Wierd BHIT claim

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Just zis Guy, Mar 2, 2004.

  1. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:50:22 +0000 (UTC), "PK"
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >As I've said before, I'm anti compulsion.

    And if you are anti-compulsion then you should also be anti promotion as the main
    thing which currently prvents the UK government introducing compulsion is the low
    wearing rate (and that is their statement not mine).

    >But very few of the arguments put here to the already convinced like me are in
    >any way convincing.

    Strangely I find many of the arguments put forward by the helmet lobby similarly
    unconvincing. Perhaps it is their continued use of the origial TR&T figure which
    event he opriginal authors have now moved away from, or maybe it is the fact that
    their claims of injury reductions in those countries with compulsion essentially
    count reduced cycle use as a principal benefit of helmet laws, or maybe it's the
    fact that when tackled on the deterrence opf cycling caused by lid laws the
    principal helmet campaigning body in the UK responds by dismissing as
    "ridiculous" the idea that "sensible precautions" would deter cycling (so
    presumably it's a bizarre coincidence that each jurisdiction has sene the law and
    the prior promotion campaigns result in massive drops in cycling); maybe it's
    none of these, maybe it's the fact that when challenged to account for the
    disparity between small-scale studies which support helmets and whole population
    data which doesn't, the helmet lobby merely repeats the small-scale studies. That
    is the rteality of the situation: those of us who are opposed to compulsion and
    aggressive promotion base our view on both sides of the argument, whereas those
    who would seek to criminalise cycling without a plastic hat rely exclusively on
    one side of the argument. And much of the data they cite is in the form of meta-
    analyses which draw on a surprisingly small number of original studies. Few of
    these meta-analyses exclude the original TR&T paper despite it's known flaws and
    the fact that the authors published lower figures in 1996. Indeed, the US
    equivalent of BeHIT regards as "unhelpful" any attempt to get more accurate
    figures used, as the original values are so well known in the "injury prevention
    community".

    >the habit of grabbing at random selective statistics and explaing them by a
    >helpful proposition (exemplar: Risk compensation)

    Risk compensation is a well-established principle. It explains a number of
    observed facts, such as the fact that compulsory motorcycle helmets and seat
    belts have failed to yield reductions in fatality levels. Before you attempt to
    dismiss risk compensation I suggest you read John Adams' book Risk. It is very
    illuminating.

    >the frankly facile argument by analogy (walking helmets) are great jokes within
    >the closed circle of URC but are so transparently daft outsideas to damage the
    >credibility of those puttong them in the eyes oy the innocent bystander.

    So explain this: 50% of child head injuries occcur in simple falls. More child
    head injuries happen from simply banging your head on something than from
    cycling. Even assault causes more child head injuries than cycling. As a cause of
    child head injuries cycling is barely on the radar - and the liddites assure us
    that children are more at risk than adult cyclists.

    >I know many cyclists of varying styles and abilities. From Commuters to pop to
    >the shops to rabid down hillers, all of whom were helmets as a matter of course.

    I know many cyclists who wear helmets and many who don't. This proves nothing.
    Appealing to the fact that others do something is a common logical fallacy - it
    was the logical fallacy which resulted in the last few countries passing seat
    belt laws even though it is now acknowledged by just about everybody that they
    save no lives.

    >No one i know argues anyting else other than helmets are a good thing.

    I know a few people who argue just that. Some of them argue that helmets are
    neutral, and a small number argue that they are actively bad in that they
    represent a massive distraction from two fundamental facts: first, that cycling
    is beneficial to health, helmet or not; and second, that helmets dominate the
    cycle safety agenda to the exclusion of all else, with the result that issues
    like skills training, maintenance and conspicuity, which used to be predominant
    and which actually influence whether crashes will happen in the first place, have
    been completely abandoned by the Departments of State involved.

    >I'm tired of two things here: 1 the narrow & closed mindedness of the anti
    >compulsion lobby

    So looking at both sides of an argument and deciding that neither is compelling
    is narrow-minded, while looking at only one side is not? Help me out here.

    >2 the "Cyclist = perfect: any other road used = evil devil" mind set that too
    >many here exhibit. My experincce in sw london is that there is a far greater
    >proportion of cycists who are inconsidrate twats than any other form of road or
    >pavemenmt user.

    I don't live in SW London, so I don't share that experience. Most road users are
    inconsiderate to a degree, and the number of inconsiderate cyclists as a
    proportion of all traffic appears to me to vary with the porportion of cyclists
    overall. The principal difference between an inconsiderate cyclist and an
    inconsiderate motorist is that the cyclist is unlikely to kill anyone but
    himself. And, of course, the cyclist is more likely to be villified in the press.

    >I was out in the car the other evening: I saw 4 cyclists - all in full stealth
    >mode of dark clothing and no lights. On that car journey they were the only
    >cyclists i saw.

    I was out on the bike yesterday evening. I saw eight cyclists, all fully lit and
    riding considerately. I had to brake sharply to avoid a driver who decided to
    overtake me and immediately turn left in a traffic light queue (the space in
    front of me was my braking distance; I was moving with the traffic).

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

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


  2. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 10:12:42 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    <[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

    >On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 10:00:27 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you
    >know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    ><[email protected]>:
    >
    >>I have been anaylsing the detailed hospital admissions
    >>data for children.
    >
    >As an addendum, here is the league table of head injury
    >causes in children in England for 2002-2003:
    >
    >Fall on level ground 27.2% Fall at elevation 22.5% Striking
    >13.5% Other causes 12.3% Assault 8.3% Pedestrian (RTC) 4.9%
    >Pedal Cyclist RTC 3.6% Pedal Cyclist Non-RTC 3.4% Motor
    >Vehicle occupant 2.9% Horse/horse-drawn veh. 1.5%
    >
    >You will note that assault and just plain banging your head
    >on something are both more common than cycling-related
    >injuries, and falls alone make up half of all head
    >injuries. Time for walking helmets.

    What does RTC mean? Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft:
    http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr Symbian/Epoc wiki:
    http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk links (harvested
    from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  3. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

  4. RogerDodger

    RogerDodger New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    0


    Obviously Guy isn't bothered about Pk's scoffing at his use of the term "liddites" - good stuff - "liddites" might appear to allude to "Luddites" but there's the beauty of allusion - the reader might construe some reference to something else - but that's up to the reader - so to scoff at someone else for something that you have read into what they've said, isn't quite so smart, is it?

    Just to depart from "the high moral ground" for a moment (I'll be right back, Pk) we could respond to the people who insult non-helmet wearers with the epithets "stupid", "mad", "idiots" and the like, in like manner (after all if you dish it out you better be prepared to get some back)...What can we append to the word "Lid" (as in helmet) to make it an epithet for those "narrow and closed minded" pro-helmet-law proselytes?

    Lidiots?
     
  5. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 04:46:52 GMT, RogerDodger
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >Obviously Guy isn't bothered about Pk's scoffing at his use
    >of the term "liddites"

    Not as such, no. After all, they are pursuing an archaic
    view of road "safety" replete with victim blaming and an
    unwillingness to tackle danger at source, a view they share
    with the motoring organisations. More enlightened safety
    campaigners seek to manage risk in a more proactive way with
    solutions like home zones and traffic management. This is
    progress for communities but threatens the car-centric world
    view, which is where the Liddites come from. So it's less
    inappropriate than PK makes out.

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

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

    Andyp Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote

    > As an addendum, here is the league table of head injury
    > causes in children in England for 2002-2003:
    >
    > Fall on level ground 27.2% Fall at elevation 22.5%
    > Striking 13.5% Other causes 12.3% Assault 8.3%
    > Pedestrian (RTC) 4.9% Pedal Cyclist RTC 3.6% Pedal
    > Cyclist Non-RTC 3.4% Motor Vehicle occupant 2.9% Horse/horse-
    > drawn veh. 1.5%

    If you look at the figure of 3.6% for cyclists in RTCs
    compared to 4.9% for pedestrians in RTCs and then hazard a
    guess at the huge number of pedestrians compared to cyclists
    doesn't that make cycling look like the far riskier activity
    as a means of getting from A to B? From that evidence get
    them kids in cycling helmets now surely?
     
  7. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 18:48:17 -0000, "AndyP"
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >If you look at the figure of 3.6% for cyclists in RTCs
    >compared to 4.9% for pedestrians in RTCs and then hazard a
    >guess at the huge number of pedestrians compared to
    >cyclists doesn't that make cycling look like the far
    >riskier activity as a means of getting from A to B? From
    >that evidence get them kids in cycling helmets now surely?

    The proportion of head injuries in pedestrians is higher
    than the proportion in cyclists. Remember, too, that
    cyclists are more exposed when on the road. Pedestrian
    injuries which do not involve a motor vehicle are classed as
    falls on level ground, which is the biggest single cause of
    head injury. And the DfT figures for KSI per unit distance
    are nearly five times higher for pedestrians.

    So, no :)

    --
    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
     
  8. Peter Owens

    Peter Owens Guest

    "Chris Malcolm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    > >AndyP wrote:
    >
    > >> The sort of speed anyone is going to bang their head
    > >> walking into a low
    bit
    > >> of scaffolding doesn't warrant a helmet. If you trip
    > >> and fall over
    whilst
    > >> walking you are unlikely to bang your head because the
    > >> natural reflex
    is to
    > >> put your arms out to protect yourself.

    As you say - walking does not present a high enough risk of
    head injury to make helmet use a sensible precaution. If
    anybody were to promote walking helmets we would think they
    were mildly eccentric.

    Cycling is an even safer activity than walking - thus people
    who promote cycle helmets are a bit more so.

    > >All quite true. But people still end up in A&E having
    > >banged their heads while travelling on foot, so there is
    > >clearly a finite chance of a problem.

    Not only that - you are actually more likely to end up in
    A&E if you travel by foot than bike.

    > In fact toppling over from a standing position, not
    > putting your hands out, and walloping your head on the
    > pavement or something similarly hard, is by and large the
    > skull impact threshold for concussive damage. Happens to
    > people who fall over backwards, to people whose hands were
    > trapped, and can easily be exceeded if you head into the
    > thing at higher speed because you were running or forcibly
    > knocked over. And of course the threshold is less if there
    > are any sharp edges or pointy bits involved in the impact,
    > such as the edge of a kerb, or if you happen to be one of
    > those unfortunates with a genetically low impact damage
    > threshold anyway, the cranial equivalent of what boxers
    > call a "glass jaw".

    Also these levels of impact are the sort of thing that
    helmets are actually designed to offer some degree of
    protection against.
     
Loading...
Loading...