snowy

Have you tried writing to them and asking? I'm sure they'd be interested in your opinion.

Because probably a period of time has passed and they have released more data / methodology. That's probably not the full report but a longer abstract. You could email them and ask? Look forward to hearing what you get back.

All of that is covered here: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2025/07/17/ip-2024-045571 which is the link in the original article which has been pointed out to you a few times.

Have you emailed the researchers on the link provided above yet?

The answers to that methodology question are helpfully included in the original research link if you can be bothered to look. Or; "Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request. All data are available upon request to the authors."

Who cut the central government funding for TfL Jazzer? 2015 if you need a reminder. How many other major European cities aren't subsidised centrally? It's practically zero as they all see public transport as a public good. i assume that you support Khan's pressure to reverse those subsidy cuts to long term, sustainable income?

But if you look at the details of what is being proposed and don't just fall for the clickbait headline, the proposals are to trial some limiting of other types of (non human powered) cycles, not standard cycles. The ones they are looking to limit include cantas (micro cars),"speed pedelecs" (where you need a license, a helmet & number plate), mopeds (as they can use cycle lanes), illegal e-motorcycles and other mobility vehicles. Its not about managing normal cycles and pedestrians. Its about making sure that vehicles with different mass and energy are safe when they use the same cycle space. They will also trial cycling fast lanes and wider Cargo bikes for business use will be moved to the main road, freeing space for other cyclists. They are not looking for a blanket cycle speed limit.

And this is the guardian style guide entry which defines exclusives as "a term used by tabloids to denote a story that is in all of them'?! Even the Press Gazette disagrees with Rockets - and says that first to publish is an 'exclusive'. "Published at the time of release' Basic stuff.

The Spectator comments section has joined us i see. But at least penguin will know about poisson.

Oh so you are arguing without evidence that it was a leak. That's quite a serious libelous defamatory accusation and a reckless one at that. Probably puts this forum at risk too, given that you have no evidence apart from a CMS / subeditor created 'exclusive' tag that is correct in that Walker published first. As Sue says - you're clutching at straws. I mean learn to admit that you can be wrong sometimes. NB. Other reports from those academics are immaterial - you haven't considered who commissioned them or who published them have you? And as has been said several times - all media outlets got the report at the same time - the details of that are on the bmj site. No, you don't understand - 5 PhDs between them, commissioned by a world leading health and social care research funder and subsequently peer reviewed by other qualified academics and then published in the world renowned gold standard research periodical just hasn't understood the dynamic brain power of PR and Marketing guru Rockets who has decided Rocket knows better than all of them...

A Poisson distribution smooths out numbers - as you can't have 0.75 of an accident- you either have an accident or you don't. It's better than simple division. This gets even better! What a little fantasy land you have dug yourself into. You are now accusing the University of Westminster of breaking its own rules and breaking the funding contract of the NIHR and the publication rules of The BMJ by leaking a research paper? That would get Peter Walker banned from the BMJ press list and removed from Cision. That would hamper the entire university from accessing one of the largest governmental research funders. For a low level piece in the guardian? Every journalist got the embargoed report on the same day. One added to it and published 1.5 hours after what i guess was the noon embargo time. Only 5 other publications picked it up but the subeditor presumably guessed the guardian got there first. And from that you are into conspiracy theories... It's not a rabbit hole you are in, its an entire warren.

We want research. Oh no, not that research... etc.

i've not gone quiet - i just don't think that your inane posts demand an immediate response. Having worked for the equivalent medical research body in the uk, commissioning and publishing research, i have a little more insight than you on how they work with the press , but thanks for your contribution. BMJ states that they don't do exclusives - it's all Cision managed press releases, so unless you have proof that's not the case it's likely to be my earlier interpretation - he added to the story with interviews. as has been pointed out the BMJ site shows the time and date their publication is picked up and shared by media. The Guardian article is the same day, but much closer to what i guess was the noon embargo time. i'm also intrigued by your comment about "a growing number of people" - are you now saying NIHR and the BMJ ate no longer reliable sources?

Lol at rockets - adding to the list of topics they can embarrass themselves with. I guess I should update the list of national organisations or global research organisations they think are now compromised - as apparently the BMJ and the government's own research funding org the NIHR need to be added. Check the research publication date and the date of Peter Walker's article. They are the same, so he will have got the embargoed press release and abstract along with everyone else globally on the BMJ email list for that research topic. BMJ publicly state they don't cherry pick 'friendly journalists' with exclusives - it's the BMJ for F's sake - they don't need to. They're ranked something like top 3 of the global medical journals with hundreds of millions of millions of page impressions of their research each year. Your notion that 'someone in the PR Team' would individually target a specific journalist on a geeky longitudinal / formative quantitative data analysis report is frankly laughable.

With the BMJ this is adamantly not how it works. Why you are wrong is all detailed in the press section of the BMJ site (resources for the media section if you want to hunt for it and nitpick). They will probably have a time sensitive embargo on a press release sent to hundreds of email addresses. Peter will have gone and done additional interviews to write content that's not in the original press pack - which creates his exclusive. But once again you are sniping at female academics commissioned by NICE and published in the BMJ... but don't even understand the boilerplate disclaimer on supplemental material.