UK and Europe · Public discussion

And again

Started by Tony Raven · · Last activity · 81 posts · 1,792 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
1 June 2004
Last activity
8 June 2004
Original author
Tony Raven
Posts
81
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,792
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 81
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Sigh!

    Tony

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3756385.stm

    Call for mandatory cycle helmets

    The law should be changed so all cyclists have to wear helmets, UK researchers
    say.
    Edinburgh University experts argue that advertising campaigns promoting cycle
    helmets are not working.
    They say that, ideally, both adults and children should be made to wear
    helmets when cycling.
    At the very least, under 16s should have to wear helmets, they say in the
    Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.
    Edinburgh University's Professor Sheikh, along with colleagues from the Health
    Commission and Imperial College London, looked at the arguments for and
    against helmet legislation.

    They found the evidence for the effectiveness of cycle helmets was strong.
    Evidence shows helmets offer substantial protection against head injury and
    there is a strong association between increasing helmet use and declining
    injury rates.
    "The consensus is that they reduce anything up to 88% of serious head injuries
    if they are used," said Professor Sheikh, from the Division of Community
    Health Sciences.
    "In an ideal world I would like to see a massive uptake of cycle helmets among
    children and adults in Britain voluntarily but we know that voluntary measures
    have had little impact," he said.
    Only one in five regular cyclists uses a helmet, he said.
    Ethical debate
    Opponents argue that making helmets mandatory for cyclists removes individual
    choice, infringing on civil liberties.
    They also worry that cyclists will be so put off they will stop using this
    healthy mode of transport.
    But Professor Sheikh's team argue that there are good grounds for compulsory
    cycle helmets.

    Bicycle helmet laws in other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand,
    have reduced cycling-related head injuries and fatalities with good uptake,
    they say.
    Also, any decline in popularity of cycling after legislation tends to be short
    term.
    "There may be a temporary knock-on effect in Britain but in the long term I
    don't think it will have any sustainable impact, just like motorcycle
    helmets," said Professor Sheikh.
    He believes most people would accept the legislation.
    "A lot of people will see it as being a sensible move, similar to motorcycle
    helmet and seatbelt laws, but some will construe it as a constriction of their
    personal choice.
    "On balance, we do think the legislation should be pushed forward," he said.
    One rule for all
    A Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill was introduced to parliament
    this year. This would make it mandatory for all children under the age of 16
    to wear helmets when cycling.
    The bill is due for a second reading in the House of Commons on 18 June.
    Professor Sheikh said this was a step in the right direction, but not enough.
    "Really it should be introduced across the board, otherwise we are sending out
    quite mixed signals," he said.
    A spokesman for the Department for Transport said public support was needed
    before such a law could be passed.
    "At the moment, the wearing rates are relatively low. In order to make
    something mandatory, you need to have a certain level of compliance.
    "We are keen to see as many people as possible wearing helmets. We encourage
    people to wear cycle helmets. But what we do not want to see is people
    discouraged from cycling because they do not want to wear one.
    "There's a perception by some people it's not cool. We need to get over that,"
    he said.

  2. "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]

    Quoted this:

    Quoted message said:

    The law should be changed so all cyclists have to wear helmets, UK


    researchers

    Quoted message said:

    say.

    Haven't these people got anything better to do with their time and *our*
    money?
    --
    Regards,
    Pete

  3. "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Sigh!


    <snip>

    Quoted message said:

    But Professor Sheikh's team argue that there are good grounds for


    compulsory

    Quoted message said:

    cycle helmets.

    Bicycle helmet laws in other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand,
    have reduced cycling-related head injuries and fatalities with good


    uptake,

    Quoted message said:

    they say.

    Is that true or not?

    --
    Tumbleweed

    Remove my socks for email address

  4. "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Opponents argue that making helmets mandatory for cyclists removes


    individual

    Quoted message said:

    choice, infringing on civil liberties.

    It seems to me the anti lobby aren't getting their point across well. Why no
    mention of the fact that helmets are inneffective in most accidents, and
    most accidents wouldn't happen if the motorist(s) that are usually involved
    took a bit more care?

  5. Peter B said:


    "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]

    Quoted this:

    Quoted message said:

    The law should be changed so all cyclists have to wear helmets, UK


    researchers

    Quoted message said:

    say.

    Haven't these people got anything better to do with their time and *our*
    money?

    Go to:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3281777.stm

    and ask them.
    --
    Best regards
    Richard

    http://www.ceresgames.co.uk/

  6. Richard Lucas said:


    Go to:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3281777.stm

    and ask them.

    I'm getting past "feedback" to "complaint". Every time the BBC ignores the
    counter view which they must by now know. This is moving from poor reporting
    to heavily biased reporting.

    Tony

  7. Tumbleweed said:
    Quoted message said:

    Bicycle helmet laws in other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand,
    have reduced cycling-related head injuries and fatalities with good
    uptake, they say.

    Quoted message said:

    Is that true or not?

    Up to a point, Lord Copper. Cycling related head injuries have indeed
    dropped, but then again so has the total amount of cycling because
    people have stopped in... ooooh, just about the same percentages as the
    injury reductions!

    And there has been good uptake perhaps because it's now illegal not to
    wear them, just /possibly/?

    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 hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

  8. "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Sigh!

    Tony

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3756385.stm

    Call for mandatory cycle helmets

    The law should be changed so all cyclists have to wear helmets, UK


    researchers

    Quoted message said:

    say.
    Edinburgh University experts argue that advertising campaigns promoting


    cycle

    Quoted message said:

    helmets are not working.
    They say that, ideally, both adults and children should be made to wear
    helmets when cycling.
    At the very least, under 16s should have to wear helmets, they say in the
    Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.
    Edinburgh University's Professor Sheikh, along with colleagues from the


    Health

    Quoted message said:

    Commission and Imperial College London, looked at the arguments for and
    against helmet legislation.>

    Just Googled for Prof Sheikh, and, absurdity of absurdities, the second hit
    was for his relatively new book "Basic skills in statitistics: a guide for
    healthcare professionals". The website
    http://www.mcb.org.uk/mcbdirect/features.php?ann_id=228 quotes 11th Feb
    2004.

    If such a highly qualified person can fall for the bent stats and outright
    lies told by BHIT, it isn't surprising that so many other people do. Mind
    you, I'm not too sure how much faith I'd put in a book by an author who has
    so completely failed to analyse the evidence.

  9. burt said:

    "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Sigh!

    Tony

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3756385.stm

    Call for mandatory cycle helmets

    The law should be changed so all cyclists have to wear helmets, UK


    researchers

    Quoted message said:

    say.
    Edinburgh University experts argue that advertising campaigns promoting


    cycle

    Quoted message said:

    helmets are not working.
    They say that, ideally, both adults and children should be made to wear
    helmets when cycling.
    At the very least, under 16s should have to wear helmets, they say in the
    Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.
    Edinburgh University's Professor Sheikh, along with colleagues from the


    Health

    Quoted message said:

    Commission and Imperial College London, looked at the arguments for and
    against helmet legislation.>

    Just Googled for Prof Sheikh, and, absurdity of absurdities, the second hit
    was for his relatively new book "Basic skills in statitistics: a guide for
    healthcare professionals". The website
    http://www.mcb.org.uk/mcbdirect/features.php?ann_id=228 quotes 11th Feb
    2004.

    If such a highly qualified person can fall for the bent stats and outright
    lies told by BHIT, it isn't surprising that so many other people do.

    Professor Sheikh has been researching bicycle helmets for years - it's
    more likely that BHIT listen to what he has to say, than the other way
    round.

    Quoted message said:

    Mind
    you, I'm not too sure how much faith I'd put in a book by an author who has
    so completely failed to analyse the evidence.

    His new paper won't have hit the shelves yet - but I'd be very surprised
    if this is the case. Perhaps you'd like to read some of his papers:

    e.g. http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/9/3/266 to pick just one.

    He doesn't 'fail to analyse the evidence' - he analyses it and comes to a
    different conclusion from some other researchers. In fact, it would be
    fair to say that the entire point of the paper is to 'weigh the evidence'.

    AC

  10. anonymous coward said:


    His new paper won't have hit the shelves yet - but I'd be very surprised
    if this is the case. Perhaps you'd like to read some of his papers:

    e.g. http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/9/3/266 to pick just one.

    He doesn't 'fail to analyse the evidence' - he analyses it and comes to a
    different conclusion from some other researchers. In fact, it would be
    fair to say that the entire point of the paper is to 'weigh the evidence'.

    I'll have to read the full paper later but the response by Wardlaw is worth
    reading
    http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/9/3/266#38

    Tony

  11. anonymous coward said:

    Perhaps you'd like to read some of his papers:

    e.g. http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/9/3/266 to pick just one.

    This is very obviously nonsense, although following the Roy Meadows
    episode I cannot pretend to be surprised that junk like this gets
    published. Students using his stats book beware!

    Prizes for the first person to explain his error(s).

    James
    --
    If I have seen further than others, it is
    by treading on the toes of giants.
    http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

  12. anonymous coward said:

    Professor Sheikh has been researching bicycle helmets for years - it's
    more likely that BHIT listen to what he has to say, than the other way
    round.

    Then he really ought to manage better than "The consensus is that they
    reduce anything up to 88% of serious head injuries if they are used".
    That is clearly nonsense, since there is no such consensus: lots of
    people think that the TRT paper which appears to be the ultimate source
    of all the Magic 88% figures is fundamentally flawed, and these people
    can hardly be forming a "consensus", can they? You can pedantically
    claim that the "up to" invalidates that particular argument, but in that
    case the claim doesn't /mean/ anything, and shouldn't be made for that
    very reason.

    Quoted message said:

    He doesn't 'fail to analyse the evidence' - he analyses it and comes to a
    different conclusion from some other researchers. In fact, it would be
    fair to say that the entire point of the paper is to 'weigh the evidence'.

    As you say, we haven't this one yet, but whatever he says in it hardly
    invalidates my criticism above of this particular piece of reporting.
    If he's just gone over the existing stuff like, say, SRS 30 did then he
    might come to the same conclusions. The simple fact of what's already
    about is that The Jury is Out and saying otherwise is dangerous,
    especially where it's based on studies with the methodology very highly
    criticised as was the case with TRT.

    "any decline in popularity of cycling after legislation tends to be
    short term". I've yet to see evidence that cycling levels have fully
    recovered in the wake of legislation, though I'm willing to be proven
    wrong with apposite figures.

    "A lot of people will see it as being a sensible move, similar to
    motorcycle helmet and seatbelt laws"

    A lot of people /see/ those as sensible but look at the figures and we
    *know* they have not helped. So theses sorts of points in the text set
    off alarm bells that this time he's coming from Planet Wrong. Though
    until we can look at the text we won't know, either way.

    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 hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

  13. Reply to Tony Raven

    Enraged feedback sent to the BBC (so enraged, in fact, that I
    misspelt "consensus"! - O well...):

    The fact that Professor Sheikh quotes the 88% figure as a "concensus"
    - the figure has long since been disowned by the authors of the single
    report which gave rise to it - does nothing for his credibility, as
    does his omission of the fact that - according to the Government - in
    no country has increased helmet use resulted in greater safety for
    cyclists.

    In addition, his disingenuous use of the word "may" when speaking of
    reduction in cycling levels, when a reduction in cycling is the single
    unarguable effect of compulsory helmets, would be difficult to defend.
    Particularly with the present concerns about the long-term health
    effects of obesity, to discourage cycling by proposing a measure of no
    proven safety benefit is irresponsible.

    Given that the organisations opposing compulsion include the British
    Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the
    Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the National Cycling
    Strategy Board, to have no dissenting view reported from any of these
    bodies amounts to lazy and biased journalism.

    I, um, copied it to [email hidden] as well. <blush>

    --
    Mark, UK.
    We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
    We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

  14. Peter Clinch said:
    anonymous coward said:

    Professor Sheikh has been researching bicycle helmets for years - it's
    more likely that BHIT listen to what he has to say, than the other way
    round.

    Then he really ought to manage better than "The consensus is that they
    reduce anything up to 88% of serious head injuries if they are used".

    I fear (wearing my pedant's hat rather than my cycling helmet) that the
    statement is absolutely correct as it stands. Because "anything up to"
    includes 0 (no effect) and also negative numbers (icnreases risk). All
    the statement does is place an upper bound on the potential change in
    hazard.

    Not wearing my pedant's hat I agree with you: the statement is Bull*hit.

    Peter

  15. Reply to Peter Amey

    Quoted message said:

    I fear (wearing my pedant's hat rather than my cycling helmet) that the
    statement is absolutely correct as it stands. Because "anything up to"
    includes 0 (no effect) and also negative numbers (icnreases risk). All
    the statement does is place an upper bound on the potential change in
    hazard.

    As a card-carrying pedant myself, I wondered about this; but I'd argue
    that he's implicitly including 88% as part of the consensus, so to
    speak. ICBW, though, and if I was posting my response now that I'm
    cooler, I'd be tempted to play safe and leave the consensus thing out
    of my first sentence altogether.

    --
    Mark, UK.
    We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
    We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

  16. "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Sigh!

    Tony

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3756385.stm

    Call for mandatory cycle helmets

    I wonder if it would only apply if you were on a road. In that case I'd
    simply use the off road farcilities and not wear one until I had to go on
    road.

    --
    Simon M.

  17. Peter Amey said:

    I fear (wearing my pedant's hat rather than my cycling helmet) that the
    statement is absolutely correct as it stands. Because "anything up to"
    includes 0 (no effect) and also negative numbers (icnreases risk). All
    the statement does is place an upper bound on the potential change in
    hazard.

    Though I did write 'You can pedantically claim that the "up to"
    invalidates that particular argument, but in that case the claim doesn't
    /mean/ anything, and shouldn't be made for that very reason.'

    Further nit-picking of my post, I see I put SRS 30 rather than RSR 30.
    Hey ho, accuracy seems to be optional these days... ;-/

    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 hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

  18. "James Annan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    anonymous coward said:

    Perhaps you'd like to read some of his papers:

    e.g. http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/9/3/266 to pick just


    one.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    This is very obviously nonsense, although following the Roy Meadows
    episode I cannot pretend to be surprised that junk like this gets
    published. Students using his stats book beware!

    Prizes for the first person to explain his error(s).

    James

    Since I'm no statitician, and I've only viewed the abstract, this may be
    wildly wrong, but here goes anyway.

    I think it is the complete failure to correlate cause and effect i.e. he
    observes an effect and then ascribes it to a cause without demonstrating any
    link between them, a bit like saying that since everyone who drinks water
    eventually dies, the cause of death is drinking water.

    Is there no Edinburgh student of the learned prof reading this who might
    like to enquire as to why all the real world evidence contradicts his views?

  19. Tony Raven said:
    anonymous coward said:


    His new paper won't have hit the shelves yet - but I'd be very surprised
    if this is the case. Perhaps you'd like to read some of his papers:

    e.g. http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/9/3/266 to pick just one.

    He doesn't 'fail to analyse the evidence' - he analyses it and comes to a
    different conclusion from some other researchers. In fact, it would be
    fair to say that the entire point of the paper is to 'weigh the evidence'.


    I'll have to read the full paper later but the response by Wardlaw is worth
    reading
    http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/9/3/266#38

    This may sound spineless but I actually do take Wardlaw's side. I read a
    few other responses to one of his earlier articles that were more
    forthright again (pointing out errors like 2.5% being written in
    the place of 0.25%).

    But I don't retract what I said - the paper did not ignore all the
    opposing arguments. I'm sure the researchers in the field can read past
    the rhetoric, choose the figures they trust and temper any conclusions
    they feel are unwarranted.

    What annoys me is when the press picks up on some little paper that it
    feels captures the zeitgeist, inflating its importance until its
    viewpoint becomes the only facet of the field that we are exposed to. It's
    quite possible Prof Sheikh's paper is abominable and one-sided; if this is
    so then the BBC should have either not reported it, or they should have
    reported it in context. If Prof Sheikh's paper is balanced, then my guess
    is they are probably guilty of over-simplification.

    What I don't feel is likely is that Prof Sheikh simply fell into the
    thrall of the BHIT and is uncritically regurgitating it's rhetoric -
    aided and abbetted by a dodgy understanding of statistics.

    AC

  20. anonymous coward said:

    What annoys me is when the press picks up on some little paper that it
    feels captures the zeitgeist, inflating its importance until its
    viewpoint becomes the only facet of the field that we are exposed to. It's
    quite possible Prof Sheikh's paper is abominable and one-sided; if this is
    so then the BBC should have either not reported it, or they should have
    reported it in context.

    Well, quite. But the bottom line is that for the above to be addressed
    jounalists will have to be fully clued in on what they're reporting,
    which they won't be because they're jounalists by trade rather than,
    say, public health epidemiologists.

    Having said that you sometimes wonder at how much research many of them
    bother to do these days :-(

    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 hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.