How many cyclists not wearing helmets have been killed?

[Buck]

On 01/17/2007 19:18:26 Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> Buck wrote on 17/01/2007 18:55 +0100:

>> So where do my opinions not follow the laws of physics then? I take it
>> you have formal qualifications in engineering and physics?

> Absolutely and many years applying them. But GCSE level physics on
> angular momentum should be sufficient for this problem. It's not unlike
> the bicycle wheel problems and the differential importance of rim weight
> and hub weight, to bring it back on topic.

So where do my opinions not follow the laws of physics, do tell oh wise sage?

--

Buck

Give a little person a little power and create a big problem.

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Buck]

On 01/17/2007 19:26:48 Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> Buck wrote on 17/01/2007 19:15 +0100:

>> Have a look at this, a lot of people have ignored bending forces
>> associated with spinal injuries in side impact, caused by deflection
>> which can be increased by wearing a large diameter cycle helmet, choosing
>> to concentrate on shearing force trauma that accentuates brain injury,
>> but ending up a quadraplegic due to severe spinal injury is just as real
>> an issue.

>> http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?id=xp0267195401h7u6

> Have you actually read the paper and do you understand a word of it?
> Please stop failing around ejecting papers at random. The word helmet
> does not even feature in the paper which is about side impact spinal loads
> in automobile seats.

I know what it is about, but the abscence of cycle helmets does not rule out it's validity as an indicator of bending forces causing neck injury.

--

Buck

Give a little person a little power and create a big problem.

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Buck]

> On 01/17/2007 18:34:23 Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Buck wrote on 17/01/2007 18:11 +0100:

>>> On 01/17/2007 17:31:45 Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> Buck wrote on 17/01/2007 17:19 +0100:


>>>>> I stand by the "superman" theory, i.e. no-one can kill me now I have
>>>>> my cloak of steel.

>>>> And on what evidential basis do you make that claim. Or is it again
>>>> just something you made up?

Yet more links for you to poo poo.

http://ip.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/4/2/89

--

Buck

Give a little person a little power and create a big problem.

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Buck <[email protected]>:
>Pot calling kettle black? Maybe you should all band together, you would
>make a nice little group, you could argue with each other all day and
>stroke each other all night.

Oh, for God's sake. You made an ill-informed post about helmets with a
saved-my-life anecdote; you were wrong; this was pointed out. Now, is the
sensible response to that a) to get over it or b) several hundred posts
where you vent your venom at some supposed urc cabal?

You were wrong. Deal with it like an adult, if you can; don't compound
your error by making a nuisance of yourself.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Monday, January.

 

[Don Whybrow]

David Damerell wrote:

[ ... of Buck ...]

> You were wrong. Deal with it like an adult, if you can; don't compound
> your error by making a nuisance of yourself.

I have yet to see any evidence that Buck is an adult.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Evolution is a harsh mistress.

 

[Buck]

On 01/17/2007 20:26:07 David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Quoting Buck <[email protected]>:

>> Pot calling kettle black? Maybe you should all band together, you would
>> make a nice little group, you could argue with each other all day and
>> stroke each other all night.

> Oh, for God's sake. You made an ill-informed post about helmets with a
> saved-my-life anecdote; you were wrong; this was pointed out. Now, is the
> sensible response to that a) to get over it or b) several hundred posts
> where you vent your venom at some supposed urc cabal?

> You were wrong. Deal with it like an adult, if you can; don't compound
> your error by making a nuisance of yourself.

What I actually said some time ago, was a motorcycle helmet saved my life,
I stand by that statement, it was not ill informed as you incorrectly state.
Several hundred posts? You have been told a million times not to exaggerate
I understand.

--

Buck

Give a little person a little power and create a big problem.

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Mark Thompson]

Buck wrote:

> You have been told a million times not to exaggerate

heh

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Don Whybrow wrote:
>David Damerell wrote:
>
>[ ... of Buck ...]
>
>> You were wrong. Deal with it like an adult, if you can; don't compound
>> your error by making a nuisance of yourself.
>
>I have yet to see any evidence that Buck is an adult.

That's no reason why he shouldn't try to deal with it like an adult
if he can. It may be a reason why he can't.

 

[[email protected]]

Alan Holmes wrote:

> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > soup wrote on 16/01/2007 12:58 +0100:
> >> Alan Holmes wrote:
> >>
> >>> I wasn't aware that there had been any threads on this subject!
> >>
> >> Surely you jest?
> >
> > Nope, this is the man who didn't know who Wiggle was. I've a feeling Alan
> > is one of those people you hear about who wake up from a coma with no
> > memory.
>
> Is it that obvious?

Come come, elucidate your thoughts.

best wishes
Eliza

 

[Alan Holmes]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alan Holmes wrote on 17/01/2007 14:43 +0100:
>>
>> Lucky you, I wish I had one, but she should be in her twenties, and
>> absolutely gagging for it!-)
>>
>
> You appear to be a very frustrated old man Alan.

Oh my god, how did you guess?

Alan

>
>
> --
> Tony
>
> "...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
> wildly inaccurate..."
> Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Alan Holmes]

"Don Whybrow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David Damerell wrote:
>
> [ ... of Buck ...]
>
>> You were wrong. Deal with it like an adult, if you can; don't compound
>> your error by making a nuisance of yourself.
>
> I have yet to see any evidence that Buck is an adult.

I have yet to see that any of the contributors of this group are adults,
except for me of course!

Alan

 

[Tony Raven]

[email protected] wrote on 18/01/2007 13:48 +0100:
> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>> Nope, this is the man who didn't know who Wiggle was. I've a feeling Alan
>>> is one of those people you hear about who wake up from a coma with no
>>> memory.
>> Is it that obvious?
>
> Come come, elucidate your thoughts.
>

Reminds me of that film Momento.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Buck]

On 2007-01-17 09:07:28 +0000, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> said:
>
> So it's pretty bloody rich that you come and pour scorn based on what
> appears to be very limited understanding and then declare yourself
> willing to be an Honest Broker for moderating a new recumbent newsgroup.

And the result of that interjection thus far?

Oh to be clever like you folks.

--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[John Kane]

Ingo Keck wrote:
> John Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Just drawing all the information together into one simi-coherent whole
> > is probably at least a Ph.D dissertation.
>
> And you will have a hard time defending it, given that even the BMA now
> supports helmet legislation, even if their fact sheet on it in my
> opinion has nothing to do with honest scientific work.
>
> Btw, has someone had a closer look at the lates declaration of Hagel in
> Injury Prevention
> (http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/12/6/353?ct)? Unfortunately
> I can not get hold of it very easily (none of the libraries in my
> vicinity has the journal and I doubt that the editoral is worth the 12$
> they want for it), but the response from Peter W Ward sounds as if Hagel
> as editor of the journal asks for censorship in this case. Is that true?
>
> Ingo.

I am accessing IP from a university computer and the article by Hagel
is available in full text. Is it not otherwise?

Anyway all that Hagel has done is regurgetate a couple of discredited
studies ( Attwell et al. and Thompson, Revera and Thompson in the
Cochrane Review and then show that if you pass a law requiring helmets
people seem to wear helmets more often but of course you lose cyclists.


"Data were collected for 271 cyclists in 2004 and 699 cyclists in 2000"
Looks just like the Australian and Nova Scotian experiences.

I swear they're making them dumber every day.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Abstract for article.

Objective: To determine changes in helmet use in cyclists following the
introduction of a bicycle helmet law for children under age 18.

Methods: Cyclists were observed by two independent observers from July
to August 2004 (post-legislation) in Edmonton, Alberta. The data were
compared with a similar survey completed at the same locations and days
in July to August 2000 (pre-legislation). Data were collected for 271
cyclists in 2004 and 699 cyclists in 2000.

Results: The overall prevalence of helmet use increased from 43% (95%
CI 39 to 47%) in 2000 to 53% (95% CI 47 to 59%) in 2004. Helmet use
increased in those under 18, but did not change in those 18 and older.
In the cluster adjusted multivariate Poisson regression model, the
prevalence of helmet use significantly increased for those under age 18
(adjusted prevalence ratio (APR) 3.69, 95% CI 2.65 to 5.14), but not
for those 18 years and older (APR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.43).

Conclusion: Extension of legislation to all age groups should be
considered.