On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:44:09 -0700, SMS
wrote:

On 11/04/10 9:28 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 10/04/10 10:46 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

I remember the Bell Helmet ad of a little girl sitting on her bike
wearing shiny new athletic shoes of some sort. The caption was
"Does your child have $100 feet and a $10 head?"

Except that Bell is making $10 helmets as well as $200+ helmets in
their Giro line.

Whooosh!

Sooner or later, though, they will be hoist by their own petard in
court. Just ask Riddell. Those 85% prevention claims will be
tested.

Bell has never claimed an "85% prevention rate" whatever that
actually means. Of course no study ever claimed 85% in the way you're
implying either. You're taking stuff out of context. As usual.
Because taking things in context, and looking objectively, doesn't
fit your agenda.

The agenda belongs to the helmet industry which *has* been promulgating
the notion that helmets reduce head injuries by 85%- in abeyance of any
actual proof to back up that claim. Where ya been?

One study showed _up to_ 85%, not an absolute 85%, and that study was
not conducted by the helmet industry.

Those damn statstically sound case studies. They always interfere with
junk science.

Dear Steven,

Er, last week, you wrote:

" . . . so the 63-88% range given by Rivara and Thompson is almost
certainly a bit lower than the actual reduction."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...d1e21f302db047

So is it "almost certainly" greater than 88%?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel