Today's Forum Topics
Set as homepage
|
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
 |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
21-05.-2008, 07:33 AM
|
#46 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: What did he do that for!?
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. |
|
|
22-05.-2008, 04:13 AM
|
#47 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: What did he do that for!?
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 |
|
|
|
29-05.-2008, 08:56 PM
|
#48 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: What did he do that for!?
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. |
|
|
|
29-05.-2008, 09:22 PM
|
#49 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: What did he do that for!?
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/ |
|
|
Linear Mode
