The BMA Promote Safer Cycling

In article , Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:09:06 +0100, Judith Smith
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:39:32 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

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.

Indeed - a recent paper estimates the negative health impact of a helmet
law would cost the UK about $0.4 billion. (About 0.19 billion pounds,
it's an Australian paper.)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1368064 via
http://www.ecovelo.info/2009/04/20/m...y-helmet-laws/

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:49:08 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

Toom Tabard wrote:

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?

You continue to show little knowledge of the currently available
literature on the subject, or indeed much indication that you have
even been bothered to try and keep abreast of it. Consequently
your opinions, even though you tend to see them too much as facts,
are actually far less informed than you appear to think.

If you don't want me posting to point out your opinions have holes
in them it would be best to close up the holes, rather than pretend
they're not there.

Pete.


Most people would be able to extract relevant pertinent facts from
"the literature" and use them to prove their point or disprove
another's. You seem to be able to do neither, and only able to throw
in the odd red herring or two.

Given that you appear to be proud of the fact that you represent the
University in your postings - you are not doing very well in terms of
enhancing the reputation of academia.
--

The BMA view of helmets:

The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries. This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK. Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:20:24 -0700 (PDT), PeterG
wrote:

snip

* * * * * *

"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.

My brothers mate was down the pub when he was told about a cyclist who
was wearing a cycle helmet when he swerved off the road down a bank
and into some trees.
He was left hanging from the tree by his helmet strap for four hours &
nearly died.


PG


Bloody hell - someone down the pub only told me that same story last
night.

I wonder if it was the same cyclist?

Oh - hang on - it can't be - the one in the "story" I was told was
eaten by foxes.

Still - goes to show - you can be too careful.

--

"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.

"Judith Smith" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:00:04 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:


"Jules" wrote in message
...


As a matter of interest: Do you wear a seat-belt in your car? Would you
wear one if it wasn't a legal requirement? Did you wear one before it
was
a legal requirement (assuming you are old enough)?

I do wear my seat belt in my car and did not wear it before it became law.
Incidentally, my dad crashed his car in 1974 into a telegraph pole which
wiped out the driver's side. He was thrown into the passenger seat and
lived, had he worn a seat belt he would have been killed.


Yes - I have met loads of people down the pub who had exactly the same
thing happen to one of their relatives.



Goodness, it was more common than I thought then!


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

On 20 Apr, 19:49, Peter Clinch wrote:
Toom Tabard wrote:
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?

You continue to show little knowledge of the currently available
literature on the subject, or indeed much indication that you have
even been bothered to try and keep abreast of it. *Consequently
your opinions, even though you tend to see them too much as facts,
are actually far less informed than you appear to think.


Mere supposition by you, and totally incorrect.

If you don't want me posting to point out your opinions have holes
in them it would be best to close up the holes, rather than pretend
they're not there.


So, the fact that I state I think (indeed know) that it is safer for
me to wear a helmet when cycling
is an 'opinion' with holes, and, since you know better than I what I
think and know, the holes in my opinion can be filled by you writing
about the possible advantages of wearing a helmet in the home?

It is not a matter of whether or not 'I want you posting'. Whether or
what you post is of total disinterest to me. If my statement in
favour of cycle helmets triggers some need in you to write monologues
on wearing helmets in the house that is a matter entirely for you.

Toom

Toom Tabard wrote:
On 20 Apr, 19:49, Peter Clinch wrote:

You continue to show little knowledge of the currently available
literature on the subject, or indeed much indication that you have
even been bothered to try and keep abreast of it. Consequently
your opinions, even though you tend to see them too much as facts,
are actually far less informed than you appear to think.

Mere supposition by you, and totally incorrect.

I merely judge you by what you reveal. When I suggested the responses
to the 2006 BMJ to Hagel et al and Robinson were instructive your reply
strongly suggested you hadn't read them and had no intention of doing so
("the papers you mention are a few in a sea of publications, and
trawling through the responses resolves little"). When I made points
yesterday that were based on, amongst other work, Hewson's 2005 pieces
you dismissed it as "your specious twaddle" with no reference to the
problems you have with the original work even though you /ought/ to be
highly familiar with it if you really are well informed on the matter.
So not mere supposition, working from what you say yourself.

So, the fact that I state I think (indeed know) that it is safer for
me to wear a helmet when cycling
is an 'opinion' with holes, and

I wasn't addressing that particular point, more your posts in general,
such as yesterday's vague arm-waving to "explain" why casualty savings
fail to show up with increased helmet wearing. I pointed out some
holes, where my basis of argument was peer reviewed literature, and you
did some more vague dismissive arm-waving because you either can't or
won't address the issues.

But as it happens, the above is incorrectly stating an opinion as fact
(again...) because you don't have properly quantified information about
how your helmet affects the behaviour of those around you, or how a
bigger, heavier head will increase your chances of striking it against
something at all.

since you know better than I what I
think and know, the holes in my opinion can be filled by you writing
about the possible advantages of wearing a helmet in the home?

I don't know better than you what you think. I do have a good idea from
what you say that what you think and actuality are probably not as
closely aligned as you appear to believe.

The point about wearing a helmet at home is it /may/ make you safer,
just as your cycle helmet /may/ make you safer. Yet you do not behave
identically despite a similar mitigation of similar risks, so I'm just
pointing out logical inconsistencies in your position to demonstrate
it's not on the firmest of ground.

What have you done to deserve me? Like asking what the Emperor did to
deserve some kid saying he had no clothes on... he showed up with no
clothes on.

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/

Response to Peter Clinch:

What have you done to deserve me? Like asking what the Emperor did to
deserve some kid saying he had no clothes on... he showed up with no
clothes on.

Are you familiar with the literal meaning of "toom tabard"? I've
wondered in the past if he isn't just trolling.

--
Mark, UK.

Mark McNeill twisted the electrons to say:
Are you familiar with the literal meaning of "toom tabard"? I've
wondered in the past if he isn't just trolling.

I pretty much decided that back in December when he felt that wanting
cycle lanes / paths to be as least as good the roads was somehow an
unreasonable and unrealistic concept ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

Mark McNeill wrote:

Are you familiar with the literal meaning of "toom tabard"? I've
wondered in the past if he isn't just trolling.

All I knew was it was a nickname for a former Scots king. Maybe I
should know something else?

My opinion of his contributions (quite possibly wrong) was that
rather than a malign troll like Judith he's rather like Scharf:
well meaning but due to an inability to tell the difference between
his own opinions and facts of far more limited use than he might
be. But since he's established he really /can't/ tell the
difference between his opinions and fact I really ought to give up
and stop muddying urc's waters further: he's given himself enough
rope, tied the noose and jumped off the stool as far as his
pronouncements on helmets go.

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/

Response to Peter Clinch:

Are you familiar with the literal meaning of "toom tabard"? I've
wondered in the past if he isn't just trolling.

All I knew was it was a nickname for a former Scots king. Maybe I
should know something else?

It means "empty coat": a fine name for a certain type of Usenet poster,
I thought. I was reminded by the Emperor's New Clothes thing, toom
tabard being a sort of Emperor's New Clothes in reverse.


well meaning but due to an inability to tell the difference between
his own opinions and facts of far more limited use than he might
be.

He could certainly give more thought to his opinions. You could say he
might be of more use if he was a Reflective Tabard.


--
Mark, UK.