"judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:19:07 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"Mike Clark" wrote in message
. ac.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?

No - it supports the view that you were not paying attention when you read
the article.

The conclusion that is more relevant is
"Before and after data show enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but
produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries"
And the paper title was a bit of a giveaway!

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:19:07 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

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?

The very same paragraph also notes
Cyclists who choose to wear helmets commit fewer traffic violations,12 have
higher socioeconomic status, and are more likely to wear high visibility
clothing and use lights at night.13 Helmeted children tend to ride with
other cyclists in parks, playgrounds, or on bicycle paths rather than on
city streets, and (in the United States) be white rather than other races

Do you think that any of these is as a *result* of wearing a helmet?

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:13:37 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

snip

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

I'm not convinced - which data do you think is brought in to question
and from which more recent publication please.

(Apologies if you have already told me this - but I am having a
problem extracting posts from my archive)

(Happy if you can just give message IDs rather than repeating your
posts)

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:08:44 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"judith" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:19:07 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"Mike Clark" wrote in message
.ac.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?

No - it supports the view that you were not paying attention when you read
the article.

The conclusion that is more relevant is
"Before and after data show enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but
produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries"
And the paper title was a bit of a giveaway!




Talking of paying attention:

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

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

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:11:21 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"judith" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:19:07 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

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?

The very same paragraph also notes
Cyclists who choose to wear helmets commit fewer traffic violations,12 have
higher socioeconomic status, and are more likely to wear high visibility
clothing and use lights at night.13 Helmeted children tend to ride with
other cyclists in parks, playgrounds, or on bicycle paths rather than on
city streets, and (in the United States) be white rather than other races

Do you think that any of these is as a *result* of wearing a helmet?



No - just social observations - with no comment added

Different from
"Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less
serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists"

which had the added comment : (suggesting lower
impact crashes)."

Do you think it was chance that the helmeted cyclists had less serious
injuries? If not - what was the reason if not lower impact crashes?

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:08:44 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"judith" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:19:07 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"Mike Clark" wrote in message
m.ac.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?

No - it supports the view that you were not paying attention when you read
the article.

The conclusion that is more relevant is
"Before and after data show enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but
produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries"
And the paper title was a bit of a giveaway!




Talking of paying attention:

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

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

If 'the wearing of cycle helmets reduces the overall risk' is a proposition,
then the corollary is that increasing the rate of helmet wearing would
reduce the actual incidence and seriousness of head injuries.

The evidence is that compulsion does increase the incidence of helmet
wearing but it does not improve the head injury rate.

Do you accept that there is nothing in the paper that can be as interpreted
as supporting your propostion? If you still think there is something in the
article that does support your proposition, please let us know.

judith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:11:21 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:19:07 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

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?
The very same paragraph also notes
Cyclists who choose to wear helmets commit fewer traffic violations,12 have
higher socioeconomic status, and are more likely to wear high visibility
clothing and use lights at night.13 Helmeted children tend to ride with
other cyclists in parks, playgrounds, or on bicycle paths rather than on
city streets, and (in the United States) be white rather than other races

Do you think that any of these is as a *result* of wearing a helmet?



No - just social observations - with no comment added

Different from
"Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less
serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists"

which had the added comment : (suggesting lower
impact crashes)."

Do you think it was chance that the helmeted cyclists had less serious
injuries? If not - what was the reason if not lower impact crashes?


Why did they have lower impact crashes?
Better brakes because of their higher socioeconomic status?
Riding in nicer areas because of their higher socioeconomic status?
Riding in a more conservative manner because they were risk averse, as
shown by their use of helmets?


Your blind acceptance shows that their is still one born every minute
and is the reason the politicians still exist.

"Marc" wrote in message
...
judith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:11:21 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:19:07 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

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?
The very same paragraph also notes
Cyclists who choose to wear helmets commit fewer traffic violations,12
have higher socioeconomic status, and are more likely to wear high
visibility clothing and use lights at night.13 Helmeted children tend to
ride with other cyclists in parks, playgrounds, or on bicycle paths
rather than on city streets, and (in the United States) be white rather
than other races

Do you think that any of these is as a *result* of wearing a helmet?


No - just social observations - with no comment added

Different from
"Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less
serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists"

which had the added comment : (suggesting lower
impact crashes)."

Do you think it was chance that the helmeted cyclists had less serious
injuries? If not - what was the reason if not lower impact crashes?


Why did they have lower impact crashes?
Better brakes because of their higher socioeconomic status?
Riding in nicer areas because of their higher socioeconomic status?
Riding in a more conservative manner because they were risk averse, as
shown by their use of helmets?

Cheers.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:08:27 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

snip



The evidence is that compulsion does increase the incidence of helmet
wearing but it does not improve the head injury rate.

Do you accept that there is nothing in the paper that can be as interpreted
as supporting your propostion? If you still think there is something in the
article that does support your proposition, please let us know.


No - the first summary point below clearly supports my view:

"Case-control studies suggest that cyclists who choose to wear helmets
have fewer head injuries than non-wearers. "

There has been even more recent research which shows that wearing
cycle helmets reduces the risk of injury.
But there are obviously question marks over the results after
compulsion. I cannot explain those anomalies in what are, very
complex circumstances - can you?

I accept that the evidence for compulsion is not clear.

I believe that the evidence that cycle helmets overall provide benefit
is quite clear.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:54:34 +0100, judith
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:11:21 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"judith" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:19:07 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

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?

The very same paragraph also notes
Cyclists who choose to wear helmets commit fewer traffic violations,12 have
higher socioeconomic status, and are more likely to wear high visibility
clothing and use lights at night.13 Helmeted children tend to ride with
other cyclists in parks, playgrounds, or on bicycle paths rather than on
city streets, and (in the United States) be white rather than other races

Do you think that any of these is as a *result* of wearing a helmet?



No - just social observations - with no comment added

Different from
"Helmeted cyclists in collision with motor vehicles had much less
serious non-head injuries than non-helmeted cyclists"

which had the added comment : (suggesting lower
impact crashes)."

Do you think it was chance that the helmeted cyclists had less serious
injuries? If not - what was the reason if not lower impact crashes?


I retract that **** I wrote above - I missed the significance of
"non-head"