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)

In message
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.

I quite agree with your disappointment and personally I am in favour of
open access publishing (or archiving). However a recent attempt by the
UK research councils to introduce an obligation for open access
publication on all projects they fund was thwarted when several large
publishing companies lobbied the government. However the trend for open
access publishing is increasing and strongly supported by charitable
organisations such as the Wellcome Trust so I have hopes that in the
future most government funded research will be published open access.


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?

Journal editors usually select peers who are knowledgeable on the
subject and who publish in the same field. However it is customary in
most academic journals for the peer reviewers to be anonymous to the
authors and readers of the paper. The idea is that by being anonymous
they are less likely to be inhibited in their criticisms.


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 make exactly the same types of comments about the articles that
report an association of cycle helmet wearing with reduced head
injuries yet you clearly have blind faith in them.

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 12:02:01 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

snip

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?

Journal editors usually select peers who are knowledgeable on the
subject and who publish in the same field. However it is customary in
most academic journals for the peer reviewers to be anonymous to the
authors and readers of the paper. The idea is that by being anonymous
they are less likely to be inhibited in their criticisms.


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 make exactly the same types of comments about the articles that
report an association of cycle helmet wearing with reduced head
injuries yet you clearly have blind faith in them.

Mike

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.

I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

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

On 28 Aug, 13:44, judith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:02:01 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

snip



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?

Journal editors usually select peers who are knowledgeable on the
subject and who publish in the same field. However it is customary in
most academic journals for the peer reviewers to be anonymous to the
authors and readers of the paper. The idea is that by being anonymous
they are less likely to be inhibited in their criticisms.

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 make exactly the same types of comments about the articles that
report an association of cycle helmet wearing with reduced head
injuries yet you clearly have blind faith in them.

Mike

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.

I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

--

Previously posted in response to your enquiry: 28 Aug, 10:11, judith
wrote:

Are you aware of any proof that shows that wearing a cycle helmet
increases the overall risk of injury to the cyclist

'In London, for example, where some 50% of cyclists now wear helmets,
injury severity was higher in 2001 than in 1981 and fatalities were at
their highest since 1989. This cannot be attributed simply to traffic
conditions; the severity of pedestrian casualties, which historically
tracks those of cyclists, declined.' John Franklin (2003)

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

Sniper8052

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:03:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On 28 Aug, 13:44, judith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:02:01 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

snip



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?

Journal editors usually select peers who are knowledgeable on the
subject and who publish in the same field. However it is customary in
most academic journals for the peer reviewers to be anonymous to the
authors and readers of the paper. The idea is that by being anonymous
they are less likely to be inhibited in their criticisms.

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 make exactly the same types of comments about the articles that
report an association of cycle helmet wearing with reduced head
injuries yet you clearly have blind faith in them.

Mike

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.

I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

--

Previously posted in response to your enquiry: 28 Aug, 10:11, judith
wrote:

Are you aware of any proof that shows that wearing a cycle helmet
increases the overall risk of injury to the cyclist

'In London, for example, where some 50% of cyclists now wear helmets,
injury severity was higher in 2001 than in 1981 and fatalities were at
their highest since 1989. This cannot be attributed simply to traffic
conditions; the severity of pedestrian casualties, which historically
tracks those of cyclists, declined.' John Franklin (2003)

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)

On 28 Aug, 14:20, judith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:03:46 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:
On 28 Aug, 13:44, judith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:02:01 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

snip

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?

Journal editors usually select peers who are knowledgeable on the
subject and who publish in the same field. However it is customary in
most academic journals for the peer reviewers to be anonymous to the
authors and readers of the paper. The idea is that by being anonymous
they are less likely to be inhibited in their criticisms.

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 make exactly the same types of comments about the articles that
report an association of cycle helmet wearing with reduced head
injuries yet you clearly have blind faith in them.

Mike

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.

I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

--

Previously posted in response to your enquiry: 28 Aug, 10:11, judith
wrote:

Are you aware of any proof that shows that wearing a cycle helmet
increases the overall risk of injury to the cyclist

'In London, for example, where some 50% of cyclists now wear helmets,
injury severity was higher in 2001 than in 1981 and fatalities were at
their highest since 1989. This cannot be attributed simply to traffic
conditions; the severity of pedestrian casualties, which historically
tracks those of cyclists, declined.' John Franklin (2003)

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

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)

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

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?

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

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, wrote:
On 28 Aug, 14:41, judith wrote:

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

Did you not e-mail him previously in relation to another thread?
I thought you did, is that wrong?

She said she did, and that she got a response that proved her right
but her higher grasp of morals prevented her quoting from it (in that
case she was asserting that RoSPA didn't endorse Cyclecraft, despite
the endorsement printed on the cover of the book). However given that
she has been proven over and again to be a lying troll, it's not
particularly surprising that she now suggests she's never done any
such thing.

And just to nip any tedium about "oh no I didn't" in the bud:
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.re...c72d1935f7ebab
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.re...9d06dc89edca4c

For those with a greater measure of clues than judith:
Message-ID:
Message-ID:

Sniper, she's not worth it. Just walk away, please.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|