"judith" wrote in message
...
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.


Yes, we could get into name calling if you think it helps.

But the important thing is that I have encouraged you to read the analysis
rather than picking out individual sentences that support your POV (because
that would be "snipping to take things out of context" wouldn't it?).

I had hoped to made you think a bit about the conclusions of that paper. How
do you think I did?

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
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


Found the original thanks, but the BHRF comments are useful - I'm not sure
I'm convinced that all the criticisms are valid, but it's a useful addition
to the discussion.

In message
judith wrote:

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)


Message-ID: k


http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7543/722-a

BMJ (2006) 332: 722-725 No clear evidence from countries that have
enforced the wearing of helmets D L Robinson

and in

Message-ID: k

In message
judith wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:11:15 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:
[snip]
Let me point you to a follow-up submission by the same author

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/722-a#15405

In particular I would invite you to take a look at Figure 2 which
clearly indicates that from 96/97 to 01/02 the percentage of head
injuries decreased at the same time as the percentage of cyclists
wearing helmets also showed a marked decrease. This data shows that
an improvement (decrease) in the frequency of head injuries is
associated with a reduction in the proportion of cyclists wearing a
helmet.
[snip]


I believe I am looking at the graph which you referenced:


Fig 2 Linear Trends in %head injury, vs helmet wearing (%HW) of child
cyclists in Ontario, Canada.

To me this clearly shows the HI trend dropping almost linearly - with
no relationship to the HW graph.

Is that the graph which you are looking at?


Yep that is the one.

So I'm glad that you agree that it is evidence for no relationship
between helmet wearing and protection from head injuries.


I suppose it could be claimed as evidence that

(a) cycle helmets worked for a few years and then stopped working and
became dangerous for some reason?

Or alternatively it could be evidence that

(b) other factors apart from cycle helmets are more dominant in a
contributing to accident safety?


My preference as an interpretation is for (b) and this also fits in
rather nicely with the observation that in countries where cycle helmet
wearing is very low, such as The Netherlands and Denmark, that
serious cycle injuries are less frequent than in countries with much
higher rates of cycle helmet usage such as the USA, Canada and the UK.


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 Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:07:43 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

snip

I had hoped to made you think a bit about the conclusions of that paper. How
do you think I did?



very badly

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:51:33 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

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

Typical Chapman underhand trick - gives a link to his own web page
where he has produced a very biased potted version with his own
comments.

He does of course give a link to the original DfT paper.

Oh - hang on - that link doesn't work - you'll have to make do with
the Chapman "version".

You are one sad ******* Chapman.

(Of course you can get the original, unbiased, without comment version
at the DfT)

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety...ct4726?page=18



--
There is plenty of evidence that motorists feel a need to portray
cyclists as an "out group" and thus exclude themselves from the class
(Guy Chapman)
And that evidence is where? (Judith Smith)

judith wrote:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:07:43 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

snip

I had hoped to made you think a bit about the conclusions of that paper. How
do you think I did?

very badly

LOL

--
Dave...

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:12:50 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
.. .
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


Found the original thanks, but the BHRF comments are useful - I'm not sure
I'm convinced that all the criticisms are valid, but it's a useful addition
to the discussion.



Ah yes - the BHRF.

The Bycle Helmet Research Foundation - what a fine upstanding body.

A Foundation eh - Must be independent - interested in genuine research
- with no axe to grind.

Oh - hang on - isn't it just a different name for cyclehelmets.org who
were set up originally with the "message" :

Helmets are not beneficial to cyclists.

They've not changed the message - but they've tried to change their
"presentation".





--

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 Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:07:43 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

snip

I had hoped to made you think a bit about the conclusions of that paper.
How
do you think I did?



very badly


So you STILL think it supports your argument? Hee Hee.

On Aug 28, 6:27*am, judith wrote:
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.

Owned by a large Anglo-Dutch scientific publishing company.
They are in it for the money

Was he "looking for specific results" -

No

did he ask for funding to do the research
Yes

or did someone ask him to do it?
no


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?

Yes, although it is likely impossible to control everything prefectly.
The real world is not always cooperative.

Where is the raw data from the results?

Check the article and see if it is in a public depository. Otherwise
it will be available upon request from the author. Standard
procedure.

Who were the "peers" who reviewed it?

People chosen by the editor of AA&P for their expertise. Almost
certainly academics though with a topic like this the field may be
wider.


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

Get used to it. It's perfectly normal research.

(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)

Well if you cannot read it then you will have to accept the word of
those who know how and who have read it. You may have noticed that
there are a large number of urc readers who can and do read and
understand this type of paper.

John Kane , Kingston ON Canada.

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:12:50 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
. ..
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


Found the original thanks, but the BHRF comments are useful - I'm not sure
I'm convinced that all the criticisms are valid, but it's a useful
addition
to the discussion.



Ah yes - the BHRF.

The Bycle Helmet Research Foundation - what a fine upstanding body.

A Foundation eh - Must be independent - interested in genuine research
- with no axe to grind.

Oh - hang on - isn't it just a different name for cyclehelmets.org who
were set up originally with the "message" :

Helmets are not beneficial to cyclists.

They've not changed the message - but they've tried to change their
"presentation".

Didn't you read what I wrote?
"I'm not sure I'm convinced that all the criticisms are valid, but it's a
useful addition to the discussion"

Personally, I am not convinced by arguments that run along the lines of
"there is no convincing case where a helmet has ever prevented a significant
head injury" - and I accept that there are people who attempt to put the "no
helmet" argument in such simple B+W terms.

However, there are also 'pro helmet' proponents who use equally weak
arguments (such as "wearing x inches of impact absorbing polystyrene
prevents 85% of head injuries") and they also need to be challenged.

Given that there are significant commercial interests in the 'pro helmet'
camp, it is probably useful that there is a body of people willing to review
the evidence and point out weaknesses in methodology or interpretation.

Hopefully you have learned from your own recent experience that it is easy
to mis-interpret a report; so why the negativity to the idea that they can
comment on the DfT paper?