You have to laugh

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Just Zis Guy, Feb 8, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    I was raking over the old Research Report 30 stuff writing a followup
    (my questions to the DfT remian unanswered). While I was verifying
    the pre-existing pro-helmet stance of the authors (which was easy:
    four of them are effectively joined at the hip and have a history of
    pro-helmet publications) I came across this gem:

    <url:http://www.imj.ie/news_detail.php?nNewsId=2518&nVolId=97>

    Apparently a helmet law for children is right up there with not allowing children to operate farm
    machinery in the indicators for a country which is serious about child safety.

    How's that for a sense of perspective?

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


  2. > I came across this gem:
    >
    > <url:http://www.imj.ie/news_detail.php?nNewsId=2518&nVolId=97>
    >
    > Apparently a helmet law for children is right up there with not allowing children to operate farm
    > machinery in the indicators for a country which is serious about child safety.
    >
    > How's that for a sense of perspective?

    Why on earth does ICEland have a law for barrier fencing around domestic swimming pools?
     
  3. "Mark Thompson" <[email protected] (change warm for hot)>
    wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > Why on earth does ICEland have a law for barrier fencing around domestic swimming pools?
    >

    You wouldn't have thought it that likely a place like that would have many of them, but OTOH they
    have plenty of geothermal energy for hot water and heating so who knows - maybe they do have
    significant numbers of heated/hot water pools in their backgardens ;-). Can't say I saw any when I
    was there, but...

    Namaskar

    Rich
     
  4. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

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

    > I was raking over the old Research Report 30 stuff writing a followup (my questions to the DfT
    > remian unanswered). While I was verifying the pre-existing pro-helmet stance of the authors (which
    > was easy: four of them are effectively joined at the hip and have a history of pro-helmet
    > publications) I came across this gem:
    >
    > <url:http://www.imj.ie/news_detail.php?nNewsId=2518&nVolId=97>
    >
    > Apparently a helmet law for children is right up there with not allowing children to operate farm
    > machinery in the indicators for a country which is serious about child safety.

    My mother was personally responsible, as a civil servant, for drafting the legislation which bans
    children in this country from operating farm machinery. All her children, without exception,
    operated farm machinery during their childhood with her full knowledge and apparent approval. I
    learned to drive, age eleven, on an old grey fergie taking hay bales up to the barn (and reversing a
    fully loaded trailer of bales *into* the barn, which was quite a kick at eleven).

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.
     
  5. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    "Mark Thompson" <[email protected] (change warm for hot)> writes:

    > > I came across this gem:
    > >
    > > <url:http://www.imj.ie/news_detail.php?nNewsId=2518&nVolId=97>
    > >
    > > Apparently a helmet law for children is right up there with not allowing children to operate
    > > farm machinery in the indicators for a country which is serious about child safety.
    > >
    > > How's that for a sense of perspective?
    >
    > Why on earth does ICEland have a law for barrier fencing around domestic swimming pools?

    Geothermal energy in abundance. Plenty of really nice outdoor swimming pools in Iceland, many of
    them not just warm but hot.

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.
     
  6. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:23:30 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
    you know?" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >I was raking over the old Research Report 30 stuff writing a followup (my questions to the DfT
    >remian unanswered).

    Funny you should mention that. Just this morning in another place the following was posted.

    ================================================================

    After some discussion via email with the Department for Transport, they have issued corrections for
    errors published in 'Bicycle Helmets - A review of their effectiveness: A critical review of the
    Literature, Road Safety Research Report No 30'

    Section 5, Post legislation, teenager wearing rate changed to 45% from the 74% published.

    Section 1, Head Injury, emergency admissions, changed from published
    2.8% to 0.28%.

    The incorrect 2.8% claim made cycling appear 10 more likely to result in being admitted to hospital
    than the data would suggest. One admission in 359 being a cyclist. 'Head injuries' sustained when
    bicycling was the primary diagnosis in one in 1051 admissions.

    The 74% claim made the helmet law in Victoria appear successful at increasing helmet wearing rates.
    In fact the law resulted in 19,229 penalty notices being issued (in a state with about 4.4 million
    population), discouraging cycling by over 40% for teenagers and resulting in less than half of
    teenagers wearing helmets and this should be considered. Children's safety was reduced but the
    reports overlooks this aspects.

    The report RSRR 30 has been in circulation for over a year, freely available to the public, referred
    to in Parliament, quoted by Royal Mail in support of their actions of trying to force postal workers
    to wear helmets, resulting in one dismissal that is being challenged for unfair dismissal.

    Other parts of the RSRR 30 report are misleading. The DfT are interested in providing reliable and
    accurate information and may change other parts when they become aware of unreliable data and
    comments, published in the report.

    I will continue to discuss the misleading/unreliable aspects with the DfT. Even if the report is
    fully corrected for misleading aspects it will still be bias in overall presentation and should be
    withdrawn to prevent further damage.

    Additional information on helmets is available at http://www.cyclehelmets.org
    http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc http://www.cycle-helmets.com

    Sincerely Colin Clarke

    ================================================================

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
    keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
     
  7. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > Funny you should mention that. Just this morning in another place the following was posted.

    > After some discussion via email with the Department for Transport, they have issued corrections
    > for errors published in 'Bicycle Helmets - A review of their effectiveness: A critical review of
    > the Literature, Road Safety Research Report No 30'

    I can't see the corrections yet, but well done Colin Clarke for some good and patient work. I think
    it has been far from easy even to get them started on the process of amending this report.

    --
    Guy
    ===

    WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
     
  8. Pk

    Pk Guest

    Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
    > "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]... I can't see the corrections yet, but well done
    > Colin Clarke for some good and patient work. I think it has been far from easy even to get them
    > started on the process of amending this report.

    Maybe you would like to correct the distorted view you gave of the original article?
    http://www.imj.ie/news_detail.php?nNewsId=2518&nVolId=97

    To suggest that it argues to : <Apparently a helmet law for children is right up there with not
    allowing children to operate farm machinery in the indicators for a country which is serious about
    child safety> is a mendacious distortion on your part. It simply lists all the child safety specific
    legislation enacted in EEC countries and its conclusion about the direction Ireland should take
    indicates the importance it puts on cycle helmets : ie it does not mention them,

    <<How Should We Proceed in Ireland?

    We should learn from experiences elsewhere. Our greatest challenges are road-related injuries,
    accidental poisoning and housefires. Comparative analyses with other EU countries show that we lag
    far behind the best in Europe in these areas of child injury prevention. We cannot tolerate a very
    low rate of seat belt use and a high number of children travelling unrestrained or in the front seat
    of cars. We must ensure that potential medicinal and household poisons are sold in child-resistant
    packaging. Our record in relation to house fires is the worst in the EU and we must ensure that all
    households have a functioning smoke alarm. We need to embrace examples of good practice from other
    EU countries (most particularly the Scandanavian countries, the Netherlands and the UK), enact
    appropriate legislation and ensure that it is properly enforced15. Otherwise our child injury toll
    will continue at its present unacceptably high rate>>

    Guy, if you are going to continue to claim the high moral ground in your arguments with regard to
    Paul Smith's mis-use and distortion of data and articles, you would be best advised to avoid such
    distortions yourself

    pk
     
  9. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    PK wrote:

    > is a mendacious distortion on your part. It simply lists all the child safety specific legislation
    > enacted in EEC countries and its conclusion about the direction Ireland should take indicates the
    > importance it puts on cycle helmets : ie it does not mention them,

    But the paper as a whole does, of course. "Whilst no EU member state has adopted all ten preventive
    policy measures that were conducted in recent research by Towner et al12, Sweden and Spain do show
    commitment to using policy to influence the reduction of childhood injury by adopting most of the
    measures outlined in Table 1", and what should we find in Table 1 but a clear reference to bicycle
    helmets for children, followed by a claim that "Correctly fitted, bicycle helmets reduce the risk of
    head and brain injury by 63-88%".

    Since the article clearly implies that Ireland should be following examples of good practice
    elsewhere, and the only mention of cycle helmets is a bullet-point figure of how wonderful they are,
    saying (a) that it does not mention them on the grounds the conclusion doesn't specifically mention
    them where the other content does or (b) does not at the very least imply it is a road to follow
    which is good practice is bordering on the sort of behaviour you're on your high horse about...

    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 protected]
    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  10. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    "PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > Maybe you would like to correct the distorted view you gave of the
    original
    > article? http://www.imj.ie/news_detail.php?nNewsId=2518&nVolId=97

    Or maybe I wouldn't because maybe I think that lumping lid laws in with legislation keeping children
    off farm machinery is a gross distortion of the actual danger of cycling. And maybe, just maybe,
    there was one of those famous "traces of irony" in there.

    Well, I apologise to anyone who was misled: I refer to the chart, not to the body of the article. If
    you look at the attribution for the chart it is Towner and Towner, two of the authors of the DfT's
    "independent" Research Report 30. They, and two of the other authors, are connected via CAPT
    (<url:http://www.capt.org.uk/course/Course%20information.doc>). All four of these have prior
    publications in which they advocate helmets. There are some reports with them listed as co-authors
    which advocate compulsion.

    I have seen the same chart elsewhere, but not in documents which are freely available (which is not
    to say they don't exist and my Googling is deficient). I am spending Actual Money buying reports
    from both sides of the argument, including (God help me) Lee, who co-wrote a masterpiece of muddled
    thinking recently.

    I asked the DfT last year what was the background of the other two authors, on the grounds that any
    review of a controversial subject which includes among its authors four who have already come out on
    one side of the argument is unlikely to reflect a true balance, however well-intentioned and expert
    they may be (and I have heard good reports of their other work). The DfT did not reply.

    As usual the basis for their claim is TRT. If TRT were removed from the equation the whole pro lobby
    would pretty much disappear.

    --
    Guy
    ===

    WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
     
  11. Pk

    Pk Guest

    Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
    > "PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    >> Maybe you would like to correct the distorted view you gave of the original article?
    >> http://www.imj.ie/news_detail.php?nNewsId=2518&nVolId=97
    >
    > Or maybe I wouldn't because maybe I think that lumping lid laws in with legislation keeping
    > children off farm machinery is a gross distortion of the actual danger of cycling. And maybe, just
    > maybe, there was one of those famous "traces of irony" in there.

    Your paranoia is showing.

    If anything the balance of the article points to the low priority given to helmet laws across
    Europe, from it I learn that only checz republic and Spain have helmet laws relation to children
    (out of the 20 countries listed) cf 20/20 Child seatbelt laws, 20/20 speed limits is urban areas,
    12/20 banned from driving farm machinery, etc etc

    the absence of any mention in the concluisions and priorities clealy indicates a low significance
    accorded to child cycle helmets.

    You seem to be arguing that an article looking at child safety lesislation across europe and across
    a wide range of potential hazards to children should exclude mention of cycle helmets.

    Genuinely guy, I am losing respect for you lines of argument. You are beginning to distort just as
    Paul smith distorts.

    pk
     
  12. > If anything the balance of the article points to the low priority given to helmet laws across
    > Europe, from it I learn that only checz republic and Spain have helmet laws relation to children
    > (out of the 20 countries listed) cf 20/20 Child seatbelt laws, 20/20 speed limits is urban areas,
    > 12/20 banned from driving farm machinery, etc etc

    So might it say more about the view of the authors then?

    > the absence of any mention in the concluisions and priorities clealy indicates a low significance
    > accorded to child cycle helmets.

    Possibly because the benefits are unclear? I suspect maybe it's because a helmet law is unfeasible
    in most countries as helmet wearing rates are not high enough to even think of compulsion. No point
    recommending something that's got no chance of being implemented.

    > Genuinely guy, I am losing respect for you lines of argument. You are beginning to distort just as
    > Paul smith distorts.

    ? Guys statement had a bit of spin on it, but I think you may have missed the humour in it - easy to
    do when everything is in text. When you consider that the report in question states

    "Correctly fitted, bicycle helmets reduce the risk of head and brain injury by 63-88%"

    I think that is distorting the 'facts'. The 63-88% figures are for cyclists who have hit their
    heads, rather than for cyclists (a pedantic but important distinction). The 88% figure is, I'm
    guessing, originally from a certain infamous and discredited report. The ambiguity of the effects of
    compulsion has been ignored. I would not have expected it to be included, but then neither would I
    have expected the 63-88% propaganda. I also note that the child helmet column was placed first in
    the table. Does this reveal more about the views of the author?

    Don't go to university - it makes you critically examine everything you see. But anyway, I partly
    agree with you. Guy, no more jokes - you're upsetting the regulers!

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.580 / Virus Database: 367 - Release Date: 06/02/2004
     
  13. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

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

    > > Or maybe I wouldn't because maybe I think that lumping lid laws in with legislation keeping
    > > children off farm machinery is a gross distortion of the actual danger of cycling. And maybe,
    > > just maybe, there was one of those famous "traces of irony" in there.

    > Your paranoia is showing.

    Or my sense of irony. One or the other.

    > If anything the balance of the article points to the low priority given to helmet laws
    > across Europe

    Yebbut, it was the table I took issue with, not the article. And for the specific reasons stated.

    > You seem to be arguing that an article looking at child safety lesislation across europe and
    > across a wide range of potential hazards to children should exclude mention of cycle helmets.

    Nope. Just that it *starts* with a table which accords helmets equal priority with what on the face
    of it are much more serious dangers. And, as stated, the source of the table is one of the authors
    of the DfT's "independent" report.

    > Genuinely guy, I am losing respect for you lines of argument. You are beginning to distort just as
    > Paul smith distorts.

    Suit yourself. I happen to think it matters that we don't get this crappy Bill passed. Normal
    service will be resumed once it's been sunk so deep the salvage crews can't find the wreckage.

    --
    Guy
    ===

    WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
     
  14. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 00:58:15 -0000 someone who may be "Mark Thompson"
    <[email protected] (change warm for hot)> wrote
    this:-

    >Why on earth does ICEland have a law for barrier fencing around domestic swimming pools?

    The name is deceptive. Most of Iceland looks like the surface of the moon, rocks and dust. Apart
    from the glaciers, in the summer it is not covered in ice.

    As others have said there are many hot springs, none of which have fences round them. There are also
    hot mud pools, some of which have thin crusts through which the unwary can fall. Hot boiled human.
    There are also dramatic waterfalls which you can walk into if you want. However, these tend to be
    away from most habitation today.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
    keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
     
  15. David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 00:58:15 -0000 someone who may be "Mark Thompson"
    > <[email protected] (change warm for hot)> wrote this:-
    >
    > >Why on earth does ICEland have a law for barrier fencing around domestic swimming pools?
    >
    > The name is deceptive. Most of Iceland looks like the surface of the moon, rocks and dust. Apart
    > from the glaciers, in the summer it is not covered in ice.

    Iceland is not covered in ice during winter either.

    > As others have said there are many hot springs, none of which have fences round them. There are
    > also hot mud pools, some of which have thin crusts through which the unwary can fall. Hot boiled
    > human. There are also dramatic waterfalls which you can walk into if you want. However, these tend
    > to be away from most habitation today.

    There are also some 100 public swimming pools in Iceland, most of them in towns and villages but
    some in the rural areas. Most of those have fences around them.
     
  16. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Sigvaldi Eggertsson wrote:
    >
    > Iceland is not covered in ice during winter either.
    >

    Greenland's not green either ;-)

    Tony
     
  17. "Mark Thompson" <[email protected] (change warm for hot)> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > Why on earth does ICEland have a law for barrier fencing around domestic swimming pools?

    This is a bit odd - but for a different reason that you seem to think. You see, Iceland has
    virtually no domestic swimming pools. We have plenty of public swimming pools, of course - all over
    the country and very popular (and without any kind of barrier fencing), but domestic swimming pools?
    I have never seen one in Iceland - and I have lived here for 40 years.

    It seems quite bizarre to me that our parliament should waste its time on such an utterly irrelevant
    law, but that's what politics is about, I guess.
     
  18. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On 10 Feb 2004 02:30:18 -0800 someone who may be [email protected]
    (Sigvaldi Eggertsson) wrote this:-

    >Iceland is not covered in ice during winter either.

    Not covered with ice, but there is more ice.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
    keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
     
  19. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Guest

    On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:35:03 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >My mother was personally responsible, as a civil servant, for drafting the legislation which bans
    >children in this country from operating farm machinery. All her children, without exception,
    >operated farm machinery during their childhood with her full knowledge and apparent approval. I
    >learned to drive, age eleven, on an old grey fergie taking hay bales up to the barn (and reversing
    >a fully loaded trailer of bales *into* the barn, which was quite a kick at eleven).

    I was thrilled to operate a combine harvester on my uncle's farm at a similar age.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...