Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets
- Thread starter Accy cyclist
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Wobblers
Euthermic
- Location
- Minkowski Space
You're basing that on what are called case controlled studies. The researcher has counted the number of cyclists admitted to hospital and observed the outcomes, dividing the cyclists into two groups: those wearing helmets and those no wearing helmets. These sort of studies are not randomised,have small sample sizes and lack control groups. For these reasons medical researchers regard them as inferior to large randomised trials.
These case control studies have shown that helmeted cyclists are about 25% less likely to suffer serious or fatal injury than bare headed cyclists. Sounds convincing doesn't it? Unfortunately, there is a major bias built in: only casualties who present to hosptial are counted. So someone who has a crash, suffers minor injuries, looks at the dent in her helmet and thanks the lucky stars for it will not be included. Likewise, the unfortunate cyclist who gets the strap of his helmet caught and breaks his neck (rare, but it does happen) won't be counted either. This is in addition to small sample sizes.
Whole population epidemiological studies are better. KSI statistics are religiously recorded and thus reliable and include whether the casulty was wearing a helmet. Hence, with a knowledge of proportion of cyclists who wear helmets, the probability for each group of being killed or seriously injured can be found. And as this collates data for the whole population, biases are avoided and the sample size is large, leading to more reliable data. These sorts of studies have not found any differences between the two populations: you are just as likely to be killed or seriously injured wearing a helmet than not. (A reasonable summary can be found here, the section entitled "Whole population data" is especially relevant, and gives peer reviewed references).
Boris Bajic
Guest
Nothing is tricky to grasp here. I goof around and giggle at the zealots on both sides, but there is nothing even approaching equanimity in that stance. No-one would think there was. It simply makes no sense.
I don't dress it up as sangfroid. I'm pretty open about it being fairly puerile behaviour. So, nothing to do with equanimity. Absolutely nothing; whether by definition by or imposed or imagined motives fancifully perceived in my witless, schoolchild ramblings.
Equanimity was simply the wrong word and the more complex the explanation gets the more unusual it sounds.
All is for the best? I love Candide and am lucky enough to have enjoyed Voltaire in several languages, but there is nothing of Pangloss in me. Despite never being a professional soldier I've been shelled and shot at, threatened and hated for my supposed ethnicity (even by those of my supposed ethnicity) and I find much of the soul of mankind hateful. Pangloss is a wonderful character, but he and I have nothing in common.
I do not drool, but I do often ride around grinning. How else can one ride? I almost always ride with a grin and may even have sailed over bonnets with one on my face. I had a relative who almost fits your 'drooling' image, but she died of a massive and unexplained seizure at 14. She didn't ride a bicycle. She barely spoke.
Of course I goof around on these threads. Of course I poke the zealots with a stick as a fool might poke a scorpion. But I do not pretend to show equanimity when I do so, nor would any sensible reader suppose I did or believe that I thought I did.
By playing the clown I invite ridicule and dissent. I invite it and I welcome it. Some people can manage that without the lemon twist. Sometimes the invective gets slightly nasty and personal.
Why, I do not know.
Wobblers
Euthermic
- Location
- Minkowski Space
Yes, you're quite right, it ought to be may have. Original post edited.
I was not going to explain this, but as you raised the questions...
Resect is complex, I have resected many times, and removed parts of wounds, foreign debris and other matter, but I suspect this is not what you really meant.
Again, let's make this clear - I do not demand anything at all. everything I post is simply my view, although it will be backed up by research. All I "expect" is that the posts are either agreed with, disputed or ignored. That is the way forums work.
All I ask (not demand) is that others have the decency to quote my posts in context, truthfully and not make blatantly lying statements about what I have said.
Most of the posters here abide by these unwritten (and written) rules. ...some simply tell lies.
You posted
I then asked you to amend your lies
Of course no-one will be surprised by the lack of common courtesy or decency in correcting your lies
Now you claim that I don't understand - I can see clearly that you lied,
It is very simple - you lied about what I had posted and have refused to recognise this or apologise
It is not about a "sense of humour".... finding someone telling lies about what you posted simply isn't funny. It is pathetic and desperate , but not funny
Sent from an antiquated MacBook using Safari
Linford
Guest
Message received and understood
Don't they call this a 'fixation' ?
I think i'm going to start another thread on that. Feel free if you thing you have something to participate
Message received and understood
Don't they call this a 'fixation' ?
I think i'm going to start another thread on that. Feel free if you thing you have something to participate
Can we assume that translates as:
1 I lied
2. I am not man enough to admit this and apologise
3. I am in denial that i have lied
4. Anyone who dares to point out that I am a liar is suffering from "fixation"
It would be intersting to see the new thread and how you misrepresent the fact that you lied
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
ginger beer shandy
I was using the evidence as presented on this thread, I didnt realise there was homework too, My bad
Actually you've been rather dismissive of the evidence as presented on this thread, have repeatedly claimed to find it unsatisfactory, and have been rather indulging those with an aversion to evidence. If evidence was what you wanted, it was there for the taking. And homework, honestly! A new tab and a quick Google is part and parcel of the whole internet thang, isn't it?
+1
Because there are times and places for clowning and for not clowning and you don't appear to appreciate that.
I do quite like Crabbies alcoholic ginger beer, as a refreshing drink, especially mid or post ride.
And your contribution is?
Oh I know, to sycophantically reinforce the group think party line on the pinko cycling forum.
Point of order, Smeggers! I've said twice on this thread that while I'm indebted to those with a more rigorous approach to the science of the matter than my own, I'm only incidentally interested in the effectiveness or otherwise of helmets. Those who live by the evidence, etc etc. I just think cycling is nicer without a lid. And we want cycling to be as nice as possible, do we not?
Well, I think this has run it's rather predictable course.
Linf clearly has no interest in the evidence, or whether helmets are effective or not, refuses to answer direct points and questions, and makes up rubbish to support his entrenched view.
I can only hope that other people (possibly even Smeggers?) have learnt something.
Linf clearly has no interest in the evidence, or whether helmets are effective or not, refuses to answer direct points and questions, and makes up rubbish to support his entrenched view.
I can only hope that other people (possibly even Smeggers?) have learnt something.
Where ya goin', Smeggers?
- Status
