Re: What did he do that for!?

JNugent

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.

Pete

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.

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.

Pete

JNugent

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.

burtthebike

"TimB" <timburford@onetel.net> wrote in message
news:02612b29-e7df-49b3-aeb9-1d5b46c252d4@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On May 15, 7:48 am, "burtthebike" <burttheb...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> The BMA etc would only be hypocrites if they knew one thing was
> appropriate but did the other because of some hidden agenda. But they
> don't. They simply haven't looked at the evidence and thought it
> through properly. Ditto the media.

So people who demand a law without bothering to look at the evidence aren't
hypocrites? What are they then? Merely fools perhaps. Fools rush
in.......

Whether they've looked at the evidence or not, they are calling for a law,
and have encouraged helmet-wearing for many years. As a supposedly
reputable and influential body, they really ought to be looking at the
evidence before they adopt such extreme and unjustified positions, otherwise
they are irresponsible, and in terms of public health, hypocritical.

Perhaps you think that a body concerned with public health which adopts
policies which will seriously negatively affect the public health is not
hypocritical. I beg to differ.

TimB

On May 15, 7:30 pm, "burtthebike" <burttheb...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> "TimB" <timburf...@onetel.net> wrote in message
>
> news:02612b29-e7df-49b3-aeb9-1d5b46c252d4@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 15, 7:48 am, "burtthebike" <burttheb...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > The BMA etc would only be hypocrites if they knew one thing was
> > appropriate but did the other because of some hidden agenda. But they
> > don't. They simply haven't looked at the evidence and thought it
> > through properly. Ditto the media.
>
> So people who demand a law without bothering to look at the evidence aren't
> hypocrites? What are they then? Merely fools perhaps. Fools rush
> in.......
>
> Whether they've looked at the evidence or not, they are calling for a law,
> and have encouraged helmet-wearing for many years. As a supposedly
> reputable and influential body, they really ought to be looking at the
> evidence before they adopt such extreme and unjustified positions, otherwise
> they are irresponsible, and in terms of public health, hypocritical.
>
> Perhaps you think that a body concerned with public health which adopts
> policies which will seriously negatively affect the public health is not
> hypocritical. I beg to differ.

I repeat, hypocrisy is a matter of motivation and awareness. They may
be mad, bad and dangerous to listen to, but that isn't necessarily
hypocritical.
Tim

Rob Morley

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.

Mark

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

Mark

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.

JNugent

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.

Rob Morley

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.

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?

JNugent

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?