[bikeqld] eMJA: Bicycling injuries and mortality in Victoria, 2001â€â€œ2006

[Michael Yeates]

Nicely put John ... and Pete ...

Here is another way to put it ... sent privately 
this morning ... but now perhaps worth airing ...!
Ah medical doctors ... or more accurately, their 
(perceived) all-pervading influence ...!
No mention of the nobody killed in 40km/h zones in Victoria? Wonder why not?
VERY sad to see Bauman and Rissel feeling they 
(still) need to write stuff like that 
(presumably) to either get (i) published by the 
MJA or (ii) public interest by not being seen to be too radical.
All in all both (article and editorial) provide 
what is probably a useful indicator as to where 
we are actually at ... ie the reality rather than 
believing some of the rhetoric ....!
Probably not quite what might be described as a 
disinterested and/or dispassionate peer review?

And of course as with much similar "research", it 
depends on the perspective of the reader ...!

And are informed advocates really still equated with "apologists"?

Hopefully not ... ;-) ... having listened to an 
in depth interview with the "inventor" of the 
"Bionic Ear" earlier today on ABC 612.

But not at all what I would describe as useful 
evidence of progress ... as Harry Owen and many 
others were saying much the same thing 10 years 
ago ... indeed more than 13 years ago ... and 
arguably almost nothing (useful) has happened 
and/or changed since .. IF these articles and the 
reported research is to be believed.

Perhaps the MJA reflects the view through a Mercedes Benz star ?

MY..................

At 11:14 AM 6/04/2009, John Nightingale wrote:

>This suggests that the eMJA is not rigorously 
>refereed. This surprises me. I wonder whether 
>there is a subscriber to this learned journal – 
>in print form, that is – on our list who would 
>be willing to spend the time to read both 
>article and editorial carefully and consider a 
>letter to the editor about the disjunction 
>between evidence and text in the paper.
>
>We know that the editorialists, Baumann and 
>Rissel, are passionate advocates of cycling for 
>health as well as many other reasons, so their 
>comments might be taken by cynical AMA members, 
>who are the base constituency of the AMA’s 
>journal, as just the usual apologists for 
>cycling. Someone less identified with ‘the 
>cause’ might be taken more seriously, and the 
>journal’s editors might even be chastened.
>J.
>
>
>On 6/4/09 10:19 AM, "Peter Whittle" <peter.whittle at qut.edu.au> wrote:
>
>Hi everyone
>
>I suggest it's better to read the editorial 
>before the paper. I read the paper first and 
>thought it very poor, then set about writing 
>some notes about why (below). Then I was 
>gratified to see the editorial gave it fairly short shrift too.
>
>Pete
>
><Our population-based study found that ED 
>presentations and hospital admissions for 
>bicycle injuries increased significantly from 
>2001 to 2006. There was also a marked increase 
>in cyclists sustaining major trauma.>
>
>Looking at the graph, it is fairly apparent that 
>Emergency Department presentations increased 
>each year. However, hospital admissions, major 
>trauma and deaths could not be said to have 
>changed significantly. The author claims major 
>trauma had a "marked increase", but this was in 
>one year and in other years it flat-lined; 
>furthermore there was no relationship between 
>the frequency of major trauma and the rising 
>rate of hospital admissions. To me, the author's 
>conclusion looks unjustified and one wonders why 
>he tried so hard to force this conclusion from the data.
>
>Also, in relation to the rise in ED 
>presentations, the comparison was "per unit 
>population", not "per unit bicycle usage". I 
>observe there has been a marked increase in 
>bicycling usage in this time (just look at the 
>mass-ride participation). So how could you 
>conclude much at all? If I'm right and bicycle 
>usage increased, then it would possibly mean a 
>fall in the rate of hospital admissions, major 
>trauma and deaths per unit bike usage. 
>Furthermore, this would be offset by health 
>improvements for those taking up cycling.
>
>I'm glad the author concluded some lack of 
>information and need for more data about participation, etc.
>
>Pete
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>bikeqld mailing list
>bikeqld at bikeqld.org.au
>http://www.bikeqld.org.au/
>http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld
>This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland.
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 
>270.11.42/2042 - Release Date: 04/05/09 10:54:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20090406/38839037/attachment.htm