And again

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:08:11 +0100, anonymous coward
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Gawnsoft said:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:00:08 +0100, anonymous coward
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):
...

Quoted message said:

I don't come to that conclusion from reading that paper. What I take away
from it is a clear framework for thinking about the ethical issues
involved (useful whatever your stance),

It's even worse then. It's a paper on /ethics/, which generates no
new data.

Is the study of ethics such a bad thing?

Not at all. It's the fact that it's an unethical ethics paper which
makes it bad.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This means that the 88% figure the Prof. claims is part of the
consensus can /only/ be the 88% figure which was repudiated even by
its original researchers!

I was referring to the paper referenced in the thread 'and yet again'
which does reference RTR but never includes any numbers - I think you may
be referring to the BBC article?

True - he may only have been unethical in the interview he got from
the press release sent out due to his paper.

I'm not sure that's a great improvement tho'. Which is worse,
Unethical when given mass-media opportunities to speak on his
ethics-based position paper, or unethical in the actual ethics-based
position paper which gets a tiny audience.

--
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

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 19:45:36 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

Wot 'e said.

Bad arguments ought to be countered. I don't mean that in a partisan way
- bad arguments against helmets use should be countered just as much as
bad arguments for. This actually is quite important because lives
really are at stake. We really do need to know whether helmets can be
beneficial and if so in what circumstances they may be beneficial - and
in what circumstances they may be harmful. We don't really know this
because we don't have good data but in the meantime this sort of
water-muddying nonsense does not help.

As an example here are the comments the BMJ published last time Cook and
Sheikh wrote an article:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/322/7293/1063

I found the very first sentence of this fascinating: "Rivara et al in
their editorial on bicycle helmets offer the study by Cook and Sheikh
in the same issue as representative of evidence that has persuaded
them of the benefits of wearing helmets".

And we know that Sheikh cited the T.,Rivera,T. 88% figure as a
'consencus' figure when given his recent mass-media interview.

Does this mean that Sheikh and Rivera are locked in some sort of
self-referential infinite loop?

--
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

in message <[email hidden]>, anonymous

coward (') said:

Gawnsoft said:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:00:08 +0100, anonymous coward
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):
...

Quoted message said:

I don't come to that conclusion from reading that paper. What I take
away from it is a clear framework for thinking about the ethical
issues involved (useful whatever your stance),

It's even worse then. It's a paper on /ethics/, which generates no
new data.

Is the study of ethics such a bad thing?

The study of ethics is a good thing. However, this isn't a study of
ethics, it's a polemic.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us
;; many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets.
;; Imagination without skill gives us modern art.
;; Tom Stoppard, Artist Descending A Staircase

"Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Also, banning marriage would reduce the number of people murdered by
their spouse, which must be a good thing.

And also put an end to divorces.
--
Regards,
Pete

Reply to Simon Brooke

Quoted message said:

Thank you for your email. The article has been amended to include the
view that helmets may cut injury rates because fewer people cycle.

Caroline wrote to me as well:

Thank you for your email. Your comments have been noted. The piece has
been amended to reflect these views.

AFAICR, all that's been changed is this addition:

And the British Medical Association says it is in favour of cycle
helmets - but says compulsion could mean people abandon cycling and
exercise in general because of issues such as the cost of new
equipment.

I feel like taking the matter further.

On the subject, did anyone else see this?
http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=4183

One quote (I should be eating and going back to work!)

Mr. Martlew :The CTC campaigns against wearing cycle helmets. How can
the Government be involved with that organisation when it works
against one of their objectives?

Mr. McNulty : I agree with my hon. Friend; I, too, was very
disappointed with the reaction of the CTC to {the DfT's helmet
advertising] initiative...

- which goes to show that neither Martlew nor the Parliamentary Under-
Secretary of State for Transport comprehend the CTC's position at all,
or (I presume) care.

--
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.

Peter Clinch said:

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 journalists by trade rather than,
say, public health epidemiologists.

I don't think it's too much to ask that they have some understanding of
what they're reporting, and of the scientific method. I'm not sure how to
address this though - I've heard some quite eminent scientists make daft
comments about issues outside their own fields.

Quoted message said:

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

All too true,

AC

Gawnsoft said:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:08:11 +0100, anonymous coward
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Gawnsoft said:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 07:00:08 +0100, anonymous coward
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):
...
>I don't come to that conclusion from reading that paper. What I take away
>from it is a clear framework for thinking about the ethical issues
>involved (useful whatever your stance),

It's even worse then. It's a paper on /ethics/, which generates no
new data.

Is the study of ethics such a bad thing?

Not at all. It's the fact that it's an unethical ethics paper which
makes it bad.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This means that the 88% figure the Prof. claims is part of the
consensus can /only/ be the 88% figure which was repudiated even by
its original researchers!

I'm curious: what's the history behind them repudiating it?

AC

anonymous coward <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

someone wrote
> This means that the 88% figure the Prof. claims is part of the
> consensus can /only/ be the 88% figure which was repudiated even by
> its original researchers!

I'm curious: what's the history behind them repudiating it?

iirc 88 percent was the upper bound of a wide uncertainty band for
head injury reduction taken from the data which showed the largest
reduction. The authors accepted that there was an error (misplaced
decimal point I think) which reduced the figure by 10s of percent. I
am not sure that they accpted the other criticims leveled at their
paper (disimilar control group was the gist of a lot of this).

Google can surely find more (search for thompson, riviera &
thompson[1]) if you are really interested

best wishes
james

[1] for some spelling of thompson

james said:

iirc 88 percent was the upper bound of a wide uncertainty band for
head injury reduction taken from the data which showed the largest
reduction. The authors accepted that there was an error (misplaced
decimal point I think) which reduced the figure by 10s of percent. I
am not sure that they accpted the other criticims leveled at their
paper (disimilar control group was the gist of a lot of this).

It all seems a bit irrelevant in the light of Cook and Sheikh claiming a
figure of well over twice the 88% number...

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

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 07:42:29 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

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?

In this case, because it is probably copied verbatim from a BeHIT
press release.

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

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 11:33:44 +0100, anonymous coward
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

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'.

Sometimes he comes to a different conclusion because he gets the maths
wrong, though...

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

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 16:43:05 +0100, anonymous coward
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I'm curious: what's the history behind them repudiating it?

TR&T? See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1047

Or Sheikh? See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1097

Amused to see that helmets have a 200% protective effect - so someone
else can protect me by wearing a helmet on my behalf. Thanks, Aziz!

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

Just zis Guy, you know? [email hidden] opined the
following...

Quoted message said:

Amused to see that helmets have a 200% protective effect - so someone
else can protect me by wearing a helmet on my behalf. Thanks, Aziz!

Perhaps this could be extended to national policy. A group of highly
trained helmet wearers (not limited to cyclists) could be subsidised to
wear helmets during their normal daily activities, in order to protect
the lives of others. Gotta be worth a 1p on income tax!

Jon

Colin Blackburn said:

Quoted message 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.
Is that true or not?

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

Quoted message said:

This seems to be an oft used phrase in this group but is it ever used
correctly? My understanding of the phrase is that it relates to
Waugh's Scoop. When Lord Copper said something one of his minions (a
particular editor) would say, "Definitely, Lord Copper." if what was
said was correct and "Up to a point." if what was said was wrong. It
is thus, AFAIUI, a diplomatic way of telling someone that what they
have said is wrong.

Definitely, Lord Copper ;-)

Quoted message said:

Is the question above wrong? Or is my understanding of the phrase
wrong? Okay, it isn't cycling but as this phrase is used by Guy
almost weekly I thought it might be worth clearing up the matter.

I think the usage is correct in context. Statement: "Bicycle helmet laws
have reduced cycling-related head injuries and fatalities with good uptake".
Reality: This has been achieved solely at the expense of numbers cycling;
injury /rates/ have remained unchanged or got worse (as we all know by now),
and the "good uptake"[1] is at the expense of, in extreme cases, imprisoning
children. Is the statement factually wrong? Technically, possibly not, but
it is undoubtedly a long way from being an accurate representation of the
effect of the laws. Without going back to the source I can't think of an
example where the phrase was used to counter a misleading, rather than
absolutely wrong, comment from the proprietor, but I am fairly confident
that there are such examples. It was, on the other hand, All A Long Time
Ago, so ICBW.

[1] In much the same way as fighting in Vietnam had "good uptake" among
American youth, the alternative being prosecution (or calling in favours
from Daddy's friends, if you were a rich WASP). I don't think anyone would
extend this to suggest that it was (a) popular or (b) a good idea...

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

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Colin Blackburn said:

This seems to be an oft used phrase in this group but is it ever used
correctly? My understanding of the phrase is that it relates to Waugh's
Scoop. When Lord Copper said something one of his minions (a particular
editor) would say, "Definitely, Lord Copper." if what was said was
correct and "Up to a point." if what was said was wrong. It is thus,
AFAIUI, a diplomatic way of telling someone that what they have said is
wrong.

In the original this was indeed the case ("What's the capital of Japan
these days, Yokohoma isn't it?"; "Up to a point, Lord Copper"😉 though it
has subsequently been reasonably well used in Private Eye where it
usually has a more literal meaning, more on the lines of "you could
argue that technically what you say is true, but if we apply a bit of
perspective then we can see it's pretty much ridiculous and any such
argument boils down to pedantic spin".

Quoted message said:

Is the question above wrong?

Up to a point, Lord Copper... ;-) It depends how legitimate you think
it is for Private Eye to wangle the meaning a bit, but it seems to work
for them. That's the sense I usually use it in, at any rate.

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

you know? said:

Colin Blackburn wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This seems to be an oft used phrase in this group but is it ever used
correctly? My understanding of the phrase is that it relates to
Waugh's Scoop. When Lord Copper said something one of his minions (a
particular editor) would say, "Definitely, Lord Copper." if what was
said was correct and "Up to a point." if what was said was wrong. It
is thus, AFAIUI, a diplomatic way of telling someone that what they
have said is wrong.

Definitely, Lord Copper ;-)

:-)

But you missed the feedline where I stated that you used the phrase once a
week. You don't, I checked. To that the, "Up to a point..." would have
been the classic retort. I think your holiday has had an effect on your
wit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is the question above wrong? Or is my understanding of the phrase
wrong? Okay, it isn't cycling but as this phrase is used by Guy
almost weekly I thought it might be worth clearing up the matter.

I think the usage is correct in context.

No, the statement is intended as a retort to the one stating the
falsehood. My point was that in the above case it isn't used that way, the
person asking the question above is not a Lord Copper as they cannot
possibly be stating a falsehood. That's what got me wondering about the
phrase.

Incidentally, there will be a small number of my posts appearing from last
week as Durham seems to have not made them public until today.

Colin

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 12:06:39 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In the original this was indeed the case ("What's the capital of Japan
these days, Yokohoma isn't it?"; "Up to a point, Lord Copper"😉 though it
has subsequently been reasonably well used in Private Eye where it
usually has a more literal meaning, more on the lines of "you could
argue that technically what you say is true, but if we apply a bit of
perspective then we can see it's pretty much ridiculous and any such
argument boils down to pedantic spin".

....

Quoted message said:

Up to a point, Lord Copper... ;-) It depends how legitimate you think
it is for Private Eye to wangle the meaning a bit, but it seems to work
for them. That's the sense I usually use it in, at any rate.

Fairy snuff. It seems there are more PE readers here than elsewhere. As
usual I just do the crossword.

Colin

Colin Blackburn said:

the statement is intended as a retort to the one stating the
falsehood. My point was that in the above case it isn't used that
way, the person asking the question above is not a Lord Copper as
they cannot possibly be stating a falsehood.

Gaah! My brain hurts!

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

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

you know? said:

Colin Blackburn said:

the statement is intended as a retort to the one stating the
falsehood. My point was that in the above case it isn't used that
way, the person asking the question above is not a Lord Copper as
they cannot possibly be stating a falsehood.

Gaah! My brain hurts!

You need a holiday.

Colin

Colin Blackburn said:

This seems to be an oft used phrase in this group but is it ever used
correctly? My understanding of the phrase is that it relates to Waugh's
Scoop. When Lord Copper said something one of his minions (a particular
editor) would say, "Definitely, Lord Copper." if what was said was correct
and "Up to a point." if what was said was wrong. It is thus, AFAIUI, a
diplomatic way of telling someone that what they have said is wrong.

I used to work with someone who was prone to launching into statements that
were not always correct. We used to regularly deploy the phrase "What X meant
to say was ....." to rescue the situation. I have a recollection we might
have got it from Yes Minister.

Tony