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 Mon, 19 May 2008 12:10:50 +0100
JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

> Daniel Barlow wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Yes - junk science.

Do you think you got away with that?

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 12:10:50 +0100
> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
>> Daniel Barlow wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Yes - junk science.
>
> Do you think you got away with that?

With what?

Anecdote is not science. It is one of the first things that any fresher
is warned agaisnt.

Rob Morley wrote:

> 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.

I do say that medical research should concentrate on medical matters and
should leave anecdotal sociology to the er... sociologists.

You disagree, I take it?

On 19 May, 06:54, Daniel Barlow <d...@telent.net> wrote:
> JNugent <J...@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.

Yes, but it's also likely he was unconsciously changing his behaviour
according to his expectation of the results. If he'd started with the
suspicion that cars passed helmeted cyclists with *more* room, it's
possible he'd have unconsciously ridden closer to the gutter when
wearing the thing.

(I'm convinced that helmets are useless, but give the devil his due
and all that.)

Robin Johnson

On Tue, 20 May 2008 16:54:33 +0100
JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I do say that medical research should concentrate on medical matters
> and should leave anecdotal sociology to the er... sociologists.
>
> You disagree, I take it?
>
The effectiveness of helmets cannot be evaluated simply by looking at
the medical outcome of some accidents and speculating what might have
happened differently, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 16:54:33 +0100
> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>> I do say that medical research should concentrate on medical matters
>> and should leave anecdotal sociology to the er... sociologists.
>>
>> You disagree, I take it?
>>
> The effectiveness of helmets cannot be evaluated simply by looking at
> the medical outcome of some accidents and speculating what might have
> happened differently, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

As Mr Hansen would say: "Nice try".

I am suggesting nothing of the sort, as you well know.

Accidents which occur with and without helmets are what need to be
compared. Facts compared with facts.

"Speculation" (in terms of unidentified people being allegedly put off
cycling in the future by a future requirement to use helmets) is what
the sociology fans would prefer to see.

On May 18, 11:26 am, Tom Crispin
<kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:55:02 +0100, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> >PK wrote:
> >> "Rob Morley" <nos...@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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I disagree with the anecdotal. If you read the paper it is
considerably more than that but at the very best it has to be
considered only crude pilot.

Still as it stands, it's the only paper I've seen that even attempts
to study the issue and deserves some praise for that ( plus for
getting a respectable granting agency to fund it).

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

On Tue, 20 May 2008 22:33:16 +0100
JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:

> > The effectiveness of helmets cannot be evaluated simply by looking
> > at the medical outcome of some accidents and speculating what might
> > have happened differently, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
>
> As Mr Hansen would say: "Nice try".
>
> I am suggesting nothing of the sort, as you well know.

I know nothing of the sort. If you intended to convey a different
message it wasn't apparent.
>
> Accidents which occur with and without helmets are what need to be
> compared. Facts compared with facts.

The cycling population as a whole is what needs to be studied -
studying only accidents is looking at effects rather than causes.
>
> "Speculation" (in terms of unidentified people being allegedly put
> off cycling in the future by a future requirement to use helmets) is
> what the sociology fans would prefer to see.
>
I'm talking about what happens now in terms of cyclist and
driver attitudes and behaviour, and whether helmet use has a
significant influence on these.

JNugent wrote:

> As Mr Hansen would say: "Nice try".
>
> I am suggesting nothing of the sort, as you well know.
>
> Accidents which occur with and without helmets are what need to be
> compared. Facts compared with facts.

If you think it's that simple then you're mistaken. If you compare a
helmeted crash with an unhelmeted crash and expect anything useful out
of the comparison then you need to be sure that all possible factors are
equivalent, which is as good as impossible, and that the crashes are
representative of crashes that are typical in the population as a whole,
which is as good as impossible.
In short, even if you could design suitable experiments (and I doubt
that you can) you're not actually going to learn anything much about
crashes people actually have and how they are affected.

> "Speculation" (in terms of unidentified people being allegedly put off
> cycling in the future by a future requirement to use helmets) is what
> the sociology fans would prefer to see.

ITYM Epidemiology, which is used because it works better than the
alternatives. And it's not the "sociology fans", it's the mass public
health experts.

(As Mr. Hansen would say: "Nice try".)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/