UK and Europe · Public discussion

And again

Started by Tony Raven · · Last activity · 74 posts · 2,176 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
1 June 2004
Last activity
8 June 2004
Original author
Tony Raven
Posts
74
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,176
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 74
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Sigh!

    Tony

    news.bbc.co.uk3756385.stm

    Call for mandatory cycle helmets

    The law should be changed so all cyclists have to wear
    helmets, UK researchers say. Edinburgh University experts
    argue that advertising campaigns promoting cycle helmets are
    not working. They say that, ideally, both adults and
    children should be made to wear helmets when cycling. At the
    very least, under 16s should have to wear helmets, they say
    in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Edinburgh
    University's Professor Sheikh, along with colleagues from
    the Health Commission and Imperial College London, looked at
    the arguments for and against helmet legislation.

    They found the evidence for the effectiveness of cycle
    helmets was strong. Evidence shows helmets offer substantial
    protection against head injury and there is a strong
    association between increasing helmet use and declining
    injury rates. "The consensus is that they reduce anything up
    to 88% of serious head injuries if they are used," said
    Professor Sheikh, from the Division of Community Health
    Sciences. "In an ideal world I would like to see a massive
    uptake of cycle helmets among children and adults in Britain
    voluntarily but we know that voluntary measures have had
    little impact," he said. Only one in five regular cyclists
    uses a helmet, he said. Ethical debate Opponents argue that
    making helmets mandatory for cyclists removes individual
    choice, infringing on civil liberties. They also worry that
    cyclists will be so put off they will stop using this
    healthy mode of transport. But Professor Sheikh's team argue
    that there are good grounds for compulsory cycle helmets.

    Bicycle helmet laws in other countries, such as Australia
    and New Zealand, have reduced cycling-related head injuries
    and fatalities with good uptake, they say. Also, any
    decline in popularity of cycling after legislation tends to
    be short term. "There may be a temporary knock-on effect in
    Britain but in the long term I don't think it will have any
    sustainable impact, just like motorcycle helmets," said
    Professor Sheikh. He believes most people would accept the
    legislation. "A lot of people will see it as being a
    sensible move, similar to motorcycle helmet and seatbelt
    laws, but some will construe it as a constriction of their
    personal choice. "On balance, we do think the legislation
    should be pushed forward," he said. One rule for all A
    Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill was introduced
    to parliament this year. This would make it mandatory for
    all children under the age of 16 to wear helmets when
    cycling. The bill is due for a second reading in the House
    of Commons on 18 June. Professor Sheikh said this was a
    step in the right direction, but not enough. "Really it
    should be introduced across the board, otherwise we are
    sending out quite mixed signals," he said. A spokesman for
    the Department for Transport said public support was needed
    before such a law could be passed. "At the moment, the
    wearing rates are relatively low. In order to make
    something mandatory, you need to have a certain level of
    compliance. "We are keen to see as many people as possible
    wearing helmets. We encourage people to wear cycle helmets.
    But what we do not want to see is people discouraged from
    cycling because they do not want to wear one. "There's a
    perception by some people it's not cool. We need to get
    over that," he said.

  2. "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]

    Quoted this:

    Quoted message said:

    The law should be changed so all cyclists have to wear
    helmets, UK


    researchers

    Quoted message said:

    say.

    Haven't these people got anything better to do with their
    time and *our* money?
    --
    Regards, Pete

  3. "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Sigh!


    <snip>

    Quoted message said:

    But Professor Sheikh's team argue that there are good
    grounds for


    compulsory

    Quoted message said:

    cycle helmets.

    Bicycle helmet laws in other countries, such as Australia
    and New Zealand, have reduced cycling-related head
    injuries and fatalities with good


    uptake,

    Quoted message said:

    they say.

    Is that true or not?

    --
    Tumbleweed

    Remove my socks for email address

  4. "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Opponents argue that making helmets mandatory for
    cyclists removes


    individual

    Quoted message said:

    choice, infringing on civil liberties.

    It seems to me the anti lobby aren't getting their point
    across well. Why no mention of the fact that helmets are
    inneffective in most accidents, and most accidents wouldn't
    happen if the motorist(s) that are usually involved took a
    bit more care?

  5. Peter B said:


    "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]

    Quoted this:

    Quoted message said:

    The law should be changed so all cyclists have to wear
    helmets, UK


    researchers

    Quoted message said:

    say.

    Haven't these people got anything better to do with their
    time and *our* money?

    Go to:

    news.bbc.co.uk3281777.stm

    and ask them.
    --
    Best regards Richard

    ceresgames.co.ukceresgames.co.uk

  6. Richard Lucas said:


    Go to:

    news.bbc.co.uk3281777.stm

    and ask them.

    I'm getting past "feedback" to "complaint". Every time the
    BBC ignores the counter view which they must by now know.
    This is moving from poor reporting to heavily biased
    reporting.

    Tony

  7. Tumbleweed said:
    Quoted message said:

    Bicycle helmet laws in other countries, such as Australia
    and New Zealand, have reduced cycling-related head
    injuries and fatalities with good uptake, they say.

    Quoted message said:

    Is that true or not?

    Up to a point, Lord Copper. Cycling related head injuries
    have indeed dropped, but then again so has the total amount
    of cycling because people have stopped in... ooooh, just
    about the same percentages as the injury reductions!

    And there has been good uptake perhaps because it's now
    illegal not to wear them, just /possibly/?

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
    33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
    Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
    dundee.ac.uk~pjclinch

  8. "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Sigh!

    Tony

    news.bbc.co.uk3756385.stm

    Call for mandatory cycle helmets

    The law should be changed so all cyclists have to wear
    helmets, UK


    researchers

    Quoted message said:

    say. Edinburgh University experts argue that advertising
    campaigns promoting


    cycle

    Quoted message said:

    helmets are not working. They say that, ideally, both
    adults and children should be made to wear helmets when
    cycling. At the very least, under 16s should have to wear
    helmets, they say in the Journal of the Royal Society of
    Medicine. Edinburgh University's Professor Sheikh, along
    with colleagues from the


    Health

    Quoted message said:

    Commission and Imperial College London, looked at the
    arguments for and against helmet legislation.>

    Just Googled for Prof Sheikh, and, absurdity of absurdities,
    the second hit was for his relatively new book "Basic skills
    in statitistics: a guide for healthcare professionals". The
    website
    mcb.org.ukfeatures.php
    quotes 11th Feb 2004.

    If such a highly qualified person can fall for the bent
    stats and outright lies told by BHIT, it isn't surprising
    that so many other people do. Mind you, I'm not too sure how
    much faith I'd put in a book by an author who has so
    completely failed to analyse the evidence.

  9. burt said:

    "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2i2et9Fi4d2cU1@uni-
    berlin.de...

    Quoted message said:

    Sigh!

    Tony

    news.bbc.co.uk3756385.stm

    Call for mandatory cycle helmets

    The law should be changed so all cyclists have to wear
    helmets, UK


    researchers

    Quoted message said:

    say. Edinburgh University experts argue that advertising
    campaigns promoting


    cycle

    Quoted message said:

    helmets are not working. They say that, ideally, both
    adults and children should be made to wear helmets when
    cycling. At the very least, under 16s should have to wear
    helmets, they say in the Journal of the Royal Society of
    Medicine. Edinburgh University's Professor Sheikh, along
    with colleagues from the


    Health

    Quoted message said:

    Commission and Imperial College London, looked at the
    arguments for and against helmet legislation.>

    Just Googled for Prof Sheikh, and, absurdity of
    absurdities, the second hit was for his relatively new
    book "Basic skills in statitistics: a guide for healthcare
    professionals". The website
    mcb.org.ukfeatures.php
    quotes 11th Feb 2004.

    If such a highly qualified person can fall for the bent
    stats and outright lies told by BHIT, it isn't surprising
    that so many other people do.

    Professor Sheikh has been researching bicycle helmets for
    years - it's more likely that BHIT listen to what he has to
    say, than the other way round.

    Quoted message said:

    Mind you, I'm not too sure how much faith I'd put in a
    book by an author who has so completely failed to analyse
    the evidence.

    His new paper won't have hit the shelves yet - but I'd be
    very surprised if this is the case. Perhaps you'd like to
    read some of his papers:

    e.g. ip.bmjjournals.com266 to
    pick just one.

    He doesn't 'fail to analyse the evidence' - he analyses it
    and comes to a different conclusion from some other
    researchers. In fact, it would be fair to say that the
    entire point of the paper is to 'weigh the evidence'.

    AC

  10. anonymous coward said:


    His new paper won't have hit the shelves yet - but I'd be
    very surprised if this is the case. Perhaps you'd like to
    read some of his papers:

    e.g. ip.bmjjournals.com266 to
    pick just one.

    He doesn't 'fail to analyse the evidence' - he analyses it
    and comes to a different conclusion from some other
    researchers. In fact, it would be fair to say that the
    entire point of the paper is to 'weigh the evidence'.

    I'll have to read the full paper later but the response by
    Wardlaw is worth reading
    ip.bmjjournals.com266

    Tony

  11. anonymous coward said:

    Perhaps you'd like to read some of his papers:

    e.g. ip.bmjjournals.com266 to
    pick just one.

    This is very obviously nonsense, although following the
    Roy Meadows episode I cannot pretend to be surprised that
    junk like this gets published. Students using his stats
    book beware!

    Prizes for the first person to explain his error(s).

    James
    --
    If I have seen further than others, it is by treading on the
    toes of giants. ne.jphome

  12. anonymous coward said:

    Professor Sheikh has been researching bicycle helmets for
    years - it's more likely that BHIT listen to what he has
    to say, than the other way round.

    Then he really ought to manage better than "The consensus is
    that they reduce anything up to 88% of serious head injuries
    if they are used". That is clearly nonsense, since there is
    no such consensus: lots of people think that the TRT paper
    which appears to be the ultimate source of all the Magic 88%
    figures is fundamentally flawed, and these people can hardly
    be forming a "consensus", can they? You can pedantically
    claim that the "up to" invalidates that particular argument,
    but in that case the claim doesn't /mean/ anything, and
    shouldn't be made for that very reason.

    Quoted message said:

    He doesn't 'fail to analyse the evidence' - he analyses it
    and comes to a different conclusion from some other
    researchers. In fact, it would be fair to say that the
    entire point of the paper is to 'weigh the evidence'.

    As you say, we haven't this one yet, but whatever he says in
    it hardly invalidates my criticism above of this particular
    piece of reporting. If he's just gone over the existing
    stuff like, say, SRS 30 did then he might come to the same
    conclusions. The simple fact of what's already about is that
    The Jury is Out and saying otherwise is dangerous,
    especially where it's based on studies with the methodology
    very highly criticised as was the case with TRT.

    "any decline in popularity of cycling after legislation
    tends to be short term". I've yet to see evidence that
    cycling levels have fully recovered in the wake of
    legislation, though I'm willing to be proven wrong with
    apposite figures.

    "A lot of people will see it as being a sensible move,
    similar to motorcycle helmet and seatbelt laws"

    A lot of people /see/ those as sensible but look at the
    figures and we *know* they have not helped. So theses sorts
    of points in the text set off alarm bells that this time
    he's coming from Planet Wrong. Though until we can look at
    the text we won't know, either way.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
    33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
    Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
    dundee.ac.uk~pjclinch

  13. Reply to Tony Raven

    Enraged feedback sent to the BBC (so enraged, in fact, that
    I misspelt "consensus"! - O well...):

    The fact that Professor Sheikh quotes the 88% figure as a
    "concensus"
    - the figure has long since been disowned by the authors of
    the single report which gave rise to it - does nothing for
    his credibility, as does his omission of the fact that -
    according to the Government - in no country has increased
    helmet use resulted in greater safety for cyclists.

    In addition, his disingenuous use of the word "may" when
    speaking of reduction in cycling levels, when a reduction in
    cycling is the single unarguable effect of compulsory
    helmets, would be difficult to defend. Particularly with the
    present concerns about the long-term health effects of
    obesity, to discourage cycling by proposing a measure of no
    proven safety benefit is irresponsible.

    Given that the organisations opposing compulsion include the
    British Medical Association, the Royal College of General
    Practitioners, the Royal Society for the Prevention of
    Accidents and the National Cycling Strategy Board, to have
    no dissenting view reported from any of these bodies amounts
    to lazy and biased journalism.

    I, um, copied it to [email hidden] as well. <blush>

    --
    Mark, UK. We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him
    squeak, We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

  14. Peter Clinch said:
    anonymous coward said:

    Professor Sheikh has been researching bicycle helmets for
    years - it's more likely that BHIT listen to what he has
    to say, than the other way round.

    Then he really ought to manage better than "The consensus
    is that they reduce anything up to 88% of serious head
    injuries if they are used".

    I fear (wearing my pedant's hat rather than my cycling
    helmet) that the statement is absolutely correct as it
    stands. Because "anything up to" includes 0 (no effect)
    and also negative numbers (icnreases risk). All the
    statement does is place an upper bound on the potential
    change in hazard.

    Not wearing my pedant's hat I agree with you: the statement
    is Bull*hit.

    Peter

  15. Reply to Peter Amey

    Quoted message said:

    I fear (wearing my pedant's hat rather than my cycling
    helmet) that the statement is absolutely correct as it
    stands. Because "anything up to" includes 0 (no effect)
    and also negative numbers (icnreases risk). All the
    statement does is place an upper bound on the potential
    change in hazard.

    As a card-carrying pedant myself, I wondered about this; but
    I'd argue that he's implicitly including 88% as part of the
    consensus, so to speak. ICBW, though, and if I was posting
    my response now that I'm cooler, I'd be tempted to play safe
    and leave the consensus thing out of my first sentence
    altogether.

    --
    Mark, UK. We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him
    squeak, We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

  16. "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Sigh!

    Tony

    news.bbc.co.uk3756385.stm

    Call for mandatory cycle helmets

    I wonder if it would only apply if you were on a road. In
    that case I'd simply use the off road farcilities and not
    wear one until I had to go on road.

    --
    Simon M.

  17. Peter Amey said:

    I fear (wearing my pedant's hat rather than my cycling
    helmet) that the statement is absolutely correct as it
    stands. Because "anything up to" includes 0 (no effect)
    and also negative numbers (icnreases risk). All the
    statement does is place an upper bound on the potential
    change in hazard.

    Though I did write 'You can pedantically claim that the "up
    to" invalidates that particular argument, but in that case
    the claim doesn't /mean/ anything, and shouldn't be made for
    that very reason.'

    Further nit-picking of my post, I see I put SRS 30 rather
    than RSR 30. Hey ho, accuracy seems to be optional these
    days... ;-/

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
    33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
    Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
    dundee.ac.uk~pjclinch

  18. "James Annan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    anonymous coward said:

    Perhaps you'd like to read some of his papers:

    e.g. ip.bmjjournals.com266
    to pick just


    one.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    This is very obviously nonsense, although following the
    Roy Meadows episode I cannot pretend to be surprised that
    junk like this gets published. Students using his stats
    book beware!

    Prizes for the first person to explain his error(s).

    James

    Since I'm no statitician, and I've only viewed the abstract,
    this may be wildly wrong, but here goes anyway.

    I think it is the complete failure to correlate cause and
    effect i.e. he observes an effect and then ascribes it to a
    cause without demonstrating any link between them, a bit
    like saying that since everyone who drinks water eventually
    dies, the cause of death is drinking water.

    Is there no Edinburgh student of the learned prof reading
    this who might like to enquire as to why all the real world
    evidence contradicts his views?

  19. anonymous coward said:

    What annoys me is when the press picks up on some little
    paper that it feels captures the zeitgeist, inflating its
    importance until its viewpoint becomes the only facet of
    the field that we are exposed to. It's quite possible Prof
    Sheikh's paper is abominable and one-sided; if this is so
    then the BBC should have either not reported it, or they
    should have reported it in context.

    Well, quite. But the bottom line is that for the above to be
    addressed jounalists will have to be fully clued in on what
    they're reporting, which they won't be because they're
    jounalists by trade rather than, say, public health
    epidemiologists.

    Having said that you sometimes wonder at how much research
    many of them bother to do these days :-(

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
    33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
    Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
    dundee.ac.uk~pjclinch

  20. On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 05:26:48 +0100, "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-
    family.com> wrote (more or less): ...

    Quoted message said:

    "The consensus is that they reduce anything up to 88% of
    serious head injuries if they are used," said Professor
    Sheikh, from the Division of Community Health Sciences.


    ...

    That sounds a suspiciously familiar figure...

    I read the article, then followed the 'related links' the
    BBC provided.

    Both the one to Edinburgh Uni, and the to the Journal.

    Both were top-level links, i.e. completely unrelated to the
    article. which I found annoying enough.

    But even site searches on 'cycle helmet' and then later
    adding 'Sheikh' (the researcher quoted's surname failed to
    turn up anything at either site.

    Why have 'related' links if they are unrelated?

    --
    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.net Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    html.dnsalias.netsmalltalk

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.