In message you wrote:

[snip]

I would certainly expect any scientific paper to answer these sort of
questions which I have asked:

was the author paid for the paper?
was he asked to do it - did he volunteer it?
what is his standing in the community?
and in the particular case - can we see the raw data, did he carry out
the exercises over the same roads, on the same day of the week, at the
same times, on the same bike, wearing the same clothing? If he didn't
the "research" is seriously flawed.


as far as I can see they are very valid questions - the answers to
which would influence my faith in the results.

I am not aware of having put blind faith in any articles - can you
point them out so that I may correct if necessary.

People here will say time and time again - read the research - make up
your own mind.

From what I have read - in simple terms - I believe that : the wearing
of cycle helmets reduces the overall risk of injury to cyclists.

Please could you provide me with the exact citation to this published
work that you have read. Clearly it has been such a strong influence
over your thinking that the evidence must be established beyond all
possible doubt?

Also I wonder if you could also verify that in that published work the
following points are established.

were the authors paid for the paper?
were they asked to do it - did they volunteer it?
what is their standing in the community?
can we see the raw data?


I assume all the above must be possible since you have repeatedly told
us how convinced you are by this data.

Mike
--
M.R. Clark PhD, Reader in Therapeutic and Molecular Immunology
Cambridge University, Department of Pathology
Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1QP
Tel +44 (0)1223 333705 Web http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:34:54 -0700 (PDT), "
said in
:

(I wonder what his view on the relative safety of cycling nearer the
centre of a lane rather than next to the curb would be?)

Why not e-mail him again and ask?

It's easily ascertained by reading the very good book he wrote on
cycling technique - it's called Cyclecraft. And now we come full
circle, since judith is of the opinion that $RANDOMSOURCE is better
than Cyclecraft, seemingly because those of us who are experienced
cyclists all recommend it and therefore it /must/ be wrong.

John's advice is, of course, situational rather than an absolute A
or B. There are few situations in cycling that permit of the
simplistic binary answers on which judith insists. That is probably
why she is unable to accept any of the answers she is given (that
and the fact that they conflict with her prejudices, of course).

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:15:26 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:51:30 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On 28 Aug, 14:41, judith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:34:54 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

snip



Do you feel that Mr Franklin is an unreliable source of information,
what explanation do you attribute to these statistics?

Sniper8052

I do not believe he is an intentional source of unreliable
information. I would however like to know where these "facts" came
from.

(I wonder what his view on the relative safety of cycling nearer the
centre of a lane rather than next to the curb would be?)

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

(I wonder what his view on the relative safety of cycling nearer the
centre of a lane rather than next to the curb would be?)

Why not e-mail him again and ask?

Sniper8052

I'm sorry - what do you mean e-mail him "again"?

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

Did you not e-mail him previously in relation to another thread?

I thought you did, is that wrong?

Sniper8052

I can't remember saying I had - I wonder where you got that from - any
ideas?

Please pay attention to the detail:
Did I deny e-mailing him - no?
Did I say I had forgotten saying that I had e-mailed him? - yes.


And I do apologise - I knew that I had e-mailed him - (I did not deny
that) - I knew that I had not posted his response - as it was a
private interaction - but you are right I did in fact tell people that
I had e-mailed him.

(Sorry to disappoint those who were hoping I would deny it)




--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

judith pretended :
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:35:26 -0700 (PDT), dkahn400
wrote:

On 27 Aug, 11:11, judith wrote:

(Serious question : was that research ever published - I know it was
due to be, but I have not found it)

Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol 39(2), Mar 2007. pp. 417-425.

(Cycle Helmet Research)

As I said earlier - thanks for the link - but I now find:

I am disappointed that a member of the public has to pay 30 dollars
to a US company in order to see the results of research carried out at
a British University funded by Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council.

Was he "looking for specific results" - did he ask for funding to do
the research - or did someone ask him to do it?

Did he carry out the exercises over the same roads, on the same day of
the week, at the same times, on the same bike, wearing the same
clothing?

Where is the raw data from the results?

Who were the "peers" who reviewed it?

There are too many questions over this "research" for my non-academic
brain.

(No doubt this is typical of the sort of research people here think
joe cyclist needs to read and understand before he can come to a
sensible conclusion re cycle helmets! - well not for me it isn't)


--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

Have you ever noticed that the Mormans always wear helmets when they
are going around doing their thing. Crisp white shirt, dark tie, name
badge, sensible shoes and a cycle helmet when they travel by bike,
which they do around our way quite a bit.

--
Count Baldoni

"judith" wrote

[snip]

Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol 39(2), Mar 2007. pp. 417-425.

(Cycle Helmet Research)

As I said earlier - thanks for the link - but I now find:

I am disappointed that a member of the public has to pay 30
dollars
to a US company in order to see the results of research carried out
at
a British University funded by Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council.

[snip]

Welcome to the club

Jeremy Parker

"Mike Clark" wrote in message
.uk...
In message you wrote:

[snip]

I would certainly expect any scientific paper to answer these sort of
questions which I have asked:

was the author paid for the paper?
was he asked to do it - did he volunteer it?
what is his standing in the community?
and in the particular case - can we see the raw data, did he carry out
the exercises over the same roads, on the same day of the week, at the
same times, on the same bike, wearing the same clothing? If he didn't
the "research" is seriously flawed.


as far as I can see they are very valid questions - the answers to
which would influence my faith in the results.

I am not aware of having put blind faith in any articles - can you
point them out so that I may correct if necessary.

People here will say time and time again - read the research - make up
your own mind.

From what I have read - in simple terms - I believe that : the wearing
of cycle helmets reduces the overall risk of injury to cyclists.

Please could you provide me with the exact citation to this published
work that you have read. Clearly it has been such a strong influence
over your thinking that the evidence must be established beyond all
possible doubt?


Judith claims that this paper supports her view
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7543/722-a
( No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the wearing of helmets
D L Robinson)

But I don't know how well she's read it.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:49:51 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:34:54 -0700 (PDT), "
said in
:

(I wonder what his view on the relative safety of cycling nearer the
centre of a lane rather than next to the curb would be?)

Why not e-mail him again and ask?

It's easily ascertained by reading the very good book he wrote on
cycling technique - it's called Cyclecraft.

So when he recommended riding something like three ft from the edge
of the road, wasn't he aware that someone had carried out research
which shows that the further you are away from the curb - the closer
vehicles will pass by you - with more chance of knocking you off?

Sounds a bit dangerous to me.


--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:31:43 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

snip

People here will say time and time again - read the research - make up
your own mind.

From what I have read - in simple terms - I believe that : the wearing
of cycle helmets reduces the overall risk of injury to cyclists.

Please could you provide me with the exact citation to this published
work that you have read. Clearly it has been such a strong influence
over your thinking that the evidence must be established beyond all
possible doubt?

Also I wonder if you could also verify that in that published work the
following points are established.

were the authors paid for the paper?
were they asked to do it - did they volunteer it?
what is their standing in the community?
can we see the raw data?


I assume all the above must be possible since you have repeatedly told
us how convinced you are by this data.

Mike


Certainly:

Research carried out by the DfT. (They are a Government body - so the
people doing the research will have been paid to carry it out)

They were probably asked to do it - but they may have volunteered.
The people were Elizabeth Towner, Therese Dowswell, Matthew Burkes,
Heather Dickinson, John Towner, Michael Hayes. I guess if you write
to the DfT - they may provide you with information about them.

I think that you will find that there is more than enough data for you
in the report - however, I am sure if you felt that there is something
missing the DfT would provide you with what you require.


The objectives of the research were
to provide, in one volume, a critical review of research and
literature on the efficacy of bicycle
helmets. It is intended that this will provide a valuable reference
source in formulating future policy and research decisions;
consider where and how bicycle helmets are worn compulsorily and the
impact of this on cycling and
safety; and identify gaps in existing knowledge and research.

DfT: Bicycle helmets: review of effectiveness

Here are some extracts - save you reading it all:

Bicycle helmets have been found to be effective at reducing the
incidence and severity of head, brain and upper facial injury.
Bicycle helmets have been found to be effective in reducing injury for
users of all ages, though particularly for children.
All studies found evidence of a protective effect with regards to head
injury of helmet wearing in the event of a bicycle crash.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety...ct4726?page=18


Hope this helps.


--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:19:07 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"Mike Clark" wrote in message
c.uk...
In message you wrote:

[snip]

I would certainly expect any scientific paper to answer these sort of
questions which I have asked:

was the author paid for the paper?
was he asked to do it - did he volunteer it?
what is his standing in the community?
and in the particular case - can we see the raw data, did he carry out
the exercises over the same roads, on the same day of the week, at the
same times, on the same bike, wearing the same clothing? If he didn't
the "research" is seriously flawed.


as far as I can see they are very valid questions - the answers to
which would influence my faith in the results.

I am not aware of having put blind faith in any articles - can you
point them out so that I may correct if necessary.

People here will say time and time again - read the research - make up
your own mind.

From what I have read - in simple terms - I believe that : the wearing
of cycle helmets reduces the overall risk of injury to cyclists.

Please could you provide me with the exact citation to this published
work that you have read. Clearly it has been such a strong influence
over your thinking that the evidence must be established beyond all
possible doubt?


Judith claims that this paper supports her view
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7543/722-a
( No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the wearing of helmets
D L Robinson)

But I don't know how well she's read it.



What I said above was:

"I believe that : the wearing of cycle helmets reduces the overall
risk of injury to cyclists."

The referenced paper says:

"Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less
serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists (suggesting lower
impact crashes)."

I think that supports my view - don't you?

In message
judith wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:31:43 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

snip

People here will say time and time again - read the research - make up
your own mind.

From what I have read - in simple terms - I believe that : the wearing
of cycle helmets reduces the overall risk of injury to cyclists.

Please could you provide me with the exact citation to this published
work that you have read. Clearly it has been such a strong influence
over your thinking that the evidence must be established beyond all
possible doubt?

Also I wonder if you could also verify that in that published work the
following points are established.

were the authors paid for the paper?
were they asked to do it - did they volunteer it?
what is their standing in the community?
can we see the raw data?


I assume all the above must be possible since you have repeatedly told
us how convinced you are by this data.

Mike


Certainly:

Research carried out by the DfT. (They are a Government body - so the
people doing the research will have been paid to carry it out)

They were probably asked to do it - but they may have volunteered.
The people were Elizabeth Towner, Therese Dowswell, Matthew Burkes,
Heather Dickinson, John Towner, Michael Hayes. I guess if you write
to the DfT - they may provide you with information about them.

I think that you will find that there is more than enough data for you
in the report - however, I am sure if you felt that there is something
missing the DfT would provide you with what you require.


The objectives of the research were
to provide, in one volume, a critical review of research and
literature on the efficacy of bicycle
helmets. It is intended that this will provide a valuable reference
source in formulating future policy and research decisions;
consider where and how bicycle helmets are worn compulsorily and the
impact of this on cycling and
safety; and identify gaps in existing knowledge and research.

DfT: Bicycle helmets: review of effectiveness

Here are some extracts - save you reading it all:

Bicycle helmets have been found to be effective at reducing the
incidence and severity of head, brain and upper facial injury.
Bicycle helmets have been found to be effective in reducing injury for
users of all ages, though particularly for children.
All studies found evidence of a protective effect with regards to head
injury of helmet wearing in the event of a bicycle crash.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety...ct4726?page=18


Hope this helps.


But this report, because of its date of publication fails to deal with
the more recent publications that have been able to look at much larger
cohorts of cyclists wearing helmets.

Research progresses by presenting new evidence that challenges
established viewpoints. Thus much of the data on which this publication
relies is called into question by the more recent articles that I
pointed out to you.

It's a reasonable starting point but unless you also take into account
the latest literature you're unlikely to understand why there is good
reason to doubt some of the claimed effectiveness for cycle helmets.

Mike
--
M.R. Clark PhD, Reader in Therapeutic and Molecular Immunology
Cambridge University, Department of Pathology
Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1QP
Tel +44 (0)1223 333705 Web http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/