Re: What did he do that for!?

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

On Thu, 15 May 2008 17:58:17 +0100
JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
>
> > JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> >> Rob Morley wrote:
>
> >>> A panel beater sees plenty of bent cars, but would you trust him
> >>> to do the job of an accident investigator?
>
> >> If the choice lay between him and a driver who repeatedly bent the
> >> cars, yes.
>
> > That would be silly - the choice is between the panel beater and the
> > insurance claims adjuster.
>
> In that different case, the answer is simple: the qualified
> professional who understands the issues.
>
> I don't think an accident investigator and an insurance claims
> adjuster are necessarily the same thing, BTW.

They are distinctly different roles - you introduced a bad driver
so I thought I'd bring in another character too. The investigator is
concerned with determining exactly what happened and how, the
insurance guy is concerned with the specific damage done but is also
mindful of broader issues of costs and trends.

On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:53:42 +0100, Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
>TimB <timburford@onetel.net> wrote:
>
>> For the umpteenth time, wearing a helmet is not the same as compulsory
>> helmet wearing.
>
>But it will likely lead to it - as helmets are seen to be more widely
>accepted compulsion looms ever nearer.

IIRC a government minister stated that they would wait until the
number of people volatarily wearing helmets reached a certain level
before making them mandatory. So, by choosing to wear a helmet, you
are bringing the law closer whether you like it or not.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

On Thu, 15 May 2008 18:47:14 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

>Pete wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> burtthebike wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>
>>>> Then you don't accept that world renowned professors are qualified to
>>>> comment? e.g. John Adams, Robinson, Hillman.
>
>>> In what academic disciplines do those no-doubt very distinguished
>>> persons hold chairs?
>
>>> I ask because obviously, most professors will actually be laymen on
>>> this issue. A friend of mine is a (retired) professor of Greek. How
>>> that qualifies him to speak with authority on anything but Greek would
>>> not be clear (ITSWIM).
>
>> A&E doctors are laymen on the issue to a much higher degree. Few of
>> them will have any experience in the causes of the incidents that they
>> have to treat, whereas evaluating the accuracy of published research &
>> statistics is something your average Professor will do, almost by
>> definition.
>
>I agree. That is one reason why any position taken up by organisations
>such as the BMA on promoting cycling (in the claimed interests of wider
>improvements in health) are automatically of dubious value (because they
>ignore so many relevant points and counter-arguments along the way).
>
>> John Adams specialises in risk management and is has published work in
>> this area. That's a pretty good starting point, even if his prime field
>> is Geography. I haven't checked the others.
>
>Well, maybe.
>
>I'd be more impressed with studies of the effects of accidents on the
>micro-scale, rather than the macro-scale. That's why I would tend to
>value studies more highly where they are to do with what happened (and
>what might or might not happen in slightly different circumstances) in a
>particular cohort of injury incidents.
>
>When a researcher's conclusions are drawn rather too widely on the
>macro-scale - "Yes, you could protect this rider and that rider but it
>might tend to reduce the amount of cycling, which might lead to an
>increase in obesity and a reduction in fitness over the next four
>decades" - I take the view that this is an unhelpful diversion which is
>being twisted to suit different agenda and to misdirect. That sort of
>argument would have been laughed at in the context of the debates about
>motor-bike helmets and seat-belts. Indeed, similar arguments ("there was
>this bloke whose car caught fire and he couldn't get his belt undone")
>*were* derided.

What? How can results on a "micro-scale" be more useful. Cherry
picking a few anecdotes to support one's case is not appropriate.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

On Fri, 16 May 2008 09:33:11 +0100, Mark wrote:

> On Thu, 15 May 2008 18:47:14 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
>>Pete wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> burtthebike wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> Then you don't accept that world renowned professors are qualified to
>>>>> comment? e.g. John Adams, Robinson, Hillman.
>>
>>>> In what academic disciplines do those no-doubt very distinguished
>>>> persons hold chairs?
>>
>>>> I ask because obviously, most professors will actually be laymen on
>>>> this issue. A friend of mine is a (retired) professor of Greek. How
>>>> that qualifies him to speak with authority on anything but Greek would
>>>> not be clear (ITSWIM).
>>
>>> A&E doctors are laymen on the issue to a much higher degree. Few of
>>> them will have any experience in the causes of the incidents that they
>>> have to treat, whereas evaluating the accuracy of published research &
>>> statistics is something your average Professor will do, almost by
>>> definition.
>>
>>I agree. That is one reason why any position taken up by organisations
>>such as the BMA on promoting cycling (in the claimed interests of wider
>>improvements in health) are automatically of dubious value (because they
>>ignore so many relevant points and counter-arguments along the way).
>>
>>> John Adams specialises in risk management and is has published work in
>>> this area. That's a pretty good starting point, even if his prime field
>>> is Geography. I haven't checked the others.
>>
>>Well, maybe.
>>
>>I'd be more impressed with studies of the effects of accidents on the
>>micro-scale, rather than the macro-scale. That's why I would tend to
>>value studies more highly where they are to do with what happened (and
>>what might or might not happen in slightly different circumstances) in a
>>particular cohort of injury incidents.
>>
>>When a researcher's conclusions are drawn rather too widely on the
>>macro-scale - "Yes, you could protect this rider and that rider but it
>>might tend to reduce the amount of cycling, which might lead to an
>>increase in obesity and a reduction in fitness over the next four
>>decades" - I take the view that this is an unhelpful diversion which is
>>being twisted to suit different agenda and to misdirect. That sort of
>>argument would have been laughed at in the context of the debates about
>>motor-bike helmets and seat-belts. Indeed, similar arguments ("there was
>>this bloke whose car caught fire and he couldn't get his belt undone")
>>*were* derided.
>
> What? How can results on a "micro-scale" be more useful. Cherry
> picking a few anecdotes to support one's case is not appropriate.

It's very useful if you wish to support a position which is not supported
by facts.

Mark wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 18:47:14 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
>> Pete wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> burtthebike wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> Then you don't accept that world renowned professors are qualified to
>>>>> comment? e.g. John Adams, Robinson, Hillman.
>>>> In what academic disciplines do those no-doubt very distinguished
>>>> persons hold chairs?
>>>> I ask because obviously, most professors will actually be laymen on
>>>> this issue. A friend of mine is a (retired) professor of Greek. How
>>>> that qualifies him to speak with authority on anything but Greek would
>>>> not be clear (ITSWIM).
>>> A&E doctors are laymen on the issue to a much higher degree. Few of
>>> them will have any experience in the causes of the incidents that they
>>> have to treat, whereas evaluating the accuracy of published research &
>>> statistics is something your average Professor will do, almost by
>>> definition.
>> I agree. That is one reason why any position taken up by organisations
>> such as the BMA on promoting cycling (in the claimed interests of wider
>> improvements in health) are automatically of dubious value (because they
>> ignore so many relevant points and counter-arguments along the way).
>>
>>> John Adams specialises in risk management and is has published work in
>>> this area. That's a pretty good starting point, even if his prime field
>>> is Geography. I haven't checked the others.
>> Well, maybe.
>>
>> I'd be more impressed with studies of the effects of accidents on the
>> micro-scale, rather than the macro-scale. That's why I would tend to
>> value studies more highly where they are to do with what happened (and
>> what might or might not happen in slightly different circumstances) in a
>> particular cohort of injury incidents.
>>
>> When a researcher's conclusions are drawn rather too widely on the
>> macro-scale - "Yes, you could protect this rider and that rider but it
>> might tend to reduce the amount of cycling, which might lead to an
>> increase in obesity and a reduction in fitness over the next four
>> decades" - I take the view that this is an unhelpful diversion which is
>> being twisted to suit different agenda and to misdirect. That sort of
>> argument would have been laughed at in the context of the debates about
>> motor-bike helmets and seat-belts. Indeed, similar arguments ("there was
>> this bloke whose car caught fire and he couldn't get his belt undone")
>> *were* derided.
>
> What? How can results on a "micro-scale" be more useful. Cherry
> picking a few anecdotes to support one's case is not appropriate.

I agree with the thrust of that and did not suggest otherwise.

Medical studies should concentrate on injuries which have taken place
(or not) and how the incidents would have turned out with (or without)
protective equipment.

On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:18:17 +0100
JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:


> And if a resercher carrying out a study into the efficacy of
> protective equipment wants to produce meaningful result, he should
> simply concentrate on the simple matter in hand - whether protective
> equipment (of whatever sort, in whatever context) minimises or
> obviates injury. Any thoughts he might have about about collateral
> effects of being required to behave differently are nothing to do
> with his study.

That is just plain wrong - you can't ignore factors like risk
compensation without invalidating the results.

On Sat, 17 May 2008 12:30:05 +0100, Rob Morley wrote:

> On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:18:17 +0100
> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
>
>> And if a resercher carrying out a study into the efficacy of
>> protective equipment wants to produce meaningful result, he should
>> simply concentrate on the simple matter in hand - whether protective
>> equipment (of whatever sort, in whatever context) minimises or
>> obviates injury. Any thoughts he might have about about collateral
>> effects of being required to behave differently are nothing to do
>> with his study.
>
> That is just plain wrong - you can't ignore factors like risk
> compensation without invalidating the results.

You can if you're JNugent.

burtthebike wrote:

> "JNugent" <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote in message

[ ... ]

>> And if a resercher carrying out a study into the efficacy of
>> protective equipment wants to produce meaningful result, he should
>> simply concentrate on the simple matter in hand - whether protective
>> equipment (of whatever sort, in whatever context) minimises or
>> obviates injury. Any thoughts he might have about about collateral
>> effects of being required to behave differently are nothing to do with
>> his study.

> Fundamentally incorrect. Responsible medical research will look into
> any unintended side effects as well as the intended effect, so why
> should investigation into "protective equipment" be any different? Iny
> your world, something would be effective if it protected a single
> person, but killed thousands in side effects, which is pretty much what
> cycle helmets do, without any evidence that they have protected a single
> person of course. You seem to think that anecdotal evidence should be
> taken into account when it is pro "protective equipment" but not when it
> is anti. The case for cycle helmets is pretty much based on anecdote,
> apart from some extremely weak research which has never been repeated,
> but the evidence against their effectiveness is both robust and repeated.

"Responsible medical research" is just a phrase you are using in order
to try to invalidate medical research.

Sociology *isn't* medicine and sociological observations and guesses do
not constitute medical research.

> BTW, cycle helmets have been specifically excluded by the H&S Executive
> from being defined as "protective equipment".

Does that mean that the words have lost their ordinary everyday English
meanings?

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:18:17 +0100
> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
>
>> And if a resercher carrying out a study into the efficacy of
>> protective equipment wants to produce meaningful result, he should
>> simply concentrate on the simple matter in hand - whether protective
>> equipment (of whatever sort, in whatever context) minimises or
>> obviates injury. Any thoughts he might have about about collateral
>> effects of being required to behave differently are nothing to do
>> with his study.
>
> That is just plain wrong - you can't ignore factors like risk
> compensation without invalidating the results.

"Risk compensation"?

*Is* there any evidence that cyclists of similar experience and skills
will crash more often while wearing a helmet than they do without them?

If there isn't, what are you talking about?

_ wrote:

> On Sat, 17 May 2008 12:30:05 +0100, Rob Morley wrote:
>> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

>>> And if a resercher carrying out a study into the efficacy of
>>> protective equipment wants to produce meaningful result, he should
>>> simply concentrate on the simple matter in hand - whether protective
>>> equipment (of whatever sort, in whatever context) minimises or
>>> obviates injury. Any thoughts he might have about about collateral
>>> effects of being required to behave differently are nothing to do
>>> with his study.

>> That is just plain wrong - you can't ignore factors like risk
>> compensation without invalidating the results.

> You can if you're JNugent.

Do you actually have any evidence (or can you point to any evidence)
that a cyclists of similar skill and experience levels will cycle more
dangerously whilst wearing helmets?

Or is that bit just made up, in furtherance of the "Don't Make Us Wear
Helmets - They're SO Uncool" campaign?

Don't forget, we've had all this before, twice within easy living
memory, with seatbelts and motor-bike helmets. The opponents (I was one
of them in the case of seatbelts) were wrong then and they're probably
wrong now.

"JNugent" <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote in message
news:LOudnQjmyLmqT7PVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net...
> burtthebike wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote in message
>
> [ ... ]
>
>>> And if a resercher carrying out a study into the efficacy of protective
>>> equipment wants to produce meaningful result, he should simply
>>> concentrate on the simple matter in hand - whether protective equipment
>>> (of whatever sort, in whatever context) minimises or obviates injury.
>>> Any thoughts he might have about about collateral effects of being
>>> required to behave differently are nothing to do with his study.
>
>> Fundamentally incorrect. Responsible medical research will look into any
>> unintended side effects as well as the intended effect, so why should
>> investigation into "protective equipment" be any different? Iny your
>> world, something would be effective if it protected a single person, but
>> killed thousands in side effects, which is pretty much what cycle helmets
>> do, without any evidence that they have protected a single person of
>> course. You seem to think that anecdotal evidence should be taken into
>> account when it is pro "protective equipment" but not when it is anti.
>> The case for cycle helmets is pretty much based on anecdote, apart from
>> some extremely weak research which has never been repeated, but the
>> evidence against their effectiveness is both robust and repeated.
>
> "Responsible medical research" is just a phrase you are using in order to
> try to invalidate medical research.
>
> Sociology *isn't* medicine and sociological observations and guesses do
> not constitute medical research.
>
>> BTW, cycle helmets have been specifically excluded by the H&S Executive
>> from being defined as "protective equipment".
>
> Does that mean that the words have lost their ordinary everyday English
> meanings?

Sorry everyone, I'd forgotten what a lifeless troll JNugent was.

On Sat, 17 May 2008 13:42:03 +0100
JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:18:17 +0100
> > JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> And if a resercher carrying out a study into the efficacy of
> >> protective equipment wants to produce meaningful result, he should
> >> simply concentrate on the simple matter in hand - whether
> >> protective equipment (of whatever sort, in whatever context)
> >> minimises or obviates injury. Any thoughts he might have about
> >> about collateral effects of being required to behave differently
> >> are nothing to do with his study.
> >
> > That is just plain wrong - you can't ignore factors like risk
> > compensation without invalidating the results.
>
> "Risk compensation"?
>
> *Is* there any evidence that cyclists of similar experience and
> skills will crash more often while wearing a helmet than they do
> without them?

I don't know - we're discussing possible research and factors that
might affect the outcome, and until the research has been done we won't
know which are the significant factors so all possible aspects of the
situation must be considered.
>
> If there isn't, what are you talking about?

What about that study that might have shown that car drivers give
helmeted cyclists less room?

Rob Morley wrote:

> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

>>>> And if a resercher carrying out a study into the efficacy of
>>>> protective equipment wants to produce meaningful result, he should
>>>> simply concentrate on the simple matter in hand - whether
>>>> protective equipment (of whatever sort, in whatever context)
>>>> minimises or obviates injury. Any thoughts he might have about
>>>> about collateral effects of being required to behave differently
>>>> are nothing to do with his study.

>>> That is just plain wrong - you can't ignore factors like risk
>>> compensation without invalidating the results.

>> "Risk compensation"?
>> *Is* there any evidence that cyclists of similar experience and
>> skills will crash more often while wearing a helmet than they do
>> without them?

> I don't know - we're discussing possible research and factors that
> might affect the outcome, and until the research has been done we won't
> know which are the significant factors so all possible aspects of the
> situation must be considered

So there's no evidence of a risk compensation aspect?

>> If there isn't, what are you talking about?

> What about that study that might have shown that car drivers give
> helmeted cyclists less room?

What about it?

Who did it? At what level in the academic pecking order (I take it that
it was condicted at a university or by a respected research
institution)? What were their methods? What was the evidence? What were
their conclusions? Is any other branch of academia taking it seriously?

Is anything else going to happen about it or has it all been quietly
forgotten?

On Sun, 18 May 2008 14:38:12 +0100, "PK"
<designer3579-news@yahoo.com> said in
<W8GdnbEJZ8Q3rK3VnZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@bt.com>:

>Junk science (researcher using himself as test subject and lack of proper
>experimental controls) with about as much credibility as the 85% helmet
>report

No, just a very small sample size. He made the same journey with
and without, a number of times, so it's not obvious what controls
you'd want in addition. Too small to draw any robust inference, but
at least the measurements stand up to scrutiny and the assumptions
are not contradicted by his own published results elsewhere. So
more credible than TR&T (as if that would be hard).

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

PK wrote:
> "Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:20080518042523.618330af@bluemoon...
>>>
>> What about that study that might have shown that car drivers give
>> helmeted cyclists less room?
>>
>
>
> Junk science (researcher using himself as test subject and lack of
> proper experimental controls) with about as much credibility as the 85%
> helmet report

IOW, even if it's correct, it's merely anecdotal. Not a "study" at all,
in the accepted sense of that term.

On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:55:02 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

>PK wrote:
>> "Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:20080518042523.618330af@bluemoon...
>>>>
>>> What about that study that might have shown that car drivers give
>>> helmeted cyclists less room?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Junk science (researcher using himself as test subject and lack of
>> proper experimental controls) with about as much credibility as the 85%
>> helmet report
>
>IOW, even if it's correct, it's merely anecdotal. Not a "study" at all,
>in the accepted sense of that term.

For once I tend to agree with you. It's not much more than anecdotal.
Still, anecdotal evidence is preferable to fundamentally flawed
conclusions.

JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> writes:

> What checks were in place to assess differences in his own behaviour
> when wearing a helmet as compared with when not wearing a helmet?
>
> Were there any?
>
> Can you see the obvious difficulty if there weren't?

What, you think he might be unconsciously changing his behaviour
according to his perception of the risk involved? Hmm. I wonder if
there's a name for that phenomenon.


-dan

On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:33:13 +0100
JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

> So there's no evidence of a risk compensation aspect?

Just as there's no evidence that wearing a helmet significantly
mitigates serious head injuries.
>
> >> If there isn't, what are you talking about?
>
> > What about that study that might have shown that car drivers give
> > helmeted cyclists less room?
>
> What about it?
>
It's research that suggested a risk compensation effect associated
with helmet wearing. That's what we're discussing - safety, helmets,
research ...

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:33:13 +0100
> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
>> So there's no evidence of a risk compensation aspect?
>
> Just as there's no evidence that wearing a helmet significantly
> mitigates serious head injuries.
>>>> If there isn't, what are you talking about?
>>> What about that study that might have shown that car drivers give
>>> helmeted cyclists less room?
>> What about it?
>>
> It's research that suggested a risk compensation effect associated
> with helmet wearing. That's what we're discussing - safety, helmets,
> research ...

Proper, controlled, scientific research - or just any old subjective and
anecdotal observation from which it it is just about possible to refine
a position in accordance with the already-drawn conclusions?

On Mon, 19 May 2008 12:12:38 +0100
JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

> Proper, controlled, scientific research - or just any old subjective
> and anecdotal observation from which it it is just about possible to
> refine a position in accordance with the already-drawn conclusions?

Given your espousal of deliberately blinkered research into the
effectiveness of helmets I suspect that as far as you're concerned
anything you agree with falls into the first category and anything you
disagree with falls into the second.