The BMA and our "favourite" subject, once again



Mike Causer wrote:
> Helmet battle flares up in BMJ
>
> http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=6529

Well based on the statitician's argument, if compulsory helmets reduces
the number of cyclists then surely this should reduce the number of
injuries (because there are less cyclists!).
Her research showed the number of injuries didn't really change, so by
rather dodgy logic doesn't that mean more injuries per cyclist?! ;o)

peter
 
naked_draughtsman wrote:

> Her research showed the number of injuries didn't really change, so by
> rather dodgy logic doesn't that mean more injuries per cyclist?! ;o)

That's exactly what she showed.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune
 
naked_draughtsman wrote:
> Mike Causer wrote:
> > Helmet battle flares up in BMJ
> >
> > http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=6529
>
> Well based on the statitician's argument, if compulsory helmets reduces
> the number of cyclists then surely this should reduce the number of
> injuries (because there are less cyclists!).
> Her research showed the number of injuries didn't really change, so by
> rather dodgy logic doesn't that mean more injuries per cyclist?! ;o)
>
> peter
Yes that is exactly what it shows. This is quite likely because as
research by Robinson herself and earlier by an American consultant,
Peter Jacobsen shows quite clearly that Smeed's Law applies to cyclists
and pedestrians. The increase in accidents to cyclists increases more
slowly than the number of cyclists on the road. Or "there's safety in
numbers" :)
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
 
Surely the really important bit of this whole argument is the bit about
effectiveness and value for money....?

'She suggested that helmet laws are counterproductive and that governments
should instead focus on measures that lead to huge drops in mortality
figures, such as campaigns to deter motorists who speed, drink, and fail to
obey road rules.'

I'd really like to see some serious effort going in to improved driving,
increased breath testing and training for magistrates dealing with driving
cases.

G

"Mike Causer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> Helmet battle flares up in BMJ
>
> http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=6529
>
>
>
>
> Mike
 
On 2006-03-26, Graham <[email protected]> wrote:
> Surely the really important bit of this whole argument is the bit about
> effectiveness and value for money....?
>
> 'She suggested that helmet laws are counterproductive and that governments
> should instead focus on measures that lead to huge drops in mortality
> figures, such as campaigns to deter motorists who speed, drink, and fail to
> obey road rules.'
>
> I'd really like to see some serious effort going in to improved driving,
> increased breath testing and training for magistrates dealing with driving
> cases.
>
> G
>
> "Mike Causer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:p[email protected]...
>> Helmet battle flares up in BMJ
>>
>> http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=6529
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike
>
>

You can have your say on the BMJ by going to the BMJ website
(bmj.bmjjournals.com) and following the link to Rapid Responses. Mine is
there already.

Anthony

--
Anthony Campbell - [email protected]
Microsoft-free zone - Using Linux Gnu-Debian
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews,
on-line books and sceptical articles)
 
Anthony Campbell wrote:

> You can have your say on the BMJ by going to the BMJ website
> (bmj.bmjjournals.com) and following the link to Rapid Responses. Mine is
> there already.

May I ask where? I'm not doubting your veracity, I just can't find
anything other than a response by Morten Lange.

R.
 
Richard wrote:
> Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
>> You can have your say on the BMJ by going to the BMJ website
>> (bmj.bmjjournals.com) and following the link to Rapid Responses. Mine is
>> there already.
>
> May I ask where? I'm not doubting your veracity, I just can't find
> anything other than a response by Morten Lange.

There's a few more now though I don't see Anthony's yet. I did worry a
bit before responding that I might do more harm than good, but on
balance I think it came out okay. Colin McKenzie's strikes me as very
good, as is Dorothy Robinson's own. Nobody seems to be chiming in on
the other side as yet, either responding to Robinson's original or the
"refutation".

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 [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Richard wrote:
>> Anthony Campbell wrote:
>>
>>> You can have your say on the BMJ by going to the BMJ website
>>> (bmj.bmjjournals.com) and following the link to Rapid Responses. Mine is
>>> there already.
>>
>> May I ask where? I'm not doubting your veracity, I just can't find
>> anything other than a response by Morten Lange.
>
> There's a few more now though I don't see Anthony's yet. I did worry a
> bit before responding that I might do more harm than good, but on balance
> I think it came out okay. Colin McKenzie's strikes me as very good, as is
> Dorothy Robinson's own. Nobody seems to be chiming in on the other side
> as yet, either responding to Robinson's original or the "refutation".

Can joe public see these responses? I can only see Morten's too...

cheers,
clive
 
"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Richard wrote:
>>> Anthony Campbell wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can have your say on the BMJ by going to the BMJ website
>>>> (bmj.bmjjournals.com) and following the link to Rapid Responses. Mine
>>>> is
>>>> there already.
>>>
>>> May I ask where? I'm not doubting your veracity, I just can't find
>>> anything other than a response by Morten Lange.
>>
>> There's a few more now though I don't see Anthony's yet. I did worry a
>> bit before responding that I might do more harm than good, but on balance
>> I think it came out okay. Colin McKenzie's strikes me as very good, as
>> is Dorothy Robinson's own. Nobody seems to be chiming in on the other
>> side as yet, either responding to Robinson's original or the
>> "refutation".
>
> Can joe public see these responses? I can only see Morten's too...

Ah no, I can see it now. I think their site may be more **** than is
necessary though.

cheers,
clive
 
Clive George wrote:

> Can joe public see these responses? I can only see Morten's too...

Not being strictly JP in this case I'm not sure, but as a data point I'm
looking at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/725 and I
see 5 responses. Morten's was the only one this morning when I wrote
mine, when I checked back ca. lunch-ish the others were up.

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 [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clive George wrote:
>
>> Can joe public see these responses? I can only see Morten's too...
>
> Not being strictly JP in this case I'm not sure, but as a data point I'm
> looking at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/725 and I see
> 5 responses. Morten's was the only one this morning when I wrote mine,
> when I checked back ca. lunch-ish the others were up.

I still see only the one at that url - I'll stick with my earlier comment
regarding the crapness of their web site :)

cheers,
clive
 
Anthony Campbell wrote:
> You can have your say on the BMJ by going to the BMJ website
> (bmj.bmjjournals.com) and following the link to Rapid Responses. Mine is
> there already.

Reading the responses, it looks like the pro-cycling lobby may well be
finally getting the point across.

...d
 
David Martin wrote:

> Reading the responses, it looks like the pro-cycling lobby may well be
> finally getting the point across.

I wish, but I think we're all 'usual suspects', apart from Morten
Lange. Just hope that lots of people read the whole lot.

Colin McKenzie
 
On 2006-03-27, Colin McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
>
>> Reading the responses, it looks like the pro-cycling lobby may well be
>> finally getting the point across.
>
> I wish, but I think we're all 'usual suspects', apart from Morten
> Lange. Just hope that lots of people read the whole lot.
>
> Colin McKenzie
>
For anyone who hasn't been able to find it, my post is at
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/722

The Rapid Responses are always difficult to navigate; you have to go
back an appropriate number of days. But you don't need to be a member to
read them.

Anthony

--
Anthony Campbell - [email protected]
Microsoft-free zone - Using Linux Gnu-Debian
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews,
on-line books and sceptical articles)
 
Anthony Campbell wrote:

> For anyone who hasn't been able to find it, my post is at
> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/722

Yourself and another medical gentleman both make very good points.

> The Rapid Responses are always difficult to navigate; you have to go
> back an appropriate number of days. But you don't need to be a member to
> read them.

It certainly lost me. I see no links to this feedback, either from
the article or from the page you just posted.

--
not me guv
 
On 2006-03-28, Nick Kew <[email protected]> wrote:
> Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
>> For anyone who hasn't been able to find it, my post is at
>> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/722
>
> Yourself and another medical gentleman both make very good points.
>
>> The Rapid Responses are always difficult to navigate; you have to go
>> back an appropriate number of days. But you don't need to be a member to
>> read them.
>
> It certainly lost me. I see no links to this feedback, either from
> the article or from the page you just posted.
>

Something seems to have gone wrong with their Rapid Responses; I can't
find my reply any more. I will email them and complain.

Anthony
--
Anthony Campbell - [email protected]
Microsoft-free zone - Using Linux Gnu-Debian
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews,
on-line books and sceptical articles)
 
Anthony Campbell wrote:

> Something seems to have gone wrong with their Rapid Responses; I can't
> find my reply any more. I will email them and complain.

Yours seemed to be linked from a page with a small bit of editorial,
rather than from the primary article you were responding to. It would
make sense for it to be moved, certainly.

Tony's is online now, and another from NZ, making for 100% against
helmet laws so far, but some strange feeling tells me I should say
"greater than 85%"... I wonder if any of the numpties on the BMA Board
of Science are actually taking notice, or if they've kept their special
"don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!" blinkers on?

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 [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
>> Something seems to have gone wrong with their Rapid Responses; I can't
>> find my reply any more. I will email them and complain.
>
> Yours seemed to be linked from a page with a small bit of editorial,
> rather than from the primary article you were responding to. It would
> make sense for it to be moved, certainly.
>
> Tony's is online now, and another from NZ, making for 100% against
> helmet laws so far, but some strange feeling tells me I should say
> "greater than 85%"... I wonder if any of the numpties on the BMA Board
> of Science are actually taking notice, or if they've kept their special
> "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!" blinkers on?
>
> Pete.

I especially like Nigel Perry's demolition of their stats with the
conclusion from their criteria that to reduce motorist head injuries you
make the bicyclists wear helmets, and Robinson's riposte that "It’s a
reasonable bet that the correlation between electricity prices in
Australia and head injuries in fig 3 was higher than for helmet wearing.
But one didn’t cause the other."
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/725

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Re: New BMA briefing paper. WARNING: Long, contains H word.
Replies
12
Views
356
UK and Europe
Alan Braggins
A
B
Re: New BMA briefing paper. WARNING: Long, contains H word.
Replies
1
Views
326
UK and Europe
Peter Clinch
P
P
Re: New BMA briefing paper. WARNING: Long, contains H word.
Replies
1
Views
290
UK and Europe
Andy Leighton
A
M
Re: New BMA briefing paper. WARNING: Long, contains H word.
Replies
2
Views
224
UK and Europe
Peter Clinch
P
M
CTC newsletter BMA stuff
Replies
0
Views
322
UK and Europe
Mark McNeill
M
M
BMA hasn't changed its helmet policy
Replies
14
Views
265
UK and Europe
Adrian Godwin
A
T
BMA
Replies
14
Views
514
UK and Europe
Peter Amey
P
T
BMA Decision Explained!
Replies
4
Views
444
UK and Europe
burt
B
T
Explaining the BMA Decision
Replies
0
Views
350
UK and Europe
Tony Raven
T
J
BMA
Replies
40
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Peter Clinch
P
Top Bottom Back