefits of cycling when
not using a helmet versus the health benefits of introducing MHL on a
population rate basis.

“There are numerous claims that the benefits of cycling far outweigh the
‘disbenefit’ of introducing mandatory helmet laws,” Professor Grzebieta
says. “We are highly sceptical of this claim and suspect poor
assumptions are being made in the scientific methodology.”"


Wow. I've written to the university research integrity unit, as have
numerous others.

--
JS


Looks to me like you guys have gone off the deep end too soon. I wouldn't be surprised if you are accused of trying to intimidate a legitimate researcher going about his proper business in a boringly commonplace way. Researchers work with hypotheses and try to prove them or disprove them. All he's actually saying is that he takes the view that the number of cyclists put off cycling by the mandatory helmet law does not outweigh the health benefit to the remaining cyclists.

That's a perfectly valid hypothesis to research, because there simply isn't a study -- not that I've heard of -- that credibly proves the matter one way or the other. If he has the money, the staff and the energy to do a proper study, you should welcome him. Welcoming him keeps you in the game, instead of being dismissed before the game even starts as a bunch of nutters with bees in your bonnets. Being in the game instead of being dismissively typed before it even starts, allows you afterwards to argue about the validity of his hypothesis, his method, the bias of his staff, his interpretation, whatever you can think up.

It's a separate matter that at this remove of time one has to wonder whether the one-way arrow hasn't degraded what evidence there once was; let's see what ingeniously analogous testable activity he comes up with before we condemn him.

Andre Jute
Discretion above all
  #3  
Old February 21st 19, 10:24 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default More on Australia's helmet law propaganda.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:33:58 +1100, James wrote:

Not sure if I mentioned this, but Professor Raphael Grzebieta has said
in a media release that in their as yet unpublished paper, they intend
to discredit the prior research into the health benefits of regular
cycling.

So much for the professor and his colleagues keeping an open mind,
remaining objective and following the science!


Speaking of "discrediting", has the data they collected been provided for
analysis?

As I remember the pre-helmet era, the only data available was Aus BureaU
ofStatistics occassional "mode of travel" to work data on the number of
bicyclists and even hospital admisson data of the time was very badly
attributed to causes.
  #4  
Old February 21st 19, 06:13 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default More on Australia's helmet law propaganda.

On 2/21/2019 4:24 AM, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:33:58 +1100, James wrote:

Not sure if I mentioned this, but Professor Raphael Grzebieta has said
in a media release that in their as yet unpublished paper, they intend
to discredit the prior research into the health benefits of regular
cycling.

So much for the professor and his colleagues keeping an open mind,
remaining objective and following the science!


Speaking of "discrediting", has the data they collected been provided for
analysis?


Perhaps the classic regarding helmet data being provided for analysis:
When Thompson & Rivara first published their infamous helmet promoting
"85% benefit" paper in 1989, Dr. Dorothy Robinson asked for their data
set. (She used to post here, BTW.) She's a PhD statistician and
researcher in Australia.

Anyway, she was able to show that T&R's own data and techniques could be
used to "prove" that helmets prevented 75% of serious leg injuries.

For those who don't grasp the significance: She was really proving that
T&R's entire approach was faulty. Their "case" and "control" groups were
far from equivalent in matters other than helmet use. And in fact,
helmeted cyclists (mostly kids at that time) were seven times more
likely than non-helmeted ones to show up at ER.

Thompson & Rivara did not take kindly to her rebuttals. They never again
allowed her access to their data.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #5  
Old February 21st 19, 09:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default More on Australia's helmet law propaganda.

On 21/2/19 4:35 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 12:34:07 AM UTC, James wrote:
Not sure if I mentioned this, but Professor Raphael Grzebieta has
said in a media release that in their as yet unpublished paper,
they intend to discredit the prior research into the health
benefits of regular cycling.

So much for the professor and his colleagues keeping an open mind,
remaining objective and following the science!

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/sc...ry-helmet-laws



"Next the authors will be looking at the health benefits of cycling when
not using a helmet versus the health benefits of introducing MHL on
a population rate basis.

“There are numerous claims that the benefits of cycling far
outweigh the ‘disbenefit’ of introducing mandatory helmet laws,”
Professor Grzebieta says. “We are highly sceptical of this claim
and suspect poor assumptions are being made in the scientific
methodology.”"


Wow. I've written to the university research integrity unit, as
have numerous others.

-- JS


Looks to me like you guys have gone off the deep end too soon. I
wouldn't be surprised if you are accused of trying to intimidate a
legitimate researcher going about his proper business in a boringly
commonplace way. Researchers work with hypotheses and try to prove
them or disprove them. All he's actually saying is that he takes the
view that the number of cyclists put off cycling by the mandatory
helmet law does not outweigh the health benefit to the remaining
cyclists.


In a recent paper they claim that there is no good evidence that people
were put off cycling by the MHL. This is their belief and they have
used it in their most recent paper too. Without that belief, the result
of their most recent paper (how many lives were saved due to MHL) is
complete BS - unless like some you believe that people are safer in
cars, so persuading them off a bike and into a car has saved them.

That's a perfectly valid hypothesis to research, because there simply
isn't a study -- not that I've heard of -- that credibly proves the
matter one way or the other. If he has the money, the staff and the
energy to do a proper study, you should welcome him. Welcoming him
keeps you in the game, instead of being dismissed before the game
even starts as a bunch of nutters with bees in your bonnets. Being in
the game instead of being dismissively typed before it even starts,
allows you afterwards to argue about the validity of his hypothesis,
his method, the bias of his staff, his interpretation, whatever you
can think up.


It is a few minutes of my time to create an alias and appear as someone new.

It's a separate matter that at this remove of time one has to wonder
whether the one-way arrow hasn't degraded what evidence there once
was; let's see what ingeniously analogous testable activity he comes
up with before we condemn him.

Andre Jute Discretion above all


These guys have such an anti cycling bent, there is no redeeming them.
I mean, they are pushing for the Danes to mandate helmets too.

--
JS
  #6  
Old February 21st 19, 10:25 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default More on Australia's helmet law propaganda.

On 21/2/19 8:24 pm, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:33:58 +1100, James wrote:

Not sure if I mentioned this, but Professor Raphael Grzebieta has said
in a media release that in their as yet unpublished paper, they intend
to discredit the prior research into the health benefits of regular
cycling.

So much for the professor and his colleagues keeping an open mind,
remaining objective and following the science!


Speaking of "discrediting", has the data they collected been provided for
analysis?

As I remember the pre-helmet era, the only data available was Aus BureaU
ofStatistics occassional "mode of travel" to work data on the number of
bicyclists and even hospital admisson data of the time was very badly
attributed to causes.


There was and still is very limited data on participation. The census
data providing mode of travel to work is about as good as it gets, and
that completely ignores children riding to school, etc.

--
JS
  #7  
Old February 21st 19, 10:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default More on Australia's helmet law propaganda.

On 22/2/19 4:13 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/21/2019 4:24 AM, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:33:58 +1100, James wrote:

Not sure if I mentioned this, but Professor Raphael Grzebieta has said
in a media release that in their as yet unpublished paper, they intend
to discredit the prior research into the health benefits of regular
cycling.

So much for the professor and his colleagues keeping an open mind,
remaining objective and following the science!


Speaking of "discrediting", has the data they collected been provided for
analysis?


Perhaps the classic regarding helmet data being provided for analysis:
When Thompson & Rivara first published their infamous helmet promoting
"85% benefit" paper in 1989, Dr. Dorothy Robinson asked for their data
set. (She used to post here, BTW.) She's a PhD statistician and
researcher in Australia.

Anyway, she was able to show that T&R's own data and techniques could be
used to "prove" that helmets prevented 75% of serious leg injuries.

For those who don't grasp the significance: She was really proving that
T&R's entire approach was faulty. Their "case" and "control" groups were
far from equivalent in matters other than helmet use. And in fact,
helmeted cyclists (mostly kids at that time) were seven times more
likely than non-helmeted ones to show up at ER.

Thompson & Rivara did not take kindly to her rebuttals. They never again
allowed her access to their data.



Dr Ian Walker from the uni of Bath tested driver interactions with
helmeted and non helmeted riders, and found that drivers drive closer to
helmeted riders.

Jake Olivier (one of the "Statisticians from the University of New South
Wales in Australia") examined the data and claimed Walker's results did
not indicate closer passing of helmeted riders.

Walker and Robinson re-crunched the numbers and have rebutted Olivier's
rebuttal!

https://forbes.com/sites/carltonreid.../#748572c05640


Olivier and Grzebieta are hell bent on proving the worth of helmets to
uphold the MHL.

--
JS
  #8  
Old February 21st 19, 10:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default More on Australia's helmet law propaganda.

On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 8:47:08 PM UTC, James wrote:
On 21/2/19 4:35 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 12:34:07 AM UTC, James wrote:
Not sure if I mentioned this, but Professor Raphael Grzebieta has
said in a media release that in their as yet unpublished paper,
they intend to discredit the prior research into the health
benefits of regular cycling.

So much for the professor and his colleagues keeping an open mind,
remaining objective and following the science!

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/sc...ry-helmet-laws



"Next the authors will be looking at the health benefits of cycling when
not using a helmet versus the health benefits of introducing MHL on
a population rate basis.

“There are numerous claims that the benefits of cycling far
outweigh the ‘disbenefit’ of introducing mandatory helmet laws,”
Professor Grzebieta says. “We are highly sceptical of this claim
and suspect poor assumptions are being made in the scientific
methodology.”"


Wow. I've written to the university research integrity unit, as
have numerous others.

-- JS


Looks to me like you guys have gone off the deep end too soon. I
wouldn't be surprised if you are accused of trying to intimidate a
legitimate researcher going about his proper business in a boringly
commonplace way. Researchers work with hypotheses and try to prove
them or disprove them. All he's actually saying is that he takes the
view that the number of cyclists put off cycling by the mandatory
helmet law does not outweigh the health benefit to the remaining
cyclists.


In a recent paper they claim that there is no good evidence that people
were put off cycling by the MHL. This is their belief and they have
used it in their most recent paper too. Without that belief, the result
of their most recent paper (how many lives were saved due to MHL) is
complete BS - unless like some you believe that people are safer in
cars, so persuading them off a bike and into a car has saved them.

That's a perfectly valid hypothesis to research, because there simply
isn't a study -- not that I've heard of -- that credibly proves the
matter one way or the other. If he has the money, the staff and the
energy to do a proper study, you should welcome him. Welcoming him
keeps you in the game, instead of being dismissed before the game
even starts as a bunch of nutters with bees in your bonnets. Being in
the game instead of being dismissively typed before it even starts,
allows you afterwards to argue about the validity of his hypothesis,
his method, the bias of his staff, his interpretation, whatever you
can think up.


It is a few minutes of my time to create an alias and appear as someone new.

It's a separate matter that at this remove of time one has to wonder
whether the one-way arrow hasn't degraded what evidence there once
was; let's see what ingeniously analogous testable activity he comes
up with before we condemn him.

Andre Jute Discretion above all


These guys have such an anti cycling bent, there is no redeeming them.
I mean, they are pushing for the Danes to mandate helmets too.

--
JS


The answer for cyclists is to do their own research and settle on an unimpeachable number for actual and potential cyclists put off cycling by mandatory helmet laws, plus a hard number for the health benefit of cycling (which according to my pedalpal who is also my doctor, who heard it from his daughter, who heard it at school, in efficacy rates after swimming, walking and, wait for it, housework), perhaps represented by a hard number for greater longevity (lifespan) among regular cyclists or, say, bicycle commuters (to contain both the uncertainties of definition and the cost of the research), when compared to motorists. With those two hard numbers you can then work out the cost to society, which is the subtext in each of these statistical bunfights, of a mandatory helmet law.

Andre Jute
No mandatory helmet law here (Ireland), nor likely to arrive from Brussels
  #9  
Old February 21st 19, 11:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default More on Australia's helmet law propaganda.

On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:13:35 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Thompson & Rivara did not take kindly to her rebuttals. They never again
allowed her access to their data.


If it is true -- give us an independent reference to their refusal, Franki-boy -- that Thompson & Rivara deny other researcher their raw data, plus a comprehensible description of any manipulation of the data to arrive at their published set, then any paper on which they do so falls. because it is logical to assume that there is something wrong with their work, and that they know it. It is to avoid this suspicion that journals of scientific record demand to have the raw data on file before they publish the article analysing the data, and also that the data be made available.

There has been a case recently that is notorious around the world of not just a researcher who refused to provide the raw data, but a whole subclass of researchers, who then brought an entire branch of science dependent on statistical analysis into deep, deep disrepute when their "adjustments" were exposed as self-serving lies, and the reason they obstructed legitimate freedom of information requests. The researcher was Michael Mann, the subbranch of a scientific field was dendrochronology, and the field that was damaged by Mann's now disgraced "hockey stick" was climate studies -- more specifically, worthless climate alarmism.

Andre Jute
There are codes of practice for a very good reason. They are for the self-protection of decent professionals.
  #10  
Old February 22nd 19, 12:30 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default More on Australia's helmet law propaganda.

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:36:19 +1100, James
wrote:

On 22/2/19 4:13 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/21/2019 4:24 AM, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:33:58 +1100, James wrote:

Not sure if I mentioned this, but Professor Raphael Grzebieta has said
in a media release that in their as yet unpublished paper, they intend
to discredit the prior research into the health benefits of regular
cycling.

So much for the professor and his colleagues keeping an open mind,
remaining objective and following the science!

Speaking of "discrediting", has the data they collected been provided for
analysis?


Perhaps the classic regarding helmet data being provided for analysis:
When Thompson & Rivara first published their infamous helmet promoting
"85% benefit" paper in 1989, Dr. Dorothy Robinson asked for their data
set. (She used to post here, BTW.) She's a PhD statistician and
researcher in Australia.

Anyway, she was able to show that T&R's own data and techniques could be
used to "prove" that helmets prevented 75% of serious leg injuries.

For those who don't grasp the significance: She was really proving that
T&R's entire approach was faulty. Their "case" and "control" groups were
far from equivalent in matters other than helmet use. And in fact,
helmeted cyclists (mostly kids at that time) were seven times more
likely than non-helmeted ones to show up at ER.

Thompson & Rivara did not take kindly to her rebuttals. They never again
allowed her access to their data.



Dr Ian Walker from the uni of Bath tested driver interactions with
helmeted and non helmeted riders, and found that drivers drive closer to
helmeted riders.

Jake Olivier (one of the "Statisticians from the University of New South
Wales in Australia") examined the data and claimed Walker's results did
not indicate closer passing of helmeted riders.

Walker and Robinson re-crunched the numbers and have rebutted Olivier's
rebuttal!

https://forbes.com/sites/carltonreid.../#748572c05640


Olivier and Grzebieta are hell bent on proving the worth of helmets to
uphold the MHL.


See

The findings that the cars passed closer to helmeted riders in the
above reference seems to be a bit different then my own experiences,
which is not to say that conditions in Australia may not be different
:-)
https://travelhappy.info/what-you-ne...ngkok-traffic/
My experience, riding in city traffic has been that passing distances
appear to be related to traffic density. The heavier the traffic and
the slower the speeds the closer the passing distance while passing
distances on country roads seems to be more related to the speed of
the overtaking vehicle but generally more then in city traffic.


--
Cheers,
John B.


 




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
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda James[_8_] Techniques 210 February 26th 19 08:51 AM
Helmet propaganda debunked [email protected] Social Issues 310 June 23rd 05 07:56 AM
Helmet propaganda debunked [email protected] Racing 17 April 27th 05 04:34 PM
Helmet propaganda debunked [email protected] UK 14 April 26th 05 10:54 AM
Giro Xen helmet: where to buy in Australia? Laurence Dodd Australia 1 December 23rd 04 04:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:13 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.