published helmet research - not troll

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 18:43:55 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Of course, Joe is right - Guy mentioned nothing about recumbents

On the other hand, you went off on one about how *I* could not
possibly be right, even though the hint was broad enough that everyone
else either got it or remained wisely silent.

Her'e a saying you might like to learn and take to heart: it is better
to keep your mouth shut and let everybody think you are a fool, than
to open it and remove all doubt.

Here's another: When you are in a hole, STOP DIGGING.

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 Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:26:59 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Yep, vanity web site is what it is. Amazing, really, that I've
clocked up nearly 41,000 hits from external users this year. Maybe
that's because it includes useful cycling material, a collecting point
for campaign information for the recent helmet law, and some in-jokes
for the UK cycling newsgroup.

I'm not impressed. Everyone should know that the number of "hits" is a
very poor measure of web-site quality. You know, just as you don't
measure the quality of a book by how many people pick a book up in a
bookstore (they may, after all, put the book back down 10 seconds
later after reading the first 3 sentences.)

And I can track the visits in depth, the inside pages get many more
hits than the homepage. But whatever. At least it is a site which
some peopel find useful, mainly because I have done quite a bit of
work on understanding the helmet issue, which is a complex one.

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 Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:04:04 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

whenever helmet laws are debated the helmet advocates
circulate as fact the TR&T findings that helmets prevent 85% of head
injuries and 88% of brain inhuries, both of which claims are bogus and
even the original authors no longer make them.

What I find even more curious is that a short, obscure paper written
by three guys is the only thing that ever gets mentioned by the
anti-helmet camp, treating it as the greatest threat to western
civilation since Atilla the Hun. Are they going to blame Osama next?

You are evidently even more ill-informed than Tom makes out.

This is not an "obscure" paper, it is the single most widely quoted
and influential piece of helmet research there is. I cannot recall a
subsequent paper or literature review which does not reference it, and
helmet campaigners almost always quote the 85% / 88% figures when
arguing for compulsion, presumably because they are so much bigger and
more impressive than the other studies.

That single study is the most widely quoted in the world, even though
anybody who knows what they are talking about knows that it is wrong.
Randy, who runs the BHSI website, says that changing it would be
"unhelpful". Which sounds a lot like "don't confuse people with the
facts" to me.

You guys just finished disparaging the BLSI as a web site run by
a single person as kind of a hobby.

And that prevents me quoting his reasoning for continuing to use the
discredited TR&T figures? Fascinating.

And the only people I've
seen widely quoting "that single study" are Kunich, Krygowski,
and a handful of others.

I'm guessing that you are not engaged with any bicycle safety
organisations. It is very hard indeed to be an active cycle
campaigner and not have this figure rammed down your throat.

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

Frank Krygowski writes:

Dan Becker wrote:

Almost seven years ago at age 42 I hit the rear quarterpanel of a
sedan
making a left-turn movement in front of me on a 4-lane street. I was
moving between 20 and 25 mph with ownership of the right lane when he
darted across my path through a line of cars waiting for a signal
(backed-up from a passing train).

Wow. I would NEVER do that. I'd be too worried about that exact
situation to do 20 to 25 mph past a line of cars!
condescending advise snipped

Typical reaction from Frank Krygowski.:-). Dan clearly said "with
ownsership of the right lane". I.e., Dan was using the full right
lane, which was clear enough for him to proceed at 20 to 25 mph. Most
drivers would consider 20 to 25 mph to be more than prudent under such
conditions.

It wasn't clear if the line of cars was in a lane parallel to Dan's or
if it was on the cross street, nor was it clear if the left-turning
car was turning from the cross street or from an opposing lane on the
street Dan was riding on. I'll let Dan fill in the details if he
chooses.

sigh Yes, every cracked helmet absolutely convinces the owner that
he was supremely wise to wear fragile styrofoam headwear. Oddly
enough, the crack is taken as proof of effectiveness.

This is the OJ Simpson defense. There is a 0.1 percent level of each
individual piece of evidence that would indicte guilt, so the guy must
be innocent no matter how many of these pieces you find.

I've yet to see Krygowski admit that a helmet might have prevented an
injury in a crash of this type.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
news

Clearly another piece of research you've skimped. Go and read TR&T.
Note the differences between the case and control groups. Read
Dorothy Robinson's critique of it.

The most telling part of that study is what Thompson and Rivara had to say
to Ms. Robinson concerning it. They made it pretty plain that they were
producing positive articles for their sponsor - Bell.

And where is the proof of this assertion???? You know, from an
impartial, independent source.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:


Dan Becker wrote:


Almost seven years ago at age 42 I hit the rear quarterpanel of a
sedan
making a left-turn movement in front of me on a 4-lane street. I was
moving between 20 and 25 mph with ownership of the right lane when he
darted across my path through a line of cars waiting for a signal
(backed-up from a passing train).

Wow. I would NEVER do that. I'd be too worried about that exact
situation to do 20 to 25 mph past a line of cars!

condescending advise snipped

Typical reaction from Frank Krygowski.:-). Dan clearly said "with
ownsership of the right lane". I.e., Dan was using the full right
lane, which was clear enough for him to proceed at 20 to 25 mph. Most
drivers would consider 20 to 25 mph to be more than prudent under such
conditions.

It wasn't clear if the line of cars was in a lane parallel to Dan's or
if it was on the cross street, nor was it clear if the left-turning
car was turning from the cross street or from an opposing lane on the
street Dan was riding on. I'll let Dan fill in the details if he
chooses.


sigh Yes, every cracked helmet absolutely convinces the owner that
he was supremely wise to wear fragile styrofoam headwear. Oddly
enough, the crack is taken as proof of effectiveness.


This is the OJ Simpson defense. There is a 0.1 percent level of each
individual piece of evidence that would indicte guilt, so the guy must
be innocent no matter how many of these pieces you find.

I've yet to see Krygowski admit that a helmet might have prevented an
injury in a crash of this type.


There's some great picture of Hincapie with an utterly smashed helmet in
the TdF (IIRC) a few years back. He'd probably be in a wheelchair
without it, considering the point of impact.

Aside from that, this thread is long enough and I doubt anyone's getting
anything else out of it. How about you boys call it quits and go out
and ride your bikes?

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:50:47 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

And where is the proof of this assertion???? You know, from an
impartial, independent source.

You want to be careful about using words like "impartial" and
"independent" - or don't you know where TR&T get their money from?

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 05 Jul 2004 15:56:41 EDT, Richard Adams
wrote in message :

There's some great picture of Hincapie with an utterly smashed helmet in
the TdF (IIRC) a few years back. He'd probably be in a wheelchair
without it, considering the point of impact.

Or not, given the amount of energy polystyrene foam absorbs in brittle
failure (i.e. very little).

I'd put that down to the resilience of the Mk. 1 skull.

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?" writes:

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 17:37:57 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

It is a bit harder to do an endo on a longer bike, but whether it is
possible or not on a tandem depends on the position of the center of
mass (bike plus rider) relative to where the front wheel contacts the
ground).

So you say. But I have never achieved it, and neither havbe any of
the other people in this thread who have ridden tandems. You have
apparently never ridden a tandem, solo or otherwise. So you are
posting from ignorance.

Hey moron, I described what you discover if you do the
computation. Take or review what you'd learn in a freshman physics
course, and you can calculate it too. Whether you skid or flip
depends on just what I described. If it is close, it may depend on the
rider's mass, with lighter riders being less prone to flip than
heavier ones.

You don't have to ride a tandem to do this computation (and I'd expect
you to skid rather than flip if two people are on the tandem.)

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Benjamin Lewis writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 18:10:17 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Yes, because the bike is a completely different shape.

The shape doesn't matter. All the matters in the position of the
center of mass relative to where the front tire touches the ground.

... and the shape significantly affects the position of the center of mass.

No it doesn't: the predominant thing that affects the position of the
center of mass is the rider (in this case, a single one, sitting at
about the same position relative to the front wheel as on a mountain
or road bike.) The rest of the tandem is a small correction due to
the mass of the frame being far lower than the mass of the cyclist.

With two cyclists on a tandem (the normal case), the center of mass
is much further back.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB