judith wrote:
t **** I wrote above - I missed the significance of
"non-head"
So what's left in that article that supports your argument?


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

"who choose" = a non random sample.

Those who used to "choose" to wear seatbelts had a lower accident rate
than those who didn't. The seatbelt didn't cause the lower accident
rate, it was a partial indicator of those who were more risk averse.

Partial indicators cause havoc with stats , and the rule of unintended
consequences has caught out many people that weren't deliberately
looking to troll.

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:00:38 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

snip

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


Not a causal relationship though - they also have fewer leg and body
injuries than non-wearers, so your 'view' is not supported.



And where is the evidence of that? (apart from in he paper I cocked
up with)

What's suddenly wrong with that paper as a reference? - but you could refer
to its own list of references (below*)

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't think it was in
the DfT 2002 study was it - why did they not mention it?

How do you know they don't mention it? Maybe you just didn't notice where it
was mentioned. Would you like someone else to read the paper for you?


*Spaite DW, Murphy M, Criss EA, Valenzuela TD, Meislin HW. A prospective
analysis of injury severity among helmeted and non helmeted bicyclists
involved in collisions with motor vehicles. J Trauma 1991;31:

OG wrote:
"judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:00:38 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

snip

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

Not a causal relationship though - they also have fewer leg and body
injuries than non-wearers, so your 'view' is not supported.


And where is the evidence of that? (apart from in he paper I cocked
up with)

What's suddenly wrong with that paper as a reference? -

Because "suddenly" it doesn't support what it wants to see?

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:35:13 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"judith" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:00:38 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

snip

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


Not a causal relationship though - they also have fewer leg and body
injuries than non-wearers, so your 'view' is not supported.



And where is the evidence of that? (apart from in he paper I cocked
up with)

What's suddenly wrong with that paper as a reference? - but you could refer
to its own list of references (below*)

Yes a single study - unlike "Case-control studies"

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't think it was in
the DfT 2002 study was it - why did they not mention it?

How do you know they don't mention it? Maybe you just didn't notice where it
was mentioned. Would you like someone else to read the paper for you?


How about because it isn't in it.

I am surprised that you haven't read the paper yet. Worried it may
not support your views?

--

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can **** right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:38:22 +0100, Marc
wrote:

OG wrote:
"judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:00:38 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

snip

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

Not a causal relationship though - they also have fewer leg and body
injuries than non-wearers, so your 'view' is not supported.


And where is the evidence of that? (apart from in he paper I cocked
up with)

What's suddenly wrong with that paper as a reference? -

Because "suddenly" it doesn't support what it wants to see?


Now then Round:
I did use it as a reference - re "Case-control studies..."

--

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can **** right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:35:13 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"judith" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:00:38 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

snip

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


Not a causal relationship though - they also have fewer leg and body
injuries than non-wearers, so your 'view' is not supported.



And where is the evidence of that? (apart from in he paper I cocked
up with)

What's suddenly wrong with that paper as a reference? - but you could
refer
to its own list of references (below*)

Yes a single study - unlike "Case-control studies"

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't think it was in
the DfT 2002 study was it - why did they not mention it?

How do you know they don't mention it? Maybe you just didn't notice where
it
was mentioned. Would you like someone else to read the paper for you?


How about because it isn't in it.

I am surprised that you haven't read the paper yet. Worried it may
not support your views?

I've not looked for the DfT 2002 study paper.
I only mentioned the bmj paper because you said you didn't keep a copy, so I
googled for the title and quickly realised that you had completely the wrong
idea about its results.

Since you got the bmj paper completely wrong and had to have the sentence
about *non head injuries* pointed out several times before you twigged, I
can't say I would have every confidence that you were right about the Dft
paper either.

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

"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.

Surely you can't be suggesting that judith is wrong? This study
/conclusively proves/ what Thompson, Rivara and Thompson first
demonstrated - that is, that helmets, by their Magic Forcefield
Effect, prevent as many non-head injuries as head injuries. In fact
I can't understand why police forces are handing out anti-knife
jackets when cycle helmets would surely do the job. I bet there's a
study somewhere that "proves" police cyclists wearing helmets have
lower levels of knife injury than police who are not wearing cycle
helmets.

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 23:55:02 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

snip


Since you got the bmj paper completely wrong and had to have the sentence
about *non head injuries* pointed out several times before you twigged, I
can't say I would have every confidence that you were right about the Dft
paper either.



My word you are a smarty - aren't you.

What with that and snipping to take things out of context - I bet
you're really pleased - alternatively you could grow up.



Well done.



--

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can **** right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 23:55:02 +0100, "OG"
said in :

I've not looked for the DfT 2002 study paper.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1067.html

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 20:13:37 +0100, Mike Clark
said in
:

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.

It also ignores any evidence that conflicts with the pre-existing
position of its authors, who include at least three people known to
be campaigners for helmet laws and /absolutely nobody/ known to be
at all sceptical.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1067.html

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