Pick a few holes in this

you know? said:

BMA's "new evidence"

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis

Guy

This is so damn depressing.

I've said it with a touch of exageration, maybe, in the past but it
now appears to be true that the *only* thing that will avoid
compulsion is to keep levels of voluntary wearing low.

Burn those helmets.

" [Not Responding] " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

you know? said:

BMA's "new evidence"

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis

Guy

This is so damn depressing.

I've said it with a touch of exageration, maybe, in the past but it
now appears to be true that the *only* thing that will avoid
compulsion is to keep levels of voluntary wearing low.

Burn those helmets.

It's a wider problem though isn't it? TPTB seem to think every problem can
be solved by new or tighter rules - despite the fact that the cause of the
problem is often already breaking the existing rules...

Just zis Guy said:

BMA's "new evidence"

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis

Guy

You could write a very similar paper on being a Pedestrian.

Do the BMA advocate compulsory helmet wearing for peds?

--
Chris

Succorso wondered:

Quoted message said:

Do the BMA advocate compulsory helmet wearing for peds?

Ahem:
<URL:http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582>

;-)

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

BMA's "new evidence"

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis

pick holes in this? it's as watertight as my colander.

Quoted message said:

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

you know? said:

BMA's "new evidence"

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis

Between this afternoon and now the BMA have inserted an "annual survey"
into their website, asking questions about what your interest is and how
often you view it, etc. I've answered the question "Please indicate your
main specialty interest" with "bma's position on cycling helmets".
Perhaps they'd take some notice if enough people did something similar.

Whether their survey analysis people are savvy enough to notice an effort
to bias their survey is another question ;-)

Mike

Not Responding said:

you know? said:

BMA's "new evidence"

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis

Guy

This is so damn depressing.

I always considered the BMA's stance to be one of the big guns in the
armoury against compulsion.

Quoted message said:

I've said it with a touch of exageration, maybe, in the past but it
now appears to be true that the *only* thing that will avoid
compulsion is to keep levels of voluntary wearing low.

Burn those helmets.

Anyone wearing one by choice must now consider that they are choosing to
play into the hands of the pro-compulsionists :-(

John B

Scrumpy Joe said:

Just zis Guy said:

BMA's "new evidence"

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis

Guy

These guys just don't live in the real world do they?

"At a practical level, enforcing the legislation can be achieved
through on-the-spot fines or tickets issued by police and traffic
wardens"

On-the-spot-fines : I don't carry any money with me (kind of difficult
wearing Lycra).

Tickets: Since bikes aren't registered in any way how are they going
to check whether a fine has been paid (and provided they can't ID me
I'm quite prepared to lie about my identity).

Fianlly: The police and traffic wardens are going to catch me how,
exactly?

Like legal lights I think the lawyers will be more interested than the
Police and Traffic Wardens

Roedd <Scrumpy Joe> wedi ysgrifennu:

Quoted message said:

Fianlly: The police and traffic wardens are going to catch me how,
exactly?

Harpoon.

--
Rob

Please keep conversations in the newsgroup so that all may contribute
and benefit.

In news:[email hidden],

Scrumpy Joe said:

Just zis Guy said:

BMA's "new evidence"

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis

Guy

These guys just don't live in the real world do they?

"At a practical level, enforcing the legislation can be achieved
through on-the-spot fines or tickets issued by police and traffic
wardens"

On-the-spot-fines : I don't carry any money with me (kind of difficult
wearing Lycra).

Tickets: Since bikes aren't registered in any way how are they going
to check whether a fine has been paid (and provided they can't ID me
I'm quite prepared to lie about my identity).

Fianlly: The police and traffic wardens are going to catch me how,
exactly?

You have to wear a number on your helmet............
--

Martin Bulmer

Quoted message said:

I always considered the BMA's stance to be one of the big guns in the
armoury against compulsion.

They were only against it because of the drop in cycling numbers, rather
than through any scepticism about the efficacy of helmets at the population
level.

Quoted message said:

BMA's "new evidence"

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis

I am in shock and awe that they actually managed to be so incompetant as
to quote the 88% figure. How half-arsed is their research?

I'm noticing possible bias all the way through it - a flawed rejection of
the Australian data on the decline in cycling; failure to mention the
decline in cycling after compulsion that contributed to the decline in
injuries; a weird mention of 50 under 15s being killed when 2003s figure
was 18 and in another reference they provide it puts it at 22 (2002s
tally); the usual lumping of seriously injured with those killed; the
uncritical bandying about of discredited (and withdrawn) figures; figures
of 85% of accidents occuring off-road, but not mentioning how many
serious injuries/deaths are a result of off-rad cycling; uncritical
mention of figures from studies; emotive language; things like "high rate
of fatal and serious accidents suffered by cyclists" without mentioning
that peds have it worse - both by mile and by the hour...

Whilst some of the stuff I've written above is a little unfair, the
article makes it clear that the research was rather half-arsed. No one
who has researched the helmet issue will be unaware of the retraction of
Thompson et als' figure yet they still quote it. It's kind of an acid
test for helmet articles - if they quote it then the article is most
likely plagarised from other sources, or else the writer has not bothered
to cast their research net wide enough.

We will, however, be stuffed. I'll start a new thread on ways around the
coming law.

Just zis Guy said:

BMA's "new evidence"

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis

Guy

I assume, Guy, that there will some formal response from the other side
of the arguement pointing out the shakiness of the rationale and the
biased selection of supporting references.

Tony

Mark Thompson said:

Whilst some of the stuff I've written above is a little unfair, the
article makes it clear that the research was rather half-arsed.

The key seems to be in Reference 9 though with its oh so familiar name
- hardly a reference work in the subject and therefore one can
speculate as to how they came to reference it.

Tony
[9] Lee AJ, Mann NP. Cycle Helmets. Arch Dis Child 2003;88: 465-466

Succorso said:

Just zis Guy said:

BMA's "new evidence"

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis

Guy

Quoted message said:

You could write a very similar paper on being a Pedestrian.

It has long been recognised that a much stronger case can be made for
wearing a helmet in a motor car. There's no dispute at all about the
benefical injury reduction effects.

Quoted message said:

Do the BMA advocate compulsory helmet wearing for peds?

The case for car helmets them is much stronger than the case for air
bags. Part of the case for air bags was that you wouldn't be able to
get car occupants to wear helmets.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Scrumpy Joe [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Tickets: Since bikes aren't registered in any way how are they going to
check whether a fine has been paid (and provided they can't ID me I'm quite
prepared to lie about my identity).

Simple. It ties in nicely with Blunkett's rabid plans for compulsory ID
cards. Obviously, if you aren't carrying your card then helmet or no,
you are a terrorist and instantly win a one-way ticket to somewhere warm
and your very own orange jumpsuit.

Jon

Mark Thompson said:

I'm noticing possible bias all the way through it - a flawed rejection of
the Australian data on the decline in cycling; failure to mention the
decline in cycling after compulsion that contributed to the decline in
injuries; a weird mention of 50 under 15s being killed when 2003s figure
was 18 and in another reference they provide it puts it at 22 (2002s
tally); the usual lumping of seriously injured with those killed; the
uncritical bandying about of discredited (and withdrawn) figures; figures
of 85% of accidents occuring off-road, but not mentioning how many
serious injuries/deaths are a result of off-rad cycling; uncritical
mention of figures from studies; emotive language; things like "high rate
of fatal and serious accidents suffered by cyclists" without mentioning
that peds have it worse - both by mile and by the hour...

Whilst some of the stuff I've written above is a little unfair, the
article makes it clear that the research was rather half-arsed. No one
who has researched the helmet issue will be unaware of the retraction of
Thompson et als' figure yet they still quote it. It's kind of an acid
test for helmet articles - if they quote it then the article is most
likely plagarised from other sources, or else the writer has not bothered
to cast their research net wide enough.

I don't think it's incompetence. The BMA are better than that. It
looks to me more like a justification. It tends to support my
suspicion that they have been leant on politically, and this article
is simply a justification for a change of stance they had to make.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

On 6 Nov 2004 01:22:50 GMT, Mark Thompson
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

They were only against it because of the drop in cycling numbers, rather
than through any scepticism about the efficacy of helmets at the population
level.

And the "evidence" on which they base their change is that cycling
numbers did not drop markedly in Ontario. Where the law was not
actively enforced. That is classic BeHIT propaganda - they have been
nobbled.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On 6 Nov 2004 01:30:47 -0800, "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]>
wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Lee AJ, Mann NP. Cycle Helmets. Arch Dis Child 2003;88: 465-466

Indeed. Op-ed masquerading as research (I have a copy if anyone wants
it). Their authoritative figure for the reduction in cycling in the
target schools was, IIRC, "no noticeable reduction" and the figure for
reduction in head injuries was "significant" - i.e. no numbers at all.
And for this they were paid several tens of thousands of pounds of
public money.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University