Re: What did he do that for!?

burtthebike

"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.

Rob Morley

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?

JNugent

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?

Just zis Guy, you know?

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

JNugent

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.

Tom Crispin

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.

Daniel Barlow

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

Rob Morley

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 ...

JNugent

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?

Rob Morley

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.

Rob Morley

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?

JNugent

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.

JNugent

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?

robindouglasjohnson@googlemail.com

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