advisor wanted

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 12:35:01 +0000, Tony Raven
wrote:

wrote:

Who ever said it was a life saver in "all" situations? Got a source
for that or is it some fantasy of yours? I've never heard anyone silly
enough to make that claim. So why are you red herring it?


Dorsch comes close with 90% of all fatalities saved by helmets. TRT
1989 is close on his heels with 88% of brain injuries.

coming close is not the same. Do you always make such grandiose
overstatements?

Cook and Sheik recently published a paper (Inj Prev 2003; 9: 266-267) on
the protective effect of helmets. They subsequently accepted they had
made a mathematical error in their data analysis which when corrected
meant that helmets reduced head injuries by 200% (i.e. every helmet worn
prevented two head injuries). Despite this result being nonsensical
they stood by their study conclusions that helmets reduced head injuries
and refused to accept that there must have been other confounding
factors involved. One can only conclude that they believe helmets save
lives in double "all" situations.

Nice try. Failed again.


Raleigh Cycles claim on their website "Always wear a Helmet, as this
will prevent brain damage if you take a nasty fall."
http://www.raleighbikes.com/knowledge/index.html?sub=3 under essential
equipment.

WOW. Even the helmet manufacturers don't say this.


Even self proclaimed "helmet expert" Steven Scharf's pro-helmet site says:

"The two biggest negative aspects of helmet promotion are the following:
1. They cause uninformed people to believe that cycling is an
inherently dangerous activity.

I doubt that is entirely the result of "promotion" bacause the usual
person an uniformed cyclist deals with that has an "expert" status is
bike shop personnel.

My perspective on why I wear a helmet is that, sooner or later, you
will hit the ground. There are few things there softer my head. I'll
probably miss those.


2. They cause uninformed people to believe that helmets will mitigate
all of the dangers that do exist."

Again, the bike shop people have a lot to fo with this, not just
promotion.

My mother's neighbor went to buy a bike for her kid. They did NO
looking at bike mags or anything else, saw a LBS and went right there.
Kid wears a helmet. No promotional impact at all.

The LBS, period.


jim

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 14:26:21 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 00:05:18 -0800, said in
:

Given that it has been shown that helmeted cyclists take more risks
and are more likely to hit their heads in the first place, that is
moot. But the point is, nobody has ever said "wear a helmet, it might
save you from a minor graze!". The zealots all claim that a helmet
could Save Your Life[tm] or prevent serious injury. This is at odds
with the observed facts, and indeed with the standards to which they
are tested.

And the zealots on the other side do not do the same? What a crock of
bs. Both sets of zealots are equally guilty.

As far as I know there are very few anti-helmet zealots. I know maybe
two or three people who are actively anti-helmet. I suppose you could
describe Tony and me as zealously sceptical, in that we require that
those proposing an intervention demonstrate a credible evidential
basis for it.

A zealot is a zealot is a. . . There are enough on either side to make
everyone in the middle. Nice polite way to obfuscate your position.
Unless I have missed it, you have posted 100% against helmets. That is
what you are.


What is clear is that increasing
helmet use is strongly correlated with reducing numbers cycling, and
injury rates reduce more or less with the inverse square of numbers
cycling. Given that only 30% of cyclist hospitalizations are for head
injury (the same proportion as for pedestrians, by the way), helmet
promotion looks like a particularly bad idea! Especially since these
days it dominates the "cycle safety" agenda to an extent which is out
of all proportion to the merit of helmets. I'd go as far as to say
that most people only know two things about bike safety, and they are
both wrong.

Right, another pile of BS. The anti-side is just as capable of
ignoring interveining varialbes and of using them as the opposed group
is. Noted that you lack any balance on tis and use it to slam that
which does not agree with oyu while ignoring it where it supports you.

Sorry? What is BS? I can cite evidence for everything I said. But
you are missing the point: the default is to be sceptical. You have
reversed that, a fault common to many helmet enthusiasts when faced
with conflicting evidence. What evidential basis do you have for
asserting that helmets have any measurable effect?

And are you as equally skeptical of those saying helmets do not work?
Your posting thus far indicate you are not. You accept them carte
blanc.



Goes directly to a point I made, people with positions see everything
that supports them and ignores or bafflegabs away anything that goes
against their position - just as you have done.

Again, you are missing the point. The whole helmet movement is an
example of precisely the problem you describe. Go and read the most
widely-cited helmet paper in the world, and the other work published
by the same authors in the two years before and after, if you don't
believe me. See if you can account for Frederick P Rivara's
mysterious use of a high assumed wearing rate to "prove" helmets work
and a vastly lower rate in the *same* population at the *same* time to
"prove" the need for compulsion.

I made the point. You are a perfect example of it. You have citred all
anti-helmet information, no pro-helmet information as far as I
remember. Nice that you point ONLY at the pro-sdie while denigrating
their behavior that is equally found in the antis.


You don't seem to be familiar with the evidence which underpins your
position!

We already have a substantial body of evidence from whole populations
and time series, including the largest study ever, all of which
suggest that helmets are essentially irrelevant. And we have a body
of research of a type which is known to be often wrong and inherently
prone to bias, which suggests that they work to a quite remarkable
degree. So what happens? Zealots like you stand there demanding ever
more proof from sceptics. Tell me this: have you ever read the leading
pro-helmet papers?

I note that you are incapable of accepting that you are a zealot
yourself. Interesting - your blindness and delusion that you are not.

I have no problem admitting that I am zealous for an evidence-based
approach, thanks. I also have no problem referencing what I say. I
have read and have copies of most of the major studies.

You are an anti-helmet zealot. 100% of what you have posted is
anti-helmet. You say you are skeptical, but that is a lie. You are
100% dyed in the wool anti-helmet in your rhetorci.


But you are still reversing the burden of proof. You clearly have no
conception of how shoddy the evidence is which underpins your
position.

You would not accepot any evidence that runs counter to your position.
Your posting and dismissals have proven that.


Actually my helmet research library includes around 900
documents at present, but some of these are abstracts and summaries of
others.

IU am impressed, but given the characteristics you have displayed, you
would probably deny anything that definitevely happened right in front
of your own nose and call it mere chance.

Pointless evasion. I have read the research and *radically changed my
position* as a result. Which should tell you something. I have also
been involved in many discussions with True Believers, including
demonstrating to one campaigning body that the 85%/88% figure is
entirely indefensible. They continue to use it. Which should also
tell you something.

True fact, not pointless evasion. Can you prove that previous position
of yours with any publishing anywhere in the public where you have
supported helmets? Otherwise, your claim cannot be substantiated.


Helmets are promoted because they will Save Your Life[tm]. External
evidence proves this claim is false.

Other evidence proves they do. You denigrate them, why should I not be
afforded the same coutesy? Have you double standards?

Which evidence in particular proves that a helmet could save your
life? Cite.

I've not made any claims about saving lives. You have seen in the
other posts I have made the pro-studies and you have immediately
denigrated them. You are anti-helmet in your postings, period. You
have to lie about that by saying "skeptical." BS, you are anti-helmet.


As far as the rest of your questions, they are moot because you have
shown you are incapable of accepting any evidence that runs contrarty
to your position.

That statement is self-evidently false, since my position has reversed
in response to the evidence.

Prove that previous position. Otherwise your statement is a lie and BS
of which you have amply proven you do.



Both sides have to furbnish proof. You automatically reject anything
that is contrary to your position, Let me reciprocate by rejecting all
your evidence.

False. Actually I have come to reject much of what I previously
accepted, based on a far better understanding of it, and on a close
examination of a lot of conflicting evidence. You are clearly
unfamiliar with the research, I am not and neither is Tony.

Prove that previous position.



Here is the bottom line, professional whatever you are, as long as
helmets remain in their current configuration and level of safety,
there will be no major changes in percentages of serious injuries,
injures that have been mitigated to less than serious by helmet use,
injuries that are so low that helmet or not would be irreloevant.

This much is true: serious head injuries are rare, and helmets are not
in any case designed to prevent them. Nobody seriously disputes that
they prevent many trivial injuries. But laws and promotion campaigns
are never founded on prevention of trivial injuries,are they?

The only way to know if they work is to make a safer helmet. If it
becomes accepted (I don't like mandated use), serious injury levels
SHOULD decrease because of the increased safety. If it does not, then
they don't work. If the injuries ride, they are detrimental. If they
go down, helmets work.

Actually what has happened over time is that helmets have got less
protective. but what you say is false. Where helmet wearing rates
have increased sharply over time, that will provide data on efficacy.
It's just that it fails to support the contention that helmets do
anything very much.

Prove that they have become less safe. I have know of two or three
standards - Snell, ANSI and something else I cannot recall. Umnless
yo9u can prove they have lessed the requirements, I'll not take your
word for this.


No, what's happening is that you are moving the goalposts and
reversing the burden of proof. Where is *your* proof, as the one
promoting the intervention, that it has any measurable effect? Cite
studies.

Burder of proof exists for both parties. You simply reject anything
that runs counter to your position, so why bother? Pete is doing
exactly what I have said. Nice try to make it otherwise, but I think
you missed the boat.

Me? What have you advanced that is actually evidential? All you have
done is to make unsubstantiated assertions. If you want to cite the
research which underpins your position, you'll find I am more than
happy to deal with evidence. That's how I converted from a helmet
enthusiast to a sceptic in the first place.

Right. More BS, Guy. I am questioning the evidence, how it was
collected, how it is reported. You do not question any that is
anti-helmet. 'Nuff said, you are anti-helmet and have been uless you
can prove optherwise.


jim

On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 12:38:49 +0000, Tony Raven
wrote:

wrote:

Take a look at what I have posted about some of the research and the
red flags that came up. You, supposedly, lo So much for your
capabilities. I wonder how many bogus pieces of information have slid
right past you.


I have and my judgement is unchanged. You can Google my credentials;
lets hear about yours.

Regardless of your credentials, the items I pointed out evidently slid
right past you. Those are definitely red flags. Or do you disagree
with that and why?


jim

wrote:
...
My perspective on why I wear a helmet is that, sooner or later, you
will hit the ground.....

The next time I hit the ground, I will take comfort in knowing that
"Ensenada Jim" is wearing a h*lm*t that will help protect my head.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

"Great Ford!
yawl smelling your clivus? pew!
a unique event
or transient actionable intelligence?
unclog!" - G. Daniels

wrote:

Regardless of your credentials, the items I pointed out evidently slid
right past you. Those are definitely red flags. Or do you disagree
with that and why?


Do you have any research credentials? Or is that claim just another
part of your bluster? So come on, put up or is anonymity the only way
you can maintain the charade?

Guy has already replied to your "red flags" and it is clear you have not
read or critically assessed any of the reports you are putting forward
or you would know for example that Dorsch only studies hard shell
helmets, not the current soft shell ones, and does not even explain the
method by which she arrives at her estimated 90% figure, she just quotes
it. She also points out that there are shortcomings in data she uses
and that more research is needed on the findings, research curiously
that she never did.

The reason why perhaps becomes clear as she disowns her own research
when questioned about it by the Australian House of Representatives
Standing Committee on Road Transport Safety:

"That was a hypothetical procedure. ... it was based largely on an adult
group of cyclists and because we went through a rather hypothetical
statistical procedure to arrive at those numbers, I think one would have
to be very careful in generalising those findings perhaps to very young
bicyclists. ... one has to be very careful in making estimates of how
effective universal bicycle helmet usage would be in reducing deaths and
serious injuries. In our paper we did, sure, put estimates on it but as
a very hypothetical procedure. I was a bit distressed by some of the
reports I had seen that suggested that 75 per cent of deaths could be
prevented by everyone wearing very good, hard helmets."..... "When you
read those [coroners'] reports ... you start to have some doubt that
even the best helmets available would be as effective as we might think."

And this is for the much more robust hard shell (motorbike style)
helmets. Bet that one slid right past you but it would if you've never
read the paper in the first place let alone done a standard citation
review, both of which any "research professional" would be embarrassed
not to have done.

I don't have time to do your work for you on your other "red flags" but
the information is fairly easy to come by and I leave it as an exercise
for you.

Next?


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

wrote:

Not at all. One of the interesting things is, that if you have totally
opposing sides on any issue, the truth is invariably somewhere
between. More often than not closer to the center than to either end.


So do you believe that invariably the truth is somewhere between
classical elements of air,fire, earth and water and the modern periodic
table or that the the earth and sun both orbit a point somewhere between
the orbit of Mercury and Venus?

Or is "invariably" a "grandiose overstatement"?


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

wrote:

See what you want to see. Until it strikes very close to your own
home, you're more than welcome. I wonder what you would say were a
child of yours injureed thusly about the relative safety of riding.
You take solace in the facts and figures.


I wonder what you would say if a child of yours suffered a head injury
as a pedestrian through being hit by a motor vehicle, tripping and
falling or being assaulted and they were not wearing a helmet to protect
them? They are more likely to get a head injury of equal severity from
an assault than from cycling and many many times more likely to get one
as a pedestrian from the other categories. How will you console
yourself for the fact you let them not wear a helmet while out walking?
Perhaps you will take solace in the fact that you only saw what you
wanted to see.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Tony Raven wrote:
wrote:


Regardless of your credentials, the items I pointed out evidently slid
right past you.

Do you have any research credentials? Or is that claim just another
part of your bluster? So come on, put up or is anonymity the only way
you can maintain the charade?

etc, etc.

Some time ago I started this thread asking for help with a problem about
being sun-blinded at critical times of the day. I received back some
useful replies. However since then my unfortunate use of the word
'helmet' has been latched onto with ferocity and the replies since then
have been like viewing a pack of sharks in a feeding frenzy. We are
getting down to the point where no one wins and everyone needs a hug. Gah!
No one reply is going to change the world regarding opinion on helmet
usage. Nor is a tonne of replies fired back and forth. It all steeps up
into a fetid pile and to other ARBR browsers I think is now starting to
smell just like manure. So how about we end it now and before any troll
comes along attracted by the odour.
Thanks for your replies and contributions to an interesting debate and
to my original query also.

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 19:35:24 +0800, DD said in
:

Some time ago I started this thread asking for help with a problem about
being sun-blinded at critical times of the day.

And boy are you ever sorry you asked :-D

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 22:25:39 -0800, wrote:

I think we all know that helmets can protect against minor cuts and
abrasions - wearing gloves are likely to do more to protect against
minor cuts and abrasions as in the event of a fall the natural
instinct is to use your hands to break your fall. So why aren't
gloves being promoted with, at least, equal vigour?


Probably because anyone who rides seriously wears them automatically.
Have a flat, easier to take a tire off the rim with them. Chain suck,
easier to handle the dirty chain with them.

But the group most targeted for helmets are children - yet you rarely
see child cyclists wearing gloves except in cold weather, and I've
never seen them promoted as safety equipment.